Jump to content

Talk:Bioenergy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge of Waste-to-energy article

I disagree with the merge into this article of Waste-to-energy. They are both nice stand-alone article and both may expand in the coming years. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE - separate issues with separate challenges/ advantages. Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE - waste and biomass are not the same materials, even though some waste may contain biomass. Generally they require different types of plants and handling systems. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to merge, tags removed.Beagel (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bioenergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bioenergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(Untitled)

I enriched External links by "Bioenergy in Motion" again, which is NOT "dvd that you can buy!" site but EU information project.--Glomerata (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I want to add new category/title for "other applications" for bioenergy. There are new updates and applications for the bioenergy. Let me know what do you guys think! Thanks! 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)~~ Ahmed.Elbaradei

(Environmental impact section)

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I have updated the environmental impact section. I will add more details in the future too in the same category and I will try to add one or two applications. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed.Elbaradei (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ntallant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2020)

I propose this article is merged with biomass under the name bioenergy. Biomass has three meanings; it's some jargon in ecology, it can refer to solid biomass (which is now under the name solid fuel), or it's used as a synonym for bioenergy. The current article on Wikipedia uses it as a synonym for bioenergy, and that's also how most of the incoming links to the biomass article use it (I corrected quite a few that were meant to link to the ecology term). Pinging Chidgk1 and Clayoquot. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Biomass could become a disambiguation page afterwards? It might not always be possible to know whether pages want to link to bioenergy or solid fuel. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Good idea.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with both the merge and having Biomass be a disambiguation page. I've definitely seen experienced editors tripping up over whether to link to biomass the energy source or biomass the biological matter. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Also agree with both proposals. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please! Great initiative, Femke Nijsse! I fully support this. And a disambiguation page for biomass would be great. EMsmile (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree. Biomass does not ONLY have a future into energy. In fact, for energy we have many alternatives to replace fossil feedstock. However, for materials (plastics) the only alternative feedstock for fossil is biomass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.109.72 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this. On the one hand, following the logic of the merge proposal, the current biofuel article should be swallowed by the bioenergy article as well, increasing the risk for an unfocused and bloated article about bioenergy, where the many types of biological solids, liquids and gases all are described. But if the article could be written in a succint and clear manner I guess it could help tidy up the bioenergy-related wikipedia "space". The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Perennial Hugger: I think you might be exemplifying the confusion here. There is a separate article about solid biomass, which would be equivalent to biofuel, and am not proposing to merge either of those. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Femke Nijsse: I understand that you don't propose to merge the biomass and biofuel page with each other. Your proposal is to merge the biomass and bioenergy pages. All I'm saying is that the word biofuel, like the word biomass, is used by some as a synonym to the word bioenergy. Following the logic of the proposal, the biofuel page should therefore be swallowed by the bioenergy page as well. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: It seems easier to just delete all the stuff about solid biomass and liquid biofuel in the bioenergy page and instead link to the biomass and biofuel pages, and just focus on the energy part (possibly also the environmental debate). After all, energy and mass are, for all practical purposes, not the same thing. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point about biofuel. I think we want ideally and maybe in the far future, don't have time to end up with one overarching article (bioenergy), with three main article 'under it': solid biomass, liquid biofuels and possibly gaseous biofuels. This is the distinction of REN21. I've just changed biofuel a bit so that the distinction liquid/gas is more explicit.
I agree mass and energy aren't the same thing, even if they are typically used as synonyms. Hence my proposal for a disambiguation page, where biobased economy would also be one of the targets for when biomass is used as a feedstock.
I don't know how you can have an article about bioenergy without mentioning the three components of bioenergy (solid/liquid fuel/gaseous fuel), so I'm not in favour of deleting that. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

How about this then: Unless someone will accept to take on the workload of synthezising all these articles, the next best thing might be to expand the bioenergy article with relatively short summaries of the different components of bioenergy (solids, liquids and gases), those described at length in the biomass and biofuel articles? The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Old thread, but discovered that this ranking over page hits for Biomass, Solid fuel, Biomass (ecology), Biofuel and Bioenergy show that Biomass has the most hits, with Biofuel right behind. Both Solid fuel, Bioenergy and Biomass (ecology) however is way behind.
So.. should we simply accept the public's use of words and send the relatively few visitors to the Bioenergy page directly to the Biomass page? Almost all the content (except the BECCS subchapter) is already there. There is also more exclusive content on that page now about bioenergy specifically. The word bioenergy is mentioned 136 times, and biomass 133 times.
Alternatively, the content of the Biomass page can be moved to the Bioenergy page, and visitors to the Biomass page can be automatically redirected to the Bioenergy page.
In either case, I don't think an ambiguation page is necessary, since the traffic to other sites than Biomass is so low. It's enough with this message at the top of the page: "This article is about biomass as a renewable energy source. For the use of the term in ecology, see Biomass (ecology)." (Alternatively, links to "biofuel" or "solid fuel" can be added. There is anyway a good chance that the readers are interested in the content of the present article, since it is more developed.)
How to organize the bioenergy-related content is tricky, because the bioenergy, biomass and biofuel concepts are so tightly related and still somewhat different. I guess there will be compromises no matter how it's done. I myself both think that the Biofuel page can be the "main" page (since fuel is the desired outcome), that the Bioenergy page can be the "main" page (since energy is the result of biomass/biofuel use), and that the Biomass page can be the "main" page (since the material itself is the foundation of it all, and the public seem to prefer the word biomass.)The Perennial Hugger (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Contested the redirect here. These are distinct topics. VQuakr (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
So I see you have undone the redirect now. So what are the next steps from here? We now have some of the same content at biomass and at bioenergy. Are you planning to tackle that and remove the duplication? (and I wasn't sure if this is best discussed here or at the talk page of biomass.) EMsmile (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@EMsmile: probably at the RM on Talk:Biomass. Another editor had some ideas for subject article structure that seemed reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed content from the section on "local protests"

I have removed this content from the section on "local protests". It seems to me overly specific for this kind of overview article (or about logging etc in general, not specifically about bioenergy): 

+++Feasibility assessments to replace coal in German power plants with bush biomass harvested in Namibia, which experiences bush encroachment on over 30 million hectares, have caused protests from environmental organisations. The organisations argue that the trees and bushes store carbon, and that burning them releases more CO2 upfront than burning coal.[1] Namibian researchers argue that bush encroaching causes lower income for farmers, lower biodiversity, lower groundwater level and displacement of wildlife.[2] " EMsmile
++++

In Mississippi a company producing wood pellets for UK power plants was fined $2.5m for exceeding volatile organic compounds pollution for a number of years.[3] In some cases, large areas of natural forests have been logged illegally (e.g. in Romania[4] and Siberia[5]) and the remaining forest has been put on fire to cover up illegal operations.[6]

  • Robin Wood (2021-02-18). "Plans for burning Namibian wood in German power plants denounced".
  • Shikangalah, Rosemary; Mapani, Benjamin (2020-07-01). "A Review of Bush Encroachment in Namibia: From a Problem to an Opportunity?". Journal of Rangeland Science. 10 (3): 251–266. ISSN 2008-9996. Retrieved 2021-06-15.
  • Ward, Victoria (2021-02-19). "Mississippi wood pellet plant that supplies UK electricity grid fined $2.5m over air pollution". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-01-11. Retrieved 2022-01-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  • Ribout, Benjamin (2020-06-03). "Illegal logging in Romania overwhelms authorities". www.euractiv.com.
  • Wyatt, Tanya (2013-07-31). "The Russian Far East's illegal timber trade: an organized crime?". Crime, Law and Social Change. 61 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 15–35. doi:10.1007/s10611-013-9461-y. ISSN 0925-4994. S2CID 153645746.
  • The Irish Times (2013-03-21). "Illegal logging implicated in vast Siberian wild fires". The Irish Times.

References

  1. ^ Robin Wood 2021.
  2. ^ Shikangalah & Mapani 2020, pp. 251–266.
  3. ^ Ward 2021.
  4. ^ Ribout 2020.
  5. ^ Wyatt 2013, pp. 15–35.
  6. ^ The Irish Times 2013.

EMsmile (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed content from forest section

I have removed this content from the section on forests. Same problem as with content at biomass (energy): written like a literature review. EMsmile (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC) 

+++++++++++

Use of forests as a renewable energy source, as opposed to long-term carbon sink, is contentious. EASAC writes: "There is a real danger that present policy over-emphasises the use of forests in energy production instead of increasing forest stocks for carbon storage."[1] Further, they argue that "it is the older, longer-rotation forests and protected old-growth forests that exhibit the highest carbon stocks."[2] Chatham House argues that old trees have a very high carbon absorption, and that felling old trees means that this large potential for future carbon absorption is lost. In addition they argue that there is a loss of soil carbon due to the harvest operations.[3] 

++++++

Regarding soil carbon, the IPCC writes: "Recent studies indicate, that effects of forest management actions on soil C [carbon] stocks can be difficult to quantify and reported effects have been variable and even contradictory (see Box 4.3a)." Because the "current scientific basis is not sufficient", the IPCC will not currently provide soil carbon emission factors for forest management.[4] 

++++++

Hanssen et al. notes that when comparing continued wood pellet production to a potential policy change where the forest instead is protected, most researchers estimate a 20–50 year carbon parity (payback) time range for the burnt wood pellets. But when instead comparing continued pellet production to the more realistic alternative scenarios of 1.) instead using all harvested biomass to produce paper, pulp or wood panels, 2.) quitting the thinning practice altogether (leaving the small trees alone, realizing more of their growth potential but at the same time reduce the growth potential of the bigger trees), and 3.) leaving the forest residue alone, so it is decomposed in the forest over time, rather than being burned almost immediately in power plants, the result is that carbon payback (parity) times for wood pellets drop to 0-21 years in all demand scenarios.[5]

References

  1. ^ EASAC 2017, p. 33.
  2. ^ EASAC 2017, p. 1.
  3. ^ Chatham House 2017, p. 3.
  4. ^ IPCC 2019f, p. 4.6.
  5. ^ Hanssen et al. 2017, pp. 1408–1410.

Removed content about surface power production densities

I've removed this textblock now as I regard it as too detailed, not suitable for this high level overview article, not WP:DUE (I think this removal is also in line with the comment by User:Clayoquot above who said "As for the "power surface density" concept, I have never seen this framing used in a general source on bioenergy except where Vaclav Smil uses it to demonstrate why he thinks bioenergy is generally a dumb idea."):

culled content on power production densities

Fossil gas has the highest surface density at 482 W/m2 while nuclear power at 240 W/m2 is the only high-density and low-carbon energy source.[1] The average human power consumption on ice-free land is 0.125 W/m2 (heat and electricity combined),[2] although rising to 20 W/m2 in urban and industrial areas.[3]

Combusting solid biomass is more energy efficient than combusting liquids, as the whole plant is utilized. For instance, corn plantations producing solid biomass for combustion generate more than double the amount of power per square metre compared to corn plantations producing for ethanol, when the yield is the same: 10 t/ha generates 0.60 W/m2 and 0.26 W/m2 respectively.[4]

Oven dry biomass in general, including wood, miscanthus[5] and Napier[6] grass, have a calorific content of roughly 18 GJ/t.[7] When calculating power production per square metre, every t/ha of dry biomass yield increases a plantation's power production by 0.06 W/m2. Consequently, Smil estimates the following:

In Brazil, the average yield for eucalyptus is 21 t/ha (1.26 W/m2), but in Africa, India and Southeast Asia, typical eucalyptus yields are below 10 t/ha (0.6 W/m2).[9]

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) estimate that forest plantation yields range from 1 to 25 m3 per hectare per year globally, equivalent to 0.02–0.7 W/m2 (0.4–12.2 t/ha):

  • Pine (Russia) 0.02–0.1 W/m2 (0.4–2 t/ha or 1–5 m3)
  • Eucalyptus (Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay) 0.5–0.7 W/m2 (7.8–12.2 t/ha or 25 m3)
  • Poplar (France, Italy) 0.2–0.5 W/m2 (2.7–8.4 t/ha or 25 m3)

Smil estimate that natural temperate mixed forests yield on average 1.5–2 dry tonnes per hectare (2–2,5 m3, equivalent to 0.1 W/m2), ranging from 0.9 m3 in Greece to 6 m3 in France).[10] IPCC provides average net annual biomass growth data for natural forests globally. Net growth varies between 0.1 and 9.3 dry tonnes per hectare per year, with most natural forests producing between 1 and 4 tonnes, and with the global average at 2.3 tonnes. Average net growth for plantation forests varies between 0.4 and 25 tonnes, with most plantations producing between 5 and 15 tonnes, and with the global average at 9.1 tonnes.[11]

As mentioned above, Smil estimates that the world average for wind, hydro and solar power production is 1 W/m2, 3 W/m2 and 5 W/m2 respectively. In order to match these surface power densities, plantation yields must reach 17 t/ha, 50 t/ha and 83 t/ha for wind, hydro and solar respectively. This seems achievable for the tropical plantations mentioned above (yield 20–25 t/ha) and for elephant grasses, e.g. miscanthus (10–40 t/ha), and Napier (15–80 t/ha), but unlikely for forest and many other types of biomass crops. To match the world average for biofuels (0.3 W/m2), plantations need to produce 5 tonnes of dry mass per hectare per year. When instead using the Van Zalk estimates for hydro, wind and solar (0.14, 1.84, and 6.63 W/m2 respectively), plantation yields must reach 2 t/ha, 31 t/ha and 111 t/ha in order to compete. Only the first two of those yields seem achievable, however.


Yields need to be adjusted to compensate for the amount of moisture in the biomass (evaporating moisture in order to reach the ignition point is usually wasted energy). The moisture of biomass straw or bales varies with the surrounding air humidity and eventual pre-drying measures, while pellets have a standardized (ISO-defined) moisture content of below 10% (wood pellets) and below 15% (other pellets). Likewise, for wind, hydro and solar, power line transmission losses amounts to roughly 8% globally and should be accounted for. If biomass is to be utilized for electricity production rather than heat production, note that yields have to be roughly tripled in order to compete with wind, hydro and solar, as the current heat to electricity conversion efficiency is only 30–40%.[12] When simply comparing surface power density without regard for cost, this low heat to electricity conversion efficiency effectively pushes at least solar parks out of reach of even the highest yielding biomass plantations, surface power density wise. EMsmile (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this! It was both too detailed and full of WP:Synthesis that promoted a particular point of view Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Van Zalk, John; Behrens, Paul (2018-12-01). "The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable power generation: A review and meta-analysis of power densities and their application in the U.S." Energy Policy. 123: 86. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.023. ISSN 0301-4215.
  2. ^ Smil 2015, p. 170.
  3. ^ Smil 2015, p. 2095 (kindle location).
  4. ^ Smil 2015, pp. 80, 89.
  5. ^ Schwarz 1993, p. 413.
  6. ^ Flores et al. 2012, p. 831.
  7. ^ Ghose 2011, p. 263.
  8. ^ a b Smil 2015, p. 85.
  9. ^ Smil 2015, p. 86.
  10. ^ Smil 2008, p. 75-76.
  11. ^ IPCC 2019f, p. 4.34 – 4.41.
  12. ^ van den Broek 1996, p. 271.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bioenergy/Archive_1&oldid=1152778928"