Talk:Synthetic fuel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSynthetic fuel was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Dubious tag on inclusion of biomass as a separate category in the processes section[edit]

There is a dubious tag in one of the first sentences in the process section. commented out in the code for the tag is the following: "if you say that the processes for coal and biomass processing are generally same, it not makes a sense to say that biofuel processes are in different categories."

While it is correct that some direct and indirect conversion processes CAN use biomass, and are generally the same, there are also some synthetic fuel processes that use biomass and ONLY biomass, are incapable of handling coal or natural gas feedstocks, and function fundamentally differently then typical direct or indirect conversion processes. Specifically, production of Butanol or Isobutanol from E.coli or Yeast, or Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels are some technologies currently being explored.

I am willing to venture that "biomass" may not be necessarily the best title for this section. Perhaps something more like "biological" conversion, or simply bioconversion? Since we are, after all, talking about the conversion process, and not the feedstock.

This section needs at least a little improvement, as it is currently very sparse.

Any thoughts? Sfj4076 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you use classification "direct" and "indirect", there is no third option–all possible processes are either direct or indirect processes notwithstanding if the feedstock is coal, biomass or something else. In addition, you could use also classification by some other criteria, e.g. by feedstock (coal, natural gas, biomass etc). It is possible to combine these two classifications by matrix, but you can't combine these methods by taking some parts from one system and some parts from other system and to say that these parts are horizontally equals. They are not as there are different classification systems. Therefore, these biofuel processes should be described under "direct" or "indirect" sections (seems that these processes described right now are direct processes).
I also think that as we already have articles Biomass to liquid, Gas to liquids, coal liquefaction etc, we should avoid trying to put all details in this article. Instead, in this article it would be better to use a summary style in specific sections and to leave more details in the relevant articles. Beagel (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Beagel, and this extraneous third classification bothered me enough to log in for the first time in many moons.
There are many possible ways to classify fuels based on feedstock, intermediates, processing characteristics. 'Biofuels processes' doesn't make a lot of sense under any classification scheme, because (as you mentioned) some are produced using cells as living catalysts and others (e.g. pyrolysis oil) are simply cooked out of sticks and leaves.
Including an additional subsection on "synthetic crude" is also problematic, because "synthetic crude" in the context the article uses is "upgraded crude" and is not a fuel. Brandonscurtis (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis with Renewables and Nuclear?[edit]

This article may describe the process of synthesizing fuel and efforts to do so, but it really doesn't mention the use of renewables and nuclear in order to power the process. Here's a description:[1] Is what's proposed in that paper too obscure to warrant a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.17 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Possibly erroneous interval of values for Bergius process[edit]

It says 400 to 5000 (!) degrees Celsius. It may mean 400 to 500 deg. C. Reference should be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.231.85 (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Synthetic fuel. 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: 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) 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge electrofuel into here[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion was closed by requestor as getting too complicated for him to follow. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert but it seems nowadays most discussion of synthetic fuel is about electrofuel for example https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-e-fuels-save-the-combustion-engine-11621037390.Chidgk1 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most discussion of synthetic fuel seems to be about carbon-neutral (or at least carbon neutral-ish) electrofuels. There's a huge difference between traditional fossil-based synthetic fuels and the modern concept of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, which is explained in this Royal Society report. The Synthetic fuelarticle should distinguish between the two concepts much more clearly.
In terms of what content to merge into this article, the Carbon neutral fuel article is much better than the Electrofuel article. I'd actually suggest:
Does that make sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, Synthetic fuel could be a disambiguation page. I’m not sure what to call the disambiguated articles though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 11:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Carbon-neutral fuel article also needs cleanup… both that article and this article are self -contradictory in how they define the term “synthetic fuel.” Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 11:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support to merge all three including Carbon-neutral fuel with an emphasis on this aspect. Synfuel - redirecting to synthetic fuel - is a buzzword in the debate about climate change. Fossil fuel companies currently launch large campaigns promoting synfuels in order to imply that combustion cars remain an option. This article will be one of the first places for people to find answers for this controversial topic.Hedgehoque (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page view statistics FWIW: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Carbon-neutral_fuel%7CElectrofuel%7CSynthetic_fuel Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot Hedgehoque I am not confident to do anything with Carbon-neutral fuel while it contradicts itself for fear of getting into a very complicated discussion. Have tagged that article as self-contradictory - perhaps one of you would like to resolve it. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot Hedgehoque I am getting confused now - so are all liquid biofuels synfuels? If not then what is the difference between a synthetic biofuel and a natural biofuel? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all liquid biofuels are synfuels. The Royal Society report I linked above says "Synthetic biofuels In this report, these are defined as fuels synthesised from biomass or waste or biofuels using chemical or thermal processes. The production of fuels using biomass and only biological processes are outside the scope of this briefing (for example, bioethanol produced through fermentation of sugars)." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might not have been clear above that I oppose merging either Electrofuel or Carbon-neutral fuel into this article. Electrofuel is a notable and important topic that should have a standalone article. All electrofuels are synthetic fuels, but not all synthetic fuels are electrofuels and not all synthetic fuels are climate-friendly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clayoquot:, your suggestion (redirect/summary/rewrite as above) also sounds reasonable. A disambiguation link to Carbon-neutral fuel can be placed on top of this article. Basics of the current energy debate and the efficiency aspect can already be briefly explained in the lead.Hedgehoque (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Recent edits regarding the purpose of synthetic fuels[edit]

Hi Chidgk1, in some of your recent edit summaries, you've indicated an assumption that the only purpose of synthetic fuels is for making jet fuel. This assumption is false. The Royal Society Report says, "The decarbonisation of transport will require the replacement of energy dense fossil fuels (diesel, aviation, bunker fuel) with low or net-zero carbon, sustainable synthetic fuels." And as Hedgehoque indicates above, the automobile industry is interested in electrofuels as a way to perpetuate the use of internal combustion engines. (latest example). Could you please undo your changes that were based on this assumption?

Could you also please explain this removal of text? What about it doesn't make sense? The passage you removed made sense to me whether the liquid being produced is jet fuel or diesel or anything else.

Also, regarding this edit, I was able to easily find support for the claim that you removed by opening the PDF and doing a search for "358". The link to the source in the article is broken but a live version is available here:[2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will abandon this for now as it is getting too complicated and time consuming and I don't understand the subject well enough - go ahead and revert whatever you wish - I won't be upset. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. Thanks for taking the initiative to improve this article. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added transport project and asked if they could help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Transport#Short-term_decarbonization_of_long-distance_heavy_transport%3F Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

Currently there is a mismatch between the lead section, which says synthetic fuel can be either derived from hydrocarbons or from a mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and the body which is exclusively focused on fuel derived from hydrocarbons. I traced the wording in the lead to this 2021 edit, in which someone changed the lead and nothing else.

I'm sure this was done in good faith, but the effect is to imply that synthetic fuels derived from hydrocarbons (usually fossil fuels) can be carbon-neutral. That's seriously wrong. As a short-term fix I'm going to remove references to electrofuels from the lead and add a disambiguation hatnote to Carbon-neutral fuel. In the long term it might be better to have Synthetic fuel serve as a disambiguation page.

BTW I did a check of [incoming wikilinks] to this article. The vast majority of them use the term "synthetic fuel" to mean a fuel produced from hydrocarbons. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation makes sense to me. I suspect this is a term that is evolving with language and technology, but dictionary.com does support the article's definition of synthetic fuel: "fuel in the form of liquid or gas (synthetic natural gas, SNG, or syngas ) manufactured from coal or in the form of oil extracted from shale or tar sands." Although, the Sustainability section had me quite confused as someone new to this topic as neither coal nor natural gas are things I would consider "synthetic". It's also odd that carbon-neutral fuel would be considered synthetic while other non-fossil-fuels are not as there are quite a few in between. Perhaps adding Alternative fuel and Common ethanol fuel mixtures to the See Also section makes sense? Intuitively I would expect this article to be called Synthetic petroleum which currently redirects to Synthetic crude (which seems inaccurate). If the disambiguation route is chosen, some of this content might be a really great addition to the sparse Synthetic crude article. Ownself (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synthetic_fuel&oldid=1208300308"