User talk:Bksovacool

Welcome!

Hi, Bksovacool. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. EBY (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem edits, attacks, and dialogue have no place in WP. The Administrator Noticeboard discussion is the right forum to address the behavior. If consensus does not progress, or if the behavior escalates in the meantime, there are processes to provide parity and relief. placing on both talk pagesEBY (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, EBY. It's nice to be here and I will certainly let you know if I have any questions. As for Boundarylayer, I've been having problems with him for almost a year now, hopefully things will reach resolution soon. Bksovacool (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again

Hi Bksovacool. I'm glad you're here. There have been a lot of edits to the nuclear power and related articles in recent months. I, and I suspect some other regular editors, do not always have enough familiarity with the full range of published literature to know how best to order and emphasise various sources and viewpoints for balanced and up-to-date coverage. If you want a hand with any of the technicalities of editing, or some pointers on how to navigate the maze of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am not an expert, but I will be glad to try to help where I can. Just leave a message on my talk page with a link to whichever article or talk page you'd like me to look at with you at any time. --Nigelj (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One little tip - We normally add comments at the bottom of discussions, and never inside other people's comments (e.g. here). Sometimes discussions do separate into separate threads, and well-indented comments below others at the relevant place work OK. If you separate part of someone's comment from their signature, it makes it hard to know who said what, in what order. --Nigelj (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Nigel, I suspect I'll need all the help I can get. Wikipedia has its own etiquette and I need to learn it. Happy to also provide comments and suggestions to almost any page related to energy technology or policy.Bksovacool (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above all collaborative attitude and speaking to article content instead of subject matter is the high road. Everywhere else in the world, good intentions may lead somewhere bad. Here, good intentions towards the encyclopedia and its mission will win you the day. EBY (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bksovacool, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bksovacool! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 tonnes of spent fuel in Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy?

Hi again

I wonder if you could help with this edit to the top-level article 'Nuclear power'? There is a brief discussion here too. Either your book supports the deleted text, or something like it, or it doesn't. People may claim 'citing yourself' if you fix the article text directly, but it appears that the main problem is that no one presently editing the page has access to a copy of your book. I have found this, but it doesn't provide the text on page 141. If you could either point us to an online copy of the relevant text, or at least suggest whether what was there would be supported by your text, it would be very helpful indeed. Perhaps the previous wording needed adjustment in some way more fairly to represent your data? Any help would be appreciated. You can reply here, or on the relevant talk page Best wishes, Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigelj, sorry for just getting to this - been traveling extensively and then moving my family overseas. The calculation for nuclear waste is definitely accurate, and pretty simple to do. According to peer-reviewed studies, we know that a single nuclear reactor will consume an average 32,000 fuel rods over the course of its lifetime, and it will also produce 20 to 30 tons of spent nuclear fuel per year. This is why an average of about 2,200 metric tons annually is produced for all of the US. You get to the 10,000 tons number by simply multiplying the 20 to 30 tons per reactor by the ~430 reactors in the world, leading to a total somewhere between 8600 and 12900 tons.Bksovacool (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jevons paradox

Hi, Sorry for the delay in replying, but I thought you may like to know that I've replied on Talk:Jevons_paradox#Feedback_and_suggestions. Best, LK (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LK , no worries, and I appreciate your careful response.

Articles of interest?

Hi Prof Sovacool, When you have time, could you please review this content: Environmental impact of nuclear power#Greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear power plant#Safety and accidents, Environmental impact of wind power#Birds and Benjamin K. Sovacool bibliography. And maybe add a comment or two about your Greenhouse emissions work and to Talk:Breeder reactor... This would certainly help to clarify things. Thank you. regards, Johnfos (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, will see what I can do.Bksovacool (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Prof Sovacool, for your expert contributions. Thanks also to Nigelj for making improvements to these articles. A nice bit of teamwork... Johnfos (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life-cycle emissions question

I am very interested in life-cycle emissions of different power sources. I noticed you listed biomass and anaerobic digestion as very low environmental impact. I believe this may be an error, because although these sources are renewable, they have a much more severe environmental impact and consume a large amount of water resources. Do you agree or not? Thank you. Brian Everlasting (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi talk, thanks for writing. Those numbers aren't a mistake but they also don't come from me - just the nuclear numbers in that study are the result of a meta-analysis I did, and I have a second, newer study for wind and solar. Haven't gotten to biomass yet, but I can appreciate your concern. Remember too that we're only talking carbon here, not water or other pollutants like dioxin. If you want to email me (address available by searching google), I can send you the original source that gave me those biomass numbers.Bksovacool (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bksovacool. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Energy Research and Social Science

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Energy Research and Social Science, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-research-and-social-science/. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Randykitty, good advice. I've tried it again and followed the template offered by a similar journal, Social Science & Medicine, see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Social_Science_%26_Medicine. Hopefully the revisions to Energy Research & Social Science are sufficient.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand (January 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://cied.ac.uk, http://cied.ac.uk/about/. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae ★ /tlk 15:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Energy Research & Social Science

The article Energy Research & Social Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Energy Research & Social Science for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Energy Research & Social Science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Research & Social Science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not directly edit the article about yourself

Hello, Bksovacool. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Benjamin K. Sovacool, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]