![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I disagree with the merge into this article of Waste-to-energy. They are both nice stand-alone article and both may expand in the coming years. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
DISAGREE - separate issues with separate challenges/ advantages. Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
DISAGREE - waste and biomass are not the same materials, even though some waste may contain biomass. Generally they require different types of plants and handling systems. --Claus Hindsgaul (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No consensus to merge, tags removed.Beagel (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bioenergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bioenergy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I enriched External links by "Bioenergy in Motion" again, which is NOT "dvd that you can buy!" site but EU information project.--Glomerata (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi fellow Wikipedians, I want to add new category/title for "other applications" for bioenergy. There are new updates and applications for the bioenergy. Let me know what do you guys think! Thanks! 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)~~ Ahmed.Elbaradei
Hi fellow Wikipedians, I have updated the environmental impact section. I will add more details in the future too in the same category and I will try to add one or two applications. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed.Elbaradei (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ntallant.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I propose this article is merged with biomass under the name bioenergy. Biomass has three meanings; it's some jargon in ecology, it can refer to solid biomass (which is now under the name solid fuel), or it's used as a synonym for bioenergy. The current article on Wikipedia uses it as a synonym for bioenergy, and that's also how most of the incoming links to the biomass article use it (I corrected quite a few that were meant to link to the ecology term). Pinging Chidgk1 and Clayoquot. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Biomass could become a disambiguation page afterwards? It might not always be possible to know whether pages want to link to bioenergy or solid fuel. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I do not agree. Biomass does not ONLY have a future into energy. In fact, for energy we have many alternatives to replace fossil feedstock. However, for materials (plastics) the only alternative feedstock for fossil is biomass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.109.72 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this. On the one hand, following the logic of the merge proposal, the current biofuel article should be swallowed by the bioenergy article as well, increasing the risk for an unfocused and bloated article about bioenergy, where the many types of biological solids, liquids and gases all are described. But if the article could be written in a succint and clear manner I guess it could help tidy up the bioenergy-related wikipedia "space". The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Alternative proposal: It seems easier to just delete all the stuff about solid biomass and liquid biofuel in the bioenergy page and instead link to the biomass and biofuel pages, and just focus on the energy part (possibly also the environmental debate). After all, energy and mass are, for all practical purposes, not the same thing. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
How about this then: Unless someone will accept to take on the workload of synthezising all these articles, the next best thing might be to expand the bioenergy article with relatively short summaries of the different components of bioenergy (solids, liquids and gases), those described at length in the biomass and biofuel articles? The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this content from the section on "local protests". It seems to me overly specific for this kind of overview article (or about logging etc in general, not specifically about bioenergy):
+++Feasibility assessments to replace coal in German power plants with bush biomass harvested in Namibia, which experiences bush encroachment on over 30 million hectares, have caused protests from environmental organisations. The organisations argue that the trees and bushes store carbon, and that burning them releases more CO2 upfront than burning coal.[1] Namibian researchers argue that bush encroaching causes lower income for farmers, lower biodiversity, lower groundwater level and displacement of wildlife.[2] " EMsmile ++++
In Mississippi a company producing wood pellets for UK power plants was fined $2.5m for exceeding volatile organic compounds pollution for a number of years.[3] In some cases, large areas of natural forests have been logged illegally (e.g. in Romania[4] and Siberia[5]) and the remaining forest has been put on fire to cover up illegal operations.[6]
((cite web))
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)References
EMsmile (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have removed this content from the section on forests. Same problem as with content at biomass (energy): written like a literature review. EMsmile (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
+++++++++++
Use of forests as a renewable energy source, as opposed to long-term carbon sink, is contentious. EASAC writes: "There is a real danger that present policy over-emphasises the use of forests in energy production instead of increasing forest stocks for carbon storage."[1] Further, they argue that "it is the older, longer-rotation forests and protected old-growth forests that exhibit the highest carbon stocks."[2] Chatham House argues that old trees have a very high carbon absorption, and that felling old trees means that this large potential for future carbon absorption is lost. In addition they argue that there is a loss of soil carbon due to the harvest operations.[3]
++++++
Regarding soil carbon, the IPCC writes: "Recent studies indicate, that effects of forest management actions on soil C [carbon] stocks can be difficult to quantify and reported effects have been variable and even contradictory (see Box 4.3a)." Because the "current scientific basis is not sufficient", the IPCC will not currently provide soil carbon emission factors for forest management.[4]
++++++
Hanssen et al. notes that when comparing continued wood pellet production to a potential policy change where the forest instead is protected, most researchers estimate a 20–50 year carbon parity (payback) time range for the burnt wood pellets. But when instead comparing continued pellet production to the more realistic alternative scenarios of 1.) instead using all harvested biomass to produce paper, pulp or wood panels, 2.) quitting the thinning practice altogether (leaving the small trees alone, realizing more of their growth potential but at the same time reduce the growth potential of the bigger trees), and 3.) leaving the forest residue alone, so it is decomposed in the forest over time, rather than being burned almost immediately in power plants, the result is that carbon payback (parity) times for wood pellets drop to 0-21 years in all demand scenarios.[5]
References
I've removed this textblock now as I regard it as too detailed, not suitable for this high level overview article, not WP:DUE (I think this removal is also in line with the comment by User:Clayoquot above who said "As for the "power surface density" concept, I have never seen this framing used in a general source on bioenergy except where Vaclav Smil uses it to demonstrate why he thinks bioenergy is generally a dumb idea."):
culled content on power production densities
|
---|
Fossil gas has the highest surface density at 482 W/m2 while nuclear power at 240 W/m2 is the only high-density and low-carbon energy source.[1] The average human power consumption on ice-free land is 0.125 W/m2 (heat and electricity combined),[2] although rising to 20 W/m2 in urban and industrial areas.[3] Combusting solid biomass is more energy efficient than combusting liquids, as the whole plant is utilized. For instance, corn plantations producing solid biomass for combustion generate more than double the amount of power per square metre compared to corn plantations producing for ethanol, when the yield is the same: 10 t/ha generates 0.60 W/m2 and 0.26 W/m2 respectively.[4] Oven dry biomass in general, including wood, miscanthus[5] and Napier[6] grass, have a calorific content of roughly 18 GJ/t.[7] When calculating power production per square metre, every t/ha of dry biomass yield increases a plantation's power production by 0.06 W/m2. Consequently, Smil estimates the following:
In Brazil, the average yield for eucalyptus is 21 t/ha (1.26 W/m2), but in Africa, India and Southeast Asia, typical eucalyptus yields are below 10 t/ha (0.6 W/m2).[9] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) estimate that forest plantation yields range from 1 to 25 m3 per hectare per year globally, equivalent to 0.02–0.7 W/m2 (0.4–12.2 t/ha):
Smil estimate that natural temperate mixed forests yield on average 1.5–2 dry tonnes per hectare (2–2,5 m3, equivalent to 0.1 W/m2), ranging from 0.9 m3 in Greece to 6 m3 in France).[10] IPCC provides average net annual biomass growth data for natural forests globally. Net growth varies between 0.1 and 9.3 dry tonnes per hectare per year, with most natural forests producing between 1 and 4 tonnes, and with the global average at 2.3 tonnes. Average net growth for plantation forests varies between 0.4 and 25 tonnes, with most plantations producing between 5 and 15 tonnes, and with the global average at 9.1 tonnes.[11] As mentioned above, Smil estimates that the world average for wind, hydro and solar power production is 1 W/m2, 3 W/m2 and 5 W/m2 respectively. In order to match these surface power densities, plantation yields must reach 17 t/ha, 50 t/ha and 83 t/ha for wind, hydro and solar respectively. This seems achievable for the tropical plantations mentioned above (yield 20–25 t/ha) and for elephant grasses, e.g. miscanthus (10–40 t/ha), and Napier (15–80 t/ha), but unlikely for forest and many other types of biomass crops. To match the world average for biofuels (0.3 W/m2), plantations need to produce 5 tonnes of dry mass per hectare per year. When instead using the Van Zalk estimates for hydro, wind and solar (0.14, 1.84, and 6.63 W/m2 respectively), plantation yields must reach 2 t/ha, 31 t/ha and 111 t/ha in order to compete. Only the first two of those yields seem achievable, however.
|
References