The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Energy quality

Energy quality (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't seem to make any sense. For example the Odun ranking of information as the highest quality energy is dubious as information is more related to Entropy (information theory) than energy. And the Ohta ranking includes both the photon and electromagnetic, even though photons are a type of electromagnetic radiation. There is no info on how it would relate to Sustainable energy. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This does appear to be a real topic covered in a number of academic papers and books in a range of topics, see [1]. It basically refers to how 'useful' various types of energy are and how the same amount of different types of energy have different economic and practical value. The article does badly need a {{technical}} cleanup tag though. 192.76.8.81 ( talk) 13:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I've removed the 'Introduction' section since it seemed to be completely unsourced WP:OR and fairly disconnected from the rest of the article, plus it's redundant to the lead. If anyone disagrees revert away. 192.76.8.81 ( talk) 13:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your quick edit. But the definition at the top of the sciencedirect link you mention contradicts the first sentence of the article. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep It's just imperfect and that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The first sentence has 3 different definitions. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Such confusion or lack of clarity is best addressed by copy-editing, not deletion. To help understand the topic and establish its bona-fide nature, see Energy quality, emergy, and transformity. Andrew🐉( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link. I had not heard of emergy before but the link would seem to be a good argument for merging into that article. Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the articles content seems to be significant and sourced. It should be edited instead of being deleted. Eyebeller ( talk) 17:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

As far as I know none of the sources are available online so I am unable to easily check them. However the article is incomprehensible nonsense. Just ask anyone you know to read the lead paragraph. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The complaint seems to be that the article is "incomprehensible", without getting specific. The first sentence, as currently written, seems to be perfectly comprehensible. Standard English, and hover over the wikilinks if uncertain as to the meaning and a popup explains. So its not the first sentence. Then what? Currently, the first paragraph seems just fine... The next few sections seem OK, to me; I've never heard of Ohta, but the ability to extract energy is a standard topic in textbooks on thermodynamics. I recall one example from a textbook: during the industrialization of New England during the 18th century, you needed to build a dam on a creek to trap water to drive a waterwheel to run the mill. If a neighbor also built a dam nearby for their mill, this would lower the quality of energy available to you; this eventually lead to a downward spiral in the efficiency of any one given mill, even as the number of mills in the region increased. This in turn spurned the search for higher quality energy, e.g. from coal, converted to steam, converted to mechanical, which characterizes much of 19th century industrialization (electrical was not possible until the 20th century). I cannot cite any textbook that explains this; I think I read this in a thermo textbook, but I dunno. New England industrialization is heavily studied in economics, where quality of energy is a real consideration for industrialists. I could ad these paragraphs to the article but this is "common knowledge" to me, I can't cite anything for this. This AfD should be cross-posted in WP:Economics, if there is such a group. They would know more. But it seems, so would the ecologists. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 18:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Good idea to cross-post so I have done so. Although the article has been improved since I requested deletion I have added a couple of specific examples of incomprehensibility above. I don't know about New England and I had not heard the interesting waterwheel example before. It is a bit difficult to understand without a diagram but perhaps that was more to do a with new mill outflow being below the level of the existing mill? Or is it due to the stream not being completely dammed or the lack of big reservoir meaning that the water arrived at the lower mill at an inconvenient time and had to be spilled? Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

If you look at the photos in millpond and milldam (best photos in millrace) you will note that they are simply not that tall or big; creeks and very small rivers, with relatively little waterflow. If the total hydraulic head is only 2-3 feet (half a meter to a meter) and if a neighbor builds a downstream pond that floods into your outlets, there is no where for your water to flow. These were not high-efficiency affairs to begin with -- the first turbine isn't invented until 1820, and even a small turbine would require more than a meter of head to work, which is more than might be available. New England is mostly flat, kind-of hilly, there are no mountains. Think of it this way -- all machinery was hand-built using hand tools. Mostly out of wood. There were no power tools! There were no factories making the parts you needed! We're talking about the very first factories! 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• I tend toward keep, both based on the current article state and my memory of engineering school. -- Izno ( talk) 22:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP. The idea of energy quality mostly comes when discussing conservation of energy and heat. The energy is still there, but it isn't as useful, or as high quality as mechanical energy or electrical energy. I say KEEP, though that doesn't mean that the article doesn't need changing. I read through it fairly fast. Gah4 ( talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP As per above it is a notable concept. Woinfosd ( talk) 13:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:BEFORE - it's not a famous topic, nor a good article, but it has been well-covered and is not terrible. I would like to work on it later. Bearian ( talk) 22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.