Talk:Non-renewable energy

Rename

I don't see the point of this article. Isn't this what 99.99% of us normally refer to as "non-renewable energy"?

Also, the refrence to nuclear waste as somehow important in it's clasification doesn't seem to make sence since 1. other forms of generating energy not listed create chemical polution as by-products (e.g. the manufacturing of solar cells and wind turbines), and 2. nuclear energy can be produced in such a way that creates little or no waste - although it's not presently done for reasons of economics.

I don't think this article has any value if it arbitrarily groups and lables certain things without explaining the rationell behind it. -- stewacide 03:19, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. I propose a move to non-renewable energy. A google search shows that the term "nuclear-fossil" has close to zero usage. - mako 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It can also be called nuclear and fossil or fossil and nuclear. See reference.

Why was this page moved again

From Resource energy? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find one single reference to something called "resource energy", while "non-renewable energy" gets 200,000 hits on Google. Nuff said. Please note that a redirect should be created from "nonrenewable energy" which gets 69,000 hits on Google. 199.125.109.134 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the disambig tag?

I don't see any other articles called non-renewable energy. This is a list of non-renewable energy sources. It's an article, not a disambiguation. Disambiguation is used for things like, other people named John Smith, or other uses for the word anvil. There are no other uses for the term non-renewable energy. 199.125.109.98 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not contain information about any of the energy sources represented. That is why. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting a non-meaningful tag on the page is not the way to accomplish your objective. The word disambiguation has a specific meaning and this page is not a disambiguation page. It is a summary page. There is no need for putting a disambiguation tag on the page. Theoretically anyone who wanted could delete all of the individual articles and put all of their content here, but how likely is that? About as close to zero as you can get. The disambiguation tag is not just a "tag that I don't know what it means other than not to fill out any information about each subject", it is a tag that means that this group of articles all have the same name and are listed here so that you can get to the right one. It doesn't belong here. 199.125.109.73 05:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Non-Renewable Resource

These two articles both cover the same ground - and are both too short, so perhaps effort would best be put into only one of them. Simesa (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. I have now redirected this page to Non-renewable resource, which includes all the facts covered here. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)