Talk:Renewable energy

Renewable fuels

This is not a particularly meaningful section heading,[2] as there is something completely different that is called renewable fuels - biofuel and biomass, which we already cover. Some other title is needed. What is wrong with Synthetic methanol, or Synthetic fuel? Delphi234 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As you agreed above, synthetic fuels, including synthetic methanol, have over the past century meant, and still mean, liquid fuels derived from solid or gaseous fossil fuel sources. As such, those terms are simply and completely inappropriate here. JS Uralia (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be in the previous century? Synthetic fuels are not a century old. But calling them other renewable fuels is fine. Delphi234 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sabatier reaction is exactly 100 years old, and Sabatier was hydrogenating liquid hydrocarbons in the 1800s. If you aren't familiar with the basics, you certainly shouldn't be contradicting the reliable sources based on your hunches. JS Uralia (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not until 2012 that the first 250 kW plant was built. I would call that less than a century, as it is just now being developed. WP is not built on hunches but on reliable sources. Delphi234 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That was the first carbon neutral fuel plant, and I'm glad you agree it's in the past as a commercial development, so I will replace it in that correct section. But as you do not distinguish between carbon neutral and synthetic fuels, please note that "Peak production of 21.5 million barrels was reached in 1944." JS Uralia (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No that is not in the right section. It is not an energy source, period. See the above "The primary discussion belongs on Energy carrier." And the 21.5 million barrels was from coal - clearly nothing to do with renewable energy. The rest of the sentence was "Germany operated 12 coal hydrogenation plants to produce aviation gasoline (primarily), motor gasoline, diesel, heating oils, and lubricants. Peak production of 21.5 million barrels was reached in 1944." Delphi234 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem between you two appears to be that Uralia is rightly pointing out that 'synthetic fuel' is too broad a term as it predominately means the manufacturing of liquid fuels from coal and fossil gas. As renewable fuels are also carbon neutral fuels, this completely excludes classifying geothermal power plant produced synthetic fuel as renewable fuel*. Now of course, the basic chemistry behind making synthetic fuel(e.g the Sabatier reaction) is indifferent to where the carbon and hydrogen building blocks of the fuel come from, the synthetic liquid fuel producing Fischer-Tropsch process can be piped up to any hydrogen and carbon dioxide source to run on. Such as piped up to a landfill gas/'biogas' plant and the synthetic fuel produced would naturally be classified as a renewable fuel source. Another renewable source of synthetic fuel can be found when the chemical process is piped up to many other sources of carbon and hydrogen, such as sea water which contains both carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and just like the biogas to synthetic fuel route, it too needs to be coupled with a power source to provides the heat and electricity to do the chemistry magic to manufacture renewable synthetic fuels. Clearly therefore, only these two scenarios should be regarded as cases of 'renewable fuel'.

This difference should be clearly explained to readers, otherwise unscrupulous fossil fuel(e.g coal) to liquid, and non-renewable CO2 to liquid advocates will start pulling the wool over peoples eyes. For example the CO2 produced by the geothermal plant at Carbon Recycling International comes from CO2 that is not renewable*, and it results in a net increase in the CO2 in the biosphere*, it is CO2 that, (like a less extreme case of coal to liquid,) would otherwise be sent up an exhaust chimney. Sure, this is therefore CO2 that gets recycled before eventually finding its way into the atmosphere, but it is by no means 'renewable' as it results in a net increase in the CO2 inventory of the biosphere. So Renewable_energy#Carbon_neutral_and_negative_fuels should be changed to reflect this fact.

Only synthetic fuels produced with carbon sourced from the inventory already in the biosphere should be classified as renewable synthetic fuel, that includes Carbon from wood, landfill gas, and Carbon extracted from sea water, all of which are truly renewable CO2 sources. For example, Dimethyl ether is presently being produced from wood byproducts derived from paper manufacture, and the US navy are preparing to start manufacturing synthetic fuel derived from sea water via the Fischer-Tropsch Process by using their ubiquitous heat source on their supercarriers - nuclear reactors.

* CO2 from geothermal power plants, a paper presented for the international geothermal conference. - www.jardhitafelag.is/media/PDF/S12Paper103.pdf Note Figure 2 that clearly displays CO2 emissions from geothermal zones increase once a power plant begins to exploit the zone. Therefore classifying any synthetic fuel produced by geothermal plants as 'renewable synthetic fuel' is clearly incorrect as it is a net polluter of CO2.

Personally, we should strive to get away from carbonaceous fuels altogether, that is, including a move away from biomass for human health and environmental reasons e.g particulate matter inhalation, and instead for economic reasons, wherever feasible we should move towards electric cars,(reluctantly hybrids) and a reliance on more electric trains(e.g the TGV) and for heating homes - district heating and heat pumps are systems already in operation, and therefore already environmentally friendly and economical. The use of biomass, and renewable synthetic fuel should be only for supplying people and devices in remote areas, such as heating isolated homes and fueling aircraft respectively.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Figure 2 in [3] shows CO2 from geothermal power plants which would normally be vented to exhaust instead of recycled. There is no CO2 produced or eliminated from its eventual fate in the atmosphere by the process of recycling it into fuel. It's carbon neutral in that regard. If, however, methane was being produced using CO2 from natural gas plant flue exaust, and it was burned in the same plant as a method of storing night time wind power, then that would be carbon negative because it means less CO2 per watt. 168.103.208.173 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing two related concepts, that of carbon offsetting and that of carbon neutral. Remember, if the inventory of Carbon in the biosphere increases due to any activity, such as the manufacture of synthetic fuel, then this activity/produce is not carbon neutral, and therefore should not be regarded as a real 'renewable fuel'. Your definition of what is carbon neutral is, I think you'll find, pretty misleading. As for example, just to show you why - in a coal-to-liquid synthetic fuel plant, your definition would still apply - There is no CO2 produced or eliminated from its eventual fate in the atmosphere by the process of recycling it into fuel. It's carbon neutral in that regard. I really do not see how you are regarding this as a 'carbon neutral' fuel. Again I will reiterate, unless you get your Carbon and hydrogen atoms for the synthetic fuel process from carbon and hydrogen atoms already present within the biosphere, then you will be polluting the atmosphere, and you're therefore not 'carbon neutral'. You are just adding to the problem. Especially considering the fact most of all hydrogen gas necessary to produce synthetic fuel is sourced from fossil gas.

The paper presented for the international geothermal conference. note Figure 2, clearly displays CO2 emissions from geothermal zones increase once a geothermal power plant begins to exploit the zone, indeed the geothermal power page states- geothermal power is one-eighth as polluting as Coal, per unit of energy generated. Therefore classifying any synthetic fuel produced by geothermal plants as 'renewable synthetic fuel' is clearly misleading as it is a net emitter of CO2 and a sizable one at that for the power it produces. Now it is, of course, an improvement over a Coal-to-liquid plant, and a gas-to-liquid plant, and gets my thumbs up, but there is no escaping the fact that it is not carbon neutral, as it is still polluting the biosphere with more carbon dioxide than was there before you started.

As I've noted above, a far less questionable example of a truly renewable fuel process is - Chemrec's. As their carbon source is biomass,(biomass-to-liquid) and if they get their hydrogen from water dissociation, then, their liquid fuel produce would be truly a carbon neutral fuel and a real, undeniable, example of a 'renewable fuel'.

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the geothermal plant's CO2 would not have vented if it wasn't being recycled? Or that coal for liquid fuels would reach the atmosphere if it wasn't being used for fuel? 75.166.194.35 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting that. What I am trying to communicate is that, as the CO2 eventually reaches the atmosphere when you burn the synthetic fuel produced from flue gas capture, its not really saving the atmosphere a whole lot at all. Just as you wouldn't call synthetic fuel produced from coal in 1944 Nazi Germany 'renewable fuel', neither should you really call synthetic fuel produced by any modern day Coal plant's flue gases- 'renewable fuel', or for that matter, synthetic fuel produced from a Geothermal plant's flue gases a - 'renewable fuel'.

Now, as I've said, don't get me wrong, the Geothermal plant is a big improvement over the Coal plant(thumbs up!), and there are real CO2 'savings' to be made by manufacturing synthetic fuel from CO2 flue gas emissions from a geothermal plant - savings in comparison to drilling for the black stuff anyway. But don't you agree that Chemrec's process is far less questionably a true 'renewable fuel' - As the Carbon used in this synthetic fuels chemical building blocks, comes from the biosphere, and this carbon will ultimately return to biomass form, upon which time the process could be repeated again?

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Add history graph

I have created a logarithmic graph of energy production history from different sources based on data from www.bp.com/statisticalreview. Maybe it is worth adding in section "Growth of renewables"?--83.19.119.245 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Energy produced from different sources in 2000-2011 and trend lines to 2020: coal (black), hydro (dark blue), nuclear (red), wind (light blue), biofuels (green) and solar (yellow). Source: [1].

I love the concept, but the fitted extrapolations should be dashed (or just dotted) lines because it is too difficult to tell them apart from the actual data at thumbnail size. 70.59.21.197 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are the fossil fuels and prediction interrelations on that graph? EllenCT (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV editing request

I am concerned by the contribution by Alpha Sigma 111 to the Renewable energy debate section. Though I have only conditional reservations on the statements, their presentation takes the form of debate rather than reporting of debate. I considered doing a revert, but dislike doing that when the author might instead be willing to modify or elaborate text appropriately. Would anyone, (perhaps Alpha Sigma 111 personally) be willing to modify the text so that it reports the debate rather than continuing it in this section of the article? JonRichfield (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff undo request

Please replace the deleted text in http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Renewable_energy&diff=548559878&oldid=548114851 I have read the arguments at Talk:Carbon neutral fuel and believe the text should be restored. I have independent reasons for asking that it be restored, but I am a new wikipedian and the article is semi-protected. Pointer wrangler (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

Please continue (calmly) the discussion at Talk:Carbon neutral fuel#Confusion among title, summary, and contents. An edit request of this nature cannot be actioned for you whilst discussion is ongoing and no consensus has been reached. If consensus is reached, and you still need help, just reactivate this request. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 05:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Biomass

According to the article's own definition, biomass should not be renewable, as it is not from "resources which are continually replenished." Yet following that very definition the article includes biomass in enumerating total renewable energy generation. This is confusing and wrong. Worse, it looks to be calculated to give a biased account of renewables' importance.

Pensiveneko (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)PensivenekoPensiveneko (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethanol is no more renewable than petroleum or coal

Once you lump ethanol in with solar and wind, the term 'renewable' begins to lose all meaning. Instead of defining a type of energy generation relying on a self-replenishing resource, it turns into a catch-all term for anything that's not a fossil fuel. Sugar cane is no more renewable than petroleum is renewable as buried biomass turns into petrol. The article misleads the readers and inflates renewable energy's generation capacity by including completely unrelated energy sources such as ethanol and other finite biomass resources. Pensiveneko (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensiveneko (talk • contribs) 12:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)