Talk:Embodied energy

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

embedded not equal to embodied[edit]

"The energy 'embodied' in the component is quite different from the energy 'embedded' in the product. The embedded energy is what we could recover from the metal, and as we know from chapter 8, this is its exergy, which is largely defined by its composition and uninfluenced by all other processing)."CULLEN, Jonathan M; ALLWOOD, Julian M (2011-11-24). Sustainable Materials. With both eyes open. p 189 on the pdf file at http://withbotheyesopen.com/ (p 195 of the book)

I'll comment the consequence on the related discussion topic.

--RP87 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major Editing[edit]

You should not be discussing Embodied Energy without mention of the concepts of Emergy and of H.T. Odum who began discussing embodied energy in economic analysis in 1971. Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley Interscience, New York.152.3.112.9 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Neal Flanagan, Duke University.[reply]

There seems to be many different types of embodied energy analysis, each of which has contributed to the developmental history of the subject. I have tried to give a brief overview of some of the differences. I have also included a new separate entry for the Emergy concept with associated links Sholto Maud 04:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This article is woefully inadequate as it stands. There is absolutely no way that an article on 'Embodied energy' that does not mention the work of Howard Odum can be considered encyclopedic. Somebody has a lot of homework to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.249.131 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity[edit]

Bias[edit]

I could not help but notice the heavy-handed bias in the discussion about embodied energy in building materials, specifically about straw bales. I won't make arguments here, but would suggest that instead of using negative language in regards to a specific material, that be replaced by wording along the lines of "the scope of the energy used in the manufacture of the materials is difficult to determine, often allowing for wide ranges in embodied energy values for a given material." Andrew Netherton, 15:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I've tried to clear up the article a little. How does it read now? Sholto Maud 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sholto - It reads much more neutrally now. Thank you. Andrew Netherton, 22 March 2006

NPOV[edit]

I added the NPOV tag because significant criticisms of the entire concept of embodied energy are not reported in the article. See Talk:Emergy#Neutrality. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? I (tried to) read the discussion you've pointed to, but I couldn't find anything in there criticising the basic proposition that trying to figure out how much energy goes into the making of something mightn't be a useful exercise.Lordrosemount (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some light on causes[edit]

The difference between embedded and embodied is quite a heavy burden here. 'Embedded' is exergy and no ongoing debate that I know make trouble to 'calculate' things.

Embodied on the contrary faces a major obstacle. There is no objective embodied energy to be calculated. The reasons is our activities are multi-functional. So energy used to produce things leads to several things produced. And as no objective way to cut energy shares for each products exist, it is no surprise definitions are different. To help comprehension (as it is regularly required by readers or persons attending the explanation I give while discussing the topic) here is an example:

A process (an activity) is for instance cutting wood boards. It produces the intended boards and saw dust (to make it simple). The saw dust is produced at the exact same time the boards are. They both have potential economic values (they are potentially worth money). They have embodied energy and could be burned as fuels. The dust can be agglomerated and give a board (with different mechanical properties). The dust can also serve as human or other animal litter... In short, multi-purpose products produced in a simple but thus multi-functional process. The many ways you can cut energy shares for building an "embodied energy" indicators make it hard to apply such evaluation out of normative (debatable) prescriptions. For those wanting to see some math about it : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01356211 ; pdf available : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01356211/file/FLINS2016.pdf

As a consequence, it should be mentioned for each assertion of "embodied energy" of what method it is based on (and even then what choices inside methods).

Be it said that as an evaluation, results are always related to value judgments built-in the methods.

--RP87 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehension Level[edit]

I'm finding that a major problem of Wikipedia is what level of assumed comprehension is appropriate? I argue that the subject matter of this article is one of the more important current concepts that is getting increasing airplay in the media, which will no doubt prompt more and more people to "wikipedia" Embodied energy. Many will read the first and second paragraphs and be content, but those who read on for a deeper understanding may find the text somewhat challenging to comprehend. I'm of the second type. I really WANT to understand, but learned almost nothing from the descriptions of the 3 current methodologies. Can they be written more concisely, clearly, or elegantly? I don't know, but you experts who wrote this please try. Who knows, the environment may even indirectly benefit from your efforts! (by Takeitupalevel)


Embodied Energy in Energy[edit]

The proposed wide use of hydrogen as the medium in an energy transport, storage and recovery process (the "hydrogen economy") presents an opportunity to consider the energy embodied in an energy medium -- first in its generation (say, by the use of electricity and the electrolysis process), then in its compression for storage/transport and finally in its utilization. When used as a combustible fuel, the conversion yields either mechanical energy or electrical energy, but when converted in a fuel cell, the product is limited to electricity.

Apparently none of these processes -- electricity to electricity -- is very efficient at this time, representing a serious handicap to the "hydrogen economy" concept. That is, there is too much embodied energy in hydrogen energy transport, storage and recovery. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.237.3 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practical applications[edit]

I've noticed that the approach taken in this article is highly theoretical and, as Takeitupalevel notes above, largely impenetrable to the lay reader beyond the lead paragraphs. For professional reasons I came to this page looking for information about how the concept of embodied energy might have been, or be being, applied in the real world - whether any companies or pressure groups, for example, have attempted to use it as part of an effort to figure out the ecological impact of a specific product, as a supplement or alternative to carbon footprint or food miles calculations. Does anyone know anything about this that they could add, to make the article more useful for a general readership? Lordrosemount (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

The following text recently added needs references & citations before it can be put back into the main article. Sholto Maud (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embodied energy simplified

Embodied energy is the amount of energy needed to make a product. Embodied energy (ee) could be written as:

ee = Energy of manufacture + Transport energy raw materials to factory

But some life cycle analysts argue that true embodied energy should include the energy used in transporting goods from factory to site, energy needed to build the factory and machinery, energy needed to transport workers to the factory, energy needed to build the roads and so on. This could be written:

ee = Energy manufacture + Transport raw materials to factory + Transport of goods from factory to site + Energy to build and run factory + Energy to transport workers to factory + Infrastructure, roads, medical care, education (the list is endless)

Embodied energy is used to assess how environmentally friendly the product is, based on the assumption that less embodied energy is better for the environment. However it is possible that a product which takes a lot of energy to create might still save more energy throughout its lifetime. This could be written as:

Ecofriendly ee <= (is less than or equal to) Energy saved annually x Years product lasts

The reuse of reclaimed building materials could be considered to save the embodied energy of a comparative new product. This could be written thus:

Energy savings of reuse = ee of comparative new product

Many products contain a combination of new materials added to recycled materials which require less energy to process. For example, steel containing new and recycled steel would have a lower embodied energy than new steel. One list gives new steel as 38GJ/t, recycled steel as 10GJ/t, and has construction steel with a 60 per cent recycled content averaging 20GJ/t.

Hi Sholto, I am new to this. I think I understand the points you make about citations in my text but why are there none in the opening paragraph with the definition which seems contentious? 'Embodied energy refers to the quantity of energy required to manufacture, and supply to the point of use, a product, material or service.' The embodied energy that I deal with allows for inclusion of transport energy to take raw materials to the factory, but transport from the gate to site is usually added separately afterwards. Thornton Kay 21 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkay (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Thornton.
  • Typically an article's opening paragraph is like an abstract and gives a definition and includes any notable aspects of the topic which are expanded on later in the body. Citations are then given in the body. (As with peer review articles, there are many examples where this is not the case, including articles that I have myself contributed). Perhaps the most important protocol for Wikipedia is that Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. For an article to be verifiable the body of the article should have citations to peer review literature. (Again various Wikipeida articles do not always follow this protocol, however the general view seems to be that their quality is diminished as a result).
  • As for the definition of embodied energy. As far as I understand it there seems to be a number of unresolved questions about where to locate the system boundary for one's calculations. Different theories of embodied energy locate the system boundary differently, resulting in a different methodology. Specification of the system boundary is an important part in identifying the root definition influencing one's choice of embodied energy methodology.
  • I think your contribution is good, and if you can put in some citations and references should go back into the main article as an example of one embodied energy methodology. Sholto Maud (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sholto, I cannot find any explicit references as I have tried merely to simplify the obvious in order to help readers with less basic knowledge, such as architects, government policymakers or schoolchildren. The views and ways they are expressed are an aggregation of my work in embodied energy which so far have not been repeated elsewhere. Would it be acceptable to have references to web pages created by the author? If so I will create a web page and then refer to that. Tkay (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it Wikipedia aims to be authoritative, hence citations should be to peer reviewed sources. However links to websites in the links section should be ok as long as they are educational or government type sites. I suggest you add the links at the end and see whether they are accepted. Sholto Maud (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian translation[edit]

I'm going to translate this article into Italian; in Italian embodied energy is called "Energia grigia" (grey energy), much less self-explanatory that English term, but perhaps interesting to underline the undefined, invisible content of it. In my opinion it's a fundamental concept, a necessary criterium to consider, when talking about any energy-related issue. So far, it.wiki has just a few row stub about: it's a hole to fill as soon as possible, it's a pity that there's a discussion about this article, but I think that present version is an excellent starting point. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference item 7 link no longer valid[edit]

In looking at some of the references, I found that the link for reference item 7, which also appears in the External links section, is no longer valid. It goes to the CSIRO site, but to an overview page, not to the URL linked, nor to an equivalent page which provides indicated information on the topic. I spent some time trying to find an equivalent section of the CSIRO site that would be appropriate for the reference but did not succeed. It appears a new reference for publicly available embodied energy information is needed.

JSchinnerer (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for 614172337[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Embodied_energy&diff=614172337&oldid=608313910

I happened upon this page and was immediately struck by the fact that an encyclopedia article, long known as a source of answers, was suddenly acting as a source of questions. I apologize if my belief is uncommon, but I don't believe an encyclopedia should be asking anything. And if there's a wikipedia guideline pertaining to the inclusion of questions in articles, do me a favor and link it here.

Mattman00000 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Embodied energy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute of Transport Automobiles section[edit]

The section with a comparison of ICE (Internal combustion engine) mode car vs Electric car concludes through a single source that the hybrid car is a more reasonable carbon choice across the lifespan of a vehicle vs electric. Justification is given that the kWh expenditure is higher and therefore the electric car is worse. The section needs further sources and explanations to avoid misleading the reader (i.e. Source suffers from localism, the source is not shown to be peer-reviewed, LCA models are highly variable and can meet completely different outcomes depending on generic data/time periods/scenarios used). Additionally, the role of grid decarbonization hasn't been given.

Comparison of transport modes should be holistic and take into account multiple sources as many bodies have produced studies showing a lower whole-life carbon for electric cars. The section conclusion would be best if left open to interpretation and counterbalanced. Nyanix (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Embodied_energy&oldid=1201742635"