Talk:Renewable fuels

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Biofuel#Solid biofuels|solid biomass]] The anchor (#Solid biofuels) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Major cleanup needed

I came upon this article while sorting out refs to Propane that should have pointed to Liquified petroleum gas or Autogas.

What I found is an article that is of excessive length (some parts need to be split to sub articles to get the main article back under 32k bytes), has serious NPOV problems (mostly due to presenting theories including peak oil and global warming as if they are facts* and a very USA-centric intro. As such, I've added {{Cleanup}}, {{NPOV}} & {{Worldwide}} tags. --Athol Mullen 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this article needs a major cleanup and needs to be fully referenced, the concepts of peak oil production and human induced global warming are supported by solid scientific consensuses. The Wikipedia article on Global warming states that "The current scientific consensus is that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities'[1]." The article also notes the following: In December 2004, the journal Science, published a study of the abstracts of all of the refereed scientific articles published from 1993-2003 that contain the keywords "global climate change": 928 articles. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view — the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. None of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis. [2] [3]. Regarding the concept of peak oil production, at some point oil production will reach a peak. Consequently, I'm removing the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag. --User:Lesikar

Little bit of a cleanup tonight. It's still a bit U.S. and ethanol centric, but it's a start. There are still some rather large NPOV and verifiability issues outstanding. --chodges 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency of maize (corn) sunfall conversion

SEE the paragraphs under the above title in TALK/Discussion in the "maize" article.

An agricultural solution to our renewable energy needs in the US or in the world is an utter mirage, fostered by the midwest US corn lobby in Washington, DC, not to mention the sugar cane plantation owners in Brazil. Agriculturally based sunfall energy capture and conversion is simply too inefficient compared to, say, photovoltaic sunfall conversion. Bush did another unsurprising "stupid" just now on that !

Incidentally, any "alternate" energy source which is NOT renewable should not be considered since it does nothing to cut CO2 emissions. Thus, the exploitation of more natural gas or of "methane ice" (an unexpected source to most people) is not an acceptable solution to our energy needs. Allenwoll 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S.-Israeli joint venture in renewable energy" section

This section strikes me as being particularly non-encyclopedic in terms of importance. USD $20 M/year is significant, but is not really a historic sum, and probably much more could be said about other places (e.g. BP's $500M deal with UC Berkeley, or all the DOE work in the U.S.). I'm inclined to remove this section unless someone can say more about the impact this deal has made (and please don't cite "potential" impacts). --chodges 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. I'm deleting this section based on the lack of disagreement here during the last two weeks. --chodges 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move of the U.S. and fuel specific sections

I moved "Oil consumption in the United States" section to the Energy use in the United States, and "United States' relationships with oil-producing countries" to the Energy policy of the United States as U.S. specific and not directly about renewable fuels sections. Also "U.S. Government preference for cellulosic ethanol" section moved to the Ethanol fuel in the United States. Subsections of the "Corn-derived ethanol" moved to the Corn ethanol. Beagel 19:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks. --chodges 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals

Oppose Renewable fuels, renewable energy (energy made from renewable resources), and renewable resources are very different topics. Merging them all would be way too huge of an article. NJGW (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What struck me most about the Renewable Energy and Renewable Fuels articles was that they don't have wikilinks to each other (except obliquely through the Sustainable Technologies categories). I can see the point about article length becoming excessive, but a casual reader (as I was last night) would be confused. By the way - Renewable fuel redirects to Renewable energy. Simesa (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the redirect to Renewable Fuels (this page). Do you still propose the merger? I'll look into the linking of the three when I get more time today. NJGW (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to coordinate the articles and portal, feel free to remove the Merge tags. Simesa (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per NJGW arguments

Oppose. They are standalone articles of their own right. I will link the two more intimately with Template:Seealso. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fuels are but a subset of available energy sources. For example, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and tidal energy are not fuels, and this is not even a complete list. --Skyemoor (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should hydrogen be here?

My view is that it not only isn't a fuel, but it isn't renewable. See this (apparently blacklisted) link: www.fuelcellmarkets.com/national_hydrogen_association/news_and_information/3,1,27253,1,27442.html

which suggests that they are totally separate in the auto industry too. NJGW (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen is a clean fuel and as it is obtained from water available in plenty on earth so it is close to renewable. Dr. Punit Mangal (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Startups

There are a few startups with renewable fuels: Oberon Fuels (dimethylether) Sunfire blue crude Not sure whether they're noteworthy Genetics4good (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]