Talk:Pellet fuel

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Energy C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Links

Wikipedia is not a site for commercial links wp:links Statsone 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grey energy

This article lacks fundamental information about the grey energy content of the pellets (the energy needed to manufacture the pellets). Unfortunatelly, I don't have the info so please help out. --TomTompa 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some estimates from 1995

csfs.colostate.edu/cowood/library/06_Wood_Pellets_Walden.pdf

It appears that the actual mechanical creation of the pellets, like most other areas of wood processing, hace fairly low energy costs -- certainly far, far less than the energy available from burning the pellets. Alas, unless your wood needs no drying and your source of wood and customers are both next door, drying and transportation costs must be factored in. Both are extremely variable and would have to be calculated on a case-by-case basis. 67.150.10.100 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most pellet manufacturers use saw dust from the pellet production process to dry the pellets. Delivery is like anything else you need to put fuel in the trucks and in the chainsaws for that matter. The energy density of pellets is not as high as oil, so delivery energy plays a larger role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteen85EAGLE (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MBTU/ton

While MWh does mean mega(million)-watthours, MBTU is sometimes read as thousand-BTU. To refer to million-BTU, the abbreviation MMBTU is used to avoid confusion. See British_thermal_unit.

Re the suggested nerger: It may be better to combine the wood pellets with data on wood chips as fuel, and keep a separate page for equipment burning wood pellets/chips. In Europe, particularly Sweden, heater manufacturers supply equipment for burning either pellets (made from compressed sawdust) or wood chips. Wood pellets are useful for making use of what might otherwise be waste from wood products manufacture, and are usually dry, so they burn well. As noted above, wood pellets carry a significant energy cost if wood is ground to powder and dried specifically for pellet manufacture E.g. One manufacturer indicates up to 20% of sawdust is burned to dry the remaining sawdust. Wood chips are therefore a very practical option which avoids the unnecessary steps of grinding the wood and then compacting or extruding to form pellets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.60.11 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Environmental Impact

This article does not present a neutral discussion of the environmental impact of burning wood pellets. The author's viewpoint clearly favors their burning and dismisses the legitimate concerns of the side who believes there are environmental concerns. That section should be revised to present a neutral stance on the issue. Barring any comments, my edit would be to remove the "justification" about the carbon cycle and simply include the links to the outside articles on this topic.

Written like an advertisement.

Wow, reading this article I am left to believe that wood pellets are the most perfectest pieces of technological innovation ever. Really? People can't even write articles about unimportant things like hairbrushes or scented candles without listing unperfect characteristics and yet wood pellets have no problems? Whatsoever? Except maybe C02 emissions? Yeah I think article was written by someone with a stake in wood-pelletism. -I agree. Disadvantages are pellets are more expensive per BTU than other fuels in some markets, the initial cost of the burner is high, and the burner may malfunction if you attempt to burn wood chips, coal dust, shredded paper and/or sawdust in it. Ccpoodle (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wood pellets and global warming.

I have noted that certain editors have taken exception to the fact that pellets are produced from sawdust, and that combustion of sawdust, releasing carbon dioxide with a GWP₁₀₀ of 1, is less contributive to global warming than allowing sawdust to decay, producing methane, with a GWP₁₀₀ of 25.

If these editors can prove that combustion of sawdust (in pellet form) is more contributive to global warming than sawdust decay, surely they have evidence to back their claims. And surely they have evidence to back their claims that the carbon neutrality of wood pellets harvested from sustainablely managed forests is carbon positive, or the carbon balance of properly controlled biomass combustion using sustainable biomass waste sources is somehow under dispute. Who's disputing it? A coal trafficker? An oil dealer? Katana0182 (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think editors have argued that combustion of sawdust contributes more to global warming than 100% biological decay of sawdust. Instead, some (like I) have simply taken away claims that burning wood is net carbon negatives - I would like to see the burden of proof on the claims made in the article, not on the assumed ideas of people taking away unsourced claims.

This claim about sawdust has a variety of issues. First, is all sawdust left to decay, or is it used in other applications in which its carbon is not released to the atmosphere? Second, over what time horizon does it decay? Obviously carbon released to the atmosphere in 30 years is better than carbon released today. Finally, does it decay completely? Is 100% of its carbon released to the atmosphere? Of course not. But because no one is writing scathing critiques of sawdust combustion, just trying to take away totally inaccurate claims that burning sawdust is carbon negative, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is. I am disputing the claims about wood pellet burning, and I work at an environmental conservation nonprofit, not a coal company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.104.157.243 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement about a good part of the carbon of decaying sawdust not being released into the atmosphere; some would stay in place and be fixed. The question is how much? If, say 75% of the carbon in the sawdust is fixed, and the other 25% is converted into methane and released, would that be better than 100% of the sawdust being released as carbon dioxide? Or the sawdust could be converted into particle board and its carbon could be permanently fixed. Some research on these issues may provide an answer.

But the statements were previously in the article like "Wood pellet combustion gives off large amounts of carbon dioxide and contributes massively to global warming" are pretty silly too - because if the wood is harvested from a sustainably managed forest, the forest, in the process of growing back, will take back the carbon emitted by combustion, leading to a short term GWP but a long term GWP of 0. There is, of course, the issue of grey energy (the carbon emissions of the means to transport and manufacture the pellets) - which needs to be quantified. But calling pellets practically a fossil fuel is really a step too far. Better to describe them as a very low net carbon renewable fuel.

I appreciate the effort to dialogue, and apologize for my previous snide remarks. Katana0182 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text of the section on carbon emissions has been substantially improved and set on a reasonably factual and cautious basis that recognizes concerns about inappropriate use of biomass, while recognizing the carbon benefits of appropriate use of biomass in general. I'm going to remove the uncited tag, if anyone feels that the section needs improvement, by all means, be bold. Katana0182 (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biomass

It seems to me that a large portion of this article belongs in the article on biomass. Unless the information is specific to wood pellets as opposed to any use of biomass waste wood, it should be in the biomass article and referenced from this article. Does anyone here disagree? 67.150.10.100 (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, there is a lot of bloat with material being drawn in to support arguments. I have done some pruning but more would be appropriate, however editing should be cautious because of some contention. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes on 27 August 2011

I share the concerns above expressed by many others, and have tried to add some balance to the article. It still needs a lot of work in that regard. Also, I have flagged the many places were citations are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging every sentence with 'citation needed' was not constructive: the article already had a banner stating it needs more citations. 66.87.0.128 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the high number of 'citation needed' looks to me like vandalism by an editor. I've done my bit to remove some. Dougmcdonell (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]