Jump to content

Talk:Biomass (energy)/Archive 1

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

Expansion

This article really could use expansion. There should be at least two or three sentences discussing the environmental impact of biomass production (generally an impact on the land). SarcasticDwarf 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the impact is generally much the same as with all agriculture and forestry. --Tunheim 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would also be good to mention something along these lines: Recent UK Government directives have required power generators to generate a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable sources, in order to help reduce the UK's CO2 emission levels in line with the Kyoto Protocol. This has resulted in a variety of "renewable" products being co-fired with coal, including wood pellets, olive expeller (waste olive), olive expeller pellets, straw pellets, palm kernel expeller and energy crops like miscanthus and short rotation willow coppice etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.231.231 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it needs attention

"Note: Biomass releases Typo aside; this seems like an odd statement. Is this meant to state "PREGNANT" women? Even then though, I think I can safely say it is accepted public knowledge that carbon monoxide is harmful to all people.

I just looked up 'biomass' because I'd come across the term and wanted explanation; this statement really jumped out at me and I thought I'd note it in case the original author would care to clarify, or someone knowledgeable would care to remove or correct it. --LeisaPhish 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference gone

^ Oh, Chicken Feathers! How to Reduce Plastic Waste. Yahoo News, Apr 5, 2007. The Yahoo! reference link no longer works.24.123.3.106 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate template

The template:renewable energy sources has been vandalized to change it to say "Energy development" instead of "Renewable energy" which is what it should say. Nuclear power also needs to be deleted. Very few people think that nuclear power is "renewable energy". Template has been restored and protected for one week.199.125.109.108 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All marine biomass 3.87 Gtonne?

According to WB Whitman et al. (1998) PNAS USA 95:6581 the marine biomass from prokaryotes alone is estimated at 303 Gt. Plasmodesmata 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Plasmodesmata

the table is only biomass for human use/consumption. —Pengo 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, note that the data may be outdated as they are quoted from a book issued in 1975. --Rpremuz (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Table headings unclear

The table "Biomass production for human use and consumption" lists "billion tonnes" as units. The word "billion" is not well-defined. This needs to be fixed and replaced with "giga tonnes" or "tera tonnes" as the case may be; as it stands, the table has next to no information content. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wood Biomass

Deleted due to lack of citation or source material. Please reset if edit is too drastic, but consider the sections relevancy to the topic... Are we going to write such detailed sections on each promising form of biomass? Smile4Chomsky (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with biofuel

There is no reason to consider "biofuel" and "biomass energy" separate subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.50 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between these. Biomass is the material which can be used to create bioenergy - bioenergy can be electricity, heat of solid or liquid fuel generated from biomass. Biofuel is used to refer to liquid fuels such as bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.251.47 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Manure

Many cultures collect manure for use as fuel. Does this count as biomass? I notice it has a brief mention in Biofuel... — Hiddekel (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) yes yes it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.37.202 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

i would like to know how cost efficient biomass is and what the economic cost is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.37.202 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Carbon neutral

Sorry guys but this biomass article is not necessarily carbon neutral, for example when a tree sucks up carbon from the ground and then you burn it into the air. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Merge recommendation is because these articles are too similar. Also these 2 articles are giving too much weight to the Renewable Energy issues. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Biomass article seems well developed and merging it all back into Biofuel might make that article too long. What's the basis for saying that they give too much weight to renewable energy issues?   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No Merge: Agree with Will that both articles are sitting here quite happily, and that a merged article would be way too long. Johnfos (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fact Check

I cut the following paragraph because it is full of mistakes:

Though biomass is a renewable fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanization of green sites. When biomass is used as a fuel, as a replacement for fossil fuels, it still puts the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The carbon in biomass material, which makes up approximately fifty percent of its dry-matter content, is already part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. Biomass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere during its growing lifetime, after which its carbon reverts to the atmosphere as a mixture of CO2 and methane (CH4), depending on the ultimate fate of the biomass material. CH4 converts to CO2 in the atmosphere, completing the cycle. Controlled combustion in a power plant converts virtually all of the carbon in the biomass to CO2.

A. Biomass burning can only contribute to atmospheric CO2 increase if it is happening globally at a rate faster than photosynthesis is removing CO2. Most biomass is converted by respiration into CO2 and H2O annually anyway. Burning it as fuel is merely an alternate respiration pathway.

--
I don't really understand your point, the statement you removed was trying to show that in all cases, biomass return CO2 contained in the plant in the atmosphere thus increasing CO2 levels. The only thing it if safe to assume is that biomass from crop is planted before being harvested (i.e. there is no crop witch can be burned so you have to plant more crop witch will result in no net increased or decrease in CO2 levels (if you forget about agriculture pollution). Any other method implies net increase in CO2 levels, except if we plant trees. I am proposing new explanation about this, please discuss:
Though biomass is a renewable fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. Most of the carbon captured during the lifetime of biomass is released upon burning. Using biomass as an energy source while not replanting trees or creating more biomass will result a net increase in CO2 levels (Ex: Cutting down a whole forest for fuel while not replacing it). You may also note that decaying trees already release CO2, even if we don't burn them, and agriculture produce some CO2 emissions too.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/bio.htm
--132.203.168.176 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from action by mankind, the biosphere is in a state of near equilibrium where photosynthesis is roughly equivalent to respiration on a global scale. However, plants have the capacity to have higher rates of photosynthesis when provided with more "fuel" in the form of CO2 and water. So when forest fires, hurricanes, volcanoes, or people suddenly combust a large amount of biomass, there is a corresponding increase in photosynthesis that converts this CO2 back into biomass in a short period of time. When CO2 is at 1000 ppm the photosynthesis rate is about 2.5 times the rate at 380 ppm. So there is a natural feedback mechanism that prevents biomass burning from significantly altering the CO2 of the atmosphere on a global scale.

B. The statement that "combustion in a power plant converts virtually all of the carbon in biomass to CO2" incorrect. The reason is that Photosynthesis unites a CO2 molecule to the H in a water molecule, leaving O2 as waste. Combustion rejoins the O2 with the H, producing water vapor and releasing the CO2. No new CO2 is produced though. It was already there. The carbon in biomass is already CO2. Burning it does release that CO2 into the air, but it does not create new CO2. The same CO2 would be released if the material were allowed to rot naturally.

By contrast, burning fossil fuels does introduce new carbon (or old depending on how you look at it) into the biosphere.

Using biomass as fuel essentially takes energy away from organisms that would break it down naturally, such as bacteria and fungi. So by using biomass as fuel, there is a necessary decrease in the organisms that could have fed on that material. That is the only real environmental impact. The carbon is going to get recycled anyway.

Fossil fuels put new carbon into the atmosphere/biosphere. However, the total use of fossil fuel worldwide is equivalent to 3-5% of the biosphere's natural respiration process. Since fossil fuels have been burned at high rates for over a century, and CO2 has not doubled, the question is where is that CO2 going? The answer is probably BIOMASS. The biomass of the Earth is growing as a result of carbon input from fossil fuels and possibly also from ocean warming.

To make a long story short, the assertion that biomass burning affects atmospheric CO2 in any significant way is totally unsupported by any citations.

Cadwallader (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously think burning woodchips from old growth for electricity is just an "alternate respiration pathway"?
Quote: "the assertion that biomass burning affects atmospheric CO2 in any significant way is totally unsupported by any citations"
Errr. Let's take an extreme example. Say we take an old temperate rainforest, which contains trees which are 500 years old or more, and being a cold environment the organic matter on the ground decomposes very slowly, so there's deep leaf litter and many old logs on the ground. I.e. there's a large carbon store, which continues to increase despite being very old forest. Then say we clearfell that forest and effectively empty the ecosystem which was there. We take only the good, solid trees, and everything else is burnt, including the undergrowth, the branches, the dead standing trees, the stumps, and the ground (the ground contains 40-60% of the carbon). This not only puts most of the carbon from the forest into the atmosphere but also reduces the carbon storage capacity of the forest to about 25% of what it had (and to reach that may take 50 years). Then we transport those logs we've harvested and grind them into woodchips. Then we burn them for electricity generation. Now if your last name happens to be Protocol and your first name Kyoto you might think that whole process is completely carbon neutral, but to anyone with half a brain, it's obviously releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and is going to take hundreds, if not thousands of years for that land to mop it up again. It might seem like an extreme example, but it's exactly what's being proposed for the Eden Chip Mill, which is in part fed by old growth temperate rainforests (such as Brown Mountain from my home state of Victoria, Australia, which have some of the most carbon-dense forests in the world. The carbon accounting for biomass is not all the same. Of course this situation is hardly comparable to, say, biomass energy from agriculture waste. The article needs to consider a number of examples. Generalisations are likely to have problems. —Pengo 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge of articles

I think the article Biomass Fuelled Power Plants goes well to be merged into this article. Both share the same subject. Regards. Rehman(+) 07:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. There was nothing to merge. This article already had all facts that was there. Regards. Rehman(+) 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I added the information on the typical efficiency of a biomass plant. I think that should be included. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Plant/wood specific

From my understanding biomass is not specifically plant material (see algae, and other microorganisms). Perhaps this article should be slightly reviewed to reflect this more fairly. Shuggyg (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if all plant material is considered Biomass, than peat is biomass too, right? Rehman(+) 13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Peat is fossil carbon, or perhaps more accurately sub-fossil carbon. In a system (such as a peat bog) which is actively accreting carbon, yes, it is potentially a renewable source of fuel – but the accretion rate in such systems tends to be low, the biodiversity impacts of harvesting tend to be very high, and there are few (if any) cases where peat harvesting can be regarded as sustainable (and many where it is blatant carbon mining). Even where it is potentially sustainable, any accreting peat system is probably more valuable as a carbon sink: it's surely better to take carbon permanently out of the atmosphere and to harvest renewable carbon from non-accreting systems elsewhere. We have few enough opportunities to sequester carbon permanently, and we can't afford to waste them – and we should be doing our utmost to protect all peat and peat soils from drying out, which releases their carbon to the atmosphere anyway.

As far as your first point is concerned, yes, animals are biomass too. However, it takes a lot of plants to produce an animal, and in most cases biomass harvesting is best done at the lowest trophic level: plants. There are exceptions, where animal material in an ecosystem is more easily accessible than the plants – for example, the 19th century use of whale oil for lighting was effectively using whales to harvest small sea creatures, which harvested smaller creatures, which harvested planktonic algae. The amount of whale oil harvested would however have been in the order of a thousandth, a ten-thousandth or perhaps even less of the energy in the algae (a loss of roughly a factor of ten per trophic level). Likewise using tallow as fuel. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.193.134.74, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It says in relation to fossil fuels and biomass that the use of fossil fuels disrupts the co2 in the atmosphere, this is totally unrelated and is a 'controversial' Statement.

66.193.134.74 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Puzzling request... It is certainly not controversial that the use of fossil fuels hugely changes natural CO2 levels, which will have doubled before too long. The final outcome of this enormous unplanned experiment with the Earth's atmosphere is not yet absolutely certain, but the overwhelming consensus amongst reputable scientists is that the very large change in CO2 is having large effects on the climate – there are very few rational sceptics left.
In any case, discussion of fossil fuels here is hardly "unrelated". The whole point of biomass fuel is that it replaces fossil fuel. A climate-change denier may disagree about whether the use of biomass is necessary, but cannot deny that it does replace fossil fuels.
Omitting mention of fossil fuels in a biomass article would be omitting a fundamental part of the subject, and would be blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Darkwind (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Air Pollution

I'm a little confused by this summary used to justify a reversion: not necessarily true that it "produces air pollution" but (like other fuels) that it may do so, which was already well covered. Firstly, burning biomass invariably produces air pollution, period. There are no cases where it does not. Further, its incorrect to say it "presents the same challenges as other fuels". It produces less pollution than some sources, but more than others, as the references show. Finally, burying anything even remotely critical so deep down, and presenting it in such a whitewashed manner presents NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. Fell Gleamingtalk 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is very much POV pushing. And I've reverted it. —Pengo 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it is the phrasing as it is now that reads as POV. It says that biomass "produces air-pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, NOX (nitrous oxides), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), particulates, and other pollutants". It does not say "may produce", it says "produces". As I said in my edit summary, that is not necessarily true: for example, biogas burnt fully will not produce CO, VOCs or particulates. In fact, if suitable technology is used, biomass can be burnt to produce virtually nothing but CO2 and water, as for other fuels . So the statement that "there are no cases where it does not" is wrong – and of course unlike fossil fuels even the CO2 pollution is offset exactly by sequestration (of course if the biomass is sustainably produced). There are of course many cases where biomass used as fuel is polluting, as for other fuels: what we cannot have is a statement that it is always so.
At present the section reads as if written to emphasise problems of biomass over other fuels, though I'm sure that cannot have been the intention. The previous version was more balanced, although I take the point that the discussion of pollution could be nearer the top and I see no reason why it should not be moved there. Likewise the statement that it "presents the same challenges as other fuels": yes, arguably all fuels present different challenges in one way or another, so why not have "presents similar challenges as other fuels"? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It does not say "may produce" because that's incorrect. You cannot burn biomass without producing these compounds. Your belief that biogas does not produce them is in defiance of basic chemistry -- "biogas" is essentially natural gas (methane), diluted with additional CO2. Its air pollution profile is thus identical to natural gas. Furthermore, its debatable whether biogas should even be called biomass. The way this article is currently written, for instance, doesn't define it as such, but as a fuel that biomass can be 'converted into'.
Biomass does not present the "same" challenges, because every fuel is different. Hydrogen, for instance, generates no pollution whatsoever. None. Burning of non-converted biomass in a residential environment (e.g. a home cooking stove) is the most polluting fuel source on the planet. It is also, unfortunately, the most common use of biomass by far worldwide...and accounts for a huge number of the health problems of rural Africans and Asians. An advanced industrial biomass plant can burn biomass as clean as natural gas, and cleaner than coal -- but pollution still exists in all cases. Fell Gleamingtalk 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll comment on some of your statements:
  • "You cannot burn biomass without producing these compounds." The pollutants listed include some (like CO and particulates) which are normally products of incomplete combustion at relatively low temperatures. You yourself say that biomass can be burnt cleanly in an industrial plant, and if it is, it will not produce these pollutants in significant quantities (perhaps not even measurable ones) – though no doubt it might produce more NOxes. What we need in the article is a statement which is factually correct, and doesn't slant either one way or the other. At present it reads as if all biomass must produce all the pollutants listed, which is not correct. It might be true to say that when burnt, biomass always produces some pollutants, but not necessarily all of those listed in significant quantities.
  • "Your belief that biomass does not produce them". No, I didn't say they didn't, I said they didn't always, which is why I suggested "may produce".
  • Your sentence "Burning of non-converted biomass ... is the most polluting fuel on the planet". Yes, burning it like that is of course highly polluting – but it is not always burnt like that. The problem is not the biomass, but the method. Also, there are far more polluting fuels, such as coal, oil or plastics (some of which would kill you pretty well straight away in such an environment). Which hut would you prefer to be in, the one burning wood on the fire, or the one burning PVC...?
  • "Biomass does not present the same challenges". Yes: please see the last sentence of my previous post in which I agreed with you on that, and suggested "similar challenges". Likewise I agree that biogas could be regarded as separate from biomass in this context, or at least as a special instance of it.
  • "Hydrogen ... produces no pollution whatever". What about NOxes? (Leaving aside of course how this hydrogen is being generated.)
I wonder if you have perhaps misunderstood some what I am saying. I am not by any means suggesting that biomass does not produce any of those pollutants ever. I'm saying it does not produce all of them always, which is what the text says now. It ought to say that it can (and often does) produce pollutants including these, and it should also make clear that biomass is comparable to other fuels in its overall pollution potential. I don't think these points are controversial, are they?
Incidentally, the Asian smoke cloud is mostly not from biomass use, but from habitat destruction and associated burning of trees and peat, either accidentally or for land clearance, which is hardly what this article is about. I think these sentences need more explanation or perhaps complete removal. Sustainable use of biomass for cooking etc is really a trivial pollution component in that area by comparison, and indeed in most others (once it's out of the hole in the roof), because sustainable traditional use is always going to be small-scale. Another point to remember is that the pollution products from burning biomass in domestic contexts are virtually the same as those from natural fires, unlike many of those from other fuels. This is not so relevant where natural (or semi-natural) fires are rare, such as in wet tropical areas of Asia, but it is in areas where natural fires do occur, such as sub-Saharan Africa and western North America, where pollution from biomass use as covered in this article is dwarfed by them. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sustainable traditional use" is not a small scale operation, my friend. Take this quote for instance, which I believe comes from the NYT: "Nearly three billion people in the developing world cook their meals on primitive indoor stoves fueled by crop waste, wood, coal and dung. Every year, says the UN, smoke from these stoves kills 1.9 million people, mostly women and children. The stoves also contribute to global warming."

In other words, this single usage kills more people worldwide than all other sources of air pollution combined. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, traditional use is more than small scale – I ought to have said small in comparison with industrial fossil-fuel use. However, I was actually talking about pollution of the wider environment: I did say "once it's out of the hole in the roof". As you say, smoke is indeed a serious indoor pollutant, but it's the type of stove that's the problem, not the fuel itself, and fuels such as coal, paraffin or even LPG in the wrong burner can be just as bad as biomass. Of course it's not the biomass use in those stoves that's contributing to global warming, but the coal. (Incidentally, in the UK the way you used "my friend" could easily be taken to be patronising or even downright rude, though I'm sure you didn't mean it like that.) Richard New Forest (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No more comments. I suggest the following form of words for the first para in this section, which I think answers the criticisms on both sides:

Using biomass as a fuel may produce air pollution, including, depending on the method of combustion, carbon monoxide, NOx (nitrogen oxides), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), particulates and other pollutants.

This omits the material about black carbon, which applies to all carbon-based fuels, and about the brown haze, which is not from the use of biomass as a fuel but from habitat clearance. I think we do however need a para or at least a sentence about indoor pollution, though that does need to be clear that it's not just biomass. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

The title of this article should be Biomass(energy) because there is also an article named Biomass (ecology). When a Wikipedia user is making a search for "biomass," the two choices should be presented.

I don't know how to edit-in this change. Can someone do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The way it usually works on WP is that disambiguation epithets (the bits in brackets) are used to distinguish minor meanings from a main one, the "primary topic", which is so well known that it doesn't need disambiguation. So at present this meaning of "biomass" is treated as the primary topic, and that's why it does not have an epithet. Where there is no primary topic, then the version without the brackets becomes a disambiguation page with links to all the others, and of course these are all disambiguated.
Are you suggesting that the subject of this article is not the primary topic, or are you saying that it should be disambiguated just for reasons of symmetry or fairness? Richard New Forest (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who wants Biomass (ecology) would get there in two steps whether Biomass is a disambiguation page or as it is now. But people wanting Biomass in the sense of energy would need an extra step if Biomass was a disambiguation page. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
user coastwise is correct about the misleading article title. The word "Biomass" is used unqualified in several senses within this article, includig the ecological sense. BUT most dictionaries give the ecological sense as the FIRST sense, ie "primary topic". If the primary topic is controversial, then both entries should have qualifiers. Check the "Disambiguation" article under the heading "Is there a prinmary topic?". To be a primary topic, the title must be "highly likely" to be the topic sought. That is not the case here. At least half of the searchers will expect to find the ecological article. So, the "hatnote" at the top of the energy article is insufficient and violates WP policy. A qualifier should be added to the title. Consider "Biomass (Energy)" or Biomass (Renewable energy".O Wise 1 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Biomass production

The following was embedded in food web:

Biomass production

Primary production is generation of biomass through photosynthesis. It can be measured in grams per square meter per year (g/m²/yr). The highest producers of biomass are

Others include

while lowest producers are deserts (3 g/m²/yr), open ocean (125 g/m2/yr), and tundra (140 g/m²/yr).[1][3]

It doesn't belong there and I'm deleting it. Perhaps this might be useful to this page?Thompsma (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources of biomass

It is written: "Biomass energy is derived from five distinct energy sources: garbage, wood, waste, landfill gases, and alcohol fuels" This sentence is arbitrary and inaccurate. And what is the difference between 'garbage' and 'waste'? Isn't landfill gas also waste? what about plant matter, is all plant matter alochol fuels? Isn't wood also plant matter? You get the drift. This statement should have a reference if it is true. The reference already used for biomassenergycentre (UK) has good stuff that could replace this. Waterproof-breathable (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


Difference exists between Dendrothermal energy and Biomass energy

It is like difference between solar power and solar energy.......Solar energy is tremendous but the way we use is Solar power, which is considerably small.Similarly Biomass energy is tremendous, and an application like winter fire is also an example.......but use for industrial production is termed dendrothermal energy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.60.116 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this article needs to be rewritten

I write a lot in blogs and magazines. I use Wikipedia as a prime source, and cite it when I do, because it is usually accurate and has good references.

This article is probably the third in Wikipedia that I have wanted to use as a source, but decided not to use. The reasons for this, unfortunately, are all in the talk section already. The list of sources is a mess; what is "garbage" anyway? The idea that biomass produces air pollution is stated as a fact in the article, and discussed at length in the talk section; why not just make the simple change suggested?

Why not compare the output of a specific power plant using a fossil fuel with the same power plant using biomass fuel? The Jenbacher J920 engine might be a good choice. If you burn natural gas, and ignore the production problems arising out of exploration and fracking, you get one result. If you burn biogas, and ignore the production problems arising out of production of the fuel, you get the same result, except that there is no radon in the exhaust. Including fracking and opposing it to raising algae from a farm, as is already being done, biogas wins hands down. Including fracking and opposing it to cutting old grown forest is not so easy. Just a suggestion.

But I cannot use this article, and I don't have time to change it to what I need before the magazine goes to press.ghh 12:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the date on the last comment on pollution. SHAME ON YOU ALL! The readers of this article deserve better than bad material that has been hanging around for nearly two years since the last comment. What are we waiting for, the end of the Mayan calendar? I will do it myself, consensus or no, when I have time - because it is simply wrong, as stated.ghh 13:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

Could you be please more precise what is wrong in this article? What source used in this article you think is not reliable and states inaccurate facts? Also, blaming other editors and saying at the same time that you yourself will not contribute, is not the most polite way to communicate. Beagel (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Combined heat and power is not a biomass technology or benefit.

There is one paragraph in this article that is particularly poorly sourced and written, to which I have attached citation needed tags. In the entire paragraph it has only 1 reference and that one is dubious as it attempts to to convince readers that biomass doesn't produce considerable air pollution because it's apparently 'more efficient' as the author of the paragraph suggests, but the reference only discusses Combined heat and power which is shifting the goalposts, as every fuel(biomass or not) benefits in thermal efficiency from employing this technology. All things being equal however(comparing a biomass CHP plant and a Fossil fuel CHP plant) the biomass CHP would produce more pollution like particulate matter, but naturally of course, the Fossil fuel CHP would produce more 'non-renewable' CO2, but the article doesn't discuss this, instead a load of hand waving is done over the particulate matter problem and the suggestion that biomass is somehow more efficient than fossil fuel CHP plants is made, which is utter nonsense.

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagram in biochemical conversion section

In my opinion the diagram of microbial electrolysis cell does not deserve to be where it is right now. The section is about biochemical conversion of "Biomass" which is fermentation of biomass to convert to acetic acid (or any other microbial process to produce useful chemical), shown as step 2 in the figure. Major focus of the figure is on conversion of acetic acid to H2 by some other bacteria which is not what the article or the particular section talks about. Furthermore the caption says ""A microbial electrolysis cell can be used to directly make hydrogen gas from plant matter."" which is also misleading as the microbial cell cannot process plant matter directly and needs a preceding fermentation process to convert biomass to small molecules.

My decision is to remove the figure. I would like to get thoughts of other editors on this. Ray Lightyear (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The removal seems appropriate. The figure is also used at Microbial electrolysis cell, which I've added to the See also list here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/biomass-faq-2/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Grammar on image annotation

This annotation below the second image (sugar cane field) doesn't read right:

Sugarcane plantation in Brazil (State of São Paulo), cane remains used to production of biomass energy

...but I don't know the exact meaning the author wanted to get across, and don't want to assume so I've just left a note. It should probably be one of the following:

Sugarcane plantation in Brazil (State of São Paulo); cane remains heavily used in the production of biomass

Sugarcane plantation in Brazil (State of São Paulo); cane remains in use for the production of biomass

151.226.142.208 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Split up this topic - suggest "Biomass as a resource" and "Biomass for energy" initially

This page lacks clear focus and seems to be trying to steer towards biomass energy and biofuels. Thus, calling it "Biomass" is misleading.

All living or once-living things are biomass. This article is clearly focusing mainly on biomass for energy and less on biomass for other purposes as a source of materials or at a high level what biomass is generated on earth.

There is too much focus on energy from biomass. There are far more other uses. Steering away from a "climate change" and "alternative energy" mindset is helpful here. Biomass has been the main resource for humans for as long as we have existed and for all aspects of our needs. There is too much focus on plants alone.

So, the title "Biomass" is too broad. It might be helpful to have separate pages/chapters on for example "Biomass for alternative energy", "Biomass for medicine", "Biomass for chemical feedstock", "Biomass for construction materials", etc.

Not all biomass uses require conversion. For example, dried bamboo stems/trunks are widely used for scaffolding in Asia. Physical separation without conversion is also common; oil from oil seeds (not just food use either).

Possible approach

Pages/Chapters

  • Biomass resource (plants, animals, other living organisms) - deliberate exclusion of wastes and deliberate detachment from any specific usage but includes a section listing as many possible uses as possible, keeping this to just about availability, diversity and perhaps geographic distribution. Within the list of possible uses, there could be links to other pages on some of the more popular as well as unusual uses.
  • Biomass for energy (much of this page could end up here)
  • Biomass for alternatives to petrochemicals (molecules in biomass, carbon, graphene), resources, methods, technologies
  • Biomass for basic materials (building, insulation, fabrication, packaging, packing beds, substrate, 3D cultivation, other uses with direct uses and minimal prior processing), resources, technolgies
  • Biomass for nutrition (protein, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, trace minerals, dietary fibers, medicines)

DEdQdW (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

2.1 World resources

This section is wrong. Terrawatt is not a unit, it should be terawatt which is 1012 watt, a unit of power. The corresponding unit of energy is terawatt.hour (TWh), not terawatt/hour. Annual world energy consumption is not 150 TWh but of the order of 150,000 TWh - 1000 times more. According to the German Wikipedia (Biomasse, sectio 4.2) biomass production is more than annual world energy consumption, not one tenth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwbest (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Yeah... Pretty Sweet

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Biomass. 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) 23:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biomass. 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) 21:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biomass. 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) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biomass. 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) 05:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The article says that biomass emissions are a quarter higher than those of coal and that biomass is popular with coal companies and is used by them to get around laws around coal. The source [1] which is cited for this appears biased, with the title "The Great Carbon Scam", which contains several loaded words. The statements mentioned in my first sentence also present seriously contested assertions and opinions as facts and fail to represent the relative prominence of different viewpoints around biomass energy. 204.112.62.44 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Anonymous

If you disagree can you provide a source that says otherwise? Until then I'm removing the tag. Brian Everlasting (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The article does state that the UN and EU recognize bio-fuel as a renewable energy despite the fact that it emits (as well as sequesters) carbon in a cyclical manner. It also points out that bio-mass could provide all the energy currently consumed in the world and is especially useful in the developing world; along with pointing out that bio-mass could theoretically produce enough energy to alter the course of continental drift I suppose. By that measure, Imagine the potential for Mars colonization emitting carbon OUTSIDE of Earths atmosphere and then seeding that planet with MORE hemp (creating more oxygen). We could essentially sequester our carbon and export it to Mars where we can turn Mars' CO2 into oxygen and the amount of potential energy produced could possibly save the earth from a solar flare if we're already talking plate tectonics. (Suspend a big carbon nano solar sheet out there which could cool the Earth. And produce renewable energy) Additionally, @ <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempcrete<ref> It states:Hempcrete or Hemplime is bio-composite material, a mixture of hemp hurds (shives) and lime (possibly including natural hydraulic lime,[1] sand, pozzolans) used as a material for construction and insulation.[2] (...) Hempcrete is easier to work with than traditional lime mixes and acts as an insulator and moisture regulator. It lacks the brittleness of concrete and consequently does not need expansion joints.[3] The result is a lightweight insulating material ideal for most climates as it combines insulation and thermal mass.

Like other plant products, hemp absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows, retaining the carbon and releasing the oxygen. Theoretically 165 kg of carbon can be absorbed and locked up by 1 m3 of hempcrete wall during manufacture.[4]

So when we as a society implement policies and scientific discourse in favor of hemp, sustainable agriculture, and bio-fuels we are also promoting the production of a supply of fiber that can sequester even more carbon in the form of hempcrete. Dracoshempemporium (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


In addition to this, what are the effects of the clustering of biomass with respect to coal companies? Aside from this article of text being biased, does it have a foot to stand on with respect to emissions being greater due to this clustering? Thanks. SailorJupiter4 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New paper about the biosphere (PNAS)

The biomass distribution on Earth maybe it's time to update the article? --RaphaelQS (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)



Environmental Impact Section

I believe this section could use a comparison of the CO2 produced from fossil fuels and from biomass. I made my edits in my sandbox. I will update in a few days if no one thinks otherwise? Would appreciate feedback. User:JonnyZzzz/sandbox

JonnyZzzz (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Just added my information. I believe it gives clarity of why biomass CO2 is preferred vs that of fossil fuels. --JonnyZzzz (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Biomass long-distance transportation

@The Perennial Hugger: The edit in which you removed any mention of long-distance transport of forest biomass is consistent with your earlier removal of the whole Environmental Impact section, but it doesn't make it either justified or encyclopedic. The whole article in the version you gradually carved over the last year contains a lot of theoretical discussion, yet is completely stripped of any mention of the practical aspects of the biomass market as of 2021. As your rationale for this particular removal was "non-encyclopedic in nature (cherry picked, activist material" I would like you to explain in detail which of your adjectives applies specifically to which sources and statements I added:

This article is not your personal property and I believe all of the above are WP:RS and highly relevant to the topic of biomass in the energy market. Cloud200 (talk)

Man, what have you done with the article? It seems like you turned it into your personal blog. How sentences like this could even exist in a Wikipedia article as of 2021? This is not an encyclopedic article anymore, it's a polemical newspaper position statement:

Research groups that are negative to bioenergy estimate relatively high extra emission (...) Is the extra CO2 from biomass a problem? IPCC argues that focusing on gross emissions misses the point, what counts is the net effect of emissions and absorption taken together.

You are setting the scenes in literally every single sentence, asking rhetorical questions and responding to them with pre-defined answers. Cloud200 (talk)



@Cloud200: I have added some concrete emission data regarding long-distance transportation, based on official EU estimates. The de facto mainstream scientific acceptance of bioenergy as a useful tool in the fight against global warming already implies this, but actual numbers is a good thing, too. As you can see, the estimates show that the impact from transport is rather small. Even with transport distances above 10 000 km, both wood pellets and almost all other forms of biomass have much lower emissions than fossil fuels.

Because, as you can clearly see from the first link, biomass acquisition has many consequences on many levels and can be simply harmful for local communities even if there is net benefit for Germany's CO2 accounting. There's absolutely no contradiction between what IPCC says and what local forest conservationists say. Cloud200 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
If you put content about other consequences than the "main" consequence (which is bioenergy's effect on the global CO2 level) under its own, separate heading, and make it clear that these are side effects, important for local communities, I see no problem with your contribution.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Another example of local impact of the biomass industry, just published yesterday[1]:

It has been fined by the Mississippi Department on Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for breaching limits on volatile organic compounds, which can exacerbate respiratory conditions, since 2017. The fine was welcomed by local environmental campaigners, who have raised concerns over the impact of the UK biomass industry on local forests and air quality in the southern US, which they say impacts particularly on lower income communities.

— Mississippi wood pellet plant that supplies UK electricity grid fined $2.5m over air pollution, The Telegraph
Yes, properly placed and presented, this is content that can add to the value of the article. Just make sure you use reputable sources.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In this light your text, boldly placed in the lead of the article, seems ill-informed.

I am perfectly aware that activists and journalists and some climate scientists have a more critical view on these matters, but an encyclopedia article should first and foremost reflect the mainstream view, and only then, to a certain degree, also the critical view. I think the article now does this reasonably well. The earlier versions were not very good, however.

No. Per WP:NPOV the articles are not expected to present a single "averaged" truth but present all notable aspects of the topic based on WP:RS. There is no contradiction between global net effect and local effect, as explained above. Cloud200 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Some of your sources have the minority view that biomass use is climate unfriendly. I see no point in adding additional, low-quality sources for this view, because the excisting sources are simply better. As said above however, the view that biomass use can have negative side effects for local communities is not a minority view, and can be included.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Your non-mainstream content should not be placed in the lead section, as this is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. Also, the non-mainstream view is already referenced there. A good place for further critical content is below its own subheader, for instance named "Controversies", or the like.

Regarding illegal logging. The IPCC argues that the global forest is increasing, while FAO argue that there is a small decline. Both FAO and IPCC argue however that the forest is increasing in size in both North America, Europe and Russia. Therefore, grabbing the the reader's attention with stories about illegal logging in Romania in the lead section make it harder for the readers to see the big picture. Illegal logging, wherever it occurs, is simply too small to derail the positive development regarding forest size. What counts is the big numbers, not the small logging data you have referenced.

It absolutely does matter for local communities. If forest is illegally logged in Siberia or Romania, people there are impacted and global net forest area increase is irrelevant for them because their local forest has been removed. Especially that interestingly, Germany is not logging their local forests but is acquiring it from other countries, including overseas. Cloud200 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
As above, I accept the argument that side-effects in local communities can be included, if they are presented as side-effects. The majority view, which is that biomass use has a net positive impact on the the global CO2 level, should be clearly visible in the article as a whole, however.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentences you describe as "setting the scene" (like "Is the extra CO2 from biomass a problem?) is there to give logical structure to the article. The answers are not mine, I simply reference the current discussion, with most space given to the mainstream scientific view. I think most readers prefer this over activist content. The IPCC for instance, is arguably the most respected and influental climate research organization in the world.

All that was previously discussed in the Environmental impact section which you have quietly and completely removed. Happy to reinstantiate or move that data to specific sections. Cloud200 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This content was removed because it did not match the IPCC's summary on this issue. The IPCC argues that modern biomass use is positive for air quality, while the traditional use of biomass constitutes a real problem.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Perennial Hugger (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

IEA viewpoint today

Whatever the IEA said in 2017 I don't think that the lead sentence "The IEA (International Energy Agency) defines bioenergy as the most important source of renewable energy today." is true in 2021. On their website at https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/bioenergy they say "Modern bioenergy is an important source of renewable energy". So "an important" rather than "the most important" would be a fairer reflection of their current view I believe. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

In 2017 the IEA said that bioenergy "remains" the most important form of renwable energy, and I think this is because bioenergy is "the biggest", in size, it provides more energy than solar, wind or hydro. In 2018 (latest available data) biofuels and waste provided 1 327 127 ktoe (kilotonnes oil equivalent) of energy, while wind, solar etc provided only 286 377 ktoe, and hydro 362 332 ktoe. See https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource In contexts other than size however, I see your point. Solar and wind are exciting developments, because they produce electricity directly. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt and informative reply. Looking at the IEA report "Renewables 2020: Analysis and forecast to 2025" the executive summary mentions that there have been "declines in bioenergy for industry and biofuels for transport". Whilst I agree with you that we should not forget about heat, I did not notice anywhere in the report where the IEA says that any particular renewable energy is more important than any other overall. I am not an expert but my personal view is that bioenergy (in the form of sustainable aviation fuel) will turn out to be the most important for aviation but not for any other sector: and I could argue that joules of aviation fuel are more important than joules of heat in our house, because we can get the latter from many sources. But as for what the lead should say re the IEA perhaps someone else would also like to comment? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Biofuels for transport is down 12% in 2020, so even if this trend continues after covid, it's still a long way to go before other renewables match bioenergy's energy production. I think the main strenghts of bioenergy is the ability to provide baseload power ("always-on" power, in contrast with the intermittant power production from wind and solar), low-carbon transport fuels in general, and carbon neutral (and in some cases even carbon negative) heat, for homes and industry. Many industrial processes requires temperatures that are impossible or prohibitly expensive to create with electricity (e.g. steel production). So I think the phrase "most important" has some merit to it, but I also appreciate your argument that that "most important" statement is not repeated often enough in other IEA documents to be taken literally. On the other hand, I think it means something that it was the head of the Renewable Energy Division (Paulo Frankl) that wrote it (together with a senior energy analyst.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else like to comment? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Europan biomass import

@Cloud200: Regarding your statement: "As high-income European countries usually do not have sufficient local supply of biomass, large amounts are imported from lower-income countries." As the sentence is formulated now, you easily get the impression that the EU is sourcing most of its biomass from low-income countries. Most wood pellets are imported from USA and Canada: "EU wood pellet imports have grown dramatically over the years from 1.7 million tonnes in 2009 to 7 million tonnes in 2015, with the largest imports coming from North America (62% of all imports in 2009 and 79% in 2015)." See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313681320_Elasticity_of_import_demand_for_wood_pellets_by_the_European_Union

Unless you have newer data that instead puts e.g. Russia or a group of low-income countries on top, I suggest that you simply remove the content on low and high income countries. (I can't really see why this contrast is relevant for the discussion at all.)The Perennial Hugger (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

BEAC

The BEAC Report (2015) doesn't seem to be discussed in the article, or even mentioned. Cloud200 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at it briefly and it criticizes the mainstream carbon accounting practice done by the EU, and states:
"We have included not only scenarios judged plausible and desirable, but also some scenarios that might be judged implausible or undesirable, so as to illustrate negative consequences that policies should ensure are avoided. Care should therefore be taken in interpreting the outputs from this study since the scenarios and counterfactuals modelled are not equally realistic; environmental, economic and social factors will all play a part in determining which of these scenarios could play out in the future."
So to me, the report seems to push the boundaries a bit and as such is it a bit risky to use. My take is that it is safer to report the main conclusions given by the IPCC and the other large research organizations. Plus, if the report is really good, it will influence these conclusions, or have already done so. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrections of quotes

@Nether Cat888:

Thanks for helping out with editing the page Nether Cat888. There are some problems with your recent edits however that I'd like to discuss.

1. Editing quotes

Copied from Wikipedia's style manual:

"Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, "Ocyrhoe told him his fate" might be quoted as "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate". If there is a significant error in the original, follow it with [sic] (producing [sic] ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia. However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically).

Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm and hmm), but do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text. Vulgarities and obscenities should be shown exactly as they appear in the quoted source; Wikipedians should never bowdlerize words (G-d d--m it!), but if the text being quoted itself does so, copy the text verbatim and use [sic] to indicate that the text is quoted as shown in the source.

In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization (but not archaic glyphs and ligatures, as detailed below)."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Original_wording

As far as I can understand, your edits in quotes does not follow Wikipedia' guidelines, as they make both unnecessary changes to the text, alterations that change the meaning of the text, and introduce grammar and spelling errors.

Examples:

Original: "Thus, the impacts of SFM on one indicator (e.g., past reduction in carbon stocks in the forested landscape) can be negative, while those on another indicator (e.g., current forest productivity and rate of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, avoided fossil fuel emissions) can be positive."
Your edit: "Thus, the impacts of SFM on one indicator (e.g., past reduction in carbon stocks in the forested landscape) can be negative, while those on another indicator (e.g., current forest productivity and rate of CO2 removal from the atmosphere, avoiding fossil fuel emissions) can be positive."
The problem here is that you change the meaning of the quote when you exchange "avoided" for "avoiding". The expressions "CO2 removal from the atmosphere" and "avoided fossil fuel emissions" are synonyms, separated by a comma.

Original: "Third, carbon in forests is vulnerable to loss through natural events such as insect infestations or wildfires"
Your edit: "Third, carbon in forests is vulnerable to lose through natural events such as insect infestations or wildfires"
The problem here is that "loss" is a substantive, and "lose" is a verb. When you exchange "loss" for "lose" the sentence does not make sense any more.

Original: "SFM [sustainable forest management] aimed at providing timber, fibre, biomass and non-timber resources can provide long-term livelihood for communities"
Your edit: "SFM [sustainable forest management] aimed at providing timber, fiber, biomass, and non-timber resources can provide a long-term livelihood for communities"
The first problem here is that "fibre" is simply the preferred British spelling, chosen by the original author. Is should not be changed. The second problem is that your inserted comma and "a" degrades the grammatical qualities of the sentence. At the very least their introduction does not fix any obvious grammar problems, so they should be avoided, and especially in a direct quote.

Original: "Research demonstrates that demand for wood helps keep land in forest and incentivizes investments"
Your edit: "Research demonstrates that demand for wood helps keep land in the forest and incentivizes investments"
The problem here is that you change the meaning of the quote when you introduce an extra "the" before "forest". That is because a general demand for wood helps keep land in forest generally, and not only in a specific forest.

2. Questionable editing generally

Original: "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."
Your edit: "Chatham House argues that old trees have a very high carbon absorption, and that felling old tree means that this large potential for future carbon absorption is lost."
The problem here is that you exchanged a singular for a plural term; "trees" is a plural term, while "tree" is a singular term.

Original: "In other words, there is a tradeoff between the benefits of having a maximized forest carbon stock, not absorbing any more carbon, and the benefits of having a portion of that carbon stock «unlocked», and instead working as a renewable fossil fuel replacement tool."
Your edit: "In other words, there is a tradeoff between the benefits of having a maximized forest carbon stock, not absorbing any more carbon, and the benefits of having a portion of that carbon stock «unlocked», and instead of working as a renewable fossil fuel replacement tool."
The problem here is that the extra "of" before the word "working" introduce some confusion to the sentence. When you write "instead of working as a ..." you expect a follow up in the form of "it actually works as a". But the sentence just abruptly stops.

Original: "For each cycle, it replaces more and more of the fossil-based alternatives, e.g. cement and coal."
Your edit: "For each cycle, it replaces more and more fossil-based alternatives, e.g. cement and coal."
The problem is that the removal of the phrase "of the" makes the sentence less accurate. It is some specific fossil alternatives that are being replaced here, namely cement and coal, not fossil alternatives in general. The "the" is there to help drive home this fact.

Original: "Chatham House also argues that various types of roundwood (mostly pulpwood) is used in pellet production in the USA."
Your edit: "Chatham House also argues that various types of Roundwood (mostly pulpwood) is used in pellet production in the USA."
The problem is that the capital R in "Roundwood" makes it sound like roundwood is a proper name, when it is really a regular noun, like the words "softwood", "spruce" or "pine". Tip: Only latin plant names are capitalized.

--The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JonnyZzzz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality/sources

I get that this was a student project page, but why do so may parts remain like an essay in defence of the industry rather than a direct presentation of the science?

Just in the intro "Heat production is more "climate friendly" than electricity production, and harder to replace with other renewable energy sources. Solid biofuel is more climate friendly than liquid biofuel. Replacing coal with biomass is more climate friendly than replacing natural gas."

None of those statements are sourced, presumably they are opening statements elaborated on later. However, there is no further explanation for the first statement in the body and it seems unclear - of course burning the wood for heat works better than burning it for electricity to run a heater, but using that as a basis for the claim that heat production is "harder" to replace for renewables is an assumption about the state of any given infrastructure used for heating rather than cost, efficiency, emissions intensity etc of fuels themselves. The latter statement is also unclear - replacing coal has the greatest impact, sure, but that's true for any renewable source because gas burns cleaner than coal - is the statement trying to subtly claim biomass is directly more 'climate friendly' than natural gas?

Similarly are claims like this throughout "if fossil fuel energy sources with higher emissions in the supply chain start to come online (e.g. because of fracking, or increased use of shale gas)". This is unreferenced and seems contradictory, fracking for coal seam or shale gas has created a global oversupply of natural gas which is a lower emission fuel than coal, and the opening statement implied biomass was more likely to displace coal than gas. The idea of displacement potential being greater if there is more to displace is inherent to the concept, it does not beget the claim that displacement WILL rise. On the contrary, natural and syngas from fossil fuels is in direct competition with biomass industries.

The term 'climate friendly' is strewn throughout, but that is not an IPCC term. If statements are based off of scientific research about GHG emissions, limit discussion to GHG accounting terminology. As it stands, the article deals only with carbon accounting rather than all GHG production. Mostly importantly, the article uses the term 'climate friendly' and user 'Perennial Hugger' constantly relates this term to IPCC frameworks, yet there is no single reference to the other half of IPCC climate accounting - LULUCF. The article makes references to some land use changes, but the same user seems to deny any additional land use discussions added from other users, despite them being related directly to the biomass industry. This page being 'biomass', not 'net carbon accounting comparisons of biomass with other energy forms and strictly nothing else', there seems to be huge tracts of discussion missing and a complete dissonance with the ecology biomass page. I understand the user perennial also hates information shared by activists. However, if the information is verified and relevant, the users feelings about it are themselves irrelevant. Perhaps an experienced editor could provide another perspective on contributions added by users that have apparently been removed.

Finally, the user who seems to claim authorship of this page, perennial hunger, should not omit a general criticism section at the end of the article of further academic discussions notable points - it is a standard on wiki pages. Given this industry practice relies on combustion of carbon materials and deforestation when not based in plantations, it seems outrageous to omit critiques that genuinely exist from environmental fields of academia. For example the article makes a single line mention of one of the biggest issues - consuming or replacing existing natural landscapes, "There is also a risk for negative impacts if areas with large amounts of biomass such as forests are clear-cut in order to make room for low-productivity forest plantations". Keith et. al. for have recent studies differentiating natural and plantation biomass, and there are plenty more globally- https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139640 . The page has had much effort and order put into it by ph, but the authorial control seems now somewhat over-limiting for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.200.93 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello 144.138.200.93, I agree that the page should be a direct presentation on the science, but unlike you I think that in fact it already is. To be exact, it is a presentation of the mainstream scientific view, largely put forth by the IPCC, IEA, IRENA, FAO and the JRC. Critics is given a lot of room also through the entire article, which incidentally is the reason why there is no specific criticism section at the end.
I have tried to clarify and justify the claims in the lead (e.g. "heat production is more climate friendly than electricity production"). These claims are meant to be short "abbreviations" of the discussion further down in the article, however being clearer about the their justification already in the lead is unproblematic I think.
I disagree that there is a lack of sources to back up the claims. As far as I can understand, all the sources you have asked for are already there. Maybe you didn't read the footnotes? If you read the article again (including footnotes) and then try to specify where there is a lack of sources, I'll be happy to locate them for you (or add them if something indeed is missing.)
The use of the term "climate-friendly" is first and foremost motivated by the need to deal with very technical language in a way the average reader can understand. But incidentally, the IPCC does actually use this term themselves, for instance in this document where it is used 11 times: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/12/ipcc_wg3_booklet_TAR.pdf
It is not correct that the article only deals with carbon accounting. However, there is a chapter about carbon accounting before the chapters where different biofuels are ranked according to their climate-friendlyness. This is to give the reader a chance to understand that the ranking depend very much on the carbon accounting methodology actually used. Since the researchers themselves are very critical to the highly varying results they produce (because of different methodology choices), it seemed fair to start the discussion with a chapter on carbon accounting methodologies. It gives the reader a chance to understand better.
Regarding LULUCF, it is correct that there is little content about indirect land use change, the reason is that the IPCC itself plays down its significance. See for instance the subchapter on spatial system boundaries for more about this, especially footnote bo and bp. (For instance, the IPCC writes: "At a global level of analysis, indirect effects are not relevant because all land-use emissions are direct. [...] Estimates of emissions from iLUC are inherently uncertain [...] There is low confidence in attribution of emissions from iLUC to bioenergy." (footnote bo))
Regarding the "dissonance" with the biomass ecology page: That page only deals with the mass and weight of biomass globally, and I don't see how this is relevant in a discussion about the climate effects of biomass use.
It is not correct that biomass use automatically lead to deforestation when the biomass is sourced from natural forests. This depends on whether or not the forestry practices in question are actually sustainable or not. There is a whole subchapter devoted to this discussion, see "Sustainable forestry and forest protection".
I disagree that critiques from environmental fields of academia is ignored. For instance, the tradeoff between climate mitigation and consumption of existing natural landscapes is discussed in the subchapter about biodiversity (at length in the footnotes). Again, what is given prominence here is the mainstream scientific view, after all this is an encyclopedic article. Individual research articles that are in opposition to the IPCC (like the one you llnked to) are of course valuable contributions to the scientific discussion, but in an encyclopedic article it simply seems wiser to focus on the conclusions from the mainstream climate research organizations.
The Perennial Hugger (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello 144.138.200.93, Were any of your attempts to improve the article reverted? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Has an article name change already been discussed (recently)? And too long.

I find the title "biomass" rather odd for this article. Shouldn't it be rather "Energy from biomass" or "Biomass energy" or possibly "Bioenergy" (which redirects to here). In the same process, the article needs to be split off into sub-articles, it is way too long at present (a tag for this has already been added). I came to this article based on a comment by User:Levivich on the talk page of the climate change article here. EMsmile (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There was a short discussion on the title 10 years ago here. At the time, the suggestion was for biomass (energy) and to have a disambiguation page for biomass. Then 7 years ago this comment was made "This page lacks clear focus and seems to be trying to steer towards biomass energy and biofuels. Thus, calling it "Biomass" is misleading. [...] So, the title "Biomass" is too broad. It might be helpful to have separate pages/chapters on for example "Biomass for alternative energy", "Biomass for medicine", "Biomass for chemical feedstock", "Biomass for construction materials", etc. Not all biomass uses require conversion. For example, dried bamboo stems/trunks are widely used for scaffolding in Asia. Physical separation without conversion is also common; oil from oil seeds (not just food use either)" (see here); sadly, no further discussion on this proposal happened at the time, even though it made a lot of sense. EMsmile (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
also pinging User:Chidgk1, User:The Perennial Hugger and User:Michaelmalak. EMsmile (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the word "biomass" has different meanings in other contexts, but it actually seems that the most common meaning is the one related to energy. Try to google it, almost all hits are energy-related. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In the industry where I used to work (wastewater treatment) we used biomass as a term not related to energy (see also activated sludge). Not sure if we were an exception. My second question is about the length of the article. It's far too long. Currently 110 kB (17511 words) "readable prose size", should be brought down to about 60 kB. See also WP:TOOBIG. EMsmile (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
As noted in the intro to the biomass article, the word biomass seem to be used interchangeably with biofuel many places. But possibly it is more common to use the word biofuel in the energy context in the U.S. (so I've heard.) But as I said if you google it you will see that "biomass" is almost exclusively used within the energy context generally on the web. Regarding article length, the guidelines you linked to also say that "There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable". I agree that the article is long and have tried to think about what to remove, but find it hard to do so without reducing the quality of the discussion, because all the issues discussed are intimately connected to each other. For instance, the discussion about carbon accounting helps understand the various arguments in the CO2 debate. Both sides claim to be scientific, so it really helps if the basic scientific accounting principles are understood. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I haven't yet investigated in detail but I am 95% sure that this article would benefit from being shortened. Most likely, there is content that could be moved to existing (or new) sub-articles. Even the main climate change article manages to stick to a length of 53 kb and there is really a lot that could be said about climate change... Compare also with the older version of climate change mitigation which was over 100 kB when I started. Now it's down to around 60 kB and much easier and better to read. See talk page discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Another_attempt_at_looking_for_ways_to_shorten_this_article. I plan to take a closer look at this article but before starting I wanted to see on the talk page here first what has been discussed in the past and if anyone feels strongly about the title and the current length. EMsmile (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
"In addition to electricity and fuels, biomass can be used to create valuable chemicals and materials, known as 'bioproducts.'" I'm wondering if "Biomass" is really just a dictionary definition, and the Wikipedia articles should be the existing articles "biofuel" (to which "bioenergy" should redirect but doesn't) and "bioproducts"? Maybe the page "Biomass" should be a disambiguation page that lists those others as was suggested years ago? Levivich (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
See above, it is common to use the term "biomass" in an energy context (maybe not so often in the U.S.) See also the lead in the article itself (especially the footnotes), many governmental bodies use the word "biomass" in this way, especially when they talk about solid biological matter used for energy. The word biofuel is often used for liquid or gaseous fuels, used for transportation. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's common to use the term biomass in an energy context, but it's not the only meaning or use of the term. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
If you google it, you will se that the word is almost exclusively used within the energy context on the web. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't change the fact that biomass is used for both bioenergy and other bioproducts. That there are far more sources about bioenergy than other bioproducts does not mean that "biomass" is a synonym for "bioenergy", nor that the Wikipedia article entitled "Biomass" should be entirely about bioenergy and not at all about bioproducts. The first sentence of this article, Biomass is plant-based material used as fuel to produce heat or electricity., is an incomplete description of what biomass is.

For example, a paper from a couple months ago lists some uses of biomass:

The microalgae biorefinery concept is based on oil refineries where biomass can be converted into several value-added products (Siddiki et al., 2022). The by-products generated have application in several fields such as food (Torres-Tiji et al., 2020), feed (Kusmayadi et al., 2021), human health and nutraceuticals (polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), carotenoids, vitamins, phytosterols or polyphenols (del Mondo et al., 2021, 2020; Mehariya et al., 2021; Sañé et al., 2021; Zhuang et al., 2022)), materials (biopolymers (Mal et al., 2022), natural dyes, organic fertilizers (Lorentz et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2021; Silva et al., 2021)) and energy (biofuels such as biogas, biodiesel, bio-oil and biohydrogen (Li et al., 2022a, 2022b; Bianca Barros Marangon et al., 2021)).
— Calijuri, Maria Lúcia; Silva, Thiago Abrantes; Magalhães, Iara Barbosa; Pereira, Alexia Saleme Aona de Paula; Marangon, Bianca Barros; Assis, Letícia Rodrigues de; Lorentz, Juliana Ferreira (2022-10-01). "Bioproducts from microalgae biomass: Technology, sustainability, challenges and opportunities". Chemosphere. 305: 135508. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135508. ISSN 0045-6535.

According to that paper, the uses of biomass include food, medicine, materials, dyes, fertilizer... and energy. It seems to me that what we have at "Biomass (ecology)" is what should be at the title "Biomass", and what's currently at "Biomass" should be titled "Bioenergy" (which is currently a redirect to "Biomass"). Levivich (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
My argument is basically that an encyclopedia article should relate to how people actually talk. And when people say "biomass" they usually think of energy, not ecology or bioproducts (even if those meanings also come up from time to time). Googling the word biomass reveals this. Looking at Wikipedia's pageview statistics reveals the same, for instance yesterday there were 819 hits for the Biomass article, 174 for Biomass (ecology) and only 24 for Bioproducts. In other words, if we add content on ecology and bioproducts to the Biomass article, we will make it harder for people to find what is actually of interest to them. If people are interested in bioproducts, they search for bioproducts, not biomass, and when people are interested in biomass in the ecological context, they come to the Biomass page and find a link to the Biomass (ecology) page in the header. Seems fair, because most people are interested in the energy aspects of biomass.
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Biomass%7CBioproducts%7CBiomass_(ecology) The Perennial Hugger (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Your argument with the Google search results doesn't convince me, The Perennial Hugger. Maybe your search results are different to mine as there can be variations from country to country. In the country where I live in (Germany), a lot of the search results for "biomass" actually take me to pages that specifically have content about "biomass energy" (i.e. taking me to websites that talk about "biomass energy"). The ones that do talk about biomass more broadly often mention that biomass can be used for energy, fuel but also for bioproducts. I agree with the points made by Levivich. I think the article should be renamed to "Energy from biomass" or "bioenergy" (which redirects to here). Here's another argument: Take a look at the articles on renewable energy and sustainable energy. They both call it "bioenergy" and start with a sentence about what "biomass" is. The article on renewable energy then links to Main articles: Biomass, Biogas, and Biofuel which indicates to me that we have a messy situation. In short, I think the status quo is not OK. Especially not for an article that gets so many pageviews (around 800 per day). We need to make sure people who come to this page can easily find what they are looking for. We don't want to add to the general confusion on biomass vs. bioenergy vs. biofuel but explain it all very clearly. EMsmile (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I also don't think search engine results are helpful or informative, for the various reasons explained in WP:GOOGLE. More broadly, I think if Wikipedia has an article titled, "X", it should be about X, and not about what people usually think of when they think of "X". Just because biomass is usually associated with bioenergy doesn't mean that biomass is bioenergy. If people are typing in "biomass" and looking for "bioenergy" (which I am not convinced is actually happening), then that would suggest making Biomass a redirect to Bioenergy, rather than the other way around, which is how we have it currently. Some other points:
  • When I Google "biomass", the first thing I see is a definition, "1. the total quantity or weight of organisms in a given area or volume ... 2. organic matter used as a fuel, especially in a power station for the generation of electricity.". This suggests that the #1 usage, or primary usage, of the word "biomass" is still the "total organic mass" definition, with the biofuel definition being #2 (and, notably, not defining biofuel as being liquid or gaseous, although that is how it is defined elsewhere).
  • Britannica's page on "biomass" [2] starts with biomass, the weight or total quantity of living organisms of one animal or plant species (species biomass) or of all the species in a community (community biomass), commonly referred to a unit area or volume of habitat.
  • Science Direct's page on "biomass" [3] starts with Biomass (B) is a measurement of how much living tissue mass for a population is present at one instant in time (or averaged over several periods of time), and its units are mass (or energy) per unit area (e.g., g/m2)
  • There's a MDPI journal called Biomass [4], which lists its scope as including "Biomass feedstocks, Biomass conversion, Biomass valorization, Conversion of biomass-derived compounds, Biomass into biofuels and renewable chemicals in biorefineries, Bio-based materials for biorefineries, Renewable energy technologies of biomass": they cover bioenergy but it's not just bioenergy.
It seems like "biomass" is used by RSes to mean something different than bioenergy, not synonymous, so I don't think our article about bioenergy should be at the title "Biomass", as it is currently. Levivich (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Levivich, you write:
– "I also don't think search engine results are helpful or informative, for the various reasons explained in WP:GOOGLE. [...] When I Google "biomass", the first thing I see is a definition, "1. the total quantity or weight of organisms in a given area or volume ... 2. organic matter used as a fuel, especially in a power station for the generation of electricity." This suggests that the #1 usage, or primary usage, of the word "biomass" is still the "total organic mass" definition, with the biofuel definition being #2 "
For me it's the other way around, energy use comes in at the top of the page, and in addition 9 out of 10 hits on the first google search result page mentions biomass in the energy context. Anyway, your argument seems self-defeating. On the one hand you say google search results are unhelpful, on the other you still use them to back up your argument if they benefit your own case.
– "I think if Wikipedia has an article titled, "X", it should be about X, and not about what people usually think of when they think of "X". Just because biomass is usually associated with bioenergy doesn't mean that biomass is bioenergy."
The biomass article actually has some content about the substance energy is made from, but I agree, I should have been more clear. What I think actually happens is that people search for "biomass" and expect to find stuff about both the substance and the application, i.e. both mass and energy. The substance and the application has a relation and is connected to each other both in reality and in people's heads, and for some reason people has chosen the substance part of this "connected mass/energy unity" as its name (or at least its "short" name). You may argue that they should have used the application part (energy) to name the unity, but they did not do this. You may also argue that they should have divided the substance from the application, but they did not do this either. I agree that both of these arguments have merit, but I'm simply not as eager to correct the way people talk as you are. See below for more on how people, including scientists, actually talk.
– "Britannica's page on "biomass" [5] starts with “biomass, the weight or total quantity of living organisms”"
The Britannica page on biomass ends with this: "In a different though related sense, the term biomass refers to plant materials and animal waste used especially as a source of fuel."
– "There's a MDPI journal called Biomass [6], which lists its scope as including "Biomass feedstocks, Biomass conversion, Biomass valorization, Conversion of biomass-derived compounds, Biomass into biofuels and renewable chemicals in biorefineries, Bio-based materials for biorefineries, Renewable energy technologies of biomass": they cover bioenergy but it's not just bioenergy."
I agree with you that the word biomass can be used in other contexts than energy, but pleace notice that most of the words mentioned here belong to the energy context. Anyway, this example is just from one single journal.
– "Science Direct's page on "biomass" [7] starts with "Biomass (B) is a measurement of how much living tissue mass for a population is present at one instant in time (or averaged over several periods of time), and its units are mass (or energy) per unit area (e.g., g/m2).""
1.) This particular page consists of short abstracts from 10 scientific articles about biomass published in ecological or agricultural journals only. Still, only 3 of these articles is about the weight aspect, the rest is about energy.
2.) At ScienceDirect the search result for "biomass" presents you with 72 relevant journals or books for information about this subject. [8] None of them deals with the weight/ecology aspect however, a few deals with bioproducts but the vast majority deals with energy. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
And I just discovered that a very similar discussion took place on the talk page of bioenergy last year, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bioenergy#Merge_proposal. The proposal by User:Femke at the time was: "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)." The merger took place (in Feb 2022) but the name stayed as "biomass". I see it was also user The Perennial Hugger who opposed the name change there, right? Question to User:Femke: would you still support a name change to "bioenergy" for this article or have you changed your mind in the meantime? Pinging also User:Clayoquot due to their knowledge on sustainable energy topics. EMsmile (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Given that this article is about the use of biomass and biomass-derived products for energy, I'd slightly prefer "Bioenergy" as the title. In the literature on energy, "biomass" is sometimes used to mean solid, relatively unrefined stuff. You would not generally call ethanol a form of biomass. When people say "biomass stove" they mean a stove that burns wood or cow dung or pellets, not a stove that burns biogas. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The September 2020 version of this article had Biomass is plant or animal material used for energy production (electricity or heat), or in various industrial processes as raw substance for a range of products as a first sentence, which seems more complete than the current first sentence, Biomass is plant-based material used as fuel to produce heat or electricity. The 2020 version of the article was also significantly shorter: 1,693 words of readable prose according to DYKCheck v. 17,511 words in the current version. Levivich (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that 2020 version of the article was before the content of the former "bioenergy" article was merged into it in Feb 2022 in this edit here. It was a bold move and perhaps the mop-up operation afterwards was overlooked. I'm not sure. EMsmile (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

IPCC definitions for biomass and bioenergy

It might also help us to consider the definitions that the IPCC AR 6 WG III report uses (Annex VII). "Biomass = Organic material excluding the material that is fossilized or embedded in geological formations. Biomass may refer to the mass of organic matter in a specific area." Bioenergy is strangely not defined there on its own but like this: "Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (BECCS) = Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology applied to a bioenergy facility". The IPCC AR 6 WG III report itself talks of bioelectricity which confuses me a bit (we don't have a Wikipedia article for that in that meaning, see bioelectricity). See for example the graph with the mitigation options in the summary for policy makers on page SPM-50. They have there bioelectricity just below solar power and wind power. I guess that is electricity generated from biomass. It's all a bit confusing. We need good clear Wikipedia articles for this... EMsmile (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean, isn't "bio____" just "_____" from/for biomass? Bioplastic, biomaterials, bioproduct, biorefinery, biofuel, bioenergy, etc. "Biomass thing" == "Biothing". Levivich (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes yes but sometimes "bio" is just that undefined adjective that you can stick in front of a noun, just like "eco", and roughly meaning "green" or "environmentally friendly" (and not related to biomass). Like "bio chicken" is colloquially used for "organic chicken" so here bio is not inferring "biomass". Sometimes "bio" refers to "biological, like "biowarfare" for biological warfare. So I would say "it's complicated"... EMsmile (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Good point, I guess it's really more that "____ from biomass" = "bio____", not necessarily the other way around. Levivich (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
If you look at the other hits for "biomass" in this document, you will see this word explicitely used in an energy context. I think IPCC's very short definition here is good however, biomass is really organic material (some of it can of course be combusted, as the rest of the document show), and the word may also refer to weight. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Reorganization

I appreciate the urge to "fix" the current meaning ambiguity concerning the words biomass, biofuel and bioenergy. However, the pros and cons of language clarification vs language use in its current form is an endless discussion. I think it will be more fruitful if we discuss the practicality of the issue: If we are to reorganize, how would you proceed? The most important thing here should be the reorganization's potential for increased understanding.

1. Make a disambiguation page for Biomass, with links to relevant articles below.

2. Rename the Biomass page to Bioenergy. I'm somewhat against this, because the current article actually contains a substantial amount of content on different biomass substances, and because these substances are the foundation for bioenergy. (There is also the fact that the word biomass is more commonly used for bioenergy than the word bioenergy itself, but let's not get into the language philosophy discussion.)

3. Split the current Biomass article into several articles. As it is now, the biomass article is about different types of biomass substances suited for energy conversion, their energy potential, different conversion routes, and consequences for the climate/environment. To include content on all these subjects in one article makes a lot of sense to me, because energy/climate is maybe the most important topic of our time. If we for instance are to split content about biomass as a substance vs the energy produced from this substance, each article will miss important parts, which will lead to poorer understanding of the issue, and also cause duplication of content down the line (when people add in the related but currently missing content.) As it were, this was the reason the bioenergy and biomass article was merged in the first place. The biofuel article currently focuses on liquid and gasueous fuels. In other words, this article is also based on the premise that "a word means whatever people in general think it means", even if this use overlaps with other uses and therefore adds to meaning confusion. This is how language generally works in real life, but as I said let's not get into that ;-) The Perennial Hugger (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be:
  1. Move Biomass (ecology) to Biomass - this would be the article about the substance, biomass, "the mass of living biological organisms in a given area or ecosystem at a given time." This article should then be expanded with a new section about uses or applications, which would summarize and link to articles like bioenergy, biofuel, and bioproducts.
  2. Move Biomass to Bioenergy and split it into multiple sub-articles. "Biofuel" is already one such sub-article. "Environmental impacts of bioenergy" might be another.
Biomass is the substance. Bioproducts, bioenergy, biofuel, etc., are the uses of the substance. The article about the substance is the natural parent article for all sub-articles about the uses of the substance. This is the same as it is with "Oil", which is the parent article to "Petroleum" and "Fuel oil" and "cooking oil". If you google "oil", most of the results are about petroleum (crude oil), but that doesn't mean we make the article title "Oil" into an article about petroleum. Oil is the substance; petroleum is a type of oil; fuel oil is an application of petroleum. It's the same with biomass, "woody biomass", and bioenergy, in my view. Levivich (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I like your proposal, Levivich. I think this would work. It's also in-line/similar with earlier proposals made over the years. I am wondering if perhaps biomass energy is the better term than bioenergy but don't feel strongly about it. Google hits are 10 times more for bioenergy than for biomass energy so I guess it's the more common term for it. EMsmile (talk)
It is always somewhat tempting to put "everything" into the one article (which is what The Perennial Hugger talked about above). But I think this is not how Wikipedia really works. It's a web of smaller articles that all fit together like a giant puzzle or a web of information. We have to trust people that when the article branches off to the sub-article, the readers who are interested in that sub-topic will follow the link. A short summary can always remain which then points people to the sub-article. Have a look at climate change where the editors have done that extremely well and managed to keep the entire climate change article to just 51 kB. Biomass is currently 110 kB - about double the length than it should be. EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia pageview statistics indicate that the majority of readers want to read about the climate and energy implications of biomass (the portion of existing biomass substance that is suited for fuel use, described in the current Biomass article) and not about the weight of all biomass that exists (all living substance on the planet, described in the current Biomass (ecology) article). We know the readers want this because even though the Biomass article links directly to the Biomass (ecology) article in its header, and even though the Biomass (ecology) article appears in the drop-down menu on the front page of Wikipedia when you search for biomass, the Biomass (ecology) article only has ~20% of the pageviews the Biomass article has. I think this is not surprising at all, given the attention renewable energy has at the moment.
Directing all searches for "biomass" to the current Biomass (ecology) page would therefore confuse and slow down the majority of visitors. So this is not a practical solution.
The current solution, with a link to the article about weight at the top of the article about fuel-suited biomass substance (and its energy potential plus environmental consequences) is practical because the majority of readers immediately lands where they want. Of course, the minority that actually wanted information about biomass weight will likewise be confused and slowed down, but it is better that this happens to them than the majority.
But what about the overlapping meanings of the words biofuel, biomass, biogas and bioenergy? What are the options here? If we accept the premise that Wikipedia articles should teach people how to speak, rather than simply conform to the way people actually speak, and also if we accept the premise that the correct way to speak about biomass/biogas/biofuel/bioenergy is to split logically separate content into separate pages, we could for instance divide this content between 1.) substance, 2.) application and 3.) consequences for the climate/environment:
1.) Substance:
– Information about biomass weight in one article.
– Information about substances used for bioproducts in one article.
– Information about substances suited for fuel use in one article. This implies that most of the current Biofuel and Biogas articles would be merged with the content in the current Biomass article that focuses on suitable substances for solid fuels. Alternatively, these could be three different articles, with all of them only giving information about the different substances. (Liquids and gases are scientificallly speaking also mass, i.e. substance, even though most people don't talk that way, but of course the average reader's way of speaking should be ignored here.)
2.) Application:
– Information about the practical utility of bioproducts in one article.
– Information about the energy potential in solid, liquid and gaseuous biofuels in one article, or possibly in three different articles.
3.) Climate/Environment:
– Information about consequences of bioproducts use for the climate and for the environment in one article.
– Information about consequences of solid, liquid and gaseous biofuel use for the climate and for the environment in one article, or three articles.
I'm unsure where it is best to direct searches for "biomass", "biofuel" and "bioenergy". On the one hand, I think it is likely that most readers are here to find information about consequences for the climate/environment, as this question sits at the top of the political agenda. So if user friendliness is important, all those searches should be directed to the climate/environment article. I prefer this solution. On the other hand, one could also argue that we should accept the established meanings of those words, and send these searches to the energy article. Further, one could also argue that it is the substance that is the foundation for all, so the searches should be directed to the substance article. (In this case, the information about substances that can be used to make solid biofuels, liquid biofuels and biogas must be merged into one article.)
If we are to separate substance, application and consequence, we have to find support for this idea at the other relevant talk pages. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm slowly coming out of vacation mode and hope to comment this week. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that, for instance, "biomass as fuel use" be in one article and that "consequences of biomass fuel use for climate/environment" be in a separate article, with minimal overlap between them. This is not how Wikipedia organizes content. The article on biomass-as-fuel should cover all aspects of the topic, including consequences for climate/environment. We could also have a separate article that goes into more detail on the environmental impact of using biomass as fuel, but the main article on the topic of biomass-as-fuel needs to summarize its environmental issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Summarizing discussions-to-date on article title and merging

I'm going to make an involved, informal close of the discussions on this issue as it feels like things are ripe for closure. If anyone disagrees, feel free to request a second opinion at WP:Closure requests.

Based on this 2020 discussion on Talk:Bioenergy and the comments above, I believe there is a wp:rough consensus on the following:

  1. There should be one article, Bioenergy, that covers all aspects of all types of bioenergy (solid, liquid, and gas), including environment/climate aspects.
  2. There should be a disambiguation page for the many meanings of "Biomass". I have drafted one at Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass. Edits there are welcome.
  3. It is very likely that a reader typing "Biomass" into the search bar wants to see a page about energy.
  4. If the reader types "Biomass" into the search bar, we don't know if they want to read about bioenergy in general or solid fuel bioenergy in particular. Therefore, the term "Biomass" should go to the disambiguation page. Consensus was less clear on this point than on the other points above. An alternative proposal, for which there was some support but not much discussion, was for "Biomass" to redirect to Bioenergy with a hatnote pointing to Biomass (disambiguation). There may be appetite for further discussion of this proposal.

To implement this consensus, I plan to:

I understand that a lot of work has been done on the Biomass page which should perhaps be copied into the Bioenergy page. Any editor is free to do this, however I have concerns and suggestions regarding the recently-added text that I will bring up in another section.

Courtesy ping to all those who have commented so far: @Femke, Chidgk1, Ita140188, EMsmile, 80.100.109.72, The Perennial Hugger, and Levivich:.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the 2020 discussion should be summarized together with the 2022 discussion as if they are one discussion. The 2020 discussion isn't really helpful to determine current consensus. I'm not sure I see any consensus in the 2022 discussion. Levivich (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding consensus: The close page seem to prefer that closure should be performed by non-involved editors/administrators. Also the wp:rough consensus page states that closure can only be performed by an non-involved administrator/editor, but I'm unsure of how authoritative that page is. Clayoquot (admiringly) admitted he/she is in fact involved.
I agree with Levivich that there is no consensus yet.
Regarding suggestion 1 (merge everything into a new Bioenergy page): 1.) I'm not in principle opposed to this but it requires a lot of work. 2.) The public clearly prefer the Biomass page over the Bioenergy page anyway. See previous discussion about this. Also, in January one year ago (just before Bioenergy visitors were automatically sent to the Biomass page), the Biomass page had 26000 pageviews, while the Bioenergy page only had 3500 pageviews. The public simply seem to prefer the term biomass over bioenergy when talking about these issues. So why send them to the Bioenergy page? To me, that simply doesn't make sense.
Regarding suggestion 2 (disambiguation page): Since the vast majority of readers searching for biomass and bioenergy seem to prefer the Biomass page, giving them a disambiguation page instead will simply slow them down, as they figure out which link to click. It seems more efficient to offer these links at the top of the current Biomass page, as only a small minority then have to go through extra steps. However these links could be presented in a more clear fashion.
Regarding suggestion 3 (the readers want to see content about energy): I agree, especially if climate consequences are intergrated into the same article.
Regarding suggestion 4 (disambiguation page): The current Biomass page already contains discussions about both topics; both solid fuel and the energy from it, and questions about bioenergy more generally. So it seems logical to send readers with those interests to the Biomass page. Also, as argued above; most people seem to want the Biomass page anyway, so why burden them with an extra step? The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I've struck the part in which I called my summary a "close". There is nothing wrong with a participant in a discussion summarizing things, but using the term "close" seems to have been distracting. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Clayoquot. I agree with your approach. As you're a very experienced editor in this area (both as a Wikipedia editor and also as a content expert on sustainable energy), I would be happy for you to take the lead and make those bold changes. I do feel that the discussion had reached a form of consensus (or maybe a stale mate). I feel that we were going round and round in circles because The Perennial Hugger is consistently arguing against changing the status quo (as far as I can see). I feel we might have to agree to disagree with each other on that one. I think you (The Perennial Hugger) need to understand that this page is too huge and complex as it currently stands. You wrote above above that you think "everything" ought to be in the same article: the material (biomass in the sense of mass) and its uses for energy. I think this is not how Wikipedia works in general. For comparison: I once argued that "sewage" and "sewage treatment" should be treated as one article but was convinced otherwise and we now have sewage and sewage treatment which do work quite well as two separate (but well integrated) articles. Same with wastewater and wastewater treatment. You could even argue (according to your logic) that "climate" needs to be fully explained in climate change. Instead we have climate and climate change as two separate articles. Therefore, I feel quite strongly that we ought to separate out "biomass" (the material) from "energy from biomass" (which we call, I guess, bioenergy. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the root problem is this edit which you made on 22 February where you redirected bioenergy to biomass. The proposal that User:Femke had made here in December 2020 was different to what you then implemented: "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." EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
EMsmile, please note that Clayoquot actually does not agree with your suggestion to split the content into separate topics. Clayoquot wrote (see above): "If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that, for instance, "biomass as fuel use" be in one article and that "consequences of biomass fuel use for climate/environment" be in a separate article, with minimal overlap between them. This is not how Wikipedia organizes content. The article on biomass-as-fuel should cover all aspects of the topic, including consequences for climate/environment."
Regarding the earlier merge proposal by Femke, there was no consensus achieved, and no one opposed to my later suggestion to instead redirect the page to Biomass, on the grounds that most readers preferred the Biomass page anyway.
I don't really see the harm in a long article as long as the content is relevant and of high quality. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Clayoquot does agree with my suggestion: the points 1 and 2 by them are exactly what I would also favour. One article about energy, another about the material (and/or a disambiguation page). That other quote that you copied was referring to a different discussion.
I find it problematic that you still don't see the problem with an overly long article. Myself and others have given explanations above why the length is detrimental. I could repeat that but it probably wouldn't change your mind. I can just say, do take a look at the article climate change mitigation which was recently culled & condensed and is a lot better now. See also WP:TOOBIG. Current article size is 107 kB. The guideline says: "if over 100 kB: Almost certainly should be divided". EMsmile (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrator input

I was under the impression that Wikipedia administrators had been contacted in order for them to evaluate our discussion above. But nothing has happened yet, and VQuakr has already started to delete large sections of the article (specifically the references section). Clayoquot and VQuakr, it was you who noticed the administrators, please explain in clear language the process forward (sorry for the newbie question). I will respect the administrators descision, but I basically feel just as entitled as you guys to fight for my view if we hear nothing from them. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Perennial Hugger: administrators are janitors, albeit respected ones. They carry lots of keys but don't run the place. I don't think any pages need to be deleted or anyone needs to be blocked; those are the sorts of things admins are needed for. What specific action(s) are you hoping to have performed by one? VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
VQuakr, you suggested to open a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which I agreed to do, but nothing has happened yet. Clayoquot, you issued discretionary sanctions notifications for climate change and fringe theories on my talk page. I understood both actions as a way to ask for input from Wikipedia administrators of some sort, which seemed like a helpful move to me (a competent outside look at the situation, what's not to like.) I think our situation is basically a disagreement of the form vs content type. Most of you argue that the article simply has the wrong form; it is too long, too essay like and too complicated, and VQuakr also seem to think that many of the references are unnecessary. My focus has always been the content; maximum information value. I have felt rather free regarding form, as one of Wikipedia's pillars is that there is no firm rules. So I was hoping an administrator could have a look at the article and said something to the effect that in this particular case, a different form is actually needed even though it mean reduced information value, I'm sorry but we have to make this content as simple to read as possible. Or the opposite, that keeping the existing information value was more important than changing its form (dumbing it down), possibly because it is such a complex and hot topic. Sadly, if it is true that no administrators are going to do something like that, I see no end to our conflict. I really believe we should prioritize high information value over easy to read material. That is, the lead should be easy to read, the main article should be thorough, and the references section should be collapsed and really large, really well developed, with lots of available information paths for the most interested readers.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions notifications are explicitly not a call for administrator attention. They are informational. I note that you already have received administrator feedback on your editing style at least twice, here and here, feedback that you argued with and subsequently deleted, which makes me wonder whether more feedback from an admin really would make any difference. Practically speaking, we already have clear consensus for cleanup from the various other editors that have weighed in here, and frankly any 3rd party editor is going to immediately see a need for cleanup as well. This isn't a border case so much as a WP:SNOW situation.
Yes, the guidelines at the manual of style are not hard rules (pillar 5), but understanding them is important to writing good articles (particularly if you want to generate substantial contributions less likely to be heavily edited by others later on). MOS:QUOTE, for example, implores us to use quotes sparingly. The same feedback those two admins gave you. Meanwhile pillar 1 reminds us that this is an encyclopedia (that is, a summary), and pillar 3 reminds us that our contributions will be "mercilessly edited" by others. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Personally I am not optimistic that dispute resolution will be useful here, because massive changes are such an obvious conclusion in this case. But I am absolutely willing to participate if others think it would be helpful. @Clayoquot, EMsmile, Dtetta, and Levivich: what are your thoughts here? Can you indicate if you are willing to participate in DR/mediation activities? VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm responding here in my capacity as an experienced editor, not as an admin (I'm WP:involved in the topic matter, and admins are janitors who do not decide on article content). A clear consensus against the changes by TPH is evident from this discussion. On Wikipedia, we decide article content by WP:consensus, and dispute resolution is not that useful when there is a clear consensus. I would recommend TPH to WP:listen to fellow editors and drop the stick.
I very much agree with the current consensus: most readers do not spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and needs to be able to access information fast. Furthermore, most readers will not have sufficient background knowledge to read this article. I think WP:SCIRS summarises best how your editing style needs to change, TPH: Cite reviews, don't write them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
In the beginning, I did not know about which sources it was ok and not ok to copy from, but of course followed the advice from the admins when I heard from them. I felt embarrased about my mistake so deleted their response afterwards, sorry for that. As I understood it, their critique was centered on copyright, while the critique on quotes was that it was simply not necessary to use them. As you probably have grasped by now I personally feel that lengthy quotes are a wonderful tool when they just sit there quietly in the background, so I continued to use them. Thanks to the MOS:QUOTE link however, I understand now that only brief quotations are in fact acceptable. I would prefer Wikipedia to be more in line with my personal taste, but I'm not going to oppose such clear guidance. I also agree that in practice, there is agreement here that the page needs to be trimmed and easier to read, so I will now step back. Go ahead and re-organize all the relevant pages in the bio-space on Wikipedia. I will come back later with info I feel is missing, but write in a less dense style and only with brief quotations. Thanks for your later comments, which I feel have been more constructive than the earlier ones. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to all involved so far and to The Perennial Hugger for listening (WP:listen). I think we can now move forward and rework bioenergy and biomass, and end up with two great new articles that will greatly benefit all Wikipedia readers! Looking forward to it. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
What EMSmile said :) Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Too much detail on carbon accounting aspects?

Just reading over the section on climate impacts, it seems overly detailed to me and not really written in an encyclopedic summary style. More like an essay or a research paper. Its structure is also perhaps overly detailed and thus not following WP:DUE? I'm not sure. Note we have an article on carbon accounting. Wondering whether some of the content should rather be moved from here to there. Pinging User:Dtetta for comment as they have recently worked on the carbon accounting article. This is the current structure as per the table of content: 

3 Climate impact
3.1 Carbon accounting principles
3.2 Carbon accounting system boundaries
3.2.1 Temporal system boundaries
3.2.2 Spatial system boundaries
3.2.3 Efficiency-related system boundaries
3.2.4 Economic system boundaries
3.2.5 System boundary impacts
3.3 Climate impacts expressed as varying with time
3.3.1 Short carbon payback/parity times for forest residues
3.3.2 Long carbon payback/parity times for forest residues
3.3.3 Short carbon payback/parity times for stemwood
3.3.4 Long carbon payback/parity times for stemwood
3.4 Climate impacts expressed as static numbers
3.4.1 Static emission estimates for a number of bioenergy pathways
3.4.2 Static emission estimates for wood pellets
3.4.3 Static emission estimates for short rotation energy crops
3.5 Climate impacts from albedo and evapotranspiration

EMsmile (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

see below The Perennial Hugger (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The carbon accounting system boundaries chapter is important because it provides the reader with essential knowledge on how to assess various climate friendliness claims (which depend to a very large degree on various methodological choices made by the scientist). (Wikipedia's carbon accounting page does not provide anything of interest here, as it only concerns climate accounting at the policy level.)
However, maybe most readers still want to go straight to these claims, and wading through the System boundaries chapter can be challenging (as EMsmile argue). We could however collapse this chapter. In that way, the information is available for the most curious minds at its most logical place in the article, and at the same time possibly most readers can go straight to the results of the various climate accounting calculations. This will significantly shorten the article. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No this needs removal not collapsing. It doesn't belong in this article; we have Wikilinks for a reason. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@EMsmile: yes the section you mention is both way too long and too essay like. It needs a complete rewrite with intense pruning. Overall readable prose size is 107kB which is in "almost certainly needs to be divided territory per WP:TOOBIG but in this case editing is needed not a split. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You just went ahead and deleted the content on carbon accounting? Please understand that this discussion provides the reader with essential knowledge on how to assess various climate friendliness claims (which depend to a very large degree on various methodological choices made by the scientist). It belongs on the Biomass page, since the Biomass page discusses the climate consequences of using biomass as a fuel. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
We write in summary style. The subject of this article is biomass, not carbon accounting. Hence the "main" tag. This isn't information that is going to survive the needed rewrite of the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The system boundaries chapter is already in summary style. I think you would appreciate this if you read it more thoroughly.
You see, a particular challenge with carbon accounting for biomass is that scientists come to very different results simply as a consequence of different methodological choices. EU's Joint Research Centre for instance write that the results basically depends on "modelling approaches and the assumptions about hypothetical futures", and that researchers "come to equally valid, but opposite answers depending on assumptions chosen." They also write that "Wide variation in published estimates of payback time for forest bioenergy systems reflects both inherent differences between these systems and different methodology choices [...]. Critical methodology decisions include the definition of spatial and temporal system boundaries [...] and reference (counterfactual) scenarios [...]. Misleading conclusions on the climate effects of forest bioenergy can be produced by studies that focus on emissions at the point of combustion, or consider only carbon balances of individual forest stands, or emphasize short-term mitigation contributions over long-term benefits, or disregard system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy." A strong statement from the scientists that are most in the know!
There is more on this problem in the subchapter "System boundary impacts". To summarize, the point of the system boundaries chapter, and content about carbon accounting in general, is to give the reader tools to understand particular climate-related claims related to biomass use. Since the climate context is essential to the Biomass page, this information is very much on point. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The system boundaries chapter is already in summary style. funny. I think you would appreciate this if you read it more thoroughly. Also funny.
No, this isn't how we handle related subjects. We link to the relevant article. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that connection EMsmile. From a quick review, IMO a shortened version of this text does belong in the article, but in it’s current form it seems overly detailed. I would suggest that the Carbon accounting article is not a “Main article” for this particular text. If anything, the Project accounting subsection of that article would be more relevant in a “See also” kind of context. The Perennial hugger’s assessment makes sense to me in that the carbon accounting article as a whole is not very relevant to this discussion. Here you’re talking about one specific aspect/methodology within project accounting, which itself is one specific aspect of the general carbon accounting topic. So I don’t think it would make sense to move parts of this discussion to that article; doing so would over-emphasize this specific aspect in relationship to the other aspects of carbon accounting, and present WP:DUE issues there. I would suggest that you all think about simplifying/summarizing, look at some of the references and standards in the Carbon accounting/project accounting subsection, and try to ground this part of the biomass article a little more on those standards and methods. Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Project standard discusses biomass, and VERRA has a Methodology for Fuel Switch to Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications. Those might be a couple of good references. I will also look for ways to mention biomass accounting methods within the Project accounting subsection of the Carbon accounting article. Hope that helps. Dtetta (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO the entire section on "Climate impact" AND the section on "Environmental impact" AND the section on "The forest biomass debate" should be deleted and replaced by entirely new content derived from high-quality secondary sources. The current sections are not only too long and repetitive but more importantly, they are impenetrable and promote fringe points of view, such as the promotion of Miscanthus which is mentioned 52 times. Here's what the IPCC's latest report says on the climate impact of biofuels:

"The use of bioenergy can lead to either increased or reduced emissions, depending on the scale of deployment, conversion technology, fuel displaced, and how, and where, the biomass is produced (high confidence). {3.4}" (AR6 Mitigation of Climate Change Technical Summary p. 85)[9]

This, despite coming from a source that is rather notorious for being written in a technical style, is a heck of a lot easier to understand than the current mumbo jumbo, isn't it? The IEA and the US government have excellent source material on bioenergy that have Wikipedia-compatible licensing, i.e. we can copy from them with attribution:

The IPCC's quote indicates that "conversion technology" and "fuel displaced" are important factors in assessing the climate impact of bioenergy. Climate impact is not just about how you grow stuff; it's about what kind of fuel you can produce from it and how you convert it into that fuel. After (or before) we clean these sections up I expect we'll find that they belong in the Bioenergy article.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

– Regarding deletion of large sections and the introduction on new content based on secondary sources: The article already contain much content from secondary sources, including from the "high-quality" sources you suggest above (the EIA and the IEA.) Also, what is wrong with using primary sources?
– Regarding so-called fringe points of view: The miscanthus content was included in the biomass article because miscanthus is percieved as an "advanced" or "second-generation" type of feedstock. There is a growing trend towards the use of such feedstocks (short-rotation coppices being another) both among scientists and at the government level. For instance in the UK, the goverment wants to dramatically increase the growing and use of miscanthus for energy production since it has a much better environmental footprint than the more commonly used feedstocks. You can read about their descision here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1031057/biomass-policy-statement.pdf
– Regarding the current text as being "mumbo jumbo": Maybe we should let the readers decide this, in a poll of some sort? I see the text as clear and to the point. It goes straight to the real core of the issues, and provide the readers with the most common arguments on both sides of the debate. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The current text is far from being clear. The statement by User:Clayoquot of calling it "mumbo jumbo" actually hits the nail on the head (even if it's super painful for the editor(s) who wrote it). I am assuming that most of it was written by you, User:The Perennial Hugger (as per this stats page and this one)?
You asked about primary sources. This is explained here WP:SCIRS. I find it's explained particularly well by Wikiproject Medicine, see WP:MEDRS. Primary sources can on occasions be used but they are certainly not the "gold standard" for Wikipedia articles. Like I said above, we are not writing a PhD thesis here, where primary sources might be the preferred type of source.
I see a bit of an WP:Editwar was going on on 4 January between User:VQuakr and User:The Perennial Hugger. That's no good. Let's try not to do that. But is it possible that you User:The Perennial Hugger have a bit of ownership issues with this article (WP:OWN)? Would you be willing to rethink your approach and to take advice from more experienced editors, e.g. Clayuqot, VQuakr and Levivich (and possibly myself)? I am sure you mean well and you have a lot to contribute. It can be very frustrating when one's "baby" gets criticised. But rest assured that us other Wikipedians have a lot of Wikipedia editing experience as well. And when we say for example that 101 kB is too long for this article or that the content digresses too far from the core topic or that it goes into too much detail or that using so many quotes in the "notes" section is distracting then please take a moment to consider if perhaps there could be some truth in this. - Do you agree that the status quo of this article is not good and needs changing? - If wonder if one solution might be to move some of that overly detailed content about carbon accounting to a new sub-sub-article. So that it's not all deleted but still available somewhere. Not sure if that would be a workable solution. EMsmile (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding primary sources: Thanks for the links. I think this sentence sums it up: "In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources." I agree that content based on secondary sources from established and respected organizations like the IPCC, IEA, EIA, FAO, JRC are most optimal.
– Regarding ownership issues: Yes, I probably have some ownership issues. Over the years I have read literally hundreds of scientific articles about the promise and pitfalls of bioenergy and I have felt that sharing some of this info increased the "seriousness" or "professionality" of the article. So definitely a good thing. But it is also possible that all this reading could have influenced my writing style. I am honestly a little baffled that people find it hard to read, but I understand and respect that Wikipedia is based on a collective effort, so if everyone (that includes Administrators, which I understand has been notified) agree that it is too long or dense, I will not oppose their decision. In the case that the higher-ups actually decide that the article has to be split up or dramatically simplified/shortened, I will accept that of course but also think that there should be room for a new article more like the current one that allows for an in-depth discussion of the subject matter. That way, the especially interested type of readers will also be catered for. Given the complexity of the scientific discussion around biomass energy, and the relevance it has today, I predict that even a "complicated" article about this would generate a lot of interest. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@EMsmile, there is a useful tool called Who Wrote That? It's buggy on long articles but to the extent that it works, it confirms that The Perennial Hugger wrote the Climate Impact section. It also says that 95% of the entire article was written by The Perennial Hugger.
Regarding your suggestion to move some content to another article, I'd ask that this be done only by someone who has fully read and understood the content that they are moving, and who believes that it will improve the article that they're adding the content to. It should not be done just because we are too nice to firmly say no to something.
@The Perennial Hugger, the source you gave says We will establish the amount of land that could be used in the UK for perennial energy crop production and for short rotation forestry with miscanthus as an example of a perennial energy crop. It's a stretch to conclude from this that "the goverment wants to dramatically increase the growing and use of miscanthus for energy production" as you said. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Clayoquot Here is a more relevant and to the point quote: "Existing biomass support schemes [...] already support the use of perennial energy crops such as short rotation coppice and Miscanthus grown specifically for bioenergy purposes and as a material. However, only a small land area (~10,000 hectares) is cultivated with perennial energy crops in the UK at present, and this is mainly used for heat and electricity generation. Currently, there is little to no use of perennial energy crops for low carbon fuels supported under the RTFO due to a lack of commercial-scale processing capacities to convert these resources cost-efficiently into fuel. [...] The CCC's 6th Carbon Budget report highlighted the significant potential for perennial energy crops and SRF to contribute towards our carbon budget targets by increasing soil and biomass carbon stocks while also delivering other ecosystem benefits. In their balanced pathway, the CCC suggests that up to 708,000 hectares of land could be dedicated to energy crop production, which has led to an increased interest in the role of perennial energy crops and SRF as biomass feedstocks to deliver GHG savings in the land use and energy sectors."
So, the UK government's Climate Change Committee have concluded there is significant potential for increased use of perennial energy crops and therefore want to scale up production dramatically. Currently only 10000 hectares are used for perennials, but the CCC argue that up to 708000 hectares could be utilized for energy crop production. I think you have to face that calling the miscanthus content "fringe theory" was a blunder. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Clayoquot: It should not be done just because we are too nice to firmly say no to something. I think this hits the nail on the head. Being "nice" to the editor that generated all this text isn't kind when it results in them wasting what I'm guessing was rather a lot of time building an essay like this that is going to need to be mercilessly pared and edited. Maybe if that had been communicated more firmly up front it wouldn't have gone this overboard for so long. Then again they've ignored multiple editors telling them to stop so I can't feel too bad. I do agree that most of this content is headed to the bin not to another article. VQuakr (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@The Perennial Hugger: think that there should be room for a new article more like the current one that allows for an in-depth discussion of the subject matter. Sort of. This concept is discussed at WP:DETAIL. Biomass is a broad subject that exists at the intersection of ecology and renewable energy (probably with some other streets crossing as well). We would expect child articles like biodiesel to be more technically detailed than the parent. But all are articles are expected to be terse and succinct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of statistics or essays. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@The Perennial Hugger, the quote I gave that you consider less "relevant and to the point" than the quote you gave is the summary statement of the section containing the quote you gave. My quote and your quote are saying the same thing. And neither of them support your claim that "the goverment wants to dramatically increase the growing and use of miscanthus", because the UK's Climate Change Committee is not the government. It is an independent advisory body whose advice the government can take or ignore. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi User:Clayoquot, by the way thanks so much for the link to the useful tool called Who Wrote That?. I've installed it and it works. I've been missing such a tool for a while now so thanks for the tip!! EMsmile (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a quotes and comments section?

I don't understand the section "Quotes and comments" in the references section. I've never seen it done like this before. Do we really need it? Seems overly complex. Is that a left over from a very old version of the article? EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is there to provide additional information to interested readers. You basically hover with your mouse over the footnotes in the main text, and this additional content shows up. Since the article is long, the section is hidden by default, but you can open up the section if you will. I think it is a smart and efficient way to provide background information to the reader without cluttering up the main text. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen it done like this before in any other Wikipedia article. Can you point me to a good article (WP:FA or WP:GA) where it's done like this as well? It does not seem encyclopedic to me. We're not trying to write a PhD thesis here. But perhaps I'm wrong and loads of other articles do it like this as well. EMsmile (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Footnotes with background information (including quotes and comments) is common in Wikipedia articles.
In case you are questioning the collapse functionality: I don't think other pages' use or non-use of this feature is relevant for any particular page, as each page has its own challenges it has to deal with. Here, the collapse functionality is used to hide the most complex discussion from view and thereby make the article shorter.
The collapse functionality is used on approximately 51000 pages. You can see an overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template%3ACollapse%20top?hidelinks=1&hideimages=1 The Perennial Hugger (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Examples of FAs with notes sections would be Elizabeth I and Japan. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@MrOllie: Japan has two notes. Elizabeth I has a few more. The difference here is one of scale. The notes section here is comically massive. The difference between this article and those FAs is one of scale. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@EMsmile: yes, the comments section needs to be trimmed by two orders of magnitude. It's a complete joke as of RN. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is the size an issue when it is hidden by default? As I see it, it only adds to the value of the article. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Because an encyclopedia has value because it is curated. Excess information in an article has negative value. Collapsing it is no solution. VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
What is seen as exessive and what is seen as helpful/informative varies a lot, it depends on the readers' interest level and their mental capacities. Maybe we should start a poll, so people can vote? The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There's no need for a poll. Every other editor here sees the problem as obvious. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussion is continuing in this section: "Conversion of efn templates into sfn templates" EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on section forest biomass debate

I am going to try this method of work now: I'll copy here the text block that I plan to delete or drastically cull. If there is anything in here that needs to be salvaged it might be easier to do it this way. EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now finished the first round of cutting for the "forest biomass debate" section. I'll stop for today and see if others think this is a workable way of doing things? I could continue with "Climate impact" next (already I see a lot of overlap and repetition with text that was or is in the "forest biomass debate" section). EMsmile (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
culled content on forest biomass debate

Smokestack emissions from forest biomass compared to coal

So I've just cut out this text: 

++++

Some researchers (e.g. the research group Chatham House) therefore argue that "[...] the use of woody biomass for energy will release higher levels of emissions than coal [...]."[4] Likewise, the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences argues that for smaller scale utilities, with 32% conversion efficiency for coal, and 20-25% for biomass, coal emissions are 31% less than emissions from wood chips. The assumed moisture content for wood chips is 45%. Assumed moisture content for coal is not provided.[5]

Cowie et al. argue that stack emissions for biomass and coal is the same when biomass is co-fired with coal in large power plants, and that torrefied biomass has a higher conversion efficiency than low-rank coals.[a] Wood pellets combusted at Drax in the UK (the world's largest biomass power plant) have 7% moisture, and when combusted the plant has a higher conversion efficiency than what is average for coal plants in the UK (38.6 vs. 35.9%). Stack emissions were 2% higher than the UK average for coal in 2015.[b] When emissions from the wood pellet supply chain is included (the pellets are shipped to the UK from the USA), Drax claims that emissions are reduced by over 80%, compared to coal.[c]
Wood pellet mill in Germany.
The bioenergy consultant group FutureMetrics argue that wood pellets with 6% moisture content emits 22% less CO2 for the same amount of produced heat, compared to sub-bituminous coal with 15% moisture, when both fuels are combusted in facilities with the same conversion efficiency (here 37%).[d] Likewise, they state that "[...] dried wood at MC's [moisture content] below 20% have the same or less CO2 emission per MMBTU [million British thermal units] as most coal. Wood pellets at under 10% MC result in less CO2 emission than any coal under otherwise equal circumstances."[6] However, when raw wood chips are used instead (45% moisture content), this wood biomass emits 9% more CO2 than coal in general, for the same amount of produced heat.[6]

Sustainable forestry and forest protection

Also cut this text (sorry for the formatting, how can I force it to do line breaks better?): 

++++++ In the context of CO2 mitigation, the key measure regarding forest sustainability is the size of the forest carbon stock: "The core objective of all sustainable management programmes in production forests is to achieve a long-term balance between harvesting and regrowth. [...] [T]he practical effect of maintaining a balance between harvesting and regrowth is to keep long-term carbon stocks stable in managed forests."[7] The IPCC defines sustainable forestry in a similar manner, while including ecological, economic and social criteria.[e]

Globally, the forest carbon stock has decreased 0.9% and tree cover 4.2% between 1990 and 2020, according to FAO.[8] 

++++++++

Some researchers seem to want more than "just" sustainably managed forests; they want to realize the forests full carbon storage potential. For instance the 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."[9] Further, they argue that "[...] it is the older, longer-rotation forests and protected old-growth forests that exhibit the highest carbon stocks."[10] 

+++++++

In Europe, 25% of all forests are protected,[11] including 89% of the primary/old-growth forests.[12] The new version of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), introduced in 2021, extended its sustainability criteria from liquid biofuel production to also include solid (and gaseous biofuels), which is more likely to be produced from forest biomass.[f] 

++++++++

The IPCC writes: "When vegetation matures or when vegetation and soil carbon reservoirs reach saturation, the annual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere declines towards zero, while carbon stocks can be maintained (high confidence). However, accumulated carbon in vegetation and soils is at risk from future loss (or sink reversal) triggered by disturbances such as flood, drought, fire, or pest outbreaks, or future poor management (high confidence)."[13] 

++++++++

EU's Joint Research Centre write that the measured effects of harvest and replanting on soil carbon is "[...] slight in the short term, with carbon decreases concentrated in the forest floor and near the soil surface and carbon increases occurring in the deep mineral soil layers."[14] The JRC also argues that "[w]hole-tree harvesting for biomass production has little long-term effect on soil carbon stocks if surface soil layers containing organic material (O horizon) are left on site, nutrients are managed, and the site is allowed to regenerate [...]."[14] The IPCC state that the current scientific basis is not sufficient to provide soil carbon emission factors.[g] 

++++++

When put to work, this carbon moves from the forest carbon pool into forest products and energy carriers, then via combustion into the atmosphere, and then back to the forest via photosynthesis. For each roundtrip, it displaces more and more of the fossil fuel carbon that is normally used in heat production, industry production and electricity production. After some roundtrips, the amount of displaced carbon far exceeds the amount of locked-away carbon: "The biomass produced cumulatively across subsequent rotations can far exceed the biomass produced in the no-bioenergy scenario, thus constituting ‘additional biomass', delivering cumulative net GHG savings that exceed the GHG cost of forest carbon stock reduction [...]."[15] Said differently: "If the forest is allowed to continue to grow, biomass energy will be replaced with fossil fuels and wood products will be replaced with alternate materials."[16] Miner argue that "in the long term, using sustainably produced forest biomass as a substitute for carbon-intensive products and fossil fuels provides greater permanent reductions in atmospheric CO2 than preservation does."[17] 

+++++++++

The IPCC argues that sustainable forest management "[...] aimed at providing timber, fibre, biomass and non-timber resources can provide long-term livelihood for communities, reduce the risk of forest conversion to non-forest uses (settlement, crops, etc.), and maintain land productivity, thus reducing the risks of land degradation [...]."[18] The connection between economic opportunities in forestry and increased forest size is emphasized by other researchers as well.[h][i] However, Cowie et al. argue that in some situations, "[...] such as high latitudes where forest productivity is very low, greater abatement may result from retaining and enhancing forest carbon stocks than harvesting forests for wood products including bioenergy, especially if the GHG savings from bioenergy use are small [...]."[15] They also argue that forests that produce income for private forest owners are unlikely to be protected. When forest products are in demand and forests therefore are managed for timber production, the most realistic no-bioenergy scenario is not forest protection but continued timber production without residues collection and utilization. In this case, the residues will instead decay on their own or be incinerated, which in both cases produce emissions without any fossil fuel displacement effect. The most realistic no-bioenergy scenarios in case of low demand for forest products is land use change to natural forests (with increased risk for wildfires), or clear-cutting to prepare for agriculture or urbanization.[j] 

+++++++

In 2020, the forested area covered 39.8% of EU's total land area.[19] Likewise, North America produced 29% of the worlds pellets in 2019, while forest carbon stock increased from 136.6 to 140 Gt in the same period. Carbon stock decreased from 94.3 to 80.9 Gt in Africa, 45.8 to 41.5 Gt in South and Southeast Asia combined, 33.4 to 33.1 Gt in Oceania,[k] 5 to 4.1 Gt in Central America, and from 161.8 to 144.8 Gt in South America. Wood pellet production in these areas combined was 13.2% in 2019.[l] However, Chatham House argues that "[f]orest carbon stock levels may stay the same or increase for reasons entirely unconnected with use for energy."[20]

EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sustainable forestry and forest protection

I also cut this text; if any of the content was to be kept it would have to be summarised; I am assuming that IPCC reports contain good summaries, so I left the para about the IPCC report finding in the article for now (but quote should be converted to own words): 

++++++++

Cowie et al. argue that "[...] a 10-year payback time as a criterion for identifying suitable mitigation options is inconsistent with the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, which requires that a balance between emission and removals is reached in the second half of this century [...]."[m] They also argue that emissions from bioenergy is fundamentally different from emissions from fossil fuels, since the former are circular and the latter linear.[n] Biomass is compatible with the current energy infrastructure, so it works today, while proposed alternatives with low emissions "[...] may be restricted by immature development, high cost or dependence on new infrastructure."[o]

Chatham House argues that there could be tipping points along the temperature scale where warming accelerates.[p] Cowie et al. argues that tipping points are an uncertainty, but a global tipping point seems unlikely "[...] if warming does not exceed 2°C [...]."[q] The IPCC argue that while there are "[...] arguments for the existence of regional tipping points, most notably in the Arctic [...]", there is "[...] no evidence for global-scale tipping points in any of the most comprehensive models evaluated to date in studies of climate evolution in the 21st century."[21]

An important presupposition for the "tree regrowth is too slow" argument is the view that carbon accounting should start when trees from particular, harvested forest stands are combusted, and not when the trees in those stands start to grow (see Temporal system boundaries, above.)[r] It is within this frame of thought it becomes possible to argue that the combustion event creates a carbon debt that has to be repaid through regrowth of the harvested stands.[s]

When instead assuming that carbon accounting should start when the trees start to grow, it becomes impossible to argue that the emitted carbon constitutes debt. FutureMetrics for instance argue that the harvested carbon is not a debt but "[...] a benefit that was earned by 30 years of management and growth [...]."[22] Likewise, Lamers & Junginger argue that owners of existing intensively managed, even-aged forests probably will consider the plantation establishment year as the logical start year for carbon accounting, and that harvesting redeems a carbon credit rather than creating a new debt. However, from a policy maker's perspective, [...] the main question is rather whether he/she should incentivize harvest for bioenergy or not."[23] In other words, "[...] what is important to climate policy is understanding the difference in future atmospheric GHG levels, with and without switching to woody biomass energy. Prior growth of the forest is irrelevant to the policy question [...]."[24] If this line of reasoning later is applied to new forest plantations planted on "empty" land areas as well (for instance agricultural or marginal lands), the onset of carbon accounting will shift from the planting event to the harvest event, for instance after the second rotation.

As mentioned in Spatial system boundaries above, some researchers limit their carbon accounting to particular forest stands, ignoring the carbon absorption that takes place in the rest of the forest.[t] Other researchers include the whole forest landscape when doing their carbon accounting. FutureMetrics for instance argues that the whole forest continually absorbs CO2 and therefore immediately compensates for the relatively small amounts of biomass that is combusted in biomass plants from day to day.[u] Likewise, IEA Bioenergy criticizes EASAC for ignoring the carbon absorption that is happening in the forest landscape, noting that there is no net loss of carbon if the annual harvest is smaller than the forest's annual growth.[v] EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Roundwood and resiidues

I also cut this text; if any of the content was to be kept it would have to be summarised: 

++++++++

Stemwood is a type of roundwood; according to the JRC's definition the stem of the tree is cut at a height of 15 cm above ground, and extends in a straight manner up to a point where the diameter of the stem should be minimum 9 cm. See footnote for full definitions of roundwood, stemwood, fuelwood, salvage loggings, pulpwood and sawnwood.[w] 

+++++++

Chatham House argue that it would be better if some of the biomass defined as roundwood (most notably stems) was not harvested and used for wood pellets, as this would increase the growing carbon stock in the forest.[25] They also argue that "[...] trees that would not qualify as high-quality sawtimber could nevertheless be used for pulp, panels or laminated products."[26] In other words, it would be better if this low-value biomass was used as raw material for other products than for wood pellets, since carbon is stored for a longer period of time in the former case. Chatham House also argues that all available sawmill residue is already being used for pellet production, so there is no room for expansion. For the bioenergy sector to significantly expand in the future, more of the harvested pulpwood must go to pellet mills.[25]

Cowie et al. argue that approximately 20% "[...] roundwood (also referred to as stemwood), such as small stems from forest thinning [...]" is used for wood pellets in the USA. However, the use of stemwood from short-rotation forests have short parity times, and in long-rotation forests, the stemwood used for wood pellets usually consists of by-products from sawnwood production (thinnings or irregular/bent/damaged stem sections from larger trees.) Sawnwood production provides over 90% of foresters income and is the main reason forestry exist.[x][y] Without a market for the low-quality stem sections or thinnings, they would have been left in the forest to decay, or been incinerated at roadside. Cowie et al. also argue that using thinnings for bioenergy strengthens the carbon displacement effect of harvested wood products, since the thinning practice help produce more sawnwood.[z]

Likewise, FutureMetrics argues that it makes no sense for foresters to sell sawlog-quality roundwood to pellet mills, since they get a lot more money for this part of the tree from sawmills. Foresters make 80-90% of their income from sawlog-quality roundwood and only 10-15% from pulpwood, defined as a.) the upper part of the stem that is too thin or too bent to be used for sawnwood production, plus branches, and b.) tree thinnings. This low-value biomass is mainly sold to pulp mills for paper production, but in some cases also to pellet mills for pellet production.[27] Pellets are typically made from sawmill residues in areas where there are sawmills, but also from pulpwood in areas without sawmills.[aa]

Short-term vs long-term climate benefits

I also cut this text; if any of the content was to be kept it would have to be summarised: 

+++++++++++++

The National Association of University Forest Resources Programs recommends a time horizon of 100 years in order to produce a realistic assessment of cumulative emissions.[ab] 

+++++++++++++

According to Cowie et al., "[...] the perceived attractiveness of specific forest bioenergy options is influenced by the priority given to near-term versus longer term climate objectives."[28]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Ricklefs, Robert E.; Miller, Gary Leon (2000). Ecology (4th ed.). Macmillan. p. 192. ISBN 9780716728290.
  2. ^ Ricklefs, Robert E.; Miller, Gary Leon (2000). Ecology (4th ed.). Macmillan. p. 197. ISBN 9780716728290.
  3. ^ a b Park, Chris C. (2001). The environment: principles and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 564. ISBN 9780415217705.
  4. ^ Chatham House 2017, p. 2.
  5. ^ Manomet 2010, p. 103-104.
  6. ^ a b FutureMetrics 2012, p. 2.
  7. ^ Miner 2010, p. 39–40.
  8. ^ FAO 2020, p. 16, 52.
  9. ^ EASAC 2017, p. 33.
  10. ^ EASAC 2017, p. 1.
  11. ^ EU Science Hub - European Commission 2021.
  12. ^ Sabatini et al. 2018, p. 1426.
  13. ^ IPCC 2019b, p. B.1.4.
  14. ^ a b JRC 2014, p. 49.
  15. ^ a b Cowie et al. 2021, p. 1217.
  16. ^ Schlamadinger & Marland 1996, p. 291.
  17. ^ Miner 2010, p. 39.
  18. ^ IPCC 2019a, p. 386.
  19. ^ Camia et al. 2021, pp. 32–33.
  20. ^ Chatham House 2017, p. 7.
  21. ^ IPCC 2013, p. 121.
  22. ^ FutureMetrics 2011a, p. 5.
  23. ^ Lamers & Junginger 2013, p. 374.
  24. ^ Gunn 2011.
  25. ^ a b Chatham House 2017, p. 19.
  26. ^ Chatham House 2017, pp. 19, 21–22.
  27. ^ FutureMetrics 2016, p. 5–9.
  28. ^ Cowie et al. 2021, p. 1222.

Culling from the section on environmental impacts

OK, I'll continue with some more culling today. This is what I have removed (Question: Should some of this text be moved to biofuel?): EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

culled content on environmental impacts

Surface power production densities

Removed content from this section: 

++++

The average human power consumption on ice-free land is 0.125 W/m2 (heat and electricity combined),[1] although rising to 20 W/m2 in urban and industrial areas.[2] 

++++++

When used for ethanol production, miscanthus plantations with a yield of 15 tonnes per hectare per year generate 0.40 W/m2.[3] Corn fields generate 0.26 W/m2 (yield 10 t/ha).[4] In Brazil sugarcane fields typically generate 0.41 W/m2.[4] Winter wheat (USA) generates 0.08 W/m2 and German wheat generates 0.30 W/m2.[5] When grown for jet fuel, soybean generates 0.06 W/m2, while palm oil generates 0.65 W/m2.[6] Jathropa grown on marginal land generate 0.20 W/m2.[6] When grown for biodiesel, rapeseed generate 0.12 W/m2 (EU average).[7] Liquid biofuel production require large energy inputs compared to solid biofuel production.[ac] When these inputs are compensated for (i.e. when used energy is subtracted from produced energy), power density drops further down: Rapeseed based biodiesel production in the Netherlands have the highest energy efficiency in the EU with an adjusted power density of 0.08 W/m2, while sugar beets based bioethanol produced in Spain have the lowest, at only 0.02 W/m2.[8]

Using solid biomass for energy purposes is more efficient than using liquids, as the whole plant can be 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, without compensating for energy input.[9] It has been estimated that large-scale plantations with pines, acacias, poplars and willows in temperate regions achieve yields of 5–15 dry tonnes per hectare per year, which means a surface power production density of 0.30–0.90 W/m2.[10] For similarly large plantations, with eucalyptus, acacia, leucaena, pinus and dalbergia in tropical and subtropical regions, yields are typically 20–25 t/ha, which means a surface power production density of 1.20–1.50 W/m2. This yield put these plantations' power densities in-between the densities of wind and hydro.[10] In Brazil, the average yield for eucalyptus is 21 t/ha, but in Africa, India and Southeast Asia, typical eucalyptus yields are below 10 t/ha.[11] 

++++++++

Oven dry biomass in general, including wood, miscanthus[12] and napier[13] grass, have a calorific content of roughly 18 GJ/t.[14] 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.[ad] As mentioned above, 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. 

++++++

In the case of old combustion facilities, 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 wasted energy unless the resulting steam can be harnessed for energy).[ae] 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).[af] Likewise, for wind, hydro and solar, power line transmission losses amounts to roughly 8% globally and should be accounted for.[ag] If biomass is to be utilized for electricity production rather than heat production, yields has 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%.[15] When simply comparing the surface power production densities of biofuel, wind, hydro and solar, without regard for cost, this effectively pushes both hydro and solar power out of reach of even the highest yielding plantations, power density wise.[ah] EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Biodiversity

Removed content from this section: 

++++++

Other measures include "[...] careful feedstock selection, as different feedstocks can have radically different environmental trade-offs. For example, US studies have demonstrated that 2nd generation feedstocks grown in unfertilized land could provide benefits to biodiversity when compared to monocultural annual crops such as maize and soy that make extensive use of agrochemicals."[16] Miscanthus and switchgrass are examples of such crops.[17] 

+++++++++

Since biodiversity has been defined by the EU as an important policy goal, EU's Joint Research Centre has examined ways to ensure that increased use of bioenergy does not negatively effect biodiversity in European forests.[ai] Only bioenergy pathways that provides additional bioenergy resources compared to the existing forestry practices were considered, namely 1.) increased use of logging residues, 2.) afforestation of unused land areas and 3.) conversion of natural forests to more productive forest plantations.[aj] The authors divided the results into four categories, depending on their potential for climate and biodiversity mitigation: 1.) Win-win scenarios (green quadrant in the chart to the right) have positive consequences for both the climate and for biodiversity, 2.) win-lose scenarios (yellow quadrant) are trade-off scenarios with positive consequences for the climate but negative consequences for biodiversity, 3.) lose-win scenarios (yellow quadrant) are trade-off scenarios with negative consequences for the climate but positive consequences for biodiversity, and 4.) lose-lose scenarios (red quadrant) have negative consequences for both the climate and for biodiversity (see chart on the right.)

Long term, increased bioenergy may have a positive impact on biodiversity because "[...] climate change in itself is a major driver of biodiversity loss." However, this is hard to quantify, so as a conservative measure, the authors chose to only recommend bioenergy pathways with consequences for biodiversity seen as positive in the short term.[ak] The same goes for climate effects; only bioenergy pathways with positive short-term consequences were recommended (short-term is defined as a period of 0–20 years, medium-term 30–50 years, and long-term over 50 years.) The alternative scenario for all bioenergy scenarios was a fossil fuel mix ("fossil sources"), i.e. not coal exclusively.[18] No market effects were considered, so the results are only seen as valid for small-scale bioenergy deployment.[al] 

+++++

Some of the negative consequences in the trade-off scenarios (yellow quadrants) can be minimized by implementing the RED II sustainability criteria, for instance no-go areas for biomass harvesting.[am] However, as the European forests age, the authors expect a moderate harvest level increase because of "forest age dynamics" and in order to avoid emissions caused by forest fires, pests and windstorms.[an] In general, scientists can describe the situation as they see it and provide policy options, but ultimately it should be up to the politicians to prioritize between climate and biodiversity mitigation in the trade-off scenarios because this prioritization is based on ethical value choices, not science.[ao] EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pollution

Removed content from this section: 

++++++

A study of the giant brown haze that periodically covers large areas in South Asia determined that two thirds of it had been principally produced by residential cooking and agricultural burning, and one third by fossil-fuel burning.[19] EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Smil 2015, p. 170.
  2. ^ Smil 2015, p. 2095 (kindle location).
  3. ^ Smil 2015, p. 91.
  4. ^ a b Smil 2015, p. 89.
  5. ^ Smil 2015, p. 228.
  6. ^ a b Smil 2015, p. 227.
  7. ^ Smil 2015, p. 90.
  8. ^ Smil 2015, p. 229.
  9. ^ Smil 2015, pp. 80, 89.
  10. ^ a b Smil 2015, p. 85.
  11. ^ Smil 2015, p. 86.
  12. ^ Schwarz 1993, p. 413.
  13. ^ Flores et al. 2012, p. 831.
  14. ^ Ghose 2011, p. 263.
  15. ^ van den Broek 1996, p. 271.
  16. ^ Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 168.
  17. ^ Gasparatos et al. 2017, p. 173.
  18. ^ Camia et al. 2021, pp. 108, 144.
  19. ^ Gustafsson et al. 2009, pp. 495–498.
EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Miscanthus

Miscanthus × giganteus is mentioned 26 times in the article at the moment. I think this is 25 times too many. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well not sure if it's 25 times too many... but I guess this will be resolved once we seriously start the trimming, condensing and moving exercise. One would assume that miscanthus is covered in detail at energy crop (?) EMsmile (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The emphasis on miscanthus is a symptom of deeper problems: The article is biased towards covering species that are suitable for producing fuel pellets and is biased against covering the species that are used to produce transport fuels today, such as corn and palm oil. It's also heavily biased towards the energy needs of Europe and North America. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Biomass (energy). The discussion has evolved into a content discussion from which we should see much work to be done by the participants involved. As dicussed, a DABCONCEPT page will take the place of the primary topic whilst the content of the related articles is being sorted out. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Biomass → Biomass (energy source) – Previous bold move was contested in 2019. There is no primary topic, and having this page here is confusing to those attempting to find Biomass (ecology). This page, Biomass should be a disambiguation page. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this proposed solution. Biomass (energy source) is the same thing as Biomass (ecology) is the same thing as "biomass". Biomass is a specific concept, it has a specific dictionary definition, it has a primary topic. Yes, it has multiple applications--the Fs: food, feed, fuel, fertilizer--but it's all biomass. I don't think we should have one article called "Biomass (energy source)" and another called "Biomass (ecology)". Those two articles should be titled "Bioenergy" (or "biofuel"--in fact, those two articles should probably be merged) and "Biomass", respectively. I don't think Biomass should be a disambiguation page. Rather, topics like bioenergy and bioproducts--which are applications of biomass--should simply be linked in the lead of Biomass where we explain various applications of biomass. I'm not sure this article needs to be moved at all, as opposed to the content being merged with bioenergy (and biofuel being merged in there, too), and the page Biomass (ecology) should then be moved to this title, Biomass. Compare blockchain and cryptocurrency: most people looking up blockchain might be looking for crypto, which is a specific application of blockchain, but we handle that by linking crypto in the lead of blockchain, not by making an article called "Blockchain (cryptocurrency)" which is about cryptocurrency and another article called "Blockchain (technology)" which is about the technology. There should be an article about the thing, and separate articles about the applications of the thing, and readers looking for information about specific applications should be guided there via links in the lead of the article about the thing itself (or via hatnotes). Levivich (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Levivich: in common usage, I think "biofuel" refers specifically to fluids, while biomass (from an energy perspective) refers to bulk solids that are combusted with relatively limited processing. That seems to be the separation as it currently exists in our articles now. We could merge this article, biomass with biomass (ecology) while either spinning out content to Biomass energy or merging with Biofuel? Spinning out to Biomass energy would make sense to me as an alternative, so I would say I support that option just as much as my proposed rename. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@VQuakr: I would say at the outset that both of these proposals, and Clayoquot's above, would be improvements to the status quo. So I don't oppose any of these proposals, but I'm not sure any of them are the ideal organization. What do you think of this topic/subtopic tree:
  1. Biomass - the total mass of living organisms
    1. Species biomass - the biomass of particular species
    2. Community biomass - the biomass of a particular community or habitat
    3. Bioproduct - products from biomass
      1. Bioenergy - bioproducts used for energy
        1. Biofuel - liquid bioenergy
          1. Biodiesel
        2. Biogas - gas bioenergy
        3. Pellet fuel - solid bioenergy
      2. Biochemical - chemicals from biomass
        1. Biopharmaceutical
      3. Biomaterial - materials from biomass
        1. Bioplastic
        2. Biochar
        3. Biofiber (not to be confused with BioFibre, a brand name)
Anyway, not a complete outline, but I think you get the idea: Biofuel is one type of Bioenergy, which is one type of Bioproduct, which is a product made from Biomass... and we name the articles accordingly? No disambiguation pages, and no parenthetical disambiguation, required. Levivich (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed some plurals per WP:SINGULAR. Please let me know if you disagree and I will self-rv; some of these could be interpreted as classes of objects. Overall this seems like a logical tree. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't mind at all, thank you! Levivich (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with Biomass being either a disambiguation page (see my draft here)or a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article as Levivich proposes. W.r.t the specific idea of a topic/subtopic tree, that tree could get big and tangled pretty fast (biomass growing fast, ha ha).
W.r.t. the idea of a Biomass (energy source) page, "biomass" is used in the context of energy with at least two meanings. It can mean a primary energy source, i.e. a feedstock that gets processed into more refined forms of bioenergy including liquids and gases. It can also mean a secondary energy source, i.e. solid (not liquid or gas) fuel that people burn for heat and light. One of the problems with the current Biomass article is that it confuses primary and secondary energy. E.g. the lead gives the impression that people commonly process wood into a fuel for transport; this just isn't done (it can be done in a lab but it's not economical at scale).
The issues around primary biomass energy and secondary biomass energy are quite different, especially when it comes to health (secondary biomass energy kills millions of people every year and primary biomass energy does not), so ideally they would be covered in separate articles, e.g. Biomass (primary energy resource) and Biomass (solid fuel). Overall I support the idea of moving this article even if it's not split, as it would be an improvement over the status quo. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Trying to move forward: I think we should start off with creating "biomass" as a disambiguation page (see draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biomass/Proposed_disambiguation_page_for_Biomass). This could later be "upgraded" into a broad topic article if we think that is helpful. Or it could be a bit of a hybrid like we did at climate action: that page looks like a disambiguation page but also like a stub. The advantage is that it can be wikilinked directly whereas disambiguation pages are not meant to be wikilinked. Another similar example is marine resources. EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we have these two options: Option 1: we rename the existing biomass article to "biomass (disambiguation)" and/or we cut it down to become that kind of short hybrid article like marine resources; and move all the current content to biomass (energy) or to bioenergy. Option 2: we rename the existing biomass article to biomass (energy) and create a new article called either biomass (disambiguation) or just "biomass" (to become that hybrid type article as per above). The two options are very similar but the difference is in the amount of work that would be required to fix up all the incoming wikilinks. EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I think go with the option that is less work for incoming wikilinks. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That would be Option 2 then (rename the existing biomass article to biomass (energy)). In a second step we'd have to figure out which content belongs to biomass (energy) and which to bioenergy; at the moment, they overlap a lot. Also, do you prefer biomass (disambiguation) or just "biomass" for the little overview article? It would be very similar to the draft here. EMsmile (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I think just Biomass because WP:NCDAB says parentheticals are disfavored. I like the idea of the short WP:CONCEPTDAB like marine resources and climate action. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That would also be my favourite. So to get that done, Step 1 would be to rename this article to biomass (energy) (mind you, we'd have parentheticals again in that case?). Should we rather make it biomass as energy source? Too long? Or biomass for energy production? The original move proposal had biomass (energy source). EMsmile (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The text of the article is mostly about climate impact and environmental impact of bioenergy (with some background about biomass used as energy, aka bioenergy), so how about "Environmental impact of bioenergy", which is currently a redirect here anyway? Levivich (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
That article redirected here because of a bot fixing a double redirect after Bioenergy was redirected here against consensus. I've reverted the bot so that Environmental impact of bioenergy redirects to Bioenergy. We also have Environmental impact of biofuels which redirects to Issues relating to biofuels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to make sure I understand what you're proposing: It sounds like you're proposing that a link to Biomass will bring the reader to a short article that 1) explains the concept and 2) contains a list of links to articles that cover in depth what the term "biomass" is used for. The initial version of this page would be the contents of Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass, and it would not be tagged as a disambiguation page. Is that right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "move all the current content to biomass (energy) or to bioenergy." Do you mean we should do a WP:MOVE of the Biomass page to Biomass (energy) and then manually cut and paste some of the page content to Bioenergy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi User:Clayoquot, yes that's exactly it. (maybe at a later stage when we rework the biomass (energy) and bioenergy articles we find out that indeed they could be just one article but initially I'd find it easier to get my head around this whole messy situation if they were separate). Once we move the current biomass page to biomass (energy) then it frees up the current "biomass" article to become the new short overview article based on your Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass (and not tagged as a disambiguation page). EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


Off topic; this is a RM
@Clayoquot
– Regarding "confusion" between primary and secondary energy sources: The article already have this correct. Under the "Categories" headline it says: "Biomass is categorized either as biomass harvested directly for energy (primary biomass), or as residues and waste: (secondary biomass)." See footnotes for sources.
– Regarding confusion about wood fuel for transport, the lead says: "Some people use the terms biomass and biofuel interchangeably, while others consider biofuel to be a liquid or gaseous fuel used for transportation, as defined by government authorities in the US and EU. The European Union's Joint Research Centre defines solid biofuel as raw or processed organic matter of biological origin used for energy, such as firewood, wood chips, and wood pellets." Please explain more clearly why this text (or any other text in the lead) gives the impression that people use wood as a transport fuel.
– Regarding your claim that primary biomass is clean and secondary biomass dirty. This is incorrect. First, even the article you linked to lists both primary and secondary energy sources as dirty (wood, dry dung, coal, and kerosene). The article also explains that health issues stems from the use of traditional biomass which can be of both the primary and secondary kind. Let me quote the IEA: "In the NZE Scenario, bioenergy rapidly shifts to 100% sustainable sources of supply, and sustainable use. There is a complete phase-out of the traditional use of solid biomass for cooking, which is inefficient, often linked to deforestation, and whose pollution was responsible for 2.5 million premature deaths in 2020." Link: https://www.iea.org/articles/what-does-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-mean-for-bioenergy-and-land-use
Further, the IPCC says that a shift from traditional to modern bioenergy have large positive impacts on air quality. Link: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/11/09_Chapter-6.pdf (p. 628)
The reason traditional bioenergy is dirty is that there is no filtering going on and because people sits right next to the pollution source.
Sorry, but your recent comments give me reason to question your competence. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
"Secondary biomass" is a totally different concept from biomass used as a secondary energy source. (See the diagram here for an explanation of the terms primary and secondary energy: https://stem.guide/topic/primary-resources-and-secondary-energy). I may have been unclear which concept I was referring to when I used the phrase "secondary biomass energy". Nowhere have I claimed that primary biomass is clean and secondary biomass is dirty. The practice of using biomass as a secondary energy source kills millions of people because the vast majority of the time, it's used in the traditional ways. There are ways to use biomass as a secondary energy source cleanly, but doing so is relatively uncommon at this time.
Regarding your question on the impression of using wood as a transport fuel, I have to head out to a meeting but I will answer when I can. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
To answer your question on why the lead is misleading: As you know, the types of biomass that are burned for heat and electricity are different from the types of biomass used for producing transport fuels.
Almost every primary biomass source mentioned and re-mentioned in the lead is appropriate for heat/electricity and not for transport: wood, wood residues, energy crops, agricultural residues, and waste... firewood, wood chips, wood pellets... coppices or perennial energy crops, agricultural residues, and biological waste.
In the middle of the lead it talks about bioenergy used for transport. But nowhere in the lead does it say what the biomass that is processed into fuels for transport mostly comes from, which is food crops such as corn, sugar cane, and soy. A reader new to the topic would probably get the impression that the list of biomass sources in the lead is what is used in all of the applications of biomass-derived energy that are in the lead. Even if each individual statement is correct, juxtaposing statements about different topics leads to confusion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Question for everyone: Instead of moving this page, I'd actually prefer to just replace its contents with a WP:CONCEPTDAB page. I don't see the point of having a (Biomass (energy source) page in addition to a Bioenergy page. Why have two articles? What would you expect to see in a (Biomass (energy source) page that you would not expect to see in Bioenergy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think of it as an interim step, as EMsmile says above, it allows work on a Biomass CONCEPTDAB to continue in parallel with work on the text currently at Biomass. To go through that much text and figure out what to merge, what to spin off, what to delete, etc., will take hours. By having two articles (three, actually: Biomass the CONCEPTDAB, Biomass (energy) or whatever we end up calling it, and Bioenergy), work on Biomass, and work on Biomass (energy)/Bioenergy, can proceed in parallel without having to wait for the latter before tackling the former (particularly given that the latter is much more work). Levivich (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me closing this RM, summarizing our discussion as "we're going to boldly break everything, fix it, then discuss tweaks once the dust settles?" I view it as something of a formality at this point. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, and that sounds like an excellent summary :-) Levivich (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Levivich and VQuakr. Reply to Clayoquot: I think it's useful to have three articles for a while, even if it's an interim thing, like Levivich explained. Also if we followed your suggestion of "I'd actually prefer to just replace its contents with a WP:CONCEPTDAB page" then it would create extra work to change all the incoming wikilinks: I am assuming (based on our previous discussions) that most of the incoming wikilinks want to go to "biomass energy"/bioenergy, not to a biomass overview page. EMsmile (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting the entire second half of the article?

In the talk page above, you User:Clayoquot said "IMHO the entire section on "Climate impact" AND the section on "Environmental impact" AND the section on "The forest biomass debate" should be deleted and replaced by entirely new content derived from high-quality secondary sources." I've taken another look at those sections now and am wondering if some of it could be rescued and moved to bioenergy. E.g. I've just moved the section about "local protests" to bioenergy as it seemed fairly OK. See this edit. But should all the rest really be wholesale deleted, is there nothing worth saving? I'm not an expert on this topic so will be guided by you. Some of it seems OK though, like the biomass forest debate section? This is actually what brought me here in the first place, based on a comment by User:Levivich on the talk page of climate change on burning wood and climate change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change#Burning_wood_and_climate_change . Or is the problem that culling, condensing and reworking is more time consuming than writing from scratch in this case? (I guess I am a bit inclusionist) EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As written, the "forest biomass debate" section has a lot of issues that should be addressed before any portions are moved to Bioenergy. It is overdetailed for anywhere on WP. It is about a "debate" rather than the actual nominal topic of bioenergy from forest resources. It is written like an essay, evaluating and refuting points of view rather than simply stating those points of view in proportion to the RS as is required by WP:WEIGHT. Personally I think there is very little to salvage, but if you find it easier to salvage from the live version of the article than from the history I don't take exception to holding off a bit. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm likely to take this article and all other bionergy articles off my watchlist soon because I'm getting burned out. Wikipedia has a lot of strong content in the topic area, e.g. in Issues relating to biofuels and Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels, that is worthy of being in more prominent articles. Wikipedia also some really bad misinformation in the topic area, and large quantities of moderately bad misinformation. For instance, the "local protests" section that you copied says "While bioenergy is generally agreed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale, environmental activists argue..." This is moderately bad misinformation. The general agreement is that bioenergy can either mitigate or increase GHG emissions, and concern about local environmental impacts is also generally agreed-upon.
The only way to recognize and fix misinformation is to spend a significant amount of time engaging with high-quality, secondary, overview sources. Reorganizing and copyediting misinformation makes it worse, not better. I strongly recommend at least starting by rewriting from scratch because the problems in some of our existing content are so deep and also because there's so much excellent content out there in freely-licensed sources (IEA, US government, and Our World in Data) that we can copy and paste from. Then, with a structure in place, you can use the high-quality content we have in existing Wikipedia articles to expand sections within that structure. After someone has spent the necessary time reading the sources, writing it up is the easy part. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I hear your pain. Strange that the sub-articles, such as Issues relating to biofuels and Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels (I've never looked at them before) are better than the main articles on this topic. My plan is still to work through the previous work of The Perennial Hugger (like I have been this week) and to see if any of the content or refs can be salvaged. Some of the text - even if biased & repetitive & too detailed - does give an indication of what the issues are. Even if only 10% of the original text and refs remain in the end, I find it easier (with respect to my own personal working style) and more ethical than deleting it all without giving it a second thought. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I never had these two pages on my watchlist until recently. I do wonder how it could have been that The Perennial Hugger was left on their own to work on this for days, weeks and months and nobody stepped in earlier and said "stop, this is not encyclopedic". It's possible that they didn't listen back then. Or perhaps it just slipped through. Either way it's a shame that their time and energy wasn't directed/helped/corrected at an earlier stage in the process. I am not blaming this on anyone, it's just an observation and a feeling that makes me uneasy. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
As an interim quick fix, I've changed the wording about the "local protests" section in the bioenergy article. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I see you did more than just retitle the "local protests" section - thanks for that, it really needed the deeper attention that you gave it just now. I appreciate and share your not wanting to hurt TPH's feelings and your dismay that we didn't address it sooner. I must emphasize that each editor is 100% responsible for the quality of content that they add to an article, even when someone else wrote it. If you aren't reasonably sure that something passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT but think it might be a useful addition to article x, you could add it to the Talk page of article x as a suggestion. Please change something about your work process, or else you're likely to add misinformation to articles again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
...for days, weeks and months and nobody stepped in earlier... In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, this is extremely common, even for such content to last for years. I don't have any kind of scientific evidence for this, but it's my belief that the vast majority of articles, like 5 out of 6 million, have never had a second set of eyes on them, and we kid ourselves when we presume otherwise (as I used to). Levivich (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing content from the categories section

I'm removing more content: EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

culled content on categories

Biomass harvested directly for energy

Removed content from this section: 

++++++

According to IRENA, 1.5 billion hectares (3.7×109 acres) of land is currently used for food production, while "[...] about 1.4 billion ha [hectares] additional land is suitable but unused to date and thus could be allocated for bioenergy supply in the future."[1] with 60% of this land held by just 13 countries.[ap][obsolete source] 

++++++

The EU's MAGIC (Marginal Lands for Growing Industrial Crops) project estimates that 45 million hectares (449,901 km2, roughly the size of Sweden) of marginal land in the European Union is suitable for the perennial crop Miscanthus × giganteus (providing 12 EJ)[aq] and 62 million hectares (619,182 km2, roughly the size of Ukraine) of marginal land is suitable for bioenergy in general.[2] 

+++++++

Perennial energy crops are preferred for energy production due to their high yields and better ecological profile compared to annual crops,[3] although they are not currently produced commercially on a global scale.[ar] In 2021, the UK government announced plans to increase land areas for perennial energy crops and short rotation forestry from 10,000 to 704,000 hectares.[as] IRENA's global estimate for 2030 is 33–39 EJ, which is considered conservative.[4] The technical global energy potential for perennial energy crops alone is estimated to be 300 EJ annually.[at]

Biomass in the form of residues and waste

Removed content from this section: 

++++++

Biofuel from perennial energy crops, residues and waste is sometimes called "second-generation" or "advanced" biofuel (i.e. non-edible biomass). Algae harvested for energy is sometimes called "third-generation" biofuel.[au][5] Because of high costs, commercial production of biofuel from algae has not materialized yet.[6]

Albedo

Removed content from this section (as now replaced with excerpt from a better article): 

++++++

Plants change the color of the surface of the earth, and this has an effect on the surface reflectivity (albedo). Lighter colors tend to reflect heat, and darker colors tend to absorb heat. Research show that afforestation have a net warming effect in snowy, boreal areas (also after carbon absorption caused by afforestation have been accounted for), because the color of the trees is darker than the color of the snow. Forest albedo has a slight cooling effect globally.[av]

Plants causes more evapotranspiration and therefore increased local humidity. The increased humidity causes more of the incoming solar energy to be spent evaporating water rather than heating the ground, thereby creating a cooling effect. In tropical forests, evapotranspiration can also create low-hanging clouds that reflects sunlight, adding to the albedo effect. Forests release small particles called organic carbon, both via combustion and directly from live trees. The particles reflect sunlight, so have a cooling effect on their own, but also helps create clouds, since water vapor condense around the particles. In both cases, the reflection creates a cooling effect.[aw] 

+++++++++

If annual crops across the central USA were replaced by perennial grasses, it would cause significant global cooling, mostly from evapotranspiration effects but also from albedo. The albedo effect alone was six times larger than the grasses' fossil fuel displacement effect. The reason for the albedo effect in this case was that perennial grasses keep the surface green for a longer period of time during the year, compared to annual crops.[ax][7]

References

  1. ^ IRENA 2014, p. 8.
  2. ^ MAGIC 2021.
  3. ^ Brauch et al. 2009, p. 384.
  4. ^ IRENA 2014, pp. 1, 5.
  5. ^ IRENA 2014, p. 21.
  6. ^ IEA Bioenergy 2017, pp. 1, 22.
  7. ^ Georgescu, Lobell & Field 2011, pp. 4307–4312.

Paragraph removed from the lead

I have removed this paragraph from the lead because I don't think it fitted there. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article which this content isn't. It also might be a bit biased / poorly sourced:

  • "The most promising raw material feedstocks for the future are lignocellulosic (non-edible) biomass, such as coppices or perennial energy crops, agricultural residues, and biological waste, which also have the shortest delay before producing climate benefits. Heat production from biomass combustion is typically more "climate friendly" than electricity production due to the more efficient conversion from chemical to heat energy, and it is also harder to replace with heat from alternative renewable sources that may be more costly or limited by the maximum temperature of the steam they can produce.[ay] Power plants using biomass as fuel can provide a stable power output, unlike the intermittent power from solar or wind farms.[az][ba] " EMsmile (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The fact that biomass powerplants are more stable/on demand than wind or solar is significant. It should be covered in the article and probably mentioned in the lead by the time we're done. That doesn't mean I contest this removal though. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Yea, maybe but then it would belong rather at bioenergy, right? Actually I've just realised that all this kind of content (i.e. comparisons with other renewable energy sources, climate impact...) is already at renewable energy#Bioenery and sustainable energy#Bioenery. I am now thinking about how to bring that across, e.g. by using excerpts or by copying. Should have thought about this earlier... EMsmile (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
For the lead-level, just independently rewrite it once the body content is sorted out. There's still so much left to take out that it's hard to see the bioforest through the biotrees. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed content "roundwood and residues"

I've removed this section as it was unclear to me what the point was. If there is an important point to make on this, can it be summarised in just a sentence or two? Basically it's saying the more valuable forest products (roundwood) are better off to be used for things other than bioenergy, and the less valuable forest products could be used for bioenery. Right? EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Roundwood and residues

Researchers also discuss the use of roundwood vs. logging residues. Roundwood is defined as all woody material removed from the forest, and logging residues is the parts that would most likely remain in the forest in the case of no demand from bioenergy. 20% of the felled biomass is currently left in the forest as logging residues.[bb] Residues include tree tops, branches and stumps, but also pre-commercial thinnings (small, thin, young trees cleared away for increased productivity of the whole forest stand), salvage loggings and trees cleared away for fire hazard control.[bc] In general, residues and cascaded wood (wood products that are combusted for energy at the end of their service life) is seen as maximizing "the positive climate impact of bioenergy".[bd] In Europe, approximately 20% stemwood is used for bioenergy, with the rest from logging residues, processing residues and post consumer wood. At least half of the stemwood is sourced from short rotation coppice forests, which have low payback/parity times and provides ecosystem services.[be]

Researchers found that the "[...] higher economic value for timber and cellulose [pulp] products makes large-scale use of whole-trees for energy purposes highly unlikely wherever there is regional competition for the fiber."[bf] According to EU's Joint Research Centre, both the bioenergy sector, the wood panel sector and the pulp sector "[...] are all dependent on the demand for sawnwood, and they compete for the same feedstocks."[bg] EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Images removed

I've removed some images/graphs as I found they were too detailed and difficult to understand: EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (heat production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal, light fuel oil, most relevant fossil fuel alternative, and natural gas. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%.[1]
    Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (heat production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal, light fuel oil, most relevant fossil fuel alternative, and natural gas. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%.[1]
  • Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (transportation). The stippled line show net emissions for the most relevant fossil fuel alternative. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages also compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 50–60%, green 60–70%, blue 70–100%.[1]
    Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (transportation). The stippled line show net emissions for the most relevant fossil fuel alternative. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages also compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 50–60%, green 60–70%, blue 70–100%.[1]
  • Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (electricity production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal (black), most relevant fossil fuel alternative (green), electricity mix (red) and natural gas (blue). Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%.[2]
    Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (electricity production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal (black), most relevant fossil fuel alternative (green), electricity mix (red) and natural gas (blue). Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%.[2]
  • Bioenergy displacement factors for substituted fossil fuels.[3]
    Bioenergy displacement factors for substituted fossil fuels.[3]
  • Total amount of suitable land for agriculture, land already used, and land available for bioenergy in 2010, 2020 and 2030.[4]
    Total amount of suitable land for agriculture, land already used, and land available for bioenergy in 2010, 2020 and 2030.[4]
  • Time-dependent emission levels from decaying forest residues with different thicknesses: stumps (30 cm), thinnings (10 cm) and branches (2 cm). Dotted lines = North Finland, solid lines = South Finland.[bh]
    Time-dependent emission levels from decaying forest residues with different thicknesses: stumps (30 cm), thinnings (10 cm) and branches (2 cm). Dotted lines = North Finland, solid lines = South Finland.[bh]
  • Relationship between above-ground yield (diagonal lines), soil organic carbon (X axis), and soil's potential for successful/unsuccessful carbon sequestration (Y axis). Basically, the higher the yield, the more land is usable as a GHG mitigation tool (including relatively carbon-rich land).[5]
    Relationship between above-ground yield (diagonal lines), soil organic carbon (X axis), and soil's potential for successful/unsuccessful carbon sequestration (Y axis). Basically, the higher the yield, the more land is usable as a GHG mitigation tool (including relatively carbon-rich land).[5]
  • Carbon negative (miscanthus) and carbon positive (poplar) production pathways.[bi]
    Carbon negative (miscanthus) and carbon positive (poplar) production pathways.[bi]

EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Content removed from "Climate impacts expressed as static numbers"

I've removed this while trying to condense the content of this section: EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC) 

++++

Because market related calculations are excluded, the results are only seen as valid for small-scale energy production.[6] Also, the bioenergy pathways have typical small-scale conversion efficiencies. Solid biofuels for electricity production have 25% efficiency in most cases, and 21–34% in a few cases. Biogas for electricity production have 32–38%. Heat pathways have 76–85%. The forest residue category include logs and stumps, which increases carbon intensity especially in forests with slow decay rates.[7]

The charts have vertical bars that represent the emission range found for each bioenergy pathway (since emissions for the same pathway vary from study to study.) The higher end of the range represents emission levels found in studies that assume for instance long transport distances, low conversion efficiencies and no fossil fuel displacement effect. The lower end of the range represents emission levels found in studies that assume optimized logistics, higher conversion efficiencies, use of renewable energy to supply process-heat and process-electricity, and include displacement effects from the substitution of fossil fuels.[bj] The bars can be compared with emission levels associated with multiple alternative energy systems available in the EU. The dotted, coloured areas represent emission savings percentages for the pathways when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.[2] 

+++++++++

IRENA argues that short-rotation energy crops and agricultural residues are carbon neutral since they are harvested annually.[bk] IEA writes in its special report on how to reach net zero emissions in 2050 that the "[...] energy‐sector transformation in the NZE [Net Zero Emissions scenario) would reduce CO2 emissions from AFLOU [Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use] in 2050 by around 150 Mt CO2 given the switch away from conventional crops and the increase in short rotation advanced‐bioenergy crop production on marginal lands and pasture land."[8]

References

  1. ^ a b Camia et al. 2018, p. 97.
  2. ^ a b Camia et al. 2018, p. 96.
  3. ^ Myllyviita et al. 2021, p. 7-8.
  4. ^ IRENA 2014, p. 9.
  5. ^ Milner et al. 2016, p. 323, fig. 2.
  6. ^ Camia et al. 2018, p. 87-91.
  7. ^ JRC 2018.
  8. ^ IEA 2021b, p. 92.

Should “ Smokestack emissions from forest biomass compared to coal” be deleted?

When I saw the heading I thought the section was going to be about local pollution. I read it and it seems to be all about CO2 and at the end it seems to say that the IEA says that all the stuff I just read is irrelevant. So I think we should delete the section for wasting my time and that of other readers Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have shortened this further and changed the section heading. Do you think this is better now? I would be hesitant to delete this outright because it does bring up an aspect that readers should probably be made aware of. I find it's an important point that even if GHG emissions at the point of combustion are higher for wood than for coal, this can be overall negated in the scheme of things. Unless perhaps this is already explained elsewhere in the article; it contains a lot of repetition. - The article still needs further culling and condensing (see in the history page how much I have already removed). Would be great if you could help further, feel free to point out where culling, condensing or outright deletion is required? (and if people feel strongly about deleting this section altogether, I won't stay in the way; I am just generally a bit hesitant when it comes to "complete deletions"). EMsmile (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Much better now thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biomass_(energy)/Archive_1&oldid=1170775798"