Talk:Biofuel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Added info

Pure (compressed) methane wasn't described, so I changed the biogas section to: ====Biogas and methane==== [[Image:Biogas pipes.JPG|right|thumb|150px|Pipes carrying biogas]] {{Main|Biogas}} Biogas is a gas produced by the process of [[anaerobic digestion]] of [[organic material]] by [[anaerobe]]s.<ref>Redman, G., The Andersons Centre. [http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/metadot/index.pl?id=7198;isa=DBRow;op=show;dbview_id=2457 "Assessment of on-farm AD in the UK"], ''[[National Non-Food Crops Centre]]'', 2008-06-09. Retrieved on 2009-05-11.</ref> Methane is a purer gas (biogas being composed of methane and CO<sub>2</sub> and thus energy denser.<ref>[http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/MethaneDigesters/MD4.html Using methane for transport purposes]</ref> Both can be produced either from [[biodegradable waste]] materials or by the use of [[energy crop]]s fed into [[anaerobic digester]]s to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, [[digestate]], can be used as a biofuel or a fertilizer. One disadvantage of both fuels however is that they need to be compressed in order to be useful as a vehicle fuel (not needed for stationary applications). The compression itself however generally also requires allot of energy. * Biogas can be recovered from [[mechanical biological treatment]] waste processing systems. :Note:[[Landfill gas]] is a less clean form of biogas which is produced in [[landfill]]s through naturally occurring anaerobic digestion. If it escapes into the atmosphere it is a potential [[greenhouse gas]]. * Farmers can produce biogas and methane from [[manure]] from their cows by using an anaerobic digester (AD).<ref>"BIOGAS: No bull, manure can power your farm." Farmers Guardian (September 25, 2009): 12. General OneFile. Gale.</ref> --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.78.230 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

COI contributions

I have a financial COI with Honeywell in that they’ve recruited me to help them navigate through Wikipedia and COI Best Practices. I would like to suggest the following contributions. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Green Diesel

I hope to eventually improve the vegetable oil refining article. In the meanwhile I thought I'd offer a better summary for this article.

Main article: Vegetable oil refining
Green diesel is produced through hydrocracking natural oil feedstocks.[1] Hydrocracking is a refinery method that uses elevated temperatures and pressure in the presence of a catalyst to break down larger molecules, like those found in vegetable oils, into shorter hydrocarbon chains used in diesel engines.[2] It may also be called renewable diesel, hydro-treated vegetable oil[2] or hydrogen-derived renewable diesel (HDRD).[3] Green diesel has the same chemical properties as petroleum-based diesel.[2] It does not require new engines, pipelines or infrastructure to distribute and use, but has not been produced at a cost that is competitive with petroleum. It can be created from a variety of vegetable oils, animal tallow, vegetable oil waste, brown trap grease or other fats.[3] Gasoline versions are also being developed.[4] Green diesel is being developed in the Louisiana and Singapore by ConocoPhillips, Neste Oil, Valero, Dynamic Fuels, and Honeywell UOP.[3][5]

I would also like to request we move Green Diesel from first generation to second generation. Green diesel uses camelina, algae and other renewable sources.

References

  1. ^ Brown, Robert. "Fast Pyrolysis and Bio-Oil Upgrading" (PDF). Retrieved March 15, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c Knothe, Gerhard (2010), Biodiesel and renewable diesel: A comparison, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
  3. ^ a b c "Alternative & Advanced Fuels". US Department of Energy. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
  4. ^ Jessica, Ebert. "Breakthroughs in Green Gasoline Production". Biomass Magazine. Retrieved August 14, 2012.
  5. ^ Albrecht, KO; Hallen, RT (March, 2011), A Brief Literature Overview of Various Routes to Biorenewable Fuels from Lipids for the National Alliance of Advanced Biofuels and Bio-products NAAB Consortium (PDF), Prepared by the US Department of Energy {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

Comments

That looks ok. I removed a few apostrophes and changed carbohydrate > hydrocarbon (I was going to say that you really don't want to put sugar in your tank, but snopes has proven me wrong on that!). The references aren't the greatest - I am happy to provide copies of journal articles if you would like. I'm particularly unsure about the third reference and the fourth link doesn't work. As to it being first or second generation, when I was researching biofuels a couple of years ago, I couldn't find any definitive definitions of what makes a fuel 1st or 2nd generation. It depends on the feedstock and in the case of this fuel it could be either - if canola is used, it would be 1st gen, if algae were used it would be 2nd. AFAIK the majority of it at the moment will be produced from conventional sources (e.g. canola) so it is best to leave it were it is for now (unless RS say otherwise). SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I improved the sourcing and repaired the broken link.
From what I've gathered, Camelina is related to a lot of edible plants, but is considered a weed.[1] Sources actually do call Camelina and green diesel a second generation biofuel.[2][3][4][5] (note, two of these articles are co-authored by Honeywell)
User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - I missed your comment last week. The references are certainly an improvement and I will add most of the content to the article. It needs to stay in 1st gen for now though IMO. Although there are sources calling some of the products 2nd gen, they also say that it is being produced directly from vegetable oils, rather than cellulose. There is obviously a motivation for industry to label themselves 2nd gen, so I think it is safer to leave it in 1st gen for now. I'm also removing the 'green gasoline' part, since this is discussing the use of cellulose, not vegetable oils. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Smart. I closed the request edit as partial. I have Talk:Algae_fuel#COI_Contributions an identical request edit on the Algae fuel article. I would like to improve the actual article on green diesel at some point as well, but for now I'm just providing better summaries. Hopefully I'm not pestering, but if you have a minute to implement the same feedback over there, it would avoid duplicating the same review effort. User:King4057 16:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I've made a quick comment there. I'm watching the main article as well so I'll see any comments (hopefully!) you make there. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

IC engine modifications

I added this to the page today: The modifications necessairy to run internal combustion engines on biofuel depend on the type of biofuel used, aswell as the type of engine used. For example, gasoline engines can run without any modification at all on biobutanol. Minor modifications are however needed to run on bioethanol or biomethanol. Diesel engines can run on the latter fuels, aswell as on vegetable oils (which are cheaper). However, the latter is only possible when the engine has been foreseen with indirect injection. If no indirect injection is present, the engine hence needs to be fitted with this.

Add references if needed. 91.182.207.104 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to differentiate between regular Diesel engines and maritime (2-stroke) Diesel engines (even direct injection engines, see MAN B&W documents). The latter is generally allready foreseen on running thick oil (crude oil) and thus no modifications at all are needed (regular 4-stroke) (direct injection) engines need a modification to indirect injection.

91.182.28.17 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd generation biofuels with extra benefits

At List_of_biofuel_companies_and_researchers, 3rd and 4th generation biofuels are mentioned. How about we use the term 2+ generation-biofuels and 2++ generation-biofuels to distinguish them from regular 2nd generation biofuels. They should be subdivision as first and second-gen biofuels have a much more pronounced difference than the second-gen and so-called third/fourth-gen biofuels. As I see it, the extra differences are

  • 3rd gen biofuels: no use of arable land at all for energy production
  • 4th gen biofuels: no use of arable land at all for energy production + no air pollution (this still occurs with the other biofuels, although there are no carbon emissions)

If we use the unofficial 3rd and 4th gen biofuels term, we would give undue weight of them, and promote these fuels too much.

Besides mentioning the 2+ and 2++ gen biofuels differentiation at the mentioned article, we can mention them here aswell. 91.182.28.17 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference 4 is a broken link

132.72.178.105 (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bio-Ethers

I feel like the bio-ethers section could benefit from listing specific bio-ethers. There are 6 key ones that are used for additives in regular fuel. It doesn't really go into the fact that the CO2 emissions rank at less than 1% for them. Like Bio-DME (Dimethyl Ethers) are ranked at slightly below 0.2%.

I think ethanol is so widely expanded on is because that is what the US uses more than bio-ethers, though Europe still uses ethers in their fuel. Because the US no longer has an oxygenate requirement for the fuel additives that is why it isn't used in the US anymore. In that sense I feel like this article is more aimed towards the US than other countries. LetsGetNerdy (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

sustainable biofuels

thanks magnolia for your pointing out the invalidity of the source I cited. Still think the edit was valid; biofuels have been under considerable scientific scrutiny lately, and the sources that were cited by the original editor were even worse (an op-ed by a stakeholder), while the article I based myself upon was written by a sound scientist. Now added better refs. Sven Jense (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You added the same bogus reference, plus an abstract to a pay-per-view journal--and the abstract doesn't even support your edit. The point you are trying to make seems valid, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source or two. But adding fake references kinda seems like vandalism, and it certainly doesn't help the young people who use articles like this for their research papers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I propose adding these references. Please let me know what you think.
  1. http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Advantages_and_Disadvantages_of_Biofuels
  2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/21/us-eu-energy-biofuels-idUSTRE63K2CB20100421
  3. http://www.scidev.net/global/water/opinion/biofuel-crops-could-drain-developing-world-dry.html
Sven Jense (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The first ref is some random blog. Not a reliable source. The 2nd ref is about an annex that was stripped out of a EU community report because "The analysis prepared under this study applied a methodology which by many is not considered appropriate." This is not what you want to reach for, to get a clear understanding of the scientific consensus (and range of alternative ideas) on this subject. The third is an opinion piece that holds up a WP:CRYSTALBALL with a lot of what-ifs. We don't do crystal ball here. Please see WP:SCIRS for a guide to what kind of sources are appropriate on these issues. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I can not find a more reliable source in a journal that is freely available. As an alternative I delete the last paragraph of the article as it contains invalid information and is supported only by a non-reliable source (an opinion voiced by a stakeholder in the biofuel industry).Sven Jense (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Energy Quotient (Ratio)

This describes the ratio of energy input and energy output for each unit of biofuels.

This is really important, as this gives a measure of the overall energy efficiency and sustainability of biofuels.


Carbon Efficiency

This describes the ratio of net carbon emissions for producing and using a unit of biofuels.

measured as the ratio of, unit of biofuels / net carbon emissions

This is really important, as this gives a measure of the overall carbon efficiency and sustainability of biofuels.


A really good and sustainable biofuel has a high carbon efficiency and a high energy quotient.

It is really important for this to be compared among all bio-fuels, and among all sources of energy, including wind, solar, hydro, and wave energy.

Ehr1Ros2 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. To include this material in WP, it needs to have reliable sources. Please see WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Transport

A study of the European Environmental Agency (Copenhagen, Denmark) has shown that a speed limit of 100/110 km/hr, leads to far larger reductions in carbon emissions, than a 8% mixture of biofuels in petrol or diesel.

A complementary study of the WoodsHole Research Centre (WoodsHole, MA, USA) has shown that exhausts from automobiles are converted by forests and farms into biomass within a fortnight or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoanthropology (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

can't use that without a source...Jytdog (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported value judgement

For practical terms this has no big implications as the typical driver does not use up a full tank in one trip. (E.g. European citizens drive on average less than 20 km/day).

I removed this statement since it is asking the reader to accept a subjective criterion of practicality or palatability -- it seems to be trying to "persuade" him of something, like in a Sunday magazine article.

It is little better than arguing that a 30% increase (in some driving-related cost) does not matter in practical terms because "people don't really drive that much".

Best let the 30% speak for itself. 89.217.28.204 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

possible image problem

I have in the past tried to remove this image but was reverted because I didn't explain myself clearly. My main concerns are as follows:
1. This image is old (2007), and prices fluctuate wildly from year to year.
2. The price of biodiesel may or may not be artificially deflated due to government subsidies. This means that comparing biodiesel to conventional diesel is not entirely fair. Brian Everlasting (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

In some countries, biodiesel is less expensive than conventional diesel.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Biofuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Biofuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Biofuel

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Biofuel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "royal":

  • From Sustainable biofuel: The Royal Society (2008). p. 2.
  • From Peak oil: Miller, R. G.; Sorrell, S. R. (2014). "The future of oil supply". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 372 (2006): 20130179–20130179. doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0179. [W]e estimate that around 11–15 mb per day of non-conventional liquids production could be achieved in the next 20 years ... If crude oil production falls, then total liquids production seems likely to fall as well, leading to significant price increases and potentially serious impacts on the global economy.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency

  • Ongoing research at the European Environmental Agency has shown, that a speed limit of 110 km/hr (75 mi/hr) on highways (vs 130 km/hr or 85 mi/hr), will reduce carbon emissions by more than 25%.
  • Research at the Woods Hole Research Centre has shown that carbon emissions from automobiles are converted by forests and farmlands into biomass in a period of two weeks.
  • Research sponsored by the UNEP has shown that the energy obtained from 1 Litre of biofuel for transport, is just 50% more than the energy needed to make 1 Litre of biofuel for transport.

AesopMuse (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with biofuels. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A comprehensive review from a wider perspective will indicate that the need of biofuel for surface transport and climate protection, is not supported by scientific theory. AesopMuse (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not a forum for discussing the topic generally. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • From a wider perspective one gains the impression that wikipedia is associated with knowledge and all of human knowledge (Jimmy Wales says so). AesopMuse (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are for discussing content and sourcing in the article. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For the information of the readers of this article and the talk page, the following paragraph is quoted verbatim; AesopMuse (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"There are various social, economic, environmental and technical issues relating to biofuels production and use, which have been debated in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, poverty reduction potential, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, impact on water resources, rural social exclusion and injustice, shantytown migration, rural unskilled unemployment, and nitrous oxide (NO2) emissions." AesopMuse (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are all issues around biofuels. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biofuel. 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) 15:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced

The following is unsourced. Moved here per WP:PRESERVE. per WP:BURDEN, please do not restore without finding reliable sources, and checking the content against them, and citing them.

Additionally, this putative DOE study is from 2004 - 13 years old! Are there recent secondary sources that discuss these issues? Would be much better.

Despite the study noted above, numerous studies have shown biomass fuels have significantly less impact on the environment than fossil based fuels. Of note is the 2004 technical report "Biomass Power and Conventional Fossil Systems with and without CO2 Sequestration – Comparing the Energy Balance, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economics" by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a US Department of Energy Laboratory. Power generation emits significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs), mainly carbon dioxide (CO2). Sequestering CO2 from the power plant flue gas can significantly reduce the GHGs from the power plant itself, but this is not the total picture. CO2 capture and sequestration consumes additional energy, thus lowering the plant's fuel-to-electricity efficiency. To compensate for this, more fossil fuel must be procured and consumed to make up for lost capacity. Taking this into consideration, the global warming potential (GWP), which is a combination of CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, and energy balance of the system need to be examined using a life cycle assessment. This takes into account the upstream processes which remain constant after CO2 sequestration, as well as the steps required for additional power generation. Firing biomass instead of coal led to a 148% reduction in GWP.[citation needed][clarification needed]

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits

User: Vigilius thanks for wanting to improve the article but in this diff, this -- "Biomass and Alternate Energy Fuel Systems: An Engineering and Economic Guide" -- is not a citation that anybody can use to verify the content you added, and most of it was unsourced. Please keep in mind that content in WIkipedia needs to summarize reliable sources, and other editors and readers need to be able to verify the content to the source it came from. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but neither the text nor the reference is my work. I only tried to improve the hard-to read first sentence, please check the diff. I have expanded the reference now, however. I agree with your moving the additional poorly sourced material (next section in this discussion). --Vigilius (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Biofuel. 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) 18:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Today's need of the world.

Really a great article. This is today's need of the world and an efficient alternative for fossil fuels.--Sdixit2017 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)sdixit2017--Sdixit2017 (talk)

Biofuel gasoline

In 2013 UK researchers developed a genetically modified strain of E. coli, which could transform glucose into biofuel gasoline that does not need to be blended.[1] Later in 2013 UCLA researchers engineered a new metabolic pathway to bypass glycolysis and increase the rate of conversion of sugars into biofuel,[2] while KAIST researchers developed a strain capable of producing short-chain alkanes, free fatty acids, fatty esters and fatty alcohols through the fatty acyl (acyl carrier protein (ACP)) to fatty acid to fatty acyl-CoA pathway in vivo.[3] It is believed that in the future it will be possible to "tweak" the genes to make gasoline from straw or animal manure.

--> I moved this section from the main page to here since this might simply be biobutanol, which is already covered in the article. I also find no such term ("biofuel gasoline") using google. Genetics4good (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Summers, Rebecca (24 April 2013) Bacteria churn out first ever petrol-like biofuel New Scientist, Retrieved 27 April 2013
  2. ^ Bogorad, I. W.; Lin, T. S.; Liao, J. C. (2013). "Synthetic non-oxidative glycolysis enables complete carbon conservation". Nature. 502: 693–697. doi:10.1038/nature12575. PMID 24077099.
  3. ^ Choi, Y. J.; Lee, S. Y. (2013). "Microbial production of short-chain alkanes". Nature. 502: 571–4. doi:10.1038/nature12536. PMID 24077097.

Is it correct that "clean fuel" redirects to here?

There is currently a redirect from "clean fuel" to here. That's why I have added "clean fuel" to the first sentence. But are they really synonymous? I am unsure. I have been working on the article on SDG 7 and I think clean fuel is used differently there. See also this report: https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/data/files/download-documents/2019-Tracking%20SDG7-Full%20Report.pdf EMsmile (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have taken out the redirect now and created a new article on clean fuel. Please check. EMsmile (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe needs a summary of aviation biofuel?

I know there are aviation biofuel and Sustainable aviation fuel articles for details but should not this article have some kind of overview? Surely because there is no alternative fuel for long-haul flights that is more important than surface transport biofuels isn't it?

https://www.iea.org/reports/transport-biofuels says "In the SDS, low-carbon fuels meet ..... 9% of aviation fuel demand in 2030." But why only 9% for aviation?

Given non-CO2 effects detailed in https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-calculating-the-true-climate-impact-of-aviation-emissions is it actually possible for aviation biofuel to be ghg neutral?

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awj324.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Free fuel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Free fuel and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Free fuel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Removed Further Reading section

I've removed the further reading section as I didn't think these older publications are all that helpful. Good ones should be used as in-line citations.

EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Added excerpts from sub-articles about issues

I've just added excerpts from two sub-articles that deal with issues to this article, namely Issues relating to biofuels and Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. I think the excerpts are useful here to give a quick overview of some of the issues and to ensure people know these sub-articles exist (if people don't like excerpts, this could be reworked later). I became aware of these sub-articles through a comment by Clayoquot here on the biomass talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biomass#Deleting_the_entire_second_half_of_the_article? EMsmile (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking definition

I think it would be helpful to link definition of the subheadings or different types of biofuels Topnotchwriter (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Big Ideas in Chemistry

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 19 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Topnotchwriter (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mtanner27, SUChem04.

— Assignment last updated by Pringlesandluffy (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biofuel/Archive_2&oldid=1210744397"