Talk:Biofuel/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Undid 21 Mar 2007 deletions

I undid the deletions by because of the sizable amount of material involved and the lack of explanation. --Belgrano 13:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Text removed from the Solar Power page

I removed the following text from the Solar power page, as it was out of place with regard to the category hierarchy in which Biofuel is places under renewable energy (not under solar power). Hope you agree... Jdpipe 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Main article: Biofuel

The oil in plant seeds, in chemical terms, very closely resembles that of petroleum. Many, since the invention of the Diesel engine, have been using this form of captured solar energy as a fuel comparable to petrodiesel—for functional use in any diesel engine or generator and known as biodiesel.

A 1998 joint study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) traced many of the various costs involved in the production of biodiesel and found that overall, it yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil fuel energy consumed.[1] This makes a vegetable oil economy look better than an ethanol economy which has gotten much lower numbers.

Other biofuels include ethanol, wood for stoves, ovens and furnaces, and methane gas produced from biofuels through chemical processes.


I am attempting to reword the paragraphs related to biogas. Biogas is slightly different than other biofuels as organic matter is converted first by anaerobic digestion into biogas which can then be utilised in energy generation. It is incorrect to say that biogas is only derived from waste products. Some crops are grown to be fed directly into anaerobic digesters or to boost energy yields from wastes. There are also significant problems & disputes with defining what is "waste" and when it no longer becomes a waste. Also to become truely sustainable thinking one should consider the wider picture as waste being a resource.--Alex 13:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In most industrial processes there are by-products labeled as waste. As time goes and technology, needs, resource availability etc. changes these waste streams might turn into useful products -- sometimes they'll become the main product. As many (most?) other terms waste is a relative term. Since the value of biogas is rather low, it is natural that mostly (only?) waste streams are used for its production. --Tunheim 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that waste is a relative term. The value of biogas can actually be very high. This will depend upon value of energy (which is presently growing in the EU) and any subsidies that are brought for green energy such as Renewables Obligation Certificates. Companies such as Greenfinch in the UK are considering the usage of sugar beet and other crops to increase biogas & energy yields. I understand this practice is also undertaken in mainland Europe.--Alex 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

biofuel/no CO2?

the argument that burning biofuels doesnt contribute to atmospheric CO2 doesnt make complete logical sense. just because the carbon was recently extracted doesnt invalidate its re-addition to the atmosphere. By this logic, slash and burn clear-cutting doesnt add CO2 to the atmosphere. Also, the carbon in coal once came from the atmosphere, only it was absorbed into plants millions of years ago and got pushed into the earth. I am likely going to remove this sentence unless no one objects. --Bonus Onus 23:11, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I completely object. The big difference is the timescale. CO2 from biomass was recently sequestered, so burning it results in no net increase in atmospheric CO2. Burning fossil fuels, releases CO2 that has been sequestered over a very long time period, and is thus a net increase in atmospheric CO2. What would be more correct is for the article to note that a net increase does not occur, instead of saying CO2 is not contributed. - Taxman 03:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Taxman. Biofuel entails that you must GROW the crop, and thus sequestered the CO2, before you are able to make the fuel, so the cycle is always going. In the case of "slash and burn clear-cutting", it takes many years before that is replanted, and even more so with fossil fuels. Ag2003 July 19,2006
I don't see how slash and burn clear-cutting is an examble of bioenergy. Please elaborate. --Tunheim 11:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the new wording of that part now. Its clearer and more correct. And Tunheim, you're right that slash and burn doesnt represent biofuel, since the cut timber is very rarely used to do anything. I was just using that as an example of "adding CO2 to the atmosphere" which it definitely does, since its a transfer from a biological sequestration to gaseous form. Whether or not it is a net increase is debatable, and depends on how old the timber is, etc. --Bonus Onus 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 :D Ok, now I understand. Sorry, I'm just a tad slow ;) --Tunheim 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of swamp grasses being used for bio fuals and due to the roots sotring the co2 in the soil, after burning the plant, the c02 levels in the air end up lower than they originally were. I'm not clear about this so any confirmation would be helpful. I believe the grass mentioned was snapgrass or something similar. Noobeditor 00:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Although biofuel is theoreticaly carbon neutral in the whole life cycle of the manufacture of the fuel it is not. It does however give about a 60% reduction compared to petrochemical fuels. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Please provide a source fro that number. --Tunheim 11:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


The Energy content of Biofuel table is empty. Biofuel for the future!

I do not object. It is inaccurate to assume that CO2 recently fixed from the atmosphere will immediately and totally end up being returned to it. Plants SEQUESTER CO2, largely as cellulose. When you burn a biofuel you potentially increase atmospheric CO2 by removing this sequestration effect. Also it is inaccurate to believe that ALL the CO2 sequesterebd by plants will end up as CO2 again. A lot of is does due to bacterial decomposition and respiration by detritivores but a proportion if it ends up as sequestered dead biomass (peat, oil, shale, slate, coal). By creating an agricultural landscape, there is effectively no opportunity for this to happen. Look at the glebe of a forest and compare it with that of a cornfield or a field of oilseed rape. The soil of a forest is rich in sequestered CO2. The soil of intesively farmed arable land is poor as it comes and only yields what it does due to high levels of fertilizer and pesticide. If cars burnt fossilfuel and land that was to have grown biofuel crops was left totally fallow, then LESS CO2 would end up in the atmosphere than if the land was used to grow these crops. That is obvious if you think about it. Also think of just how much land would be required to grow enough crops to satisfy our energy demands and food as well. Nature would have no chance. We have too much agriculture as it is.


I have removed peat, as it does not fit the description as a renewable form of energy. Also the carbon was not recently extracted from atmospheric carbon dioxide by growing plants, so burning it does contribute to CO2. It may not be as old as other fossil fuels, but it is one in terms of human emission timescales. -- Chris Q 12:54, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

It may not be renewable, and you are correct on the other points. However it is still very commonly considered a biofuel. It certainly still is biomass. Most general discussions of biomass and biofuel will use peat as an example. So please put it back in the chart, but note that it is not renewable if you like. - Taxman Talk 13:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Since the article definition of biofuel goes against this I have put a paragraph after the list. In order to add it to the list we would have to change the advantages to say "some biofules" against all the advantages. -- Chris Q 13:41, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
You have to be careful not to pigeon hole everything into exactly what our definition says. Nothing is saying our definition is perfect or definitive, and acting as if it were isn't proper. Peat is biomass, and it is burned for fuel. Yes it blurs the lines a bit. What you noted is fine fact wise but could stand to be toned down in an NPOV sense. - Taxman Talk 20:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sites such as [1] and [2] cleraly define peat as a fossil fuel. I think it is better to leave the definition as it is, which is clearly the most useful definition as far as sustainable energy is concerned. -- Chris Q 06:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
You'll find other sites that clearly define peat as biomass. The sustainable harvest cycle of peat is rather long. And some slow peat bogs are possibly getting close to some coal types. However there are peat bogs that have rotation cycles faster than slow forests. So instead of trying to fight over where it should be categorized, we should use it as a prime example showing how the sustainability of biomass is based on rotation. And how this whole principle is a gradual thing. --Tunheim 11:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Peat is closely related in origin to coal. In fact, peat could have more sulphur. The pea-souper London fogs of the 19th century were due to peat burning. Since peat has higher non-combustible fraction than coal, it creates worse problems with suspended particulate matter if used carelessly. Not only is it a worse pollutant than coal, it is also true that peat, coal and petroleum are all fossil fuels, not biofuels. Bambaiah 13:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Biofuel, serious problems

  • Biofuel is interesting as it clearly a more sustainable form of fuel, and it has been described as "carbon neutral" due the carbon sequestration process of growing biomass. There is one major problem with biofuel as a "carbon neutral" product however. Farming biomass is a very energy intensive practice. Many studies have shown that it takes more energy to farm biofuel (farm equipment, fertalizer, pumping water, transportation) than the fuel actually contains. Essentially this means that using biofuel represents a major net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, even when sequestration is taken into account.
  • Industrial scale farming is by no means an environmentally benign activity either. There are many good reasons to prevent further expansion of agriculture of this kind, such as: air pollution, chemical fertilizer, pesticides, water pollution, water consumption, habitat destruction, and top soil degradation.
  • Biofuel has one important role to play in making society more sustainable. Biofuel can be created from biological waste already produced in great quantities by humans. Particularly the burning of waste vegetable oil, or electricity generation from landfill or compost methane. So long as we do not waste energy creating new biomass specifically to burn for more energy, we will improve our net carbon output. It is also vital that we do not seek out to remove "wasted biomass" from the natural environment such as waste wood in forests. None of this is actually wasted biomass, and is essential to the sustainabilility of natural ecosystems and the sequestration of carbon into the soil.
  • Biofuels are being used as an excuse not to convert the economy away from fossil fuels. They have a role to play, but industry must be made to transition away from energy sources that rely on combustion altogether, using electricy derived from truly sustainable sources such as solar, wind, or water power.

for more information check out the following journal articles:

  • Sergio Ulgiati. A Comprehensive Energy and Economic Assessment of Biofuels: When "Green" Is Not Enough. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. Taylor & Francis. Volume 20, Number 1 / January-February 2001.

David Pimentel. Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics, and Environmental Impacts Are Negative. Natural Resources Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Volume 12, Number 2. June 2003 Pg 127-134.

Adrian Muller. Burning the Future - Long-term and Large-scale Problems of Bioenergy. Environmental Economics Unit, Department of Economics, G¨oteborg University. July 2005 20:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 03:11, 03 Dec 2005 (GMT)

    • why not include this material in the article itself under the heading criticism. would make an interesting addition V8rik 21:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is correct that biofuel is not carbon neutral. However, in most cases it is still beneficeial for the climate. Most of the greenhouse impact of biofuels is from the farming practises, particular fertilizer use. In this case, it is not CO2 that is released, but methane (CH4) a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If i get around to it, I'll edit a section about the environmental impacts of biofuel production. If you want to go ahead, I suggest you read reports on this subject written by CE Delft, or alternatively:" ECOFYS - Biofuels in the Dutch market - a fact finding study". Jens Nielsen 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say that such discussion about biofuel not being carbon neutral because of the energy-intensive farming was true for a while with ethanol from CORN, and it is still close to that even today; therefore, some individuals such as David Pimentel (cited above), can (with their own agenda in mind) "show" that ethanol from corn IS NOT carbon-neutral. Many more studies have shown that, taking into account farming, and all energy inputs to the process, corn from ethanol is about 1.3:1, this is, for every 1 JOULE of energy going into the process by fosil fuels (tractor fuel, natural gas for the process, etc), you get 1.3 JOULES in the form of ethanol. Now, even when ethanol from corn can remain in the "limbo of controversy" because of the little differences between their energy inputs and outputs, such is not the case for biofuels such as BIODIESEL, for instance, whose overall energy balances (including farming) show that the ratio is 3:1, this is, for every 1 Joule of fossil fuel going into the process you get 3 JOULES in the form of Biodiesel. Now, if you go to more productive crops such as ethanol from Sugar Cane (using sugar itself to make ethanol), their energy balances are even more unreachable by individuals such as Pimentel. Energy balances from Brazil (including farming), show that the ratio is 10:1 (i.e., for every 1 Joule of fossil fuels you get 10 joules of energy in the form of ethanol and electricity). The case with sugar cane is such because of its high productivity. The leftover sugarcane bagasse is used to provide energy for the process and the excess can be used to make electricity. SUCH situation, as with sugarcane, will also be seen when cellulosic ethanol production becomes widespread, as high-productivity crops will be used and the leftover biomass can be used to provide energy for the process and for electricity. IN conclusion, even when ethanol from corn might be trapped in controversy regarding on whether it is carbon neutral or not, such is definitely not the case for BIODIESEL, and even more so for Ethanol from sugarcane, and in the future, for cellulosic ethanol. C.Granda 21:32, 20 June 2006 (TAMU)

Bio-fuel can be much better than carbon neutral when agricultural waste is converted to bio-chemicals or fuels. For example, if waste that is normally left to rot, emitting methane which a strong greenhouse gas, is converted instead to chemicals or fuels, there will be a strong net benefit. Consider also rice straw, which cannot be plowed under and is burned in the fields generating fine silica dust that is associated with elevated rates of asthma in children; converting it to chemicals or fuels, brings a strong net benefit.

Consider bio-ethanol produced from corn. If both distillers grains and corn stover are converted to chemicals, fuels or fertilizer, the greenhouse gas balance becomes completely different.

Focusing only on energy balances is simplistic. We need to consider the quality of the product. For example, adding 5 or 10% ethanol to gasoline has major benefits, allowing gasoline to burn more cleanly and increasing the octane number. In this case, the energy requirements for bio-ethanol should be compared to the energy requirements for the production of similar safe additives (MTBE, for example, has been banned in several states).

MIT algae-reactor

(Added later--we couldn't find evidence that MIT maintains a biofuel-producing algae-reactor. Their cogeneration plant runs on natural gas. If someone has definite information one way or the other, please provide a reference.) User:

The external link ( provided in the article shows that the MIT generator is powered by conventional fuels, NOT by algae or any other biofuel. I have therefore deleted the paragraph that describes this generator, since it has no relevance to biofuels. User:Deyholos

Biofuel as energy extender?

Biofuels may or may not be atmosphere-friendly. Seems to me it could be seen as an extender of current technology until we can develop other fuels. BPearson

Biotech method of producing Biofuel

Anybody who have some ideas on this? WHat are those biofuel that is produced via BIOTECH method? Where can I find those sources? Pls kidly reply to TQ.

The energy chart must go!

The energy chart is way too big and now too comprehensive for this specific article, I think it should become its own article, something like "Energy source comparisons", "Fuel comparisons", etc (someone think of a name). We can broaden everything about the fuels such as there melting points, boiling points, efficiency of recycling, etc, and provide a comprehensive chart of all fuel/energy sources. --BerserkerBen 15:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Awww (insert childish whining here), I was really getting into the modding of this chart. [I have since written maybe 60% of the info on this chart by now, and was hoping to get it finished before someone finally made some sort of inevitable suggestion/complaint.] I didn't start the chart, just inserted info that seemed relevant to the topic (like the column on CO2 gas-produced mass per fuel-used mass (something I haven't completed yet 'cause I haven't found a complete answer on the proportions and chemical compositions of the average sample of "Animal Waste", "Coal", "Petroleum" and average "Vegetable Oil"s (Soybean Oil makes maybe 40% of world production, but has poor energy content per fuel mass, and even worse energy content per CO2 gas-prod. mass (an idea for another column, but alas, there is only so much space on the average 1024x768 screen.)))) I also wanted to insert numbers where it says "Compression Dependant", and was thinking about using the average temperatures and pressures used in the industry of gas delivery (different for "Compressed Gas" and "Liquified Gas", by about 4 fold), but like I said, I didn't start the article, and don't want to offend it's projenitor by deleting, usurping, or otherwise "misplacing" large portions of data that he/she started (I only started working on this article in reverance of the questions that he/she started me to contemplating). But, if there is sufficient consensus among this Wikipedia community (the greatest and most inspiring I have yet to encounter since the Linux community (too bad Lostpedia [[3]] closed it's sources)), then I would be open to the idea of copying this chart as it is to either a page of it's own (like Comparison of Energy-Mediums OR Energy-Media)(fully linked to and from all pages that it references) AND/OR to the Energy development page AND/OR the Future energy development page. It should also be noted prior to data-transplantation, that the Fuel Cell and Battery Energy Storage sections (both of which I added in full) only relate to useable electrical energy output, they also "bleed" heat energy at a rate proportional to the rate at which elec. energy is extracted from them (Ampereage/Electric current). All other non-nuclear sources relate to their heat energy output which may be modulated either by use of a heat furnace AND/OR heat engine AND/OR internal combustion engine (a device which use heat to create pressure changes, without really using the heat itself). Their combustion really only has negative-side effects when you're not sure where to put the CO2 (now that we know to put carbon into plants, we're not sure which plants will consume carbon quikly, while storing solar energy densly into itself, for us to harvest back, without consuming more energy in the whole process, than we harvest back, compared to say, solar power). In direct response to your suggestion though BerserkerBen, I'm a tad sceptical of how adding the info of melting points, boiling points & efficiency of recycling, would be terribly helpful (only 'cause Diesel and certain Oils combust spontaneously under (rapid-)pressurisation). It might require a sub-chart like Comparison_of_BitTorrent_software page OR the Comparison_of_operating_systems page (I do apreciate the colour coding, anything to make the data more accessible, like the colourful charts and graphs of Television's (semi-)news. As hinted to above, an appropriate title to consider is "Comparison of Energy-Storage-Mediums" OR "Comparison of Energy-Media". All fuels mentioned in the chart are mere Energy Storage Mediums, as they (plants mainly) derived their energy from the Sun, and progressively over time were compressed underground by the gravity of the Earth. Thusly, solar, tidal, wind and geothermal power (heat engine from hot-mantle to cool-surface, OR cold-sea-bed to warm-surface) are the only sources of energy that seem sustainable (for at-least 1000 years) with current technologies. --Anonymous 07:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Upon closer examination of various fuels, especially Vegetable oils as fuels, I concur with your assessment that listing the melting points and boiling points of fuels will be helpful as they can be used as indicators to fuel-reaction rates, thermal-energy outputs, phase-change pressure-differentials and perhaps some other key properties worth considering, especially when dealing with Internal combustion engines. As I understand them, ICEs function by using the pressure-change of cool petrol + air mix => hot CO2 + H2O + CO + NOx, a pressure shift of ~1000 factors (ie. the pressure in the piston chamber increases by a few thousand at the rate at which the fuel burns (reacts with air when sparked by spark-plug)). Recycling efficiency is also worth mentioning. --Anonymous 05:10, 01 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I was thinking that things such as batteries would have columns (basically the chart becomes split into several charts) related to them such as efficiency of recycling (recharging), energy storage density (Wh/kg), energy production density (W/kg) energy volumes (wh/l) (w/l) etc. that kind of thing, really I too have added some to the chart and think that its has become big enough to be its own article with a little added introduction. --BerserkerBen 01:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like they're all good ideas. In fact, {related to Recycling} now that I think about it, all fossil fuels and biofuels can also be recycled, if for example you carefully extracted pure CO2 from the atmosphere (or more easily from the power plant, or geosequestration rock-depositor) then mixed it with pure Hydrogen, subjected the mix to intense heat and pressure with various catalysts (like Vanadium, Nickel, Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium or Ruthenium for example), you should output first Methane then heavier, more complex compounds under higher pressures & lower temperatures (I understand this process to be Hydrogenation). Fossil fuel recycling is a very costly and time consuming process, made especially pointless as most of the hydrogen produced industrially comes from the De-Hydrogenation of fossil fuels in the first place. So the efficiency of recycling (recharging) fuels is definetly key to the sustainability of our developing energy-economy (how is the first world NOT part of the developing world, just a bit further along that's all :-]). {related to Energy density}You should notice however that 1 W.h = 1 Watt-hour = 60 (minutes) * 60 Watt.seconds = 3600 Joules = 3.6 kJoules. Joules is a much better form of measuring total work energy, especially because both batteries and fuel cells that are not functioning at peak efficiency will still release their total amount of energy, just more of it will be released as heat at lower efficiency levels (when not using combined heat + elec. efficiency calculations). So energy density relates to total energy density, not modulated by operating efficiency, working conditions, or thermal/electrical resistance/insulation. (related to energy production density) As 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second, 1 Watt per kg = 1 Joule per kilogram.second (1 W/kg = 1 J/kg.s). With batteries, these numbers are easy to input, but for fossil & biofuels and fuel cells, the rate at which energy can be extracted from the fuel, depends on the cumulative number-of, size and efficiency of the reactor(s) (or engine(s) be they heat engine(s) or ICE(s)). At which point, energy rates is an entirely new chart in of itself, where you're comparing biofuel reactors against fossil fuel reactors (or engines), fuel cells and batteries (and photovoltaics, solar heaters, geothermal plants, EM collectors, and all other methods of extracting energy from various energy-storage-mediums (those words again, remember: energy cannot be destroyed AND energy cannot be created, it can only be moved around and transformed from other forms, hopefully for our purposes (the greatest store-houses of energy are the earth and the sun, while energy wells of any form on the earth will always dry-up, the sun rarely fluctuates it's output by more than 0.15% every 10.87 years)). Note: the Sun outputs to the Earth 1366.35 W/m². That means that every 64 hours, the earth receives from the sun as much energy as the total amount of energy stored within all of the earth's fossil fuel deposits (~200 Myears old)(3.9 × 10^22 J (2003)). --Anonymous 05:10, 01 May 2006 (UTC)

Aaah CO2 recycling is the point to biofuels, as long has you grow new energy crops each year equal to or greater then the year before all CO2 produced by biofuels is negated by a equally size CO2 sink. Which is why I disagree about having CO2 values for biofuels. But anyways the move is underway!--BerserkerBen 11:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the chart would be better in it's own article. --Salix alba (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Petroleum fertilizers

Removed from the main article page as it is inappropriate there:

Can someone get stats to account for the amount of petroleum based fertilizers applied to crops grown for bio-fuel. Unless this is acknowledged the true sustainability or production costs of bio-fuel cannot be stated. Because fossil based fertilizers still release CO2 and are finite. —


That whole discussion is a bog that I think we should only touch lightly. For one there is no consensus on the topic, and any summary written by us here would closely resmble original research. I'll try to list some of the things that make this difficult:
  • Fossil fuel is used much more heavily in agricultural biomass compared to forestry biomass. Both are used as bioenergy.
  • High quality biofuels (e.g. bioethanol) is more resource intensive than low quality (e.g. wood chips). On the other hand, so is the case for the petroleum equivalents (e.g. petrol and coal).
  • It may take one energy unit of petrol to produce two energy units of bioethanol, making the CO2-saving only 50 %. But then it should also be taken into consideration that it may take one energy unit of crude oil for every two units of petrol. So for every unit substituted there is an additional 50 % gain. This example would give a CO2-saving of 75 % by substituting petrol with bioethanol.
  • Growing corn for bioethanol is not done only for the energy. The dried distiller's grain that are left when the sugar is removed from the corn is very high in protein. This makes it more valuable as animal feed than regular corn. It may be argued that the energy used for the corn growing was for this purpose primarily and so it is the beef-eaters of the world that are contributing to this energy use.
  • Then many of theses processes are not yet scaled up enough to show their true nature (good and bad).
--Tunheim 11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about hydrogen?

Also hydrogen can be produced by using algae, even if the research is still in an early stage. Cars and such who are running on hydrogen producued by micro-organism should be considered as a case of biofuel too.

On a similar note, there is also research being conducted into the production of a (crude) bio-oil from micro-organisms: reuters report

Direct biofuel

G'day, I don't understand what the point of the Direct biofuel section is. Biofuels such as straight vegetable oil and palm oil, which can be directly used in diesel engines, are not mentioned in this section, but derived (i.e. indirect) fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are. The section doesn't make any sense to me, and I think it should either be removed, or rewritten to make some sense. Webaware 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Did my edit address your concerns?User:bluGill
Much better, but the section still seems unnecessary to me. However, I'm no biofuelled engine enthusiast. I gave it a bit of a cleanup anyway. Webaware 00:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I note the expansion of the biofuels page, specifically the direct biofuels page. You mention a direct biofuel is one that can be used directly in a petroleum engine. Biogas can be also be used directly but in a standard gas engine. --Alex 08:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the name is bad. This page is not well organized. Direct biofuels are mostly addressing transportation (at least after my edits, and it seems to be what the intent was), but the definition and heading means that several fuels are eliminated from this section. Biogas won't run in any "traditional" engine without modification, so it isn't a direct biofuel, yet it is clearly a biofuel of importance. I'm not ready to propose a complete reorganization, but perhaps someone should, with sections on heating, cooking, transportation, and electric. BluGill 18:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The following passage moved from introduction

I dont see that these companies are so relevant to the topic of biofuels they should be mentioned in the introduction to an encyclopedia article. Seems to me to be spam. --Alex 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Genencor and Novozymes are two other companies that have received United States government Department of Energy funding for research into reducing the cost of cellulase, a key enzyme in the production cellulosic ethanol by enzymatic hydrolysis.

Other enzyme companies, such as Dyadic International, Inc. (AMEX: DIL), have been using fungi to develop and manufacture cellulases in 150,000 liter industrial fermenters.

Yep, spam. --Tunheim 11:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Biofuels and biomass fuels

What is biofuel? It seems that in common usage the term biofuel is used to mean a liquid or gas fuel that is derived from biomass while the term "biomass fuel" (which redirects here) means biomass is used directly as a fuel. [4]This article seems to be using the term biofuel to mean gas or liquied fuels in the history section, it says biofuel was first used in the "early days of the car industry". Then in the section "Applications of biofuels" it says "Typical fuels for this are wood, charcoal or dried dung". Is wood a biofuel? Is wood considered to be "derived" from biomass? The article also uses the term "bioenergy". What is bioenergy? Both biofuels and biomass fuels? (it also redirect to biofuels). KAM 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bioenergy, depending on it's use, is a hypernym or synonym of biofuel. It seems to be the more common term in Europe as opposed to biofuel being the more common in the US. The term bioenergy is also sometimes used in medical text, but then to describe something completely unrelated to this arena. --Alf 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
bio·fu·el (from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)
Pronunciation: -primarystressfyü(-schwa)l
Function: noun
Date: 1970
 : a fuel (as wood or ethanol) composed of or produced from biological raw materials -- compare FOSSIL FUEL
--Tunheim 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Since bioenergy has a slightly different meaning than biofuel and also can refer to a medical concept, should we make it a separate article? Any thoughts? --Alf 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacking any protests, change has been made. Check out the bioenergy article. It's only a stub so far --Tunheim 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


{{Contradict}} removed since there was no post at the talk page elaborating what was contradictory. --Alf 13:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[layout] text wrap-around the jpg in first section...

   I don't know how to make the markup edit, but the text line beginning with "Biofuel can be used both for central and decentralized" is too close to the top of the "Sugar_cane_leaves.jpg" image. In some page loads the text is partially obscured. Adequate whitespace exists at the bottom of the image to move it down or a ~1/2 line space could be added above. Tickerhead 06:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecological Impact

The section "Criticisms", subsection "Ecological Impact" has the following problems:

1. The first paragraph states that biofuels prevent climate change and as its evidence of this, simply makes the statement again. This paragraph should be removed, since it is an unsubstatiated claim (and a pretty big one at that!).

2. There are no references for any of the statements made in this subsection.

3. This subsection is pretty (suspiciously?) glowing in praise; if references can be found, this subsection should not be in under "Criticisms".

Piquin 20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is looking scrappy and needs a good reworking. Any takers?!--Alex 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Even though biofuels close the carbon cycle, wouldn't biofuels still produce smog when burned, just like conventional gasoline and diesel? —Ben FrantzDale 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do, sometimes even worst because the engines are not designed for the biofuel, biodiesel has this particular problem. Lkleinjans 12:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What a shame... close the carbon cycle but still pollute. If that's the case, it should be mentioned in the article. —Ben FrantzDale 14:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Bioethanol/ethanol combustion contributes less smog as combustion temperatures inside the cylinder are lower compared to diesel and petroleum engines, and so less NOx is formed from nitrogen and oxygen reacting. NOx contibutes to photochemical smog

2nd generation fuels

I was very surprised to see nothing on 2nd generation fuels in this article. So I added some stuff I know. I will gather more references over the next weeks, so please don't delete! Lkleinjans 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of New layout of Article

I would like to propose a new layout for the biofuel article. Firstly:

  • Shorten the introduction - it goes into too much depth
  • Abolish Direct Biofuel heading
  • Abolish Second Generation Biofuel heading
  • Abolish Examples heading and subheadings

Replace these with a list of all known biofuels stating below each biofuel how it is made -wikilinking to processes-; where it can be used -wikilinking to uses- and then state in which countries it is being used and to what percentage. Also for biofuels such as biodiesel and bioethanol provide a 'main article' link. This page should be a summary of all biofuels linking to the main pages of those biofuels and to the main pages of the processes and biomasses to make those biofuels. It can be stated below a biofuel heading if it is direct use or not. For instance:


Main article: biodiesel

  • Production Raw Materials - e.g. Rapeseed
  • Production Methods - e.g. Transesterification of SVO or waste fat
  • Uses - e.g. as replacement for mineral diesel in diesel engines, can be used directly without engine modification. Currently used in the following countries: Europe etc.
  • Criticism - Palm oil rainforests etc.

Another heading of interest could be Biofuel Policies for instance in the UK 5% of all fuel sold must be biofuel by 2010 [5]

Could people please let me know what they think! Lkleinjans 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to Biofuel

"On the down side, methane has a global warming potential of 23 relative to CO2." The statement above is in the article but what is meant by down side. Is methane good or bad for the environment and how is it good or bad by burning it or doing nothing. @June 18 2007 by Daron Smith

The biofuel article is biased. Using fossil fuel to produce biofuel violates the principle of using biofuel in the first place. The burning of fossil fuel is one of the main causes of carbon dioxide increase leading to global worming. The planting of new crops especially legumes that don’t need fertilizers and then converting them to biofuel to replace all burning of fossil fuel would reduce the carbon dioxide in the air dramatically. @June 1 2007 by Daron Smith

Dear Daron Smith, I agree it is ridiculous that biofuels can be called biofuel when they are produced using mainly fossil fuels, but that is what First generation biofuels are, they usually on reduce carbon emissions by 20-40% instead of the 100% most people expect; Second generation fuels are a bit better at about 80% carbon emissions savings as opposed to using fossil fuel. But at the moment it is almost impossible to produce anything that doesn't have a net carbon emission due to the whole fossil oil economy.
Also try and get a user name at wikipedia, that way you can sign your comments using ~~~~ and so people can't see your IP address. Cheers Lkleinjans 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Daron. How do we convert the legumes to biofuel? Where does the energy come from if not fossil fuel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

definations of biofuels

If you google the terms: biofuel and glossary (and term, biomass) you will find that about 80% or more define it as a liquid or gas fuel derived from biomass. Calling wood a biofuel may be technically correct but confusing and swimming against the tide. KAM 01:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi KAM. If your point concerns wood (solid fuel?) and is directed to me, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Solid fuel has been specifically mentioned in the lead for some time. The changes I recently made were really just cosmetic and are unrelated to this point. TheBusiness 07:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Ok, I think you meant this in relation to wood fuel, so I've changed that back to just "fuel". TheBusiness 09:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • - Yes I shouldn't have edited in such an abrupt manner, it was done in a moment of impatience. Just from general reading it seems that the term biofuel is almost always used to mean liquid or gas fuels for transportation which I think you agree. Saying wood is a biofuel seems pedantic to me However it seems to me that, as written, it implies that this article is going to define the term biofuels in a more narrow manner then it's general use which would be original research. I though my edits just clarified what what was already implied in the article. For now I will remove the sources that I don't think support the statement and I apologize for the manner in which I made the edits. KAM 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

International efforts

Should be changed to national efforts because that is what it has become. International is deferent depending on you location. Dsmith7707 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

EU biofuel report

Hi, I just moved the section about the UN Biofuel report and it's concerns into the criticisms section. The reprt raises (and serves as a citation) for two issues already covered in criticism -- food security and environmental impacts. Envirocorrector 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See also vs. Energy Contents

So, the section called "energy contents of biofuel" was not that, listing things like the biosphere and hybrid cars. So I merged it in with see also. Another editor had just deled see also entirely, which seems drastic to me, since this article rightly link to lots of other interesting, and more in-depth, information on specific fuels, etc. Now the see also section is unweildy and long, maybe we can cut anything with another link in the article - all the specific fuels, for example, and let this category serve to cover other intersting info. Envirocorrector 09:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate template

The template:renewable energy sources has been vandalized to change it to say "Energy development" instead of "Renewable energy" which is what it should say. Nuclear power also needs to be deleted. Very few people think that nuclear power is "renewable energy". Template has been restored and protected for one week. 07:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Greenhouse Emission

Recent research suggesting certain biofuels releases more harmful greenhouse gases than fossil fuel [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Second generation biofuels research at Cambridge University

I believe Cambridge University also has done research with second-generation biofuels (I think woodchips?). I heard it on a BBC-radio program. It was said that the University had a working car on woodchips. Perhaps it is possible to look into this and add it to the article ?


Zippo 11:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Carbon Emissions

On Sep. 14, 2007 someone added this to the main article:

"This does assume however that the land used for growing the crops would alternatively be desert or paved area. If the land was previously a (tropical rain-) forest, the carbon absorption of this forest should be deducted from the greenhouse gas savings. This implies that the net effect of burning bio-fuels is an increase in greenhouse gasses."

that seems like a completely bogus inference to me. the poster seems to be ignoring or unaware of the fact that a renewable bio-fuel is a closed carbon cycle and/or it assumes that only a single crop is harvested from each bio-fuel field

IOW, the net difference between the carbon in the previous forest and the carbon in the bio-fuel farm is a one time offset, versus the continuous output of carbon from a non-renewable fuel

Bruceadler 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Renewable fuels.

  • Oppose. Both articles are quite extensive and merging them will not only be difficult but will create an article that will be too large. They are also separate topics and therefore deserve separate article. -- Alan Liefting talk 09:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree, that putting all information together into one article will create a large article. However, lot of information is repeated and lot of information has to be moved into spin-off articles. These section in merged article should use summary style. Beagel 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. On closer inspection the aricle needs a jolly good cleanup. There is an obvious hierarchy in topics here:
  • Oppose, for the reasons given by Alan... Johnfos 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Couldn't you call any fuel created through solar energy renewable? There are biological, chemical, and physical examples of this. twannier 09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Both articles talks about biofuels and there is no need to have two articles about exactly same topics. Both existing articles need extensive clean-up(particularly Renewable fuels). Lot of information should be removed into existing branch articles, and if necessary, spin-off articles should be created. Things, which is not about biofuels (renewable fuels) should be removed (e.g. there is no need to repeat peak oil theory under renewable fuels - we have special article for this).Beagel 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose. I agree that something needs to be done, as they are rather redundant, however, i do not believe that merging the two alone is the solution. As Alan Liefting states, there is an obvious hierarchy. Perhaps Renewable fuels should first be better organized as the parent entry for, "renewable fuels" and containing brief summaries about each form of renewable fuel. Then, more detailed entries can reside in the specific renewable fuel entries, such as Biofuels. This appears to be a hierarchy issue. Javier Odom 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with this hierarchy. In this case the Renewable fuels should consists a brief summaries about biofuels, about hydrogen fuels (if it will be verified to be renewable fuel) and maybe something else (is there any other renewable fuel?). But in this case there is nothing you could use from the existing article. It could be logical to merge existing article into Biofuels, and write a new article on renewable fuels.Beagel 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not all renewable fuels are derived from biological/agricultural processes, for example hydrogen fuel can be made industrially from wind or solar energy. Most renewable fuels might currently be synonymous with biofuels, but they are not intrinsically the same, and deserve separate articles as I see it. I also support Alan's heirarchy of Fuels -> Renewable fuels -> Biofuels. --chodges 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's true that it's possible to produce hydrogen fuel from renewables, but does that mean that hydrogen fuel itself is a renewable fuel? It could be classified so if there is any solid reference saying that. Is there any other renewable fuel what is not a biofuel?Beagel 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All biofuels are renewable, but not all renewable energies are biofuels. Alan's heirarchy of Fuels -> Renewable fuels -> Biofuels is ideal. With respect to hydrogen fuel, it can be produced from biomass, or not. It fits in both categories. But this applies to biodiesel vs diesel, and biobutanol vs butanol too. Some fuels that are made from fossil reserves can also be made from biomass. Jim 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not see overwhelming support for the merge so lets drop it. Instead focus on removing redundancy: this article could be much more brief if content is left to satellite pages. V8rik 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • merge discussion closed: no merge V8rik (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited for profanity

Needless profanity edited out of the "History and Policy" section. Grow up, people. HealthySkepticism (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Genetic engineering and biofuels

Obviously genetic engineering could make more efficient bioproducts for conversion into energy. I am fairly certain such work is being done, but such information is missing from the article. It would be good to expand it in this direction.--Molobo (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I added a discussion of genetic engineering to Bioalcohols for you Escientist (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag "Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate" section

I've added a POV tag to the "Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate" section as it is too negative. I think terms such as "absolutely catastrophic," and "crime against humanity" have no place in a balanced encyclopedia article. I also think the highly-opinionated "Comment" piece from the Guardian should be avoided. We should draw more on the many recent reports which are available, which are more balanced and comprehensive.

Benefits, such as the importance of higher returns to farmers, have been overlooked:

However, such increases in the demand for, and price of, crops can provide higher returns to farmers. Moreover, higher prices for agricultural crops are one possible answer to the “paradox of agriculture”. Under this paradox, during periods of high yield, farmers have had to sell their output at low prices because supply outstripped demand. Now that there are potentially alternative uses for food crops, supply and demand could become more balanced, resulting in higher prices for agricultural produce.[7]

And there is too much unsourced/citation needed material, making the whole presentation quite dubious... Johnfos (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • let's address the issues:
  1. read up on NPOV policies: it requires representation of all views, if the overall picture turns out to be negative then that is it. (just an example: is there anything nice to report on Droughts?)
  2. the catastrophic and crime quotes are from a United Nations expert see also and very credible. You intent to censor him because of his choice of words? The article neglects to mention that Ziegler assumes that after these 5 years:

Within that time, according to Mr Ziegler, technological advances would enable the use of agricultural waste, such as corn cobs and banana leaves, rather than crops themselves to produce fuel.

  1. Monbiot is not just a campaigner but also a columnist for the Guardian. He basically repeats the UN report so we do not really need this statement His statements though are referenced but his critics statements are not. These should go for certain.
  2. Two main counterpoints are already represented in the article: increased profits for farmers (opening sentence) and switch to non-food ethanol sources. Both benefits are also covered in the NGM article.
  3. the reference you give above, a UN newsletter I find not credible, the quote you give above I have been unable to find in that newsletter.
  4. as in any article, uncited material should be delt with: add a {{Fact}} tag and add the date tagged as well. And after lets say 6 months remove the statement when still untagged.

V8rik (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The reference UN independent rights expert calls for five-year freeze on biofuel production provided in the Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate section could not be verified because the URL would not open. To be fair, the general "NEWS" section at the UN website would also not open, so I have left it in, but it still needs to be verfied. Fireproeng (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
See above: I have already provided an alternative link (BBC news) with relevant information that verified see V8rik (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So the link should be removed? Fireproeng (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say replace it with the BBC reference V8rik (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Done Fireproeng (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we please have focussed talk topics, if we pile everything up into just one section it will be inpossible to sort things out. V8rik (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are two issues being discussed here - One is that of Wikipedia style - The other is that of balanced content.
  • The issue of biofuel is clearly a controversial "debate" with strong emotions on both sides of the fence. Most of the article is pro-biofuel. This section merely tries to add some much-needed practical reality balance to the topic. The new 2007-12-19 U.S. energy legislation provides $7 billion in subsidies for producing 35 billion gallons by 2022. Some Presidential candidates are calling for 60 billion gallons by 2030. Some scientists are suggesting that the impact on agricultural effort, land and water are unsustainable. Biofuels are most certainly non-scalable. (See final citation)
  • Farmers need subsidies, but not ones that diminish food production and starve 2 billion people. Diverting any resources from food production, when nearly a billion earthlings are starving worldwide, should indeed be considered internationally illegal. We have an abundant set of clean energy resources, with fuel that is free. We must learn to live in harmony with nature, and not contiue the thought process that lead us down the non-scalable, unsustainable path to petroleum. Biofuel is a non-scalable detour toward our clean, free energy future. IMHO
  • I did not say it in the article, but solar and wind energy have none of these negative impacts on humanity. We need a realistic view of all alternatives, including limited use of biofuels from otherwise-useless waste, but only if the net energy gain + reduction of disposal problems (like citrus peels) is worth the effort.
  • The solid citations in this section should remain - They are merely facts, without Wikipedia editorial content. Uncited speculation should be removed, or citations added, to conform to proper Wikipedia style, but Wikipedia invites both-sides of controversial issues, and the 5-pillars Welcome invites bold contributions, which editors can then clean up (not indiscriminately block delete if they do not agree with the cited position).
  • Let's come to agreement, and remove the POV.
  • I invite and appreciate constructive criticism. Escientist (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I have added the missing citations, and tried to make it more balanced with a discussion of collocation. Can we now remove the POV, or would someone please be very specific about what remains to be changed. Please propose specific rewording that preserves both sides of this reasonable international debate. Escientist (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • We have made progress, the fact tags have been covered so I agree that the POV tag should go. Ideally Johnfos should join the discussion (he put up the fact tag) and hopefully agree and remove the tag himself. A general remarks for editors: try to use edit summary especially when deleting content V8rik (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the POV tag now. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think that the issues section that is on the biofuel page is a bit short? We should at least include a paragraph, whereas the current section is just a laundry list of assorted issues. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Presentiment (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Presentiment

Overall article refrences

Have added {{Fact}} tags to many unreferenced statements, and reworded obvious POV. Fireproeng (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bioenergy from waste section refrences

The reference [8] provided in the Bioenergy from waste section should not be considered as an adequate primary or secondary reference. It is unclear from what source this website derives it's statements, and the owner or author is unclear. It may be a nice looking blog. I have removed it, added a {{Fact}} tag. Fireproeng (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty reduction

Please include in the poverty reduction-section following information:

In the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer argue that a large-scale biofuels industry will harm developing nations, not help them (How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor). The authors flatly state that "if oil prices remain high -- which is likely -- the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum." Just as with palm oil, the article argues that the sky's the limit for biofuel crops that compete with food. One of their examples is casava, which is an excellent ethanol source due to its high-starch content. If the developing world turns to biofuels to replace oil, it seems like a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

A rewrite of the information is offcourse necessairy. Also include the link to the report.

original text/article —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talkcontribs) 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rising food prices/the "food vs. fuel" debate

I would like to urge editors to keep the Biofuel#Rising_food_prices.2Fthe_.22food_vs._fuel.22_debate focused on food vs fuel, other issues (soil erosion, deforestation) should be placed elsewhere. Also when editing try to avoid big rewrites: it is difficult to tract changes this way, especially in disputed sections try to go for more smaller edits with extended edit summary. Also: many fact tags still to tackle. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8rik (talkcontribs) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • forgot to sign! V8rik (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spin off "Current issues in biofuel production and use" into a seperate article

  • I think "Current issues in biofuel production and use" (or food vs. fuel debate, same thing, or named better) should be spun off as another article and just summarized and linked from here. My reasoning is that the debate is valid and applies to all biofuels, and would be worthwhile as a mention in all biofuel related articles, ie: biodiesel, etc. Another benefit is that the information is somewhat controversial, and centralizing the info into a single article that can be 'borrowed' from in other articles may make citations and management easier, while actually providing a better environment to expand the article, providing citations for both sides of the debate. I would like some input on this from others. Pharmboy (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • the information in the issues section is not controversial. This section is also central to the biofuel theme. No need to create a new article. V8rik (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to spin off "food vs fuel debate" as this issue is common to all biofuels. Other issues are not though so I would not use the word "issues". Vincecate (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to create a separate, expanded article on the food vs fuel issue, using it as a {{main}} source in this and some of the other biofuel related articles.--Paleorthid (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. Currently there is something here in biofuel, and also in biodiesel, ethanol economy, and in vegetable oil economy and probably others. Vincecate (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have made a start on a food vs fuel article. Most of the stuff there came from here. Any help appreciated. I will probably fix it up some more then reduce what is here to a summary and pointer to the new article. Any objections or encouragement please note here. Vincecate (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Net energy gain

I added a ref in support of a 3.2X net energy gain for biofuel. However, it is the primary source, and I am hoping somebody can help me dig up a reliable, published secondary source. That's especially important because the 3.2X value is forcefully disputed (Pimentel, 2005, (pdf), ([9]) and the basis of the dispute is itself widely disputed (Journeytoforever, html), (Gerpen, pdf). A secondary source is needed that reconciles these perspectives. -- Paleorthid (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There are different biofuels and they have different net energy gains. I think I have seen 3.2 for biodiesel, but ethanol or vegetable oil will have different numbers. And even one type can have different numbers depending on many details. Vincecate (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunlight-to-Wheels Efficiency

New section called Sunlight-to-Wheels Efficiency but without any references, also google score 2 for this phrase, are there any citations forthcoming? V8rik (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Guess not, section removed. V8rik (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Too bad to lose that section; those were some interesting facts. Would be good for that information to return with references that faciliate transparency in following the calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyga (talkcontribs) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"The black soot that is being carried from Asia to polar ice caps is causing them to melt faster in the summer." This is in the second paragraph, and seems to add little to the article, and does not seem to be grounded in fact. Additionally, it seems to be suggesting that the increase in polar ice cap melting is due to the actions of the inhabitants of Asia, which is untrue. Comment should be removed. (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Carbon emissions

I added a specific example to this section, because it makes the section better. Here is what I added:

To explain one specific example of how biofuels cause more harm than good, a June 17, 2006 editorial in the Wall. St. Journal stated, "The most widely cited research on this subject comes from Cornell's David Pimental and Berkeley's Ted Patzek. They've found that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol -- 29% more. That's because it takes enormous amounts of fossil-fuel energy to grow corn (using fertilizer and irrigation), to transport the crops and then to turn that corn into ethanol." [2]

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the Pimental/Patzek work is widely disputed, it is even more widely accepted, and on that basis it should be included in the article. We probably need a balancing note about the disputed nature of the P&P work. For those not aware of the dispute, the problem is mainly what looks to be biased figuring. A case in point is the incorrect allocation of the energy used to manufacture agricultural lime (see Gerpen, pdf) in the dismissal of the positive energy balance reported in a previous (and far more rigorous) study on biodiesel. Peer review of Pimental's work apparently doesn't extend to strict intellectual rigor. Second problem: the type of conflict of interest that can lead to biased figuring: "Patzek worked for Shell Oil Company as a researcher, consultant, and expert witness. He founded and directs the UC Oil Consortium, which is mainly funded by the oil industry at the rate of US$60,000-120,000 per company per year" source: (Journeytoforever, html). Informing the reader as to the importance of achieving a truly positive energy balance belongs in the article, it is a shame that we have to rely on such a weak work to support this critical point. Rock stars in science: what can you do?--Paleorthid (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PNAS source assistance needed

The following fact needs to be added to the article, but I can't locate the source: "...a recent five-year, three-state study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln shows that switchgrass grown for biofuel production produced 540 percent more energy than that needed to grow, harvest and process it into cellulosic ethanol. The study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, also shows that along with the energy advances, switchgrass also offers significant environmental benefits, including many conservation uses ‑ the deep fibrous roots of the plant help to keep soil intact and virtually stop runoff. It puts organic material back into the ground, improving soil, and requires no pesticides or fertilizers." (source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleorthid (talkcontribs) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Food vs. Fuel errors

There are several notable errors in the section including the section on Brazil's sugar cane ethanol production. It is no where near the Amazon nor is it irrigated at all. Cane wont grow well in the Amazon basin. The edit just points out the location of the cane south east of the Amazon river. It inverts the previous writers intention but I'm sorry, it is the truth. check a map.

I would also like to add a paragraph with two references. This covers the fact that ethanol production does not destroy the food. Also biodiesel also has edible by-products. [This Wiki-editing is harder than it looks. :-) Where's that first reference sprung from?]

food from fuel

However to some extent the fuel vs. food debate is fundamentally flawed because the process of making ethanol does not destroy the protein content of the food feed stock. The protein mix and flavour is changed but food can be made from the beer mash, yeast and dried by-product Distillers grains. [3][4] For each ton of ethanol you get a ton of distillers grains. There are recipes for beer mash breads and noodles can be made from them with some processing. The protein in oil seeds is also retained in the oil seed press cakes and press cake is used in industrial cooking world wide. Both are used as livestock feed. The Unami flavour of the ethanol by-product makes it useful for gravy and mock meat production. The carbohydrate removal is not a problem because many in the west have excess carbohydrate and in many third world counties Kwashiorkor is a major problem. In much of the third world Carbohydrates are often available but the protein is lacking. It should also be noted that second and third generation biofuel: cellulitic ethanol and algae oil could produce some edible protein and with care and attention to this possibility the quantity and quality of these edible by-products could be huge and world food production could actually increase. Careful labelling will be required so that those with yeast and legume allergies can avoid these biofuel by-products.

  1. ^ Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus
  2. ^ An Energy Field of Dreams The Wall St. Journal, June 17, 2006
  3. ^ Sustainable Ethanol. Jeffrey Goettemoeller, Adrian Goettoeller. Prairie Oak Publishing. page 85 2007
  4. ^ Ethanol by-product recipes:

Gathall (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • interesting material, most of it backed up by the october 2007 issue of national geographic. On the other hand this article also warns that expansion of brazillian cane acreage may also contribute to deforestation of the Amazone but also to damage to the Cerrado. better place this particular section in ethanol fuel. V8rik (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Biofuel Special

Take a look at this biofuel resource. Might be added to the sources: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


"Biofuel may be jargon but you can be sure it is derived from biomass jargon". Biomass is equally jargonous as biofuel.
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact on water resources

Great contribution but with two remarks:

  • Some of the issues raised are only relevant to parts of the US where water is scarce and therefore some of the content is better placed in Ethanol fuel in the United States.
  • Some of the statistics and calculation can also be placed as a footnote.

V8rik (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure, I believe that irrigation of crops used as feedstocks for biofuel does occur outside the US, although it is true that Jatropha is rainfed. For example, sugarcane is irrigated in many countries (e.g. in Morocco), although in Brazil much of it seems to be rainfed. I would thus keep the section here, and perhaps someone could also include it in the article on Ethanol in the US. Concerning the calculations, I will move them in a footnote.--Mschiffler (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GM ethanol production for E85 fuel

The way the article is written cellulose and old tires are both need. This is not true. Old tires can be used but are not required. Wood chips would be used and any plant material that would normally go into a landfill can be used. Some cellulose can be recycled so it will not be used to make ethanol. All cars in the USA can use E20 fuel since 1988. Michigan has used E10 fuel only for several years now. Cars that can use E85 should get credit for 85% less CO2 emissions.

Dsmith7707 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

The purpose of this article is to explain biofuels. Please take out all the stuff that belongs in a debating forum.Landroo (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article editing

Could somebody please change the heading 'Columbia' to 'Colombia'. The name of the nation in South America is always spelt with an O (yes in English as well as Spanish), unlike the various cities, provences and districts of North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Food vs fuel

There is a debate on what is going on. You can not just say "biofuel is not the main cause". Your reference does not say that. It says, "Rising oil prices and fears over climate change have seen a massive rise in the use of maize to make bio-fuels, pushing up food prices". It also says there are other factors. There are many references that say US government subsidies of ethanol is the main cause. But when there is a debate Wikipedia says you have to present all sides, you can't make it look like there is agreement when there is not. When there is a debate you can't just push statements to one side saying, "no weasel words". You are saying things in the summary of the main food vs fuel article that are not in that article. And then you are taking out the, "rising prices hurt poor people more" which is an important point in the main article. It seems like you are not taking a fair, balanced, and objective view of this. Also, there is more room for stuff in the main article than in this little summary. Please discuss before clicking "undo" again. Vincecate (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • you are suppressing a valid source (BBC) [10] listing several factors contributing to higher food prices, one of them population growth. Nicely summarises the debate continued on Food vs fuel. You also undid my edits concerning weasel words without any discussion. That is regrettable. For the record these are my edits: [[11]] V8rik (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When I look at your source I do not find the statement, "biofuel is not the main cause". Does my browser show something different than yours? I don't have any problem with the source. My problem is with you asserting that "biofuel is not the main cause" when that is neither agreed nor stated by your source. In fact, your source says a "massive rise in the use of maise to make bio-fuels, pushing up food prices." I also don't think you should take out the comment about the poor when that is a main theme in many articles about food vs fuel. Vincecate (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So you agree with the source then. All that matters now is the exact phrasing. To me "biofuel is not the main cause" is not very different from lets say "biofuel is one of the contributing factors". Please note that we do not copy/paste sources unless we quote somebody. Exactly what phrase would be acceptable to you. Btw lets keep this discussion civilised, there is nothing wrong with my browser and I am generally considered fair, balanced, and objective in my edits. V8rik (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but that is not the only source I agree with. That source only looks at the last year price change and I think you need to look further back to notice most of what corn has done. I notice that in food vs fuel discussion you want to have "biofuel controversy" part of the name. So it seems odd that here you want to make it look like things are settled and decided. :-) I don't have any problem with "biofuel is one of the contributing factors", while I do with "biofuel is not the main cause", since I don't think that second has been established. Actually, most articles really blame "biofuel subsidies" and not "biofuels" themselves. So I would even ok with "biofuels are not the main cause" if you could at the same time leave open that "biofuel subsidies" might be. Anyway, my browser is on Linux and without flash or java, so sometimes I don't see everything others do. Vincecate (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Context of Oilgae stats

You cite the following statistic: "It would require 15,000 square miles (38,849 square kilometers), which is a few thousand miles larger than Maryland." However, please put it into perspective. Does that statistic suggest that a small or large number of farms would be needed relative to corn farming, etc? How feasible is it to replace fossil fuels with oilgae? To an Average Joe like myself, this statistic is meaningless without your setting the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

kj;lkj;k —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetic engineering and biofuels

Genetic engineering and biofuels is important part of energy research, some expansion of this in article would be welcomed.

For example: [12] --Molobo (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Biofuels and sustainability/carbon neutrality

The intro currently only cites energy security as a reason for using biofuels. I thought that the main argument for them was that they are sustainable, being carbon neutral (or at least more so than fossil fuels. Notwithstanding the debate (covered in detail later in the article) as to whether biofuels achieve this, shouldn't this goal be stated up front in the article? Please feel free to jump on me if I'm wrong here, but I was surprised that this isn't addressed early in the article. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Feel free to start the section. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

I feel that the Biofuel#Worldwide production and consumption section should be split out to its own article. After splitting out Issues relating to biofuels the section bcame about one third of the article. As a new article it could also do with some expansion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad References

References Number one is a dead link.. please review. Pillowmurder (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Glicocladium Roseum?

Something should be added to point to Clonostachys rosea f. rosea. I'm not sure where it should be added, but it may very well be the main answer to what is the future of biofuel technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Bio-energy with carbon storage has been merge tagged for inclusion into this article. I suggest this is unwise, as the proposal is geoengineering, not biofuel. In any event, it is separately notable.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC) I agree this is not appropriate, since this is indeed a separate subject, or even group of subjects. Nepomuk 3 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I will de-tag it. I'm watching this page and will revert if there are any objections.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


biomass is a renewable resources. It is wood, our garbage, ethnol and biodiesel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Biodiesel reactor

Perhaps following low-cost reactor can be named: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol from living algae reads like an ad for Alganol

There are multiple ways to extract biofuels from algae without destroying the cells. There's no need to have this subsection for one specific company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

hi this hemanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Methane -> CO2 GHG calculation

As of 21/10/09, article reads

"If landfill gas is not harvested, it escapes into the atmosphere: this is undesirable because methane is a greenhouse gas with much more global warming potential than carbon dioxide.[9][10] Over a time span of 100 years, one ton of methane produces the same greenhouse gas (GHG) effect as 21 tons of CO2.[11] When methane burns, it produces carbon dioxide in the ratio 1:1—CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. So, by harvesting and burning landfill gas, its global warming potential is reduced a factor of 23, in addition to providing energy for heat and power."

This is not correct. As the equation shows, complete combustion of 1 mole of methane produces 1 mole of CO2 but complete combustion of 1 ton of methane does not produce 1 ton of CO2, because 1 mole of CO2 is heavier than 1 mole of methane. The RMM of CO2 is approx. 44, the RMM of CH4 is approx. 16. Complete combustion of 1 ton of methane produces 1 x (44/16) tons of CO2 or roughly 2.75 tons. Assuming the preceding statement that one ton of methane produces the same GHG effect as 21 tons of CO2 is accurate, harvesting and burning methane will reduce it's GHG effect by a factor of around (21/2.75) or 7.6, which is still substantial.

As the article does previously state landfill gas is only around 50% methane, I would also take care only refer to methane when the calculations are only based on methane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Combustion of syngas more "efficient" than combustion of the biofuels that were used to make it?

As of 21/10/09, article reads

"Using the syngas is more efficient than direct combustion of the original biofuel; more of the energy contained in the fuel is extracted"

I don't want to say it's impossible, but as it stands this statement badly needs referencing and/or clarification. There are definitely advantages to burning syngas over direct combustion in certain situations, but I find it hard to believe that overall the extraction of useful energy is higher, assuming you're going to take into account that a certain amount of useful energy is lost converting biofuels to syngas in the first place (which you surely should). From what I've seen of developmental systems in the UK, you'll typically lose about 15-25% of your energy content converting biofuels to syngas. You can probably get hold of a syngas burner that's a little bit more efficient than a solid-fuel burner, but overall you'll get about the same amount of useful energy out or less by converting to syngas than you would with direct combustion, as the laws of thermodynamics would suggest. (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Issues relating to biofuels is a WP:POVFORK and should be merged back in to this article. (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. Issues article has been split off per Wikipedia:Summary style which says that sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place; summary sections are then linked to the detailed article with a link to the main article. This is what has been done, per policy. Johnfos (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per Johnfos. It is inevitable, due to the growth of article size or notability of a topic, that an article will be created that is predominately highlighting negative aspects. That does not make it POV if it is suitably balanced and referenced. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the merge tag; there is no consensus to merge. Johnfos (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


Introduction needs attention.

"Biofuels – liquid fuels derived from renewable resources such as plant or animal materials"

Biofuels is actually a blanket term for "solid (bio-char), liquid (ethanol, vegetable oil and biodiesel) or gaseous (biogas, biosyngas and biohydrogen) fuels that are predominantly produced from biomass" Demirbas, A. . (2009). "Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review". Applied Energy. 86: S108–S117. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.036. 

The article even has sections on 'biogas' and 'solid biofuels', so liquid is very out of place. I will rewrite an opening sentence. But this leaves a problem with the rest of the introduction, which only summarises bioethanol and biodiesel. Jebus989 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


I have removed reference to this product for the reasons enumerated below:

  1. The section would be overly long if it contained a list of all biofuel products.
  2. The product doesn't exist, though it's developers hope it will.
  3. The section contains a list of fuels by generation and type. Helioculture isn't a type of fuel, it's a product. The Helioculture article does not specify either fuel type (alcohol, biodiesel, etc.) or process (other than to say it isn't algae). It's speculative at best.
  4. The authors of the Helioculture article have made a point to add links to their article in fuel-related articles in a manner that can best be described as self-promotion but most would call spam. Rklawton (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Commentary removed from main page

Why bioflues with microalgae?

1) Production per area of microalgae cultures could greatly exceed the yield of the best crops; 2) Microalgae cultivation requires less amount of water than terrestrial plants; 3) They can be cultivated in seawater or brackish water on areas not used for conventional agriculture; 4) Microalgal biomass production may be associated to direct use of flue gas, waste CO2 (1 Kg of biomass requires about 2 Kg of CO2); 5) Nutrients for microalgae (N and P) can be obtained from


--E8 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Third and Forth Generation Biofuel

Can anyone find the definition for third and forth generation biofuel? First and second generation biofuels seem to be well documented. --Jpe77 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! The definitions used in the article appear to be a long way off from common usage, at least in Europe --Andersneld (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

After some additional reading on the subject I am convinced that at least the concept of fourth generation biofuel is dubious. The reference to GTM Research that is found in the article does not shed much light on the subject except promote a $1495 report. Also, the mention in the article text of pyrolysis and gasification as fourth generation technology pathways is strange. Gasification, for example, produces syngas, period. What is done with the syngas is another matter altogether. Gasification of lignocellulosic feedstock produces syngas that can be converted to a number of biofuels such as methanol, DME or F/T diesel; these are called second generation biofuels since they have a lignocellulosic origin and hence do not compete with food crops. What then is the particular fourth generation gasification technology? --Andersneld (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid point. Proposals for forth generation biofuels thus far seem to be variants of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation definitions. The one definition that seems novel and less dubious is: grown, non-competitve with food stock and simple to extract. --Jpe77 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on biofuels for my thesis for nearly two years now and it seems to me that there is the first generation of biofuels, these are biofuels made from crops competing with food crops and second generation of biofuels made from biomass which is not competing with food crops. It seems to me that all the other generation is "brandng" in order to promote one kind of technological choice and should not be mentioned. --lberghmans (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If we can show these terms are in common use, then they belong here (3G, 4G mobile phones comes to mind). However, if things are as you say, then yes, we don't need to support branding. Rklawton (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, they are not used in scientific litterature. I found this website giving a good definition of first and second generation of biofuels:, I'll make the changes --lberghmans (talk) 7:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried editing the text but I didn't get it right, could someone please make the following modifications: Advanced and Second generation biofuels are actualy the same and should be merged: The differences between actual and advanced or second generation biofuels is sustainability. Third, fourth, fifth,... generation of biofuels are not scientific concepts, but rather an attempt to promote one kind of second generation biofuel so these concepts shouldn't be mentioned. Thank you for your help --lberghmans (talk) 8:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Reverted again without being read, can someone help me please

--Lberghmans (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Let's discuss the changes that have been made since Revision as of 17:32, 13 May 2011

1.Merge between second generation and advanced biofuels

2.Modification of the definition of advanced biofuels

From : Advanced biofuels can refer to any biofuel made by a novel method and/or that gives a better product than current biofuels to :Second generation biofules are biofuels produced from sustainable feedstock. Sustainabilty of a feedstock is defined among others by availability of the feedstock, impact on GHG emissions and impact on biodiversity and land use.

examples of sustainable biomass were removed: there is no scientific consensus about the fact that energy crops are sustainable. proposal: potential candidates for second generation biofuels are the stalks of wheat, corn, wood, and special-energy-or-biomass crops (e.g. Miscanthus)

3.Third and Fourth Generation biofuels concept was deleted

algae fuel was mentioned in second generation biofuels instead some content was deleted, there should be a debate to decide if we should keep some of it

--Lberghmans (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


There are many authors complaining that biofuels increase the cost of food. Moreover, the carbon emissions used to grow, fertilize, and irrigate biomass do not seem to be discussed in this article. The "Issues" section is an improper WP:POVFORK which doesn't even summarize the extent of any of the issues. According to WP:INTRO, significant controversies need to be discussed in the article's introduction. Therefore I believe this article is not neutral and accordingly have added the tag saying so. (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you, but I don't agree that the issues article is a POV fork. The difficulty is that there is so much to cover in this article which makes it very difficult to cover everything in suitable detail. With a topic like this we should use a summary style using the articles like the issues. You are right that there should be mention in the introduction, so feel free to fix it! SmartSE (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Reference 12, the one for information about solar-thermal hydrogen production, comes from the website of a solar-thermal hydrogen production company. Since the creators of that website make money from solar-thermal hydrogen production; I think that they count as an interested party and thus should not be cited on this subject. Also, the phrase "state of the art" in the preceding sentance makes it look more like an advertisement for solar-thermal energy than an encyclopedia entry about it. That entry should be removed, or given citations from an impartial source. Also, this article is about biofuels, not solar-thermal energy or the hydrogen economy. The sentence that references the hydrogen economy has nothing to do with the topic and should be moved to another article if it stays on Wikipedia at all. Sewblon 03:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding comment added by Sewblon (talkcontribs)

I agree. Questionable content and link removed.--E8 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions

The information from the new Science source (Use of US Croplands) either A) needs to be summarized briefly, leaving the nuance and depth of the article for the reader to find at the source itself, or B) explained in great detail (accurately). The abstract contains some splashy, worst-case scenario data, but lacks critical information on how they're derived (which is in the full text). In my opinion, the short summary is in order, with the details best left to the readers to find in the publication.--E8 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not have access to the full-text document when I made that edit and the full-text would be helpful. I think that the numbers from the abstract should be included to give the reader an accurate sense of the issue's scope. the claim "The abstract contains some splashy, worst-case scenario data..." sounds slightly accusatory and thus needs to be explained in greater detail. Sewblon 02:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource

New Forms of Biofuel Fall Short by Ryan Tracy 28.December.2011 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of biofuels in petrol engines

I'm wondering whether very lean biofuels such as camelina, babassu oil, castor oil, oil, ... (used in aircraft) could be used in petrol engines (not diesel engines) ? (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


There should be information on its implications. Sarcelles (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean Energy?

Can some biofuels be considered clean energy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabefair (talkcontribs) 04:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)