Talk:Copper

Netther the "Applications" section, nor any other part, makes any mention of the popularity of copper cookware, and the like... 185.113.96.31 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Cookware might not be a major app. All domestic uses account for 12% according to Ullmann's. Cookware has a big section on copper. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

That can be copied in from the cookware article. ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually its unsourced so thats not ideal ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I added a sentence with a source.  Done Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence.

• A factor called "copper usage intensity," is a measure of the quantity of copper necessary to install one megawatt of new power-generating capacity.

I did find a paper that mentioned a related concept but analysis shows it to be unreliable.

• Crowson, P. (2018). Intensity of use reexamined. Mineral Economics, 31(1), 61-70.

Johnjbarton (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sadly the entire section "Renewable energy production" has biased or unrelated sources. Almost the entire section repeats claims about copper unrelated to renewable energy production. The only exception is this sentence which says

• Copper usage averages up to five times more in renewable energy systems than in traditional power generation, such as fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

sourced to Zolaikha Strong, director of sustainable energy for the Copper Development Association. The "up to 5 times" claim is surely wp:Extraordinary since the basic role of copper of copper is wires and not clearly different in renewable systems. The blog post does not elaborate. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The main sources I find that related copper to renewable energy production concern production of copper not its deployment:

• Moreno-Leiva, S., Haas, J., Junne, T., Valencia, F., Godin, H., Kracht, W., ... & Eltrop, L. (2020). Renewable energy in copper production: A review on systems design and methodological approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118978.
• Harmsen, J. H. M., Roes, A. L., & Patel, M. K. (2013). The impact of copper scarcity on the efficiency of 2050 global renewable energy scenarios. Energy, 50, 62-73.

In my opinion these are not notable for the element copper. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The large addition that you removed was sort of a lecture and the info was often tangential. So I am glad you removed it. I havent looked at this article lately, but the deleted section did emphasize the importance of Cu in the energy sector, which seems very valid since essentially all electron-conveying technologies rely on it.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else think there's far too many images in this article (especially when combined with the long infobox)? Was about to take an axe to a few of them, moreso in the production section, but unsure which to keep and how best to reformat Kowal2701 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure it does a great job at summarising the Copper extraction article Kowal2701 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

About half the time I find that the problem is the summarized article rather than the summary, so I'd check that possibility. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I cut some images recently and moved them around. I actually think the infobox is too long but that ship has sailed. One note in case you don't know: the right hand infobox pushes default-positioned images down (and of course the results depend upon the screen size. On mobile the infobox is folded up and in general the images work fine.

I would cut the Copper bullion image. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

On mobile it works really well, on computer it looks a bit like pop-up ads because they appear on both sides of the text (MOS:SANDWICH), have different sizes, and are pretty disjointed. For instance, the image of the drainage pushes the next heading down so there’s white space.

For Production I would have gotten rid of the bullion, the disc, the native copper (because it’s a duplicate of the lead image), and moved price and world production up to "Reserves and prices" on the right. And moved melting copper and the mine to "Extraction", also making flash smelting line up w the flow chart. Maybe that’s too drastic and all it needs is removing bullion and making the mine and world production line up w the others above.

For Coordination chemistry idk but I would have ditched the Pourbaix diagram as too technical and moved the blue copper to the right.

Thoughts? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I applied a couple of things you suggested and I agree with.

I would not get too hung up on the image layout. I do think on-topic images add interest to articles but their layout on desktop sites is not stable. Different engines, different browser window widths, subsequent edits all shift things around. So "line up with" won't generally work out. You can try to alternate left-right. If you put everything on the right the images will be pushed out of sequence with the sections. I think MOS:SANDWICH overstates the case because it uses two very horizontal images, but many images are vertical or square.

The Environmental impacts section has {{clear}} to prevent overlap of the images on the right side; that is what causes the white space. YMMV.

You could put Price of Copper and World Production in a gallery so it sits horizontally.

I agree, the Pourbaix is in Copper compounds so it can go. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That's much better, happy to drop other suggestions Kowal2701 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The bioremediation section was deleted by @Smokefoot in this edit. I did not agree with the edit summary. The content had nothing to do with geologic scale; bioleaching is an industrial process. The source

• Gadd, G. M. (2010). Metals, minerals and microbes: geomicrobiology and bioremediation. Microbiology, 156(3), 609-643.

has over 2400 citations. The source

• Harbhajan Singh (2006). Mycoremediation: Fungal Bioremediation. John Wiley & Sons. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-470-05058-3.

has over 600 citations, again well above any reasonable bar.

However I do agree that the content itself is weak and after further investigation I replace the Bioremediation with Bioleaching based on the first source and added a section on application as a fungicide based on a source discovered from the Singh source.

I think a section on Bioremediation would need to establish the issue with environmental copper first. This source

• De Groot, Rodney C., and Bessie Woodward. "Using copper-tolerant fungi to biodegrade wood treated with copper-based preservatives." International biodeterioration & biodegradation 44.1 (1999): 17-27.

does that but it is also clearly just an early investigation. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Well the main thing is thank you for your diligence and politeness in response to my comments. I will leave that aspect alone. Bioremediation and related topics with respect to heavy metals are irksome to me because I think that they offer false hope to serious problems. But I will desist. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Slag remova" "to Slag removal" in "Flowchart of copper refining". ~2026-46821-7 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Could someone with the appropriate edit permissions please correct the minor grammatical error in the image caption below?

"The East Tower of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh; the original copper was install in 1894 and the refurbished copper in 1994"

should be

"The East Tower of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh; the original copper was installed in 1894 and the refurbished copper in 1994" SpotTheLooney (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

cheers!! long live wikipedia!! ~2026-10957-81 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"The maximum possible current density of copper in open air is approximately 3.1×10⁶ A/m², above which it begins to heat excessively."

A source is cited for this, but it seems incorrect. The value cited is equivalent to 3.1 A/mm², (in amperes per square millimeter.) However, typical house wiring for lights, switches and outlets throughout North America is #14 AWG, which is 2.08 mm² in cross-sectional area. This is rated to carry 15 amperes of current safely in enclosed insulated spaces without much opportunity for heat dissipation. A value of 7.2×10⁶ A/m² is safe by this standard inside insulated walls, and even more in open air, where #16 AWG (or 1.31 mm²) would be amply sufficient to carry the same current in open air without overheating, say in a common heavy duty extension cord or appliance cord, giving a value of 1.145×10⁷ A/m² for electric current density generally considered safe in copper without excessive heating. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The source cited says 2000A/in². However this is in the context of spot welding electrodes.

I'm not convinced that this sentence can be repaired. The length of the wire, the installation, purity of the copper, etc all affect the maximum. With a suitable source we could add the standard safe current limit as you outline above. I'll remove the sentence in the meantime. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

National Electrical Code unfortunately is proprietary, copyrighted $700++ per volume. Building codes are generally something you need a legal defense for. If it isn't one thing, it's another, and don't quote me on that. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't comprehend what this comment is trying to say. I certainly can't figure out why this comment is relevant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess this editor is just complaining about the difficulty of finding a suitable source, a common problem. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I have plenty of sources to back me up to say what I said above but you've got to kick low class Mafia dudes like that public laundry pizza party brother off of Wikipedia or it just isn't worth reasonably intelligent people editing or discussing. Thank you. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, what other sources do you have? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Justina Colmena ~biz Please be WP:Civil, it is requirement on Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I am being civil. Others are airing dirty laundry. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

LaundryPizza is probably unaware that their comment was misplaced. We are required to assume good faith (WP:AGF). However, even if a comment is intended as trolling, the best way to react would be to say nothing. That would also be the best way to react if the comment was a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I am certainly being civil here, but I can't help you because you aren't communicating clearly about what you have. Do you have an alternative source for this figure, or are you having trouble finding one? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The OP reported a problem in the article and correctly explained the issue. The first reply included "With a suitable source we could add the standard safe current limit as you outline above". The OP then commented that the US standard is difficult to access. Meanwhile, the dubious sentence has been removed. The information would help the article, but, as mentioned, a source is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)