Talk:Biomass (energy)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This archive contains all topics created in January 2023. The discussion to renovate the article began in late 2022 and continued after January 2023.

Summarizing discussions-to-date on article title and merging

I'm going to make an involved, informal close of the discussions on this issue as it feels like things are ripe for closure. If anyone disagrees, feel free to request a second opinion at WP:Closure requests.

Based on this 2020 discussion on Talk:Bioenergy and the comments above, I believe there is a wp:rough consensus on the following:

1. There should be one article, Bioenergy, that covers all aspects of all types of bioenergy (solid, liquid, and gas), including environment/climate aspects.
2. There should be a disambiguation page for the many meanings of "Biomass". I have drafted one at Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass. Edits there are welcome.
3. It is very likely that a reader typing "Biomass" into the search bar wants to see a page about energy.
4. If the reader types "Biomass" into the search bar, we don't know if they want to read about bioenergy in general or solid fuel bioenergy in particular. Therefore, the term "Biomass" should go to the disambiguation page. Consensus was less clear on this point than on the other points above. An alternative proposal, for which there was some support but not much discussion, was for "Biomass" to redirect to Bioenergy with a hatnote pointing to Biomass (disambiguation). There may be appetite for further discussion of this proposal.

To implement this consensus, I plan to:

• Restore the Bioenergy page, which since 22 Feb 2022 has redirected to Biomass
• Replace the contents of the Biomass page with the contents of Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass

I understand that a lot of work has been done on the Biomass page which should perhaps be copied into the Bioenergy page. Any editor is free to do this, however I have concerns and suggestions regarding the recently-added text that I will bring up in another section.

Courtesy ping to all those who have commented so far: @Femke, Chidgk1, Ita140188, EMsmile, 80.100.109.72, The Perennial Hugger, and Levivich:.

Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the 2020 discussion should be summarized together with the 2022 discussion as if they are one discussion. The 2020 discussion isn't really helpful to determine current consensus. I'm not sure I see any consensus in the 2022 discussion. Levivich (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding consensus: The close page seem to prefer that closure should be performed by non-involved editors/administrators. Also the wp:rough consensus page states that closure can only be performed by an non-involved administrator/editor, but I'm unsure of how authoritative that page is. Clayoquot (admiringly) admitted he/she is in fact involved.

I agree with Levivich that there is no consensus yet.

Regarding suggestion 1 (merge everything into a new Bioenergy page): 1.) I'm not in principle opposed to this but it requires a lot of work. 2.) The public clearly prefer the Biomass page over the Bioenergy page anyway. See previous discussion about this. Also, in January one year ago (just before Bioenergy visitors were automatically sent to the Biomass page), the Biomass page had 26000 pageviews, while the Bioenergy page only had 3500 pageviews. The public simply seem to prefer the term biomass over bioenergy when talking about these issues. So why send them to the Bioenergy page? To me, that simply doesn't make sense.

Regarding suggestion 2 (disambiguation page): Since the vast majority of readers searching for biomass and bioenergy seem to prefer the Biomass page, giving them a disambiguation page instead will simply slow them down, as they figure out which link to click. It seems more efficient to offer these links at the top of the current Biomass page, as only a small minority then have to go through extra steps. However these links could be presented in a more clear fashion.

Regarding suggestion 3 (the readers want to see content about energy): I agree, especially if climate consequences are intergrated into the same article.

Regarding suggestion 4 (disambiguation page): The current Biomass page already contains discussions about both topics; both solid fuel and the energy from it, and questions about bioenergy more generally. So it seems logical to send readers with those interests to the Biomass page. Also, as argued above; most people seem to want the Biomass page anyway, so why burden them with an extra step? The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've struck the part in which I called my summary a "close". There is nothing wrong with a participant in a discussion summarizing things, but using the term "close" seems to have been distracting. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Clayoquot. I agree with your approach. As you're a very experienced editor in this area (both as a Wikipedia editor and also as a content expert on sustainable energy), I would be happy for you to take the lead and make those bold changes. I do feel that the discussion had reached a form of consensus (or maybe a stale mate). I feel that we were going round and round in circles because The Perennial Hugger is consistently arguing against changing the status quo (as far as I can see). I feel we might have to agree to disagree with each other on that one. I think you (The Perennial Hugger) need to understand that this page is too huge and complex as it currently stands. You wrote above above that you think "everything" ought to be in the same article: the material (biomass in the sense of mass) and its uses for energy. I think this is not how Wikipedia works in general. For comparison: I once argued that "sewage" and "sewage treatment" should be treated as one article but was convinced otherwise and we now have sewage and sewage treatment which do work quite well as two separate (but well integrated) articles. Same with wastewater and wastewater treatment. You could even argue (according to your logic) that "climate" needs to be fully explained in climate change. Instead we have climate and climate change as two separate articles. Therefore, I feel quite strongly that we ought to separate out "biomass" (the material) from "energy from biomass" (which we call, I guess, bioenergy. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the root problem is this edit which you made on 22 February where you redirected bioenergy to biomass. The proposal that User:Femke had made here in December 2020 was different to what you then implemented: "I propose this article is merged with biomass under the name bioenergy. Biomass has three meanings; it's some jargon in ecology, it can refer to solid biomass (which is now under the name solid fuel), or it's used as a synonym for bioenergy." EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

EMsmile, please note that Clayoquot actually does not agree with your suggestion to split the content into separate topics. Clayoquot wrote (see above): "If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that, for instance, "biomass as fuel use" be in one article and that "consequences of biomass fuel use for climate/environment" be in a separate article, with minimal overlap between them. This is not how Wikipedia organizes content. The article on biomass-as-fuel should cover all aspects of the topic, including consequences for climate/environment."

Regarding the earlier merge proposal by Femke, there was no consensus achieved, and no one opposed to my later suggestion to instead redirect the page to Biomass, on the grounds that most readers preferred the Biomass page anyway.

I don't really see the harm in a long article as long as the content is relevant and of high quality. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Clayoquot does agree with my suggestion: the points 1 and 2 by them are exactly what I would also favour. One article about energy, another about the material (and/or a disambiguation page). That other quote that you copied was referring to a different discussion.

I find it problematic that you still don't see the problem with an overly long article. Myself and others have given explanations above why the length is detrimental. I could repeat that but it probably wouldn't change your mind. I can just say, do take a look at the article climate change mitigation which was recently culled & condensed and is a lot better now. See also WP:TOOBIG. Current article size is 107 kB. The guideline says: "if over 100 kB: Almost certainly should be divided". EMsmile (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrator input

I was under the impression that Wikipedia administrators had been contacted in order for them to evaluate our discussion above. But nothing has happened yet, and VQuakr has already started to delete large sections of the article (specifically the references section). Clayoquot and VQuakr, it was you who noticed the administrators, please explain in clear language the process forward (sorry for the newbie question). I will respect the administrators descision, but I basically feel just as entitled as you guys to fight for my view if we hear nothing from them. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Perennial Hugger: administrators are janitors, albeit respected ones. They carry lots of keys but don't run the place. I don't think any pages need to be deleted or anyone needs to be blocked; those are the sorts of things admins are needed for. What specific action(s) are you hoping to have performed by one? VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, you suggested to open a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which I agreed to do, but nothing has happened yet. Clayoquot, you issued discretionary sanctions notifications for climate change and fringe theories on my talk page. I understood both actions as a way to ask for input from Wikipedia administrators of some sort, which seemed like a helpful move to me (a competent outside look at the situation, what's not to like.) I think our situation is basically a disagreement of the form vs content type. Most of you argue that the article simply has the wrong form; it is too long, too essay like and too complicated, and VQuakr also seem to think that many of the references are unnecessary. My focus has always been the content; maximum information value. I have felt rather free regarding form, as one of Wikipedia's pillars is that there is no firm rules. So I was hoping an administrator could have a look at the article and said something to the effect that in this particular case, a different form is actually needed even though it mean reduced information value, I'm sorry but we have to make this content as simple to read as possible. Or the opposite, that keeping the existing information value was more important than changing its form (dumbing it down), possibly because it is such a complex and hot topic. Sadly, if it is true that no administrators are going to do something like that, I see no end to our conflict. I really believe we should prioritize high information value over easy to read material. That is, the lead should be easy to read, the main article should be thorough, and the references section should be collapsed and really large, really well developed, with lots of available information paths for the most interested readers.The Perennial Hugger (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions notifications are explicitly not a call for administrator attention. They are informational. I note that you already have received administrator feedback on your editing style at least twice, here and here, feedback that you argued with and subsequently deleted, which makes me wonder whether more feedback from an admin really would make any difference. Practically speaking, we already have clear consensus for cleanup from the various other editors that have weighed in here, and frankly any 3rd party editor is going to immediately see a need for cleanup as well. This isn't a border case so much as a WP:SNOW situation.

Yes, the guidelines at the manual of style are not hard rules (pillar 5), but understanding them is important to writing good articles (particularly if you want to generate substantial contributions less likely to be heavily edited by others later on). MOS:QUOTE, for example, implores us to use quotes sparingly. The same feedback those two admins gave you. Meanwhile pillar 1 reminds us that this is an encyclopedia (that is, a summary), and pillar 3 reminds us that our contributions will be "mercilessly edited" by others. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I am not optimistic that dispute resolution will be useful here, because massive changes are such an obvious conclusion in this case. But I am absolutely willing to participate if others think it would be helpful. @Clayoquot, EMsmile, Dtetta, and Levivich: what are your thoughts here? Can you indicate if you are willing to participate in DR/mediation activities? VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding here in my capacity as an experienced editor, not as an admin (I'm WP:involved in the topic matter, and admins are janitors who do not decide on article content). A clear consensus against the changes by TPH is evident from this discussion. On Wikipedia, we decide article content by WP:consensus, and dispute resolution is not that useful when there is a clear consensus. I would recommend TPH to WP:listen to fellow editors and drop the stick.

I very much agree with the current consensus: most readers do not spend a lot of time on Wikipedia and needs to be able to access information fast. Furthermore, most readers will not have sufficient background knowledge to read this article. I think WP:SCIRS summarises best how your editing style needs to change, TPH: Cite reviews, don't write them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

In the beginning, I did not know about which sources it was ok and not ok to copy from, but of course followed the advice from the admins when I heard from them. I felt embarrased about my mistake so deleted their response afterwards, sorry for that. As I understood it, their critique was centered on copyright, while the critique on quotes was that it was simply not necessary to use them. As you probably have grasped by now I personally feel that lengthy quotes are a wonderful tool when they just sit there quietly in the background, so I continued to use them. Thanks to the MOS:QUOTE link however, I understand now that only brief quotations are in fact acceptable. I would prefer Wikipedia to be more in line with my personal taste, but I'm not going to oppose such clear guidance. I also agree that in practice, there is agreement here that the page needs to be trimmed and easier to read, so I will now step back. Go ahead and re-organize all the relevant pages in the bio-space on Wikipedia. I will come back later with info I feel is missing, but write in a less dense style and only with brief quotations. Thanks for your later comments, which I feel have been more constructive than the earlier ones. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved so far and to The Perennial Hugger for listening (WP:listen). I think we can now move forward and rework bioenergy and biomass, and end up with two great new articles that will greatly benefit all Wikipedia readers! Looking forward to it. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What EMSmile said :) Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Too much detail on carbon accounting aspects?

Just reading over the section on climate impacts, it seems overly detailed to me and not really written in an encyclopedic summary style. More like an essay or a research paper. Its structure is also perhaps overly detailed and thus not following WP:DUE? I'm not sure. Note we have an article on carbon accounting. Wondering whether some of the content should rather be moved from here to there. Pinging User:Dtetta for comment as they have recently worked on the carbon accounting article. This is the current structure as per the table of content:

3 Climate impact
3.1 Carbon accounting principles
3.2 Carbon accounting system boundaries
3.2.1 Temporal system boundaries
3.2.2 Spatial system boundaries
3.2.3 Efficiency-related system boundaries
3.2.4 Economic system boundaries
3.2.5 System boundary impacts
3.3 Climate impacts expressed as varying with time
3.3.1 Short carbon payback/parity times for forest residues
3.3.2 Long carbon payback/parity times for forest residues
3.3.3 Short carbon payback/parity times for stemwood
3.3.4 Long carbon payback/parity times for stemwood
3.4 Climate impacts expressed as static numbers
3.4.1 Static emission estimates for a number of bioenergy pathways
3.4.2 Static emission estimates for wood pellets
3.4.3 Static emission estimates for short rotation energy crops
3.5 Climate impacts from albedo and evapotranspiration 

EMsmile (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

see below The Perennial Hugger (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The carbon accounting system boundaries chapter is important because it provides the reader with essential knowledge on how to assess various climate friendliness claims (which depend to a very large degree on various methodological choices made by the scientist). (Wikipedia's carbon accounting page does not provide anything of interest here, as it only concerns climate accounting at the policy level.)

However, maybe most readers still want to go straight to these claims, and wading through the System boundaries chapter can be challenging (as EMsmile argue). We could however collapse this chapter. In that way, the information is available for the most curious minds at its most logical place in the article, and at the same time possibly most readers can go straight to the results of the various climate accounting calculations. This will significantly shorten the article. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No this needs removal not collapsing. It doesn't belong in this article; we have Wikilinks for a reason. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile: yes the section you mention is both way too long and too essay like. It needs a complete rewrite with intense pruning. Overall readable prose size is 107kB which is in "almost certainly needs to be divided territory per WP:TOOBIG but in this case editing is needed not a split. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You just went ahead and deleted the content on carbon accounting? Please understand that this discussion provides the reader with essential knowledge on how to assess various climate friendliness claims (which depend to a very large degree on various methodological choices made by the scientist). It belongs on the Biomass page, since the Biomass page discusses the climate consequences of using biomass as a fuel. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We write in summary style. The subject of this article is biomass, not carbon accounting. Hence the "main" tag. This isn't information that is going to survive the needed rewrite of the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The system boundaries chapter is already in summary style. I think you would appreciate this if you read it more thoroughly.

You see, a particular challenge with carbon accounting for biomass is that scientists come to very different results simply as a consequence of different methodological choices. EU's Joint Research Centre for instance write that the results basically depends on "modelling approaches and the assumptions about hypothetical futures", and that researchers "come to equally valid, but opposite answers depending on assumptions chosen." They also write that "Wide variation in published estimates of payback time for forest bioenergy systems reflects both inherent differences between these systems and different methodology choices [...]. Critical methodology decisions include the definition of spatial and temporal system boundaries [...] and reference (counterfactual) scenarios [...]. Misleading conclusions on the climate effects of forest bioenergy can be produced by studies that focus on emissions at the point of combustion, or consider only carbon balances of individual forest stands, or emphasize short-term mitigation contributions over long-term benefits, or disregard system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy." A strong statement from the scientists that are most in the know!

There is more on this problem in the subchapter "System boundary impacts". To summarize, the point of the system boundaries chapter, and content about carbon accounting in general, is to give the reader tools to understand particular climate-related claims related to biomass use. Since the climate context is essential to the Biomass page, this information is very much on point. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The system boundaries chapter is already in summary style. funny. I think you would appreciate this if you read it more thoroughly. Also funny.

No, this isn't how we handle related subjects. We link to the relevant article. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that connection EMsmile. From a quick review, IMO a shortened version of this text does belong in the article, but in it’s current form it seems overly detailed. I would suggest that the Carbon accounting article is not a “Main article” for this particular text. If anything, the Project accounting subsection of that article would be more relevant in a “See also” kind of context. The Perennial hugger’s assessment makes sense to me in that the carbon accounting article as a whole is not very relevant to this discussion. Here you’re talking about one specific aspect/methodology within project accounting, which itself is one specific aspect of the general carbon accounting topic. So I don’t think it would make sense to move parts of this discussion to that article; doing so would over-emphasize this specific aspect in relationship to the other aspects of carbon accounting, and present WP:DUE issues there. I would suggest that you all think about simplifying/summarizing, look at some of the references and standards in the Carbon accounting/project accounting subsection, and try to ground this part of the biomass article a little more on those standards and methods. Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Project standard discusses biomass, and VERRA has a Methodology for Fuel Switch to Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications. Those might be a couple of good references. I will also look for ways to mention biomass accounting methods within the Project accounting subsection of the Carbon accounting article. Hope that helps. Dtetta (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO the entire section on "Climate impact" AND the section on "Environmental impact" AND the section on "The forest biomass debate" should be deleted and replaced by entirely new content derived from high-quality secondary sources. The current sections are not only too long and repetitive but more importantly, they are impenetrable and promote fringe points of view, such as the promotion of Miscanthus which is mentioned 52 times. Here's what the IPCC's latest report says on the climate impact of biofuels:

"The use of bioenergy can lead to either increased or reduced emissions, depending on the scale of deployment, conversion technology, fuel displaced, and how, and where, the biomass is produced (high confidence). {3.4}" (AR6 Mitigation of Climate Change Technical Summary p. 85)[1]

This, despite coming from a source that is rather notorious for being written in a technical style, is a heck of a lot easier to understand than the current mumbo jumbo, isn't it? The IEA and the US government have excellent source material on bioenergy that have Wikipedia-compatible licensing, i.e. we can copy from them with attribution:

• Biomass explained: Biomass and the environment
• Bioenergy: Energy system overview

The IPCC's quote indicates that "conversion technology" and "fuel displaced" are important factors in assessing the climate impact of bioenergy. Climate impact is not just about how you grow stuff; it's about what kind of fuel you can produce from it and how you convert it into that fuel. After (or before) we clean these sections up I expect we'll find that they belong in the Bioenergy article.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

– Regarding deletion of large sections and the introduction on new content based on secondary sources: The article already contain much content from secondary sources, including from the "high-quality" sources you suggest above (the EIA and the IEA.) Also, what is wrong with using primary sources?

– Regarding so-called fringe points of view: The miscanthus content was included in the biomass article because miscanthus is percieved as an "advanced" or "second-generation" type of feedstock. There is a growing trend towards the use of such feedstocks (short-rotation coppices being another) both among scientists and at the government level. For instance in the UK, the goverment wants to dramatically increase the growing and use of miscanthus for energy production since it has a much better environmental footprint than the more commonly used feedstocks. You can read about their descision here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1031057/biomass-policy-statement.pdf

– Regarding the current text as being "mumbo jumbo": Maybe we should let the readers decide this, in a poll of some sort? I see the text as clear and to the point. It goes straight to the real core of the issues, and provide the readers with the most common arguments on both sides of the debate. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The current text is far from being clear. The statement by User:Clayoquot of calling it "mumbo jumbo" actually hits the nail on the head (even if it's super painful for the editor(s) who wrote it). I am assuming that most of it was written by you, User:The Perennial Hugger (as per this stats page and this one)?

You asked about primary sources. This is explained here WP:SCIRS. I find it's explained particularly well by Wikiproject Medicine, see WP:MEDRS. Primary sources can on occasions be used but they are certainly not the "gold standard" for Wikipedia articles. Like I said above, we are not writing a PhD thesis here, where primary sources might be the preferred type of source.

I see a bit of an WP:Editwar was going on on 4 January between User:VQuakr and User:The Perennial Hugger. That's no good. Let's try not to do that. But is it possible that you User:The Perennial Hugger have a bit of ownership issues with this article (WP:OWN)? Would you be willing to rethink your approach and to take advice from more experienced editors, e.g. Clayuqot, VQuakr and Levivich (and possibly myself)? I am sure you mean well and you have a lot to contribute. It can be very frustrating when one's "baby" gets criticised. But rest assured that us other Wikipedians have a lot of Wikipedia editing experience as well. And when we say for example that 101 kB is too long for this article or that the content digresses too far from the core topic or that it goes into too much detail or that using so many quotes in the "notes" section is distracting then please take a moment to consider if perhaps there could be some truth in this. - Do you agree that the status quo of this article is not good and needs changing? - If wonder if one solution might be to move some of that overly detailed content about carbon accounting to a new sub-sub-article. So that it's not all deleted but still available somewhere. Not sure if that would be a workable solution. EMsmile (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

- Regarding primary sources: Thanks for the links. I think this sentence sums it up: "In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources." I agree that content based on secondary sources from established and respected organizations like the IPCC, IEA, EIA, FAO, JRC are most optimal.

– Regarding ownership issues: Yes, I probably have some ownership issues. Over the years I have read literally hundreds of scientific articles about the promise and pitfalls of bioenergy and I have felt that sharing some of this info increased the "seriousness" or "professionality" of the article. So definitely a good thing. But it is also possible that all this reading could have influenced my writing style. I am honestly a little baffled that people find it hard to read, but I understand and respect that Wikipedia is based on a collective effort, so if everyone (that includes Administrators, which I understand has been notified) agree that it is too long or dense, I will not oppose their decision. In the case that the higher-ups actually decide that the article has to be split up or dramatically simplified/shortened, I will accept that of course but also think that there should be room for a new article more like the current one that allows for an in-depth discussion of the subject matter. That way, the especially interested type of readers will also be catered for. Given the complexity of the scientific discussion around biomass energy, and the relevance it has today, I predict that even a "complicated" article about this would generate a lot of interest. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile, there is a useful tool called Who Wrote That? It's buggy on long articles but to the extent that it works, it confirms that The Perennial Hugger wrote the Climate Impact section. It also says that 95% of the entire article was written by The Perennial Hugger.

Regarding your suggestion to move some content to another article, I'd ask that this be done only by someone who has fully read and understood the content that they are moving, and who believes that it will improve the article that they're adding the content to. It should not be done just because we are too nice to firmly say no to something.

@The Perennial Hugger, the source you gave says We will establish the amount of land that could be used in the UK for perennial energy crop production and for short rotation forestry with miscanthus as an example of a perennial energy crop. It's a stretch to conclude from this that "the goverment wants to dramatically increase the growing and use of miscanthus for energy production" as you said. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Clayoquot Here is a more relevant and to the point quote: "Existing biomass support schemes [...] already support the use of perennial energy crops such as short rotation coppice and Miscanthus grown specifically for bioenergy purposes and as a material. However, only a small land area (~10,000 hectares) is cultivated with perennial energy crops in the UK at present, and this is mainly used for heat and electricity generation. Currently, there is little to no use of perennial energy crops for low carbon fuels supported under the RTFO due to a lack of commercial-scale processing capacities to convert these resources cost-efficiently into fuel. [...] The CCC's 6th Carbon Budget report highlighted the significant potential for perennial energy crops and SRF to contribute towards our carbon budget targets by increasing soil and biomass carbon stocks while also delivering other ecosystem benefits. In their balanced pathway, the CCC suggests that up to 708,000 hectares of land could be dedicated to energy crop production, which has led to an increased interest in the role of perennial energy crops and SRF as biomass feedstocks to deliver GHG savings in the land use and energy sectors."

So, the UK government's Climate Change Committee have concluded there is significant potential for increased use of perennial energy crops and therefore want to scale up production dramatically. Currently only 10000 hectares are used for perennials, but the CCC argue that up to 708000 hectares could be utilized for energy crop production. I think you have to face that calling the miscanthus content "fringe theory" was a blunder. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: It should not be done just because we are too nice to firmly say no to something. I think this hits the nail on the head. Being "nice" to the editor that generated all this text isn't kind when it results in them wasting what I'm guessing was rather a lot of time building an essay like this that is going to need to be mercilessly pared and edited. Maybe if that had been communicated more firmly up front it wouldn't have gone this overboard for so long. Then again they've ignored multiple editors telling them to stop so I can't feel too bad. I do agree that most of this content is headed to the bin not to another article. VQuakr (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Perennial Hugger: think that there should be room for a new article more like the current one that allows for an in-depth discussion of the subject matter. Sort of. This concept is discussed at WP:DETAIL. Biomass is a broad subject that exists at the intersection of ecology and renewable energy (probably with some other streets crossing as well). We would expect child articles like biodiesel to be more technically detailed than the parent. But all are articles are expected to be terse and succinct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of statistics or essays. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Perennial Hugger, the quote I gave that you consider less "relevant and to the point" than the quote you gave is the summary statement of the section containing the quote you gave. My quote and your quote are saying the same thing. And neither of them support your claim that "the goverment wants to dramatically increase the growing and use of miscanthus", because the UK's Climate Change Committee is not the government. It is an independent advisory body whose advice the government can take or ignore. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Clayoquot, by the way thanks so much for the link to the useful tool called Who Wrote That?. I've installed it and it works. I've been missing such a tool for a while now so thanks for the tip!! EMsmile (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a quotes and comments section?

I don't understand the section "Quotes and comments" in the references section. I've never seen it done like this before. Do we really need it? Seems overly complex. Is that a left over from a very old version of the article? EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is there to provide additional information to interested readers. You basically hover with your mouse over the footnotes in the main text, and this additional content shows up. Since the article is long, the section is hidden by default, but you can open up the section if you will. I think it is a smart and efficient way to provide background information to the reader without cluttering up the main text. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen it done like this before in any other Wikipedia article. Can you point me to a good article (WP:FA or WP:GA) where it's done like this as well? It does not seem encyclopedic to me. We're not trying to write a PhD thesis here. But perhaps I'm wrong and loads of other articles do it like this as well. EMsmile (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Footnotes with background information (including quotes and comments) is common in Wikipedia articles.

In case you are questioning the collapse functionality: I don't think other pages' use or non-use of this feature is relevant for any particular page, as each page has its own challenges it has to deal with. Here, the collapse functionality is used to hide the most complex discussion from view and thereby make the article shorter.

The collapse functionality is used on approximately 51000 pages. You can see an overview here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template%3ACollapse%20top?hidelinks=1&hideimages=1 The Perennial Hugger (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Examples of FAs with notes sections would be Elizabeth I and Japan. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Japan has two notes. Elizabeth I has a few more. The difference here is one of scale. The notes section here is comically massive. The difference between this article and those FAs is one of scale. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile: yes, the comments section needs to be trimmed by two orders of magnitude. It's a complete joke as of RN. VQuakr (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the size an issue when it is hidden by default? As I see it, it only adds to the value of the article. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because an encyclopedia has value because it is curated. Excess information in an article has negative value. Collapsing it is no solution. VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What is seen as exessive and what is seen as helpful/informative varies a lot, it depends on the readers' interest level and their mental capacities. Maybe we should start a poll, so people can vote? The Perennial Hugger (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for a poll. Every other editor here sees the problem as obvious. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is continuing in this section: "Conversion of efn templates into sfn templates" EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on section forest biomass debate

I am going to try this method of work now: I'll copy here the text block that I plan to delete or drastically cull. If there is anything in here that needs to be salvaged it might be easier to do it this way. EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now finished the first round of cutting for the "forest biomass debate" section. I'll stop for today and see if others think this is a workable way of doing things? I could continue with "Climate impact" next (already I see a lot of overlap and repetition with text that was or is in the "forest biomass debate" section). EMsmile (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

culled content on forest biomass debate

Smokestack emissions from forest biomass compared to coal So I've just cut out this text: ++++ Some researchers (e.g. the research group Chatham House) therefore argue that "[...] the use of woody biomass for energy will release higher levels of emissions than coal [...]." Likewise, the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences argues that for smaller scale utilities, with 32% conversion efficiency for coal, and 20-25% for biomass, coal emissions are 31% less than emissions from wood chips. The assumed moisture content for wood chips is 45%. Assumed moisture content for coal is not provided. Cowie et al. argue that stack emissions for biomass and coal is the same when biomass is co-fired with coal in large power plants, and that torrefied biomass has a higher conversion efficiency than low-rank coals. Wood pellets combusted at Drax in the UK (the world's largest biomass power plant) have 7% moisture, and when combusted the plant has a higher conversion efficiency than what is average for coal plants in the UK (38.6 vs. 35.9%). Stack emissions were 2% higher than the UK average for coal in 2015. When emissions from the wood pellet supply chain is included (the pellets are shipped to the UK from the USA), Drax claims that emissions are reduced by over 80%, compared to coal. Wood pellet mill in Germany. The bioenergy consultant group FutureMetrics argue that wood pellets with 6% moisture content emits 22% less CO2 for the same amount of produced heat, compared to sub-bituminous coal with 15% moisture, when both fuels are combusted in facilities with the same conversion efficiency (here 37%). Likewise, they state that "[...] dried wood at MC's [moisture content] below 20% have the same or less CO2 emission per MMBTU [million British thermal units] as most coal. Wood pellets at under 10% MC result in less CO2 emission than any coal under otherwise equal circumstances." However, when raw wood chips are used instead (45% moisture content), this wood biomass emits 9% more CO2 than coal in general, for the same amount of produced heat. Sustainable forestry and forest protection Also cut this text (sorry for the formatting, how can I force it to do line breaks better?): ++++++ In the context of CO2 mitigation, the key measure regarding forest sustainability is the size of the forest carbon stock: "The core objective of all sustainable management programmes in production forests is to achieve a long-term balance between harvesting and regrowth. [...] [T]he practical effect of maintaining a balance between harvesting and regrowth is to keep long-term carbon stocks stable in managed forests." The IPCC defines sustainable forestry in a similar manner, while including ecological, economic and social criteria. Globally, the forest carbon stock has decreased 0.9% and tree cover 4.2% between 1990 and 2020, according to FAO. ++++++++ Some researchers seem to want more than "just" sustainably managed forests; they want to realize the forests full carbon storage potential. For instance the EASAC writes: "There is a real danger that present policy over-emphasises the use of forests in energy production instead of increasing forest stocks for carbon storage." Further, they argue that "[...] it is the older, longer-rotation forests and protected old-growth forests that exhibit the highest carbon stocks." +++++++ In Europe, 25% of all forests are protected, including 89% of the primary/old-growth forests. The new version of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), introduced in 2021, extended its sustainability criteria from liquid biofuel production to also include solid (and gaseous biofuels), which is more likely to be produced from forest biomass. ++++++++ The IPCC writes: "When vegetation matures or when vegetation and soil carbon reservoirs reach saturation, the annual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere declines towards zero, while carbon stocks can be maintained (high confidence). However, accumulated carbon in vegetation and soils is at risk from future loss (or sink reversal) triggered by disturbances such as flood, drought, fire, or pest outbreaks, or future poor management (high confidence)." ++++++++ EU's Joint Research Centre write that the measured effects of harvest and replanting on soil carbon is "[...] slight in the short term, with carbon decreases concentrated in the forest floor and near the soil surface and carbon increases occurring in the deep mineral soil layers." The JRC also argues that "[w]hole-tree harvesting for biomass production has little long-term effect on soil carbon stocks if surface soil layers containing organic material (O horizon) are left on site, nutrients are managed, and the site is allowed to regenerate [...]." The IPCC state that the current scientific basis is not sufficient to provide soil carbon emission factors. ++++++ When put to work, this carbon moves from the forest carbon pool into forest products and energy carriers, then via combustion into the atmosphere, and then back to the forest via photosynthesis. For each roundtrip, it displaces more and more of the fossil fuel carbon that is normally used in heat production, industry production and electricity production. After some roundtrips, the amount of displaced carbon far exceeds the amount of locked-away carbon: "The biomass produced cumulatively across subsequent rotations can far exceed the biomass produced in the no-bioenergy scenario, thus constituting ‘additional biomass', delivering cumulative net GHG savings that exceed the GHG cost of forest carbon stock reduction [...]." Said differently: "If the forest is allowed to continue to grow, biomass energy will be replaced with fossil fuels and wood products will be replaced with alternate materials." Miner argue that "in the long term, using sustainably produced forest biomass as a substitute for carbon-intensive products and fossil fuels provides greater permanent reductions in atmospheric CO2 than preservation does." +++++++++ The IPCC argues that sustainable forest management "[...] aimed at providing timber, fibre, biomass and non-timber resources can provide long-term livelihood for communities, reduce the risk of forest conversion to non-forest uses (settlement, crops, etc.), and maintain land productivity, thus reducing the risks of land degradation [...]." The connection between economic opportunities in forestry and increased forest size is emphasized by other researchers as well. However, Cowie et al. argue that in some situations, "[...] such as high latitudes where forest productivity is very low, greater abatement may result from retaining and enhancing forest carbon stocks than harvesting forests for wood products including bioenergy, especially if the GHG savings from bioenergy use are small [...]." They also argue that forests that produce income for private forest owners are unlikely to be protected. When forest products are in demand and forests therefore are managed for timber production, the most realistic no-bioenergy scenario is not forest protection but continued timber production without residues collection and utilization. In this case, the residues will instead decay on their own or be incinerated, which in both cases produce emissions without any fossil fuel displacement effect. The most realistic no-bioenergy scenarios in case of low demand for forest products is land use change to natural forests (with increased risk for wildfires), or clear-cutting to prepare for agriculture or urbanization. +++++++ In 2020, the forested area covered 39.8% of EU's total land area. Likewise, North America produced 29% of the worlds pellets in 2019, while forest carbon stock increased from 136.6 to 140 Gt in the same period. Carbon stock decreased from 94.3 to 80.9 Gt in Africa, 45.8 to 41.5 Gt in South and Southeast Asia combined, 33.4 to 33.1 Gt in Oceania, 5 to 4.1 Gt in Central America, and from 161.8 to 144.8 Gt in South America. Wood pellet production in these areas combined was 13.2% in 2019. However, Chatham House argues that "[f]orest carbon stock levels may stay the same or increase for reasons entirely unconnected with use for energy." EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Sustainable forestry and forest protection I also cut this text; if any of the content was to be kept it would have to be summarised; I am assuming that IPCC reports contain good summaries, so I left the para about the IPCC report finding in the article for now (but quote should be converted to own words): ++++++++ Cowie et al. argue that "[...] a 10-year payback time as a criterion for identifying suitable mitigation options is inconsistent with the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement, which requires that a balance between emission and removals is reached in the second half of this century [...]." They also argue that emissions from bioenergy is fundamentally different from emissions from fossil fuels, since the former are circular and the latter linear. Biomass is compatible with the current energy infrastructure, so it works today, while proposed alternatives with low emissions "[...] may be restricted by immature development, high cost or dependence on new infrastructure." Chatham House argues that there could be tipping points along the temperature scale where warming accelerates. Cowie et al. argues that tipping points are an uncertainty, but a global tipping point seems unlikely "[...] if warming does not exceed 2°C [...]." The IPCC argue that while there are "[...] arguments for the existence of regional tipping points, most notably in the Arctic [...]", there is "[...] no evidence for global-scale tipping points in any of the most comprehensive models evaluated to date in studies of climate evolution in the 21st century." An important presupposition for the "tree regrowth is too slow" argument is the view that carbon accounting should start when trees from particular, harvested forest stands are combusted, and not when the trees in those stands start to grow (see Temporal system boundaries, above.) It is within this frame of thought it becomes possible to argue that the combustion event creates a carbon debt that has to be repaid through regrowth of the harvested stands. When instead assuming that carbon accounting should start when the trees start to grow, it becomes impossible to argue that the emitted carbon constitutes debt. FutureMetrics for instance argue that the harvested carbon is not a debt but "[...] a benefit that was earned by 30 years of management and growth [...]." Likewise, Lamers & Junginger argue that owners of existing intensively managed, even-aged forests probably will consider the plantation establishment year as the logical start year for carbon accounting, and that harvesting redeems a carbon credit rather than creating a new debt. However, from a policy maker's perspective, [...] the main question is rather whether he/she should incentivize harvest for bioenergy or not." In other words, "[...] what is important to climate policy is understanding the difference in future atmospheric GHG levels, with and without switching to woody biomass energy. Prior growth of the forest is irrelevant to the policy question [...]." If this line of reasoning later is applied to new forest plantations planted on "empty" land areas as well (for instance agricultural or marginal lands), the onset of carbon accounting will shift from the planting event to the harvest event, for instance after the second rotation. As mentioned in Spatial system boundaries above, some researchers limit their carbon accounting to particular forest stands, ignoring the carbon absorption that takes place in the rest of the forest. Other researchers include the whole forest landscape when doing their carbon accounting. FutureMetrics for instance argues that the whole forest continually absorbs CO2 and therefore immediately compensates for the relatively small amounts of biomass that is combusted in biomass plants from day to day. Likewise, IEA Bioenergy criticizes EASAC for ignoring the carbon absorption that is happening in the forest landscape, noting that there is no net loss of carbon if the annual harvest is smaller than the forest's annual growth. EMsmile (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Roundwood and resiidues I also cut this text; if any of the content was to be kept it would have to be summarised: ++++++++ Stemwood is a type of roundwood; according to the JRC's definition the stem of the tree is cut at a height of 15 cm above ground, and extends in a straight manner up to a point where the diameter of the stem should be minimum 9 cm. See footnote for full definitions of roundwood, stemwood, fuelwood, salvage loggings, pulpwood and sawnwood. +++++++ Chatham House argue that it would be better if some of the biomass defined as roundwood (most notably stems) was not harvested and used for wood pellets, as this would increase the growing carbon stock in the forest. They also argue that "[...] trees that would not qualify as high-quality sawtimber could nevertheless be used for pulp, panels or laminated products." In other words, it would be better if this low-value biomass was used as raw material for other products than for wood pellets, since carbon is stored for a longer period of time in the former case. Chatham House also argues that all available sawmill residue is already being used for pellet production, so there is no room for expansion. For the bioenergy sector to significantly expand in the future, more of the harvested pulpwood must go to pellet mills. Cowie et al. argue that approximately 20% "[...] roundwood (also referred to as stemwood), such as small stems from forest thinning [...]" is used for wood pellets in the USA. However, the use of stemwood from short-rotation forests have short parity times, and in long-rotation forests, the stemwood used for wood pellets usually consists of by-products from sawnwood production (thinnings or irregular/bent/damaged stem sections from larger trees.) Sawnwood production provides over 90% of foresters income and is the main reason forestry exist. Without a market for the low-quality stem sections or thinnings, they would have been left in the forest to decay, or been incinerated at roadside. Cowie et al. also argue that using thinnings for bioenergy strengthens the carbon displacement effect of harvested wood products, since the thinning practice help produce more sawnwood. Likewise, FutureMetrics argues that it makes no sense for foresters to sell sawlog-quality roundwood to pellet mills, since they get a lot more money for this part of the tree from sawmills. Foresters make 80-90% of their income from sawlog-quality roundwood and only 10-15% from pulpwood, defined as a.) the upper part of the stem that is too thin or too bent to be used for sawnwood production, plus branches, and b.) tree thinnings. This low-value biomass is mainly sold to pulp mills for paper production, but in some cases also to pellet mills for pellet production. Pellets are typically made from sawmill residues in areas where there are sawmills, but also from pulpwood in areas without sawmills. Short-term vs long-term climate benefits I also cut this text; if any of the content was to be kept it would have to be summarised: +++++++++++++ The National Association of University Forest Resources Programs recommends a time horizon of 100 years in order to produce a realistic assessment of cumulative emissions. +++++++++++++ According to Cowie et al., "[...] the perceived attractiveness of specific forest bioenergy options is influenced by the priority given to near-term versus longer term climate objectives." References

Culling from the section on environmental impacts

OK, I'll continue with some more culling today. This is what I have removed (Question: Should some of this text be moved to biofuel?): EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

culled content on environmental impacts

Surface power production densities Removed content from this section: ++++ The average human power consumption on ice-free land is 0.125 W/m2 (heat and electricity combined), although rising to 20 W/m2 in urban and industrial areas. ++++++ When used for ethanol production, miscanthus plantations with a yield of 15 tonnes per hectare per year generate 0.40 W/m2. Corn fields generate 0.26 W/m2 (yield 10 t/ha). In Brazil sugarcane fields typically generate 0.41 W/m2. Winter wheat (USA) generates 0.08 W/m2 and German wheat generates 0.30 W/m2. When grown for jet fuel, soybean generates 0.06 W/m2, while palm oil generates 0.65 W/m2. Jathropa grown on marginal land generate 0.20 W/m2. When grown for biodiesel, rapeseed generate 0.12 W/m2 (EU average). Liquid biofuel production require large energy inputs compared to solid biofuel production. When these inputs are compensated for (i.e. when used energy is subtracted from produced energy), power density drops further down: Rapeseed based biodiesel production in the Netherlands have the highest energy efficiency in the EU with an adjusted power density of 0.08 W/m2, while sugar beets based bioethanol produced in Spain have the lowest, at only 0.02 W/m2. Using solid biomass for energy purposes is more efficient than using liquids, as the whole plant can be utilized. For instance, corn plantations producing solid biomass for combustion generate more than double the amount of power per square metre compared to corn plantations producing for ethanol, when the yield is the same: 10 t/ha generates 0.60 W/m2 and 0.26 W/m2 respectively, without compensating for energy input. It has been estimated that large-scale plantations with pines, acacias, poplars and willows in temperate regions achieve yields of 5–15 dry tonnes per hectare per year, which means a surface power production density of 0.30–0.90 W/m2. For similarly large plantations, with eucalyptus, acacia, leucaena, pinus and dalbergia in tropical and subtropical regions, yields are typically 20–25 t/ha, which means a surface power production density of 1.20–1.50 W/m2. This yield put these plantations' power densities in-between the densities of wind and hydro. In Brazil, the average yield for eucalyptus is 21 t/ha, but in Africa, India and Southeast Asia, typical eucalyptus yields are below 10 t/ha. ++++++++ Oven dry biomass in general, including wood, miscanthus and napier grass, have a calorific content of roughly 18 GJ/t. When calculating power production per square metre, every t/ha of dry biomass yield increases a plantation's power production by 0.06 W/m2. As mentioned above, the world average for wind, hydro and solar power production is 1 W/m2, 3 W/m2 and 5 W/m2 respectively. In order to match these surface power densities, plantation yields must reach 17 t/ha, 50 t/ha and 83 t/ha for wind, hydro and solar respectively. This seems achievable for the tropical plantations mentioned above (yield 20–25 t/ha) and for elephant grasses, e.g. miscanthus (10–40 t/ha), and napier (15–80 t/ha), but unlikely for forest and many other types of biomass crops. To match the world average for biofuels (0.3 W/m2), plantations need to produce 5 tonnes of dry mass per hectare per year. When instead using the Van Zalk estimates for hydro, wind and solar (0.14, 1.84, and 6.63 W/m2 respectively), plantation yields must reach 2 t/ha, 31 t/ha and 111 t/ha in order to compete. Only the first two of those yields seem achievable, however. ++++++ In the case of old combustion facilities, yields need to be adjusted to compensate for the amount of moisture in the biomass (evaporating moisture in order to reach the ignition point is wasted energy unless the resulting steam can be harnessed for energy). The moisture of biomass straw or bales varies with the surrounding air humidity and eventual pre-drying measures, while pellets have a standardized (ISO-defined) moisture content of below 10% (wood pellets) and below 15% (other pellets). Likewise, for wind, hydro and solar, power line transmission losses amounts to roughly 8% globally and should be accounted for. If biomass is to be utilized for electricity production rather than heat production, yields has to be roughly tripled in order to compete with wind, hydro and solar, as the current heat to electricity conversion efficiency is only 30-40%. When simply comparing the surface power production densities of biofuel, wind, hydro and solar, without regard for cost, this effectively pushes both hydro and solar power out of reach of even the highest yielding plantations, power density wise. EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Biodiversity Removed content from this section: ++++++ Other measures include "[...] careful feedstock selection, as different feedstocks can have radically different environmental trade-offs. For example, US studies have demonstrated that 2nd generation feedstocks grown in unfertilized land could provide benefits to biodiversity when compared to monocultural annual crops such as maize and soy that make extensive use of agrochemicals." Miscanthus and switchgrass are examples of such crops. +++++++++ Since biodiversity has been defined by the EU as an important policy goal, EU's Joint Research Centre has examined ways to ensure that increased use of bioenergy does not negatively effect biodiversity in European forests. Only bioenergy pathways that provides additional bioenergy resources compared to the existing forestry practices were considered, namely 1.) increased use of logging residues, 2.) afforestation of unused land areas and 3.) conversion of natural forests to more productive forest plantations. The authors divided the results into four categories, depending on their potential for climate and biodiversity mitigation: 1.) Win-win scenarios (green quadrant in the chart to the right) have positive consequences for both the climate and for biodiversity, 2.) win-lose scenarios (yellow quadrant) are trade-off scenarios with positive consequences for the climate but negative consequences for biodiversity, 3.) lose-win scenarios (yellow quadrant) are trade-off scenarios with negative consequences for the climate but positive consequences for biodiversity, and 4.) lose-lose scenarios (red quadrant) have negative consequences for both the climate and for biodiversity (see chart on the right.) Long term, increased bioenergy may have a positive impact on biodiversity because "[...] climate change in itself is a major driver of biodiversity loss." However, this is hard to quantify, so as a conservative measure, the authors chose to only recommend bioenergy pathways with consequences for biodiversity seen as positive in the short term. The same goes for climate effects; only bioenergy pathways with positive short-term consequences were recommended (short-term is defined as a period of 0–20 years, medium-term 30–50 years, and long-term over 50 years.) The alternative scenario for all bioenergy scenarios was a fossil fuel mix ("fossil sources"), i.e. not coal exclusively. No market effects were considered, so the results are only seen as valid for small-scale bioenergy deployment. +++++ Some of the negative consequences in the trade-off scenarios (yellow quadrants) can be minimized by implementing the RED II sustainability criteria, for instance no-go areas for biomass harvesting. However, as the European forests age, the authors expect a moderate harvest level increase because of "forest age dynamics" and in order to avoid emissions caused by forest fires, pests and windstorms. In general, scientists can describe the situation as they see it and provide policy options, but ultimately it should be up to the politicians to prioritize between climate and biodiversity mitigation in the trade-off scenarios because this prioritization is based on ethical value choices, not science. EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Pollution Removed content from this section: ++++++ A study of the giant brown haze that periodically covers large areas in South Asia determined that two thirds of it had been principally produced by residential cooking and agricultural burning, and one third by fossil-fuel burning. EMsmile (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC) References EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Miscanthus

Miscanthus × giganteus is mentioned 26 times in the article at the moment. I think this is 25 times too many. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well not sure if it's 25 times too many... but I guess this will be resolved once we seriously start the trimming, condensing and moving exercise. One would assume that miscanthus is covered in detail at energy crop (?) EMsmile (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The emphasis on miscanthus is a symptom of deeper problems: The article is biased towards covering species that are suitable for producing fuel pellets and is biased against covering the species that are used to produce transport fuels today, such as corn and palm oil. It's also heavily biased towards the energy needs of Europe and North America. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Biomass (energy). The discussion has evolved into a content discussion from which we should see much work to be done by the participants involved. As dicussed, a DABCONCEPT page will take the place of the primary topic whilst the content of the related articles is being sorted out. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Biomass → Biomass (energy source) – Previous bold move was contested in 2019. There is no primary topic, and having this page here is confusing to those attempting to find Biomass (ecology). This page, Biomass should be a disambiguation page. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this proposed solution. Biomass (energy source) is the same thing as Biomass (ecology) is the same thing as "biomass". Biomass is a specific concept, it has a specific dictionary definition, it has a primary topic. Yes, it has multiple applications--the Fs: food, feed, fuel, fertilizer--but it's all biomass. I don't think we should have one article called "Biomass (energy source)" and another called "Biomass (ecology)". Those two articles should be titled "Bioenergy" (or "biofuel"--in fact, those two articles should probably be merged) and "Biomass", respectively. I don't think Biomass should be a disambiguation page. Rather, topics like bioenergy and bioproducts--which are applications of biomass--should simply be linked in the lead of Biomass where we explain various applications of biomass. I'm not sure this article needs to be moved at all, as opposed to the content being merged with bioenergy (and biofuel being merged in there, too), and the page Biomass (ecology) should then be moved to this title, Biomass. Compare blockchain and cryptocurrency: most people looking up blockchain might be looking for crypto, which is a specific application of blockchain, but we handle that by linking crypto in the lead of blockchain, not by making an article called "Blockchain (cryptocurrency)" which is about cryptocurrency and another article called "Blockchain (technology)" which is about the technology. There should be an article about the thing, and separate articles about the applications of the thing, and readers looking for information about specific applications should be guided there via links in the lead of the article about the thing itself (or via hatnotes). Levivich (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: in common usage, I think "biofuel" refers specifically to fluids, while biomass (from an energy perspective) refers to bulk solids that are combusted with relatively limited processing. That seems to be the separation as it currently exists in our articles now. We could merge this article, biomass with biomass (ecology) while either spinning out content to Biomass energy or merging with Biofuel? Spinning out to Biomass energy would make sense to me as an alternative, so I would say I support that option just as much as my proposed rename. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I would say at the outset that both of these proposals, and Clayoquot's above, would be improvements to the status quo. So I don't oppose any of these proposals, but I'm not sure any of them are the ideal organization. What do you think of this topic/subtopic tree:

1. Biomass - the total mass of living organisms
   1. Species biomass - the biomass of particular species
   2. Community biomass - the biomass of a particular community or habitat
   3. Bioproduct - products from biomass
      1. Bioenergy - bioproducts used for energy
         1. Biofuel - liquid bioenergy
            1. Biodiesel
         2. Biogas - gas bioenergy
         3. Pellet fuel - solid bioenergy
      2. Biochemical - chemicals from biomass
         1. Biopharmaceutical
      3. Biomaterial - materials from biomass
         1. Bioplastic
         2. Biochar
         3. Biofiber (not to be confused with BioFibre, a brand name)

Anyway, not a complete outline, but I think you get the idea: Biofuel is one type of Bioenergy, which is one type of Bioproduct, which is a product made from Biomass... and we name the articles accordingly? No disambiguation pages, and no parenthetical disambiguation, required. Levivich (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed some plurals per WP:SINGULAR. Please let me know if you disagree and I will self-rv; some of these could be interpreted as classes of objects. Overall this seems like a logical tree. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all, thank you! Levivich (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fine with Biomass being either a disambiguation page (see my draft here)or a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article as Levivich proposes. W.r.t the specific idea of a topic/subtopic tree, that tree could get big and tangled pretty fast (biomass growing fast, ha ha).

W.r.t. the idea of a Biomass (energy source) page, "biomass" is used in the context of energy with at least two meanings. It can mean a primary energy source, i.e. a feedstock that gets processed into more refined forms of bioenergy including liquids and gases. It can also mean a secondary energy source, i.e. solid (not liquid or gas) fuel that people burn for heat and light. One of the problems with the current Biomass article is that it confuses primary and secondary energy. E.g. the lead gives the impression that people commonly process wood into a fuel for transport; this just isn't done (it can be done in a lab but it's not economical at scale).

The issues around primary biomass energy and secondary biomass energy are quite different, especially when it comes to health (secondary biomass energy kills millions of people every year and primary biomass energy does not), so ideally they would be covered in separate articles, e.g. Biomass (primary energy resource) and Biomass (solid fuel). Overall I support the idea of moving this article even if it's not split, as it would be an improvement over the status quo. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to move forward: I think we should start off with creating "biomass" as a disambiguation page (see draft here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Biomass/Proposed_disambiguation_page_for_Biomass). This could later be "upgraded" into a broad topic article if we think that is helpful. Or it could be a bit of a hybrid like we did at climate action: that page looks like a disambiguation page but also like a stub. The advantage is that it can be wikilinked directly whereas disambiguation pages are not meant to be wikilinked. Another similar example is marine resources. EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we have these two options: Option 1: we rename the existing biomass article to "biomass (disambiguation)" and/or we cut it down to become that kind of short hybrid article like marine resources; and move all the current content to biomass (energy) or to bioenergy. Option 2: we rename the existing biomass article to biomass (energy) and create a new article called either biomass (disambiguation) or just "biomass" (to become that hybrid type article as per above). The two options are very similar but the difference is in the amount of work that would be required to fix up all the incoming wikilinks. EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I think go with the option that is less work for incoming wikilinks. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be Option 2 then (rename the existing biomass article to biomass (energy)). In a second step we'd have to figure out which content belongs to biomass (energy) and which to bioenergy; at the moment, they overlap a lot. Also, do you prefer biomass (disambiguation) or just "biomass" for the little overview article? It would be very similar to the draft here. EMsmile (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think just Biomass because WP:NCDAB says parentheticals are disfavored. I like the idea of the short WP:CONCEPTDAB like marine resources and climate action. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That would also be my favourite. So to get that done, Step 1 would be to rename this article to biomass (energy) (mind you, we'd have parentheticals again in that case?). Should we rather make it biomass as energy source? Too long? Or biomass for energy production? The original move proposal had biomass (energy source). EMsmile (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The text of the article is mostly about climate impact and environmental impact of bioenergy (with some background about biomass used as energy, aka bioenergy), so how about "Environmental impact of bioenergy", which is currently a redirect here anyway? Levivich (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That article redirected here because of a bot fixing a double redirect after Bioenergy was redirected here against consensus. I've reverted the bot so that Environmental impact of bioenergy redirects to Bioenergy. We also have Environmental impact of biofuels which redirects to Issues relating to biofuels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand what you're proposing: It sounds like you're proposing that a link to Biomass will bring the reader to a short article that 1) explains the concept and 2) contains a list of links to articles that cover in depth what the term "biomass" is used for. The initial version of this page would be the contents of Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass, and it would not be tagged as a disambiguation page. Is that right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "move all the current content to biomass (energy) or to bioenergy." Do you mean we should do a WP:MOVE of the Biomass page to Biomass (energy) and then manually cut and paste some of the page content to Bioenergy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Clayoquot, yes that's exactly it. (maybe at a later stage when we rework the biomass (energy) and bioenergy articles we find out that indeed they could be just one article but initially I'd find it easier to get my head around this whole messy situation if they were separate). Once we move the current biomass page to biomass (energy) then it frees up the current "biomass" article to become the new short overview article based on your Talk:Biomass/Proposed disambiguation page for Biomass (and not tagged as a disambiguation page). EMsmile (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Off topic; this is a RM

@Clayoquot – Regarding "confusion" between primary and secondary energy sources: The article already have this correct. Under the "Categories" headline it says: "Biomass is categorized either as biomass harvested directly for energy (primary biomass), or as residues and waste: (secondary biomass)." See footnotes for sources. – Regarding confusion about wood fuel for transport, the lead says: "Some people use the terms biomass and biofuel interchangeably, while others consider biofuel to be a liquid or gaseous fuel used for transportation, as defined by government authorities in the US and EU. The European Union's Joint Research Centre defines solid biofuel as raw or processed organic matter of biological origin used for energy, such as firewood, wood chips, and wood pellets." Please explain more clearly why this text (or any other text in the lead) gives the impression that people use wood as a transport fuel. – Regarding your claim that primary biomass is clean and secondary biomass dirty. This is incorrect. First, even the article you linked to lists both primary and secondary energy sources as dirty (wood, dry dung, coal, and kerosene). The article also explains that health issues stems from the use of traditional biomass which can be of both the primary and secondary kind. Let me quote the IEA: "In the NZE Scenario, bioenergy rapidly shifts to 100% sustainable sources of supply, and sustainable use. There is a complete phase-out of the traditional use of solid biomass for cooking, which is inefficient, often linked to deforestation, and whose pollution was responsible for 2.5 million premature deaths in 2020." Link: https://www.iea.org/articles/what-does-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-mean-for-bioenergy-and-land-use Further, the IPCC says that a shift from traditional to modern bioenergy have large positive impacts on air quality. Link: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2019/11/09_Chapter-6.pdf (p. 628) The reason traditional bioenergy is dirty is that there is no filtering going on and because people sits right next to the pollution source. Sorry, but your recent comments give me reason to question your competence. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC) "Secondary biomass" is a totally different concept from biomass used as a secondary energy source. (See the diagram here for an explanation of the terms primary and secondary energy: https://stem.guide/topic/primary-resources-and-secondary-energy). I may have been unclear which concept I was referring to when I used the phrase "secondary biomass energy". Nowhere have I claimed that primary biomass is clean and secondary biomass is dirty. The practice of using biomass as a secondary energy source kills millions of people because the vast majority of the time, it's used in the traditional ways. There are ways to use biomass as a secondary energy source cleanly, but doing so is relatively uncommon at this time. Regarding your question on the impression of using wood as a transport fuel, I have to head out to a meeting but I will answer when I can. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC) To answer your question on why the lead is misleading: As you know, the types of biomass that are burned for heat and electricity are different from the types of biomass used for producing transport fuels. Almost every primary biomass source mentioned and re-mentioned in the lead is appropriate for heat/electricity and not for transport: wood, wood residues, energy crops, agricultural residues, and waste... firewood, wood chips, wood pellets... coppices or perennial energy crops, agricultural residues, and biological waste. In the middle of the lead it talks about bioenergy used for transport. But nowhere in the lead does it say what the biomass that is processed into fuels for transport mostly comes from, which is food crops such as corn, sugar cane, and soy. A reader new to the topic would probably get the impression that the list of biomass sources in the lead is what is used in all of the applications of biomass-derived energy that are in the lead. Even if each individual statement is correct, juxtaposing statements about different topics leads to confusion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Question for everyone: Instead of moving this page, I'd actually prefer to just replace its contents with a WP:CONCEPTDAB page. I don't see the point of having a (Biomass (energy source) page in addition to a Bioenergy page. Why have two articles? What would you expect to see in a (Biomass (energy source) page that you would not expect to see in Bioenergy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think of it as an interim step, as EMsmile says above, it allows work on a Biomass CONCEPTDAB to continue in parallel with work on the text currently at Biomass. To go through that much text and figure out what to merge, what to spin off, what to delete, etc., will take hours. By having two articles (three, actually: Biomass the CONCEPTDAB, Biomass (energy) or whatever we end up calling it, and Bioenergy), work on Biomass, and work on Biomass (energy)/Bioenergy, can proceed in parallel without having to wait for the latter before tackling the former (particularly given that the latter is much more work). Levivich (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me closing this RM, summarizing our discussion as "we're going to boldly break everything, fix it, then discuss tweaks once the dust settles?" I view it as something of a formality at this point. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, and that sounds like an excellent summary :-) Levivich (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich and VQuakr. Reply to Clayoquot: I think it's useful to have three articles for a while, even if it's an interim thing, like Levivich explained. Also if we followed your suggestion of "I'd actually prefer to just replace its contents with a WP:CONCEPTDAB page" then it would create extra work to change all the incoming wikilinks: I am assuming (based on our previous discussions) that most of the incoming wikilinks want to go to "biomass energy"/bioenergy, not to a biomass overview page. EMsmile (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting the entire second half of the article?

In the talk page above, you User:Clayoquot said "IMHO the entire section on "Climate impact" AND the section on "Environmental impact" AND the section on "The forest biomass debate" should be deleted and replaced by entirely new content derived from high-quality secondary sources." I've taken another look at those sections now and am wondering if some of it could be rescued and moved to bioenergy. E.g. I've just moved the section about "local protests" to bioenergy as it seemed fairly OK. See this edit. But should all the rest really be wholesale deleted, is there nothing worth saving? I'm not an expert on this topic so will be guided by you. Some of it seems OK though, like the biomass forest debate section? This is actually what brought me here in the first place, based on a comment by User:Levivich on the talk page of climate change on burning wood and climate change: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Climate_change#Burning_wood_and_climate_change . Or is the problem that culling, condensing and reworking is more time consuming than writing from scratch in this case? (I guess I am a bit inclusionist) EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As written, the "forest biomass debate" section has a lot of issues that should be addressed before any portions are moved to Bioenergy. It is overdetailed for anywhere on WP. It is about a "debate" rather than the actual nominal topic of bioenergy from forest resources. It is written like an essay, evaluating and refuting points of view rather than simply stating those points of view in proportion to the RS as is required by WP:WEIGHT. Personally I think there is very little to salvage, but if you find it easier to salvage from the live version of the article than from the history I don't take exception to holding off a bit. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm likely to take this article and all other bionergy articles off my watchlist soon because I'm getting burned out. Wikipedia has a lot of strong content in the topic area, e.g. in Issues relating to biofuels and Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels, that is worthy of being in more prominent articles. Wikipedia also some really bad misinformation in the topic area, and large quantities of moderately bad misinformation. For instance, the "local protests" section that you copied says "While bioenergy is generally agreed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale, environmental activists argue..." This is moderately bad misinformation. The general agreement is that bioenergy can either mitigate or increase GHG emissions, and concern about local environmental impacts is also generally agreed-upon.

The only way to recognize and fix misinformation is to spend a significant amount of time engaging with high-quality, secondary, overview sources. Reorganizing and copyediting misinformation makes it worse, not better. I strongly recommend at least starting by rewriting from scratch because the problems in some of our existing content are so deep and also because there's so much excellent content out there in freely-licensed sources (IEA, US government, and Our World in Data) that we can copy and paste from. Then, with a structure in place, you can use the high-quality content we have in existing Wikipedia articles to expand sections within that structure. After someone has spent the necessary time reading the sources, writing it up is the easy part. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I hear your pain. Strange that the sub-articles, such as Issues relating to biofuels and Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels (I've never looked at them before) are better than the main articles on this topic. My plan is still to work through the previous work of The Perennial Hugger (like I have been this week) and to see if any of the content or refs can be salvaged. Some of the text - even if biased & repetitive & too detailed - does give an indication of what the issues are. Even if only 10% of the original text and refs remain in the end, I find it easier (with respect to my own personal working style) and more ethical than deleting it all without giving it a second thought. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I never had these two pages on my watchlist until recently. I do wonder how it could have been that The Perennial Hugger was left on their own to work on this for days, weeks and months and nobody stepped in earlier and said "stop, this is not encyclopedic". It's possible that they didn't listen back then. Or perhaps it just slipped through. Either way it's a shame that their time and energy wasn't directed/helped/corrected at an earlier stage in the process. I am not blaming this on anyone, it's just an observation and a feeling that makes me uneasy. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As an interim quick fix, I've changed the wording about the "local protests" section in the bioenergy article. EMsmile (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you did more than just retitle the "local protests" section - thanks for that, it really needed the deeper attention that you gave it just now. I appreciate and share your not wanting to hurt TPH's feelings and your dismay that we didn't address it sooner. I must emphasize that each editor is 100% responsible for the quality of content that they add to an article, even when someone else wrote it. If you aren't reasonably sure that something passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT but think it might be a useful addition to article x, you could add it to the Talk page of article x as a suggestion. Please change something about your work process, or else you're likely to add misinformation to articles again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

...for days, weeks and months and nobody stepped in earlier... In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, this is extremely common, even for such content to last for years. I don't have any kind of scientific evidence for this, but it's my belief that the vast majority of articles, like 5 out of 6 million, have never had a second set of eyes on them, and we kid ourselves when we presume otherwise (as I used to). Levivich (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing content from the categories section

I'm removing more content: EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

culled content on categories

Biomass harvested directly for energy Removed content from this section: ++++++ According to IRENA, 1.5 billion hectares (3.7×109 acres) of land is currently used for food production, while "[...] about 1.4 billion ha [hectares] additional land is suitable but unused to date and thus could be allocated for bioenergy supply in the future." with 60% of this land held by just 13 countries. ++++++ The EU's MAGIC (Marginal Lands for Growing Industrial Crops) project estimates that 45 million hectares (449,901 km2, roughly the size of Sweden) of marginal land in the European Union is suitable for the perennial crop Miscanthus × giganteus (providing 12 EJ) and 62 million hectares (619,182 km2, roughly the size of Ukraine) of marginal land is suitable for bioenergy in general. +++++++ Perennial energy crops are preferred for energy production due to their high yields and better ecological profile compared to annual crops, although they are not currently produced commercially on a global scale. In 2021, the UK government announced plans to increase land areas for perennial energy crops and short rotation forestry from 10,000 to 704,000 hectares. IRENA's global estimate for 2030 is 33–39 EJ, which is considered conservative. The technical global energy potential for perennial energy crops alone is estimated to be 300 EJ annually. Biomass in the form of residues and waste Removed content from this section: ++++++ Biofuel from perennial energy crops, residues and waste is sometimes called "second-generation" or "advanced" biofuel (i.e. non-edible biomass). Algae harvested for energy is sometimes called "third-generation" biofuel. Because of high costs, commercial production of biofuel from algae has not materialized yet. Albedo Removed content from this section (as now replaced with excerpt from a better article): ++++++ Plants change the color of the surface of the earth, and this has an effect on the surface reflectivity (albedo). Lighter colors tend to reflect heat, and darker colors tend to absorb heat. Research show that afforestation have a net warming effect in snowy, boreal areas (also after carbon absorption caused by afforestation have been accounted for), because the color of the trees is darker than the color of the snow. Forest albedo has a slight cooling effect globally. Plants causes more evapotranspiration and therefore increased local humidity. The increased humidity causes more of the incoming solar energy to be spent evaporating water rather than heating the ground, thereby creating a cooling effect. In tropical forests, evapotranspiration can also create low-hanging clouds that reflects sunlight, adding to the albedo effect. Forests release small particles called organic carbon, both via combustion and directly from live trees. The particles reflect sunlight, so have a cooling effect on their own, but also helps create clouds, since water vapor condense around the particles. In both cases, the reflection creates a cooling effect. +++++++++ If annual crops across the central USA were replaced by perennial grasses, it would cause significant global cooling, mostly from evapotranspiration effects but also from albedo. The albedo effect alone was six times larger than the grasses' fossil fuel displacement effect. The reason for the albedo effect in this case was that perennial grasses keep the surface green for a longer period of time during the year, compared to annual crops. References

Paragraph removed from the lead

I have removed this paragraph from the lead because I don't think it fitted there. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article which this content isn't. It also might be a bit biased / poorly sourced:

• "The most promising raw material feedstocks for the future are lignocellulosic (non-edible) biomass, such as coppices or perennial energy crops, agricultural residues, and biological waste, which also have the shortest delay before producing climate benefits. Heat production from biomass combustion is typically more "climate friendly" than electricity production due to the more efficient conversion from chemical to heat energy, and it is also harder to replace with heat from alternative renewable sources that may be more costly or limited by the maximum temperature of the steam they can produce. Power plants using biomass as fuel can provide a stable power output, unlike the intermittent power from solar or wind farms. " EMsmile (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that biomass powerplants are more stable/on demand than wind or solar is significant. It should be covered in the article and probably mentioned in the lead by the time we're done. That doesn't mean I contest this removal though. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yea, maybe but then it would belong rather at bioenergy, right? Actually I've just realised that all this kind of content (i.e. comparisons with other renewable energy sources, climate impact...) is already at renewable energy#Bioenery and sustainable energy#Bioenery. I am now thinking about how to bring that across, e.g. by using excerpts or by copying. Should have thought about this earlier... EMsmile (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For the lead-level, just independently rewrite it once the body content is sorted out. There's still so much left to take out that it's hard to see the bioforest through the biotrees. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed content "roundwood and residues"

I've removed this section as it was unclear to me what the point was. If there is an important point to make on this, can it be summarised in just a sentence or two? Basically it's saying the more valuable forest products (roundwood) are better off to be used for things other than bioenergy, and the less valuable forest products could be used for bioenery. Right? EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Roundwood and residues

Researchers also discuss the use of roundwood vs. logging residues. Roundwood is defined as all woody material removed from the forest, and logging residues is the parts that would most likely remain in the forest in the case of no demand from bioenergy. 20% of the felled biomass is currently left in the forest as logging residues. Residues include tree tops, branches and stumps, but also pre-commercial thinnings (small, thin, young trees cleared away for increased productivity of the whole forest stand), salvage loggings and trees cleared away for fire hazard control. In general, residues and cascaded wood (wood products that are combusted for energy at the end of their service life) is seen as maximizing "the positive climate impact of bioenergy". In Europe, approximately 20% stemwood is used for bioenergy, with the rest from logging residues, processing residues and post consumer wood. At least half of the stemwood is sourced from short rotation coppice forests, which have low payback/parity times and provides ecosystem services.

Researchers found that the "[...] higher economic value for timber and cellulose [pulp] products makes large-scale use of whole-trees for energy purposes highly unlikely wherever there is regional competition for the fiber." According to EU's Joint Research Centre, both the bioenergy sector, the wood panel sector and the pulp sector "[...] are all dependent on the demand for sawnwood, and they compete for the same feedstocks." EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Images removed

I've removed some images/graphs as I found they were too detailed and difficult to understand: EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (heat production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal, light fuel oil, most relevant fossil fuel alternative, and natural gas. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%.
• 
  Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (transportation). The stippled line show net emissions for the most relevant fossil fuel alternative. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages also compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 50–60%, green 60–70%, blue 70–100%.
• 
  Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (electricity production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal (black), most relevant fossil fuel alternative (green), electricity mix (red) and natural gas (blue). Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%.
• 
  Bioenergy displacement factors for substituted fossil fuels.
• 
  Total amount of suitable land for agriculture, land already used, and land available for bioenergy in 2010, 2020 and 2030.
• 
  Time-dependent emission levels from decaying forest residues with different thicknesses: stumps (30 cm), thinnings (10 cm) and branches (2 cm). Dotted lines = North Finland, solid lines = South Finland.
• 
  Relationship between above-ground yield (diagonal lines), soil organic carbon (X axis), and soil's potential for successful/unsuccessful carbon sequestration (Y axis). Basically, the higher the yield, the more land is usable as a GHG mitigation tool (including relatively carbon-rich land).
• 
  Carbon negative (miscanthus) and carbon positive (poplar) production pathways.

EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Content removed from "Climate impacts expressed as static numbers"

I've removed this while trying to condense the content of this section: EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

++++

Because market related calculations are excluded, the results are only seen as valid for small-scale energy production. Also, the bioenergy pathways have typical small-scale conversion efficiencies. Solid biofuels for electricity production have 25% efficiency in most cases, and 21–34% in a few cases. Biogas for electricity production have 32–38%. Heat pathways have 76–85%. The forest residue category include logs and stumps, which increases carbon intensity especially in forests with slow decay rates.

The charts have vertical bars that represent the emission range found for each bioenergy pathway (since emissions for the same pathway vary from study to study.) The higher end of the range represents emission levels found in studies that assume for instance long transport distances, low conversion efficiencies and no fossil fuel displacement effect. The lower end of the range represents emission levels found in studies that assume optimized logistics, higher conversion efficiencies, use of renewable energy to supply process-heat and process-electricity, and include displacement effects from the substitution of fossil fuels. The bars can be compared with emission levels associated with multiple alternative energy systems available in the EU. The dotted, coloured areas represent emission savings percentages for the pathways when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.

+++++++++

IRENA argues that short-rotation energy crops and agricultural residues are carbon neutral since they are harvested annually. IEA writes in its special report on how to reach net zero emissions in 2050 that the "[...] energy‐sector transformation in the NZE [Net Zero Emissions scenario) would reduce CO₂ emissions from AFLOU [Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use] in 2050 by around 150 Mt CO₂ given the switch away from conventional crops and the increase in short rotation advanced‐bioenergy crop production on marginal lands and pasture land."

References

Should “ Smokestack emissions from forest biomass compared to coal” be deleted?

When I saw the heading I thought the section was going to be about local pollution. I read it and it seems to be all about CO2 and at the end it seems to say that the IEA says that all the stuff I just read is irrelevant. So I think we should delete the section for wasting my time and that of other readers Chidgk1 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have shortened this further and changed the section heading. Do you think this is better now? I would be hesitant to delete this outright because it does bring up an aspect that readers should probably be made aware of. I find it's an important point that even if GHG emissions at the point of combustion are higher for wood than for coal, this can be overall negated in the scheme of things. Unless perhaps this is already explained elsewhere in the article; it contains a lot of repetition. - The article still needs further culling and condensing (see in the history page how much I have already removed). Would be great if you could help further, feel free to point out where culling, condensing or outright deletion is required? (and if people feel strongly about deleting this section altogether, I won't stay in the way; I am just generally a bit hesitant when it comes to "complete deletions"). EMsmile (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Much better now thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Conversion of efn templates into sfn templates

Sorry EMsmile I've had to undo you conversions from {{efn}} to {{sfn}} tempaltes. This isn't how sfn templates are meant to be used, see the templates documentation and the resulting errors type you were causing Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Specifically the sole purpose of a sfn template is to link with a full cite elsewhere in the article, using the |last= and |date= fields in the cite (or the |ref= field if necessary). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it was work in progress. I was trying to find a way of getting this fixed up in an automated manner, rather than manually one by one. Can it be done in an automated manner? We want to delete the quotes but keep the refs that are inside of the footnotes. EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving the earlier discussion to here: EMsmile (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:VQuakr: I've just reverted this edit of yours because (whilst I agree those quotes and comments were far too lengthy) I do worry that by taking out all the quotes and comments in one go you have also deleted the refs that were embedded in those "comments". I agree with you that we don't need the quotes and notes but we do need those in-line citations, don't you think? By deleting everything, this would create a lot of unsourced content. EMsmile (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@EMsmile: I mean, when WP:TNTing an article some stuff is going to get broken before it gets fixed. VQuakr (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but re-finding all the deleted in-line citations will be very cumbersome later, won't it? I'll me try to delete some of the quotes now and see how it looks then. EMsmile (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now converted the notes into refs and corrected the formatting for the first few (the ref list is now temporarily messed up as a result). It's doable but it's very time consuming. So I wonder if I am on the right track here or if I am barking up the wrong tree. A whole-sale deletion would be faster, sure, but I want to keep any of the useful content with regards to in-line citation. What's the best way forward from here? Continue like I have done? Or is that a waste of time? EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ‎User:ActivelyDisinterested, I see you have reverted me. Can you please provide guidance on the fastest way of converting the refs that are inside of those notes into refs? That's what I was trying to do... i.e. to delete the quotes and text but to keep the refs that are inside of those footnotes. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a section below before I saw this comment. Short answe this isn't a correct use of the sfn template. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If you turn on the error messages for short form refs (details are in ten category Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, ask if you have any questions), then you will see your version was a sea of red error messages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

OK I've done a couple of examples of how removing the notes while keeping the refs could work. In example one the inline note is replaced with a refname, and the ref is added to the reflist. This way means that any note that's re-used many times only has to be defined once. In the second example the inline is replaced with a direct link to cite using a {{sfn}} template. This is cleaner but each inline use of a note needs slightly more conversion. I'd suggest anyone doing the conversion turns on the error messages so they can check their work. Any questions just let me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, User:ActivelyDisinterested. I've tried to follow your first example but got myself into a knot. So it seems each one would have to be converted manually one by one. This is quite time consuming (especially for me because I keep getting confused). I might just leave it for now as we're probably going to cull and condense a lot of the content anyhow. This would then remove a lot of the notes anyway. We could can just convert the ones that actually remain manually. It must have taken the person who set this up originally ages to set this all up! EMsmile (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the time it's easier to setup complicated referencing than it is to maintain it. I agree it's likely a better idea to cull content and then convert any notes that remain. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ActivelyDisinterested, now that I have done a lot of culling from this article, is there an easy way (ideally with a bot?) to remove all of the unused ref names, sources and notes from the article? It would be rather time consuming to do it all manually. EMsmile (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

EMsmile I've removed all the unused notes, which clears all the error messages. There's no automation for any of this, with all the complexities of referencing that are allowed by Wikipedia it just wouldn't be possible. Are the rest of the notes still be to be convert to just the references? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I am still in the process of deleting & culling more and also converting more of the notes to refs (I'll use the long ref style). At the end, there will likely be no notes remaining. How about those publications that are listed under "Bibliography" which are no longer in use now: is there an easy way to identify which ones are now superfluous or does that have to be done manually as well? EMsmile (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a script that can help you identify them (see Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, in particular "User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js"). I've gone ahead and moved all the cites not currently used by referencing to a "Further reading " section. Feel free to trim or delete as you see necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help! I've now removed the "further reading" list and placed it on the talk page in case it needs discussion later. I've also installed that HarvErrors script and will see how it works. EMsmile (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Anytime. If you have any questions just let me know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The correct way to delete or move content containing SFN and EFN-based footnotes

There seems to be some confusion regarding the correct way to delete or move content containing SFN and EFN-based footnotes. Here is how to do it correctly (use Source editing):

Footnotes based on the SFN (Shortened FootNotes) template consist of 2 pieces of text. The first piece is the SFN template itself, the second is its citation counterpart.

The SFN template is inserted into the main text, for instance {{sfn|EIA|2021a}}

This code tells the computer to go look for a citation further down below where the author is IEA and the date is 2021a. (The "a" is added to the year since there are two or more EIA citations from that particular year.) The computer then races towards the bottom of the article and finds this:

{{cite web | author=EIA | title=Biomass explained | website=U.S. Energy Information Administration | date=2021a | url=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=biomass_home | access-date=2021-11-02}}

The computer sees that the author is EIA and the date is 2021a, and is satisfied. It then generates the correct footnote.

If you want to delete SFN-based footnotes, you have to delete both pieces of text. Otherwise you will generate error messages. (Exception: If other footnotes uses that same citation, you should not delete it. If you actually delete it, the computer will generate an error message when you preview the result. Go back and reinstate the citation.)

If you want to copy a SFN-based footnote to another article, you have to put the SFN template into the main text, and its citation counterpart between {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} in the References section.

Footnotes based on the EFN (Explanatory FootNotes) template consists of 3 pieces of text. The first piece is the EFN template, the second is the note counterpart, the third is the citation counterpart.

The EFN template is inserted into the main text, for instance

{{efn|name=EIA-2021b}}

This code tells the computer to go look for its note counterpart, which has the name EIA-2021b (you choose this name yourself). Here it is:

{{efn|name=EIA-2021b|"Biofuels are transportation fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel that are made from biomass materials." {{harvnb|EIA|2021b}}.}}

The first part of the note (the quote) can now be generated. But it is not complete; we also need the citation. However, the last part of the note gives the computer the information it needs in this regard; it tells the computer that the author is EIA, and that the date is 2021b. The computer then looks further down the article to find a citation that matches these requirements, and finds this:

{{cite web | author=EIA | title=Biofuels explained | website=U.S. Energy Information Administration | date=2021b | url=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biofuels/ | access-date=2021-11-02}}

The computer here sees that the author is EIA and the date is 2021b, and is satisfied. It then generates the correct footnote.

If you want to delete EFN-based footnotes, you have to delete all the three pieces of text. Otherwise the computer will generate an error message. (Exception: If other footnotes use the same citation, you should not delete it. If you actually delete it, the computer will generate an error message. Go back and reinstate the citation.)

If you want to copy an EFN-based footnote to another article, you have to

1.) put the EFN template in the main text

2. put the note counterpart between

{{notelist|40em|refs=

and

}}

(Note that the 40em parameter above is not essential, it only tells the computer how wide the columns should become.)

3. put the citation counterpart between {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} in the References section.

If you are looking for the easiest way to edit and move content, consider NOT converting SFN and EFN-based footnotes manually to inline (that is, only one piece of text) REF-based footnotes. Inline REF-based footnotes can later be added at will, with SFN and EFN-based footnotes co-existing. If you keep the SFN and EFN-based footnotes, these footnotes will be presented in two layers like they are today, with the quote/comment first and citation second, but on the plus side you will not have to do any manual labor converting them. However, since they are presented in two layers, you might want to consider keeping just a tiny fraction of the quote or comment, what you consider the most essential part. In Source editing mode, it is super easy to delete the part of the footnote you find excessive. Just scroll down to the notelist and start editing. I have found that for big jobs, I work faster by simply copying the article code over to several text documents, which I work on at the same time. For instance when I work on EFN-based footnotes, I have one text document for the main text, one for the notelist, and one for the citations. That way, I save myself a lot of scrolling back and forth. When you are done, simply merge these three documents together. The Perennial Hugger (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Culled content on climate impact

I'm going to cull all the content on climate impact for now and then take another look to see if anything can be salvaged.

culled content on climate impact

Carbon accounting principles Main article: Carbon accounting Different carbon accounting methodologies have a significant impact on the calculated results and therefore on the scientific arguments. Generally, the purpose of carbon accounting is to determine the carbon intensity of an energy scenario, i.e. whether it is carbon positive, carbon neutral or carbon negative. Carbon positive scenarios are likely to be net emitters of CO2, carbon negative projects are net absorbers of CO2, while carbon neutral projects balance emissions and absorption perfectly. As a consequence of both natural causes and human practices, carbon continually flows between carbon pools, for instance the atmospheric carbon pool, the forest carbon pool, the harvested wood products carbon pool, and the fossil fuels carbon pool. When the carbon level in pools other than the atmospheric carbon pool increase, the carbon level in the atmosphere decrease, which helps mitigate global warming. If a researcher measures the amount of carbon moving from one pool to another, they can gain insight and recommend practices that maximize the amount of carbon stored in carbon pools other than the atmospheric carbon pool. Three concepts are especially important, namely carbon debt, carbon payback time and carbon parity time: Carbon debt accrues when biomass is removed from growing sites, for instance forests. It is counted when the trees are felled because the UNFCCC (the UN organization that countries report their emissions to) has decided that emissions should be counted already at this point in time, instead of at the combustion event. Carbon payback time is the time it takes before this carbon is "paid back" to the forest, by having the forest re-absorb an equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon parity time is the time it takes for one energy scenario to reach carbon parity with another scenario (i.e. store the same amount of carbon as another scenario.) One of these scenarios can for instance be a bioenergy scenario, with carbon counted as stored in the part of the forest that was not harvested, and carbon counted as lost for the amount of forest that were harvested (cf. the UNFCCC rule mentioned above.) However, the amount of carbon that resides in woody construction materials and biofuels made from this harvest can be "counted back" into the bioenergy scenario's carbon pools for the amount of time it takes before this carbon decays naturally or are burnt for energy. The alternative scenario can for instance be a forest protection scenario, with carbon counted as stored in the whole forest – a forest that is bigger than in the bioenergy scenario because no trees were harvested at all, and in addition also continued to grow (while waiting for the carbon stored in the bioenergy scenario to catch up to its own carbon level.) However, the implied "lock-in" of carbon in the forest also means that this carbon no longer is available for production of woody construction materials and biofuels, which means that these have to be replaced by other sources. In most cases, the most realistic sources are fossil sources, which means that the forest protection scenario here will be "punished" by having the fossil fuel emissions it is responsible for subtracted from its carbon pool. (Note that this fossil carbon is often instead technically speaking counted as added to the bioenergy carbon pool (instead of subtracted from the no-bioenergy carbon pool), and called "displaced" or "avoided" fossil carbon.) A net carbon debt for the bioenergy scenario is calculated when the net amount of carbon stored in the forest protection scenario's carbon pool is larger than the net amount of carbon stored in the bioenergy scenario's carbon pools. A net carbon credit for the bioenergy scenario is calculated when the net amount of carbon stored in the forest protection scenario's carbon pool is smaller than the net amount of carbon stored in the bioenergy scenario's carbon pools. The carbon parity time then is the time it takes for the bioenergy scenario to go from debt to credit. To recap, a project or scenario can be assessed solely on its own merits, specifically the time it takes to pay back removed carbon (carbon payback time.) However, it is common to include alternative scenarios (also called "reference scenarios" or "counterfactuals") for comparison. When there is more than one scenario, carbon parity times between these scenarios can be calculated. The alternative scenarios range from scenarios with only modest changes compared to the existing project, all the way to radically different ones (i.e. forest protection or "no-bioenergy" counterfactuals.) Generally, the difference between scenarios is seen as the actual carbon mitigation potential of the scenarios. In other words, quoted emission savings are relative savings; savings relative to some alternative scenario the researcher suggest. This gives the researcher a large amount of influence over the calculated results. Carbon accounting system boundaries System boundaries for carbon accounting: Option 1 (black) limits the carbon calculation to stack emissions, option 2 (green) limits the calculation to the forest carbon stock, option 3 (blue) limits the calculation to forest and stack emissions combined (the supply chain) and option 4 (red ) includes both stack emissions, forest and the bioeconomy (carbon storage in wood products and displaced fossil fuels.) In addition to the choice of alternative scenario, other choices has to be made as well. The so-called "system boundaries" determine which carbon emissions/absorptions that will be included in the actual calculation, and which that will be excluded. System boundaries include temporal, spatial, efficiency-related and economic boundaries: Temporal system boundaries The temporal boundaries define when to start and end carbon counting. Sometimes "early" events are included in the calculation, for instance carbon absorption going on in the forest before the initial harvest. Sometimes "late" events are included as well, for instance emissions caused by end-of-life activities for the infrastructure involved, e.g. demolition of factories. Since the emission and absorption of carbon related to a project or scenario changes with time, the net carbon emission can either be presented as time-dependent (for instance a curve which moves along a time axis), or as a static value; this shows average emissions calculated over a defined time period. The time-dependent net emission curve will typically show high emissions at the beginning (if the counting starts when the biomass is harvested.) Alternatively, the starting point can be moved back to the planting event; in this case the curve can potentially move below zero (into carbon negative territory) if there is no carbon debt from land use change to pay back, and in addition more and more carbon is absorbed by the planted trees. The emission curve then spikes upward at harvest. The harvested carbon is then being distributed into other carbon pools, and the curve moves in tandem with the amount of carbon that is moved into these new pools (Y axis), and the time it takes for the carbon to move out of the pools and return to the forest via the atmosphere (X axis). As described above, the carbon payback time is the time it takes for the harvested carbon to be returned to the forest, and the carbon parity time is the time it takes for the carbon stored in two competing scenarios to reach the same level. The static carbon emission value is produced by calculating the average annual net emission for a specific time period. The specific time period can be the expected lifetime of the infrastructure involved (typical for life cycle assessments; LCA's), policy relevant time horizons inspired by the Paris agreement (for instance remaining time until 2030, 2050 or 2100), time spans based on different global warming potentials (GWP; typically 20 or 100 years), or other time spans. In the EU, a time span of 20 years is used when quantifying the net carbon effects of a land use change. Generally in legislation, the static number approach is preferred over the dynamic, time-dependent curve approach. The number is expressed as a so-called "emission factor" (net emission per produced energy unit, for instance kg CO2e per GJ), or even simpler as an average greenhouse gas savings percentage for specific bioenergy pathways. The EU's published greenhouse gas savings percentages for specific bioenergy pathways used in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and other legal documents are based on life cycle assessments (LCA's). Spatial system boundaries The spatial boundaries define "geographical" borders for carbon emission/absorption calculations. The two most common spatial boundaries for CO2 absorption and emission in forests are 1.) along the edges of a particular forest stand and 2.) along the edges of a whole forest landscape, which include many forest stands of increasing age (the forest stands are harvested and replanted, one after the other, over as many years as there are stands.) A third option is the so-called increasing stand level carbon accounting method: – In stand level carbon accounting, the researcher may count a large emission event when the stand is harvested, followed by smaller, annual absorption amounts during the accumulation phase that continues until the stand has reached a mature age and is harvested again. – Likewise, in increasing stand level accounting, the researcher counts a large emission event when the stand is harvested, followed by absorption of smaller quantities of carbon each year during the accumulation period. However, one year after the first harvest, a new stand is harvested. The researcher do not count the carbon that was absorbed in this second stand after the first, neighbouring stand was harvested, only the large emission at the harvest event of the second stand. The next year the same procedure repeats for the third stand; the carbon that was absorbed by this stand after the harvest of the first and second stand is not counted, while a large emission amount is counted when the third stand is harvested. In other words, in increasing stand level accounting the whole carbon account is composed of a number of individual stand-level accounts, each with its own, individual starting point. – In landscape level accounting, the researcher counts a large emission event when the first stand is harvested, followed by absorption of smaller quantities of carbon each year during the accumulation period for this particular stand. Like with increasing stand level accounting, a new stand is harvested the second and third year etc., and these emission events are all counted. Unlike with increasing stand level accounting however, the researcher also counts the carbon that is absorbed by all stands after the harvest of the first stand in the forest landscape. In other words, instead of calculating carbon emissions from a lot of different starting points, forest landscape accounting uses only one, common starting point for the whole forest landscape, namely the year the first stand was harvested. So, the researcher has to decide whether to focus on the individual stand, an increasing number of stands, or the whole forest landscape. According to Lamers et al., the stand level spatial boundary choice is typical for early carbon modeling, and it leads to carbon cycles that resemble sawteeth (dramatic increases in emissions at harvest, followed by slow declines as the forest stand absorb carbon.) The key benefit of stand-level analysis is its simplicity, and this is the primary reason for it still being part of today's carbon analyses. However, while the study of single stands provide easily comprehensible results (for example on the carbon effects of different harvesting choices), real-world timber/woody biomass supply areas consist of several stands of different maturity, for instance 80. Over a time period of 80 years then, all stands are successively harvested and replanted. To accurately calculate the carbon flow over such large areas the spatial boundary of the calculation has to increase from stand level to landscape level, as the forest "landscape" contains all the individual forest stands. Cowie et al. argue that landscape level accounting is more representative of the way the forestry sector manages to produce a continuous supply of wood products. The IPCC recommends landscape-level carbon accounting as well (see Short-term urgency below). Further, the researcher has to decide whether emissions from direct/indirect land use change should be included in the calculation. Most researchers include emissions from direct land use change, for instance the emissions caused by cutting down a forest in order to start some agricultural project there instead. The inclusion of indirect land use change effects is more controversial, as they are difficult to quantify accurately. Other choices involve defining the likely spatial boundaries of forests in the future. For instance, is increased harvesting and perhaps even forest expansion more realistic than forest protection in a situation with high demand for forest products? Or alternatively, is smaller forests perhaps more realistic than forest protection in a situation with low demand for forest products and high demand for new land or new areas for housing and urban development? Lamers & Junginger argue that from a nature conservation and carbon strategy evaluation perspective, forest protection is a valid option. However, protection is unlikely for forest plantations – in the absence of demand for forest products (e.g., timber, pulp or pellets), "[...] options such as conversion to agriculture or urban development may be more realistic alternatives [...]." Cowie et al. argue that privately owned forests are often used to create income and therefore generally sensitive to market developments. Forest protection is an unrealistic scenario for most of the privately owned forests, unless forest owners can be compensated for their loss of income. According to the EU's Joint Research Centre, 60% of the European forests are privately owned. In the US, over 80% is privately owned in the east, and over 80% publicly owned in the west. Efficiency-related system boundaries Bioenergy displacement factors for substituted fossil fuels. Woody materials displacement factors for substituted fossil based materials. The efficiency-related boundaries define a range of fuel substitution efficiencies for different biomass-combustion pathways. Different supply chains emit different amounts of carbon per supplied energy unit, and different combustion facilities convert the chemical energy stored in different fuels to heat or electrical energy with different efficiencies. The researcher has to know about this and choose a realistic efficiency range for the different biomass-combustion paths under consideration. The chosen efficiencies are used to calculate so-called "displacement factors" – single numbers that shows how efficient fossil carbon is substituted by biogenic carbon. If for instance 10 tonnes of carbon are combusted with an efficiency half that of a modern coal plant, only 5 tonnes of coal would actually be counted as displaced (displacement factor 0.5). Schlamadinger & Marland describes how such low efficiency lead to high parity times when bioenergy and coal-based forest protection scenarios are compared, and on the other hand how an efficiency identical to the coal scenario lead to low parity times. Generally, fuel burned in inefficient (old or small) combustion facilities gets assigned lower displacement factors than fuel burned in efficient (new or large) facilities, since more fuel has to be burned (and therefore more CO2 released) in order to produce the same amount of energy. Likewise, since the production of wood based construction materials demand lower fossil fuel input than the production of fossil based construction materials (e.g. cement or steel), the wood based construction materials get assigned displacement factors when substitution of cement and steel based construction materials is realistic, i.e. when they have the same utility in construction. The more fossil fuel emissions avoided by using utility-equivalent wood construction products, the higher the assigned displacement factors. Additionally, the carbon stored in wood products during the products' service life, and the fossil carbon that is displaced when the wood products are combusted for energy at the end of their service life, can both be included in the displacement factor calculations. However, so far this is not common practice. (52% of the harvested forest biomass in the EU is used for materials.) Sathre & O'Connor examined 21 individual studies and found displacement factors of between −2.3 and 15 for construction wood products, with the average at 2.1, which means that for each tonne of biogenic carbon produced, on average 2.1 tonnes of fossil carbon is displaced. For wood based biofuels, the displacement factors varied between roughly 0.5 and 1, "[...] depending largely on the type of fossil fuel replaced and the relative combustion efficiencies." The authors write that when construction wood products are combusted for energy at the end of their service life, the displacement effect is sometimes added to the calculation, "[...] as the GHG benefits of both material substitution and fuel substitution accrue." In another meta study on construction wood products, where this additional end-of-life combustion substitution effect was excluded, the authors found somewhat lower displacement factors. The combustion-specific displacement factors were similar but with a wider range (see charts on the right.) The displacement factor varies with the carbon intensity of both the biomass fuel and the displaced fossil fuel. If or when bioenergy can achieve negative emissions (e.g. from afforestation, energy grass plantations and/or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), or if fossil fuel energy sources with higher emissions in the supply chain start to come online (e.g. because of fracking, or increased use of shale gas), the displacement factor will start to rise. On the other hand, if or when new baseload energy sources with lower emissions than fossil fuels start to come online, the displacement factor will start to drop. Whether a displacement factor change is included in the calculation or not, depends on whether or not it is expected to take place within the time period covered by the relevant scenario's temporal system boundaries. Economic system boundaries The economic boundaries define which market effects to include in the calculation, if any. Changed market conditions can lead to small or large changes in carbon emissions and absorptions from supply chains and forests, for instance changes in forest area as a response to changes in demand. Miner et al. describe how researchers have begun to examine forest bioenergy in a broader, integrated framework that also addresses market impacts. Based both on empirical data and modeling, these studies have determined that increased demand often leads to investments in forestry that increase forest area and incentivize improvements in forest management. Depending on circumstances, this dynamic can increase forest carbon stocks. Where growth rates are relatively high and the investment response strong, net GHG benefits from increased use of trees for energy can be realized within a decade or two, depending on the fossil fuel being displaced and the timing of the investment response. Where tree growth is slow and the investment response is lacking, many decades may be required to see the net benefits from using roundwood for energy. The investment response has been found to be especially important in places such as the US South, where economic returns to land have been shown to directly affect gains and losses in forest area. Abt et al. argue that the US South is the world's largest timber producer, and that the forest is privately owned and therefore market driven. Further, EU's Joint Research Centre argue that macroeconomic events/policy changes can have impacts on forest carbon stock. Like with indirect land use changes, economic changes can be difficult to quantify however, so some researchers prefer to leave them out of the calculation. System boundary impacts The chosen system boundaries are very important for the calculated results. Shorter payback/parity times are calculated when fossil carbon intensity, forest growth rate and biomass conversion efficiency increases, or when the initial forest carbon stock and/or harvest level decreases. Shorter payback/parity times are also calculated when the researcher choose landscape level over stand level carbon accounting (if carbon accounting starts at the harvest rather than at the planting event.) Conversely, longer payback/parity times are calculated when carbon intensity, growth rate and conversion efficiency decreases, or when the initial carbon stock and/or harvest level increases, or the researcher choose stand level over landscape level carbon accounting. Critics argue that unrealistic system boundary choices are made, or that narrow system boundaries lead to misleading conclusions. Others argue that the wide range of results shows that there is too much leeway available and that the calculations therefore are useless for policy development. EU's Join Research Center agrees that different methodologies produce different results, but also argue that this is to be expected, since different researchers consciously or unconsciously choose different alternative scenarios/methodologies as a result of their ethical ideals regarding man's optimal relationship with nature. The ethical core of the sustainability debate should be made explicit by researchers, rather than hidden away. Climate impacts expressed as varying with time Time-dependent net emission estimates for forest bioenergy pathways, compared against coal and natural gas alternative scenarios. Plus signs represents positive climate effects, minus signs negative climate effects. According to EU's Joint Research Centre, the use of boreal stemwood harvested exclusively for bioenergy have a positive climate impact only in the long term, while the use of wood residues have a positive climate impact also in the short to medium term. See chart on the right for an overview over expected emission reductions from different forest bioenergy pathways, including stemwood, residues and new plantations, compared against energy generation from coal and natural gas in the alternative scenarios. Stems from short-rotation coppices or short-rotation forests also have positive climate effects in the short to medium term (see below.) Short carbon payback/parity times for forest residues Short carbon payback/parity times are produced when the most realistic no-bioenergy scenario is a traditional forestry scenario where "good" wood stems are harvested for lumber production, and residues are burned or left behind in the forest or in landfills. The collection of such residues provides material which "[...] would have released its carbon (via decay or burning) back to the atmosphere anyway (over time spans defined by the biome's decay rate) [...]." In other words, payback and parity times depend on the decay speed. The decay speed depends on a.) location (because decay speed is "[...] roughly proportional to temperature and rainfall [...]"), and b.) the thickness of the residues. Residues decay faster in warm and wet areas, and thin residues decay faster than thick residues. Thin residues in warm and wet temperate forests therefore have the fastest decay, while thick residues in cold and dry boreal forests have the slowest decay. If the residues instead are burned in the no-bioenergy scenario, e.g. outside the factories or at roadside in the forests, emissions are instant. In this case, parity times approach zero. Madsen & Bentsen examined emissions from both forest residues and coal, combusted in the same, real Northern European CHP (combined heat and power) plant, and found that the carbon parity time was 1 year. The low parity time was mainly the result of the use of residues, the generally high conversion efficiencies of CHP plants compared to regular power plants (in this case 85.9%), and longer transport distance for coal. The authors note that most bioenergy emission studies use hypothetical rather than real field data, and that 16 times more biomass is combusted in CHP plants than in pure electricity plants in the EU. In other words, it is heat-related payback/parity times such as these that are the most relevant for the current situation. Holmgren studied climate effects from actual forestry practices in a whole country over a 40-year time period (Sweden 1980–2019), and found that at the national landscape level, no carbon debt accrued at any point in time during this period. The actual forestry practice was compared to two alternative forest protection scenarios. The counted emissions caused by the initial harvest in the actual forestry scenario did not lead to a carbon debt because 1.) the initial harvest-related carbon emission was outweighed by carbon absorption caused by growth elsewhere in the forest (a trend that is expected to continue in the future), and 2.) because a national forest protection policy would cause large initial emissions from the national wood-based products and energy infrastructure when it is converted to work with fossil fuels. The conversion is described as a "[...] one-off transformation, representing major and required modifications to energy systems, infrastructure, industrial processing, building sector, manufacturing of consumer products and other economic activities towards fossil-based production if a no-harvest scenario were to be implemented." Of course, if the bioenergy scenario's initial harvest-related emission event is outweighed by 1.) forest growth elsewhere, and 2.) infrastructure conversion emissions (in the forest protection scenario), no carbon debt accrues at all, and the payback and parity times reduce to zero. The author argue that since forest protection most likely will cause fossil carbon to be emitted instead of biogenic carbon, the practical effect of forest protection is simply a transfer of carbon from the underground fossil carbon pool via combustion to the atmospheric carbon pool, and then via photosynthesis to the forest carbon pool. However, when carbon is stored in forests instead of underground fossil reservoirs, it is more unstable, that is, easier to convert to CO2 because of natural disturbances. A conservative displacement factor of 0.78 tonnes of fossil carbon displaced per tonne of biogenic carbon produced is used for both harvested wood products (HWP) and energy combined. The author criticizes studies that limit carbon accounting to the carbon flows within the forests themselves and leave out fossil displacement effects, and argues that this narrow system boundary essentially works as "[...] a justification for continued fossil emissions elsewhere with no net gain for the global climate." In Sweden, the biomass that is available for energy is mainly used in heating facilities (7.85 Mtoe used for heating, 0.84 Mtoe for electricity.) In the US, Walker et al. found parity times of 10 years or less when using forest residues in New England to replace coal in a regular, utility-scaled electricity plant. Likewise, Miner et al. argue that in the eastern parts of the US, all kinds of forest residues can be used for bioenergy with climate benefits within 10 years compared to a coal-based alternative scenario, and within 20 years compared to a natural gas-based alternative scenario. Carbon parity times for wood-pellet electricity from different feedstocks (Hanssen et al. 2017). Hanssen et al. compared a bioenergy scenario that included continued pellet production in the Southeast USA to three alternative fossil fuel mix scenarios, all seen as more realistic scenarios than forest protection: 1.) Use all harvested biomass to produce paper, pulp or wood panels, 2.) quit the thinning practice, i.e., leave the small trees alone, so more of their growth potential is realized, and 3.) leave the residues alone, so they decay naturally over time, rather than being burned almost immediately in power plants. Three different levels of demand (low, average, high) was included for each alternative scenario. Parity times ranged from 0–21 years in all demand scenarios, and 0–6 years in the average demand scenarios (see chart on the right). The authors used landscape level carbon accounting, rotation time was 25 years, and market effects were included. Carbon parity times for various residues-based energy systems, compared to alternative scenarios. Time-dependent global warming mitigation potentials for forest residues, cereal straw and biogas slurry. Time-dependent emission levels from decaying forest residues with different thicknesses: stumps (30 cm), thinnings (10 cm) and branches (2 cm). Dotted lines = North Finland, solid lines = South Finland. Lamers & Junginger examined a number of studies on (sub)-boreal forest residues (including stumps in some cases), and found carbon parity times of between 0 and 16 years. The bioenergy scenario was compared against an alternative reference scenario where the residues either were left in the forests to decay naturally, or was incinerated at the roadside. The parity time was 0 years compared to a scenario where the residues was burned at roadside and electricity instead produced by coal plants. However, parity times increased to 3–24 years when roadside burning was exchanged with natural decay, and coal exchanged with oil. Parity times increased further to 4–44 years when oil was replaced with natural gas. All bioenergy scenarios used landscape level carbon accounting. Zanchi et al. agree that there are climate benefits from the beginning when using easily decomposable forest residues for bioenergy. They also write that "[...] new bioenergy plantations on lands with low initial C [carbon] stocks, such as marginal agricultural land, has the clearest advantages in terms of emission reductions." The reason is that newly planted areas (which now has a large growing stock of trees or other plants), absorb much more carbon than earlier. Such areas build up a carbon credit instead of a carbon debt, where the credit is used later (at harvest) to acquire "debt free" biomass. In general, "early" carbon accounting like this, which starts at the planting event rather than at the harvest event (cf. Temporal system boundaries above), is seen as uncontroversial for new bioenergy plantations on land areas with very little vegetation. On the other hand, for areas where there already is a large amount of vegetation in place, "late" carbon accounting is often preferred. In this case, carbon accounting starts at harvest, with no build-up of a prior carbon credit. With this type of carbon accounting, the calculated results show that there are short to medium term negative impacts when trees are felled exclusively for bioenergy (so-called "additional fellings"). The situation gets worse if residues are left to rot on the forest floor. There is also a risk for negative impacts if areas with large amounts of biomass such as forests are clear-cut in order to make room for low-productivity forest plantations. The assessment of such "additional fellings" from "new" bioenergy plantations after the first rotation is complete, depends on the chosen carbon accounting method. If the "early" carbon accounting continues, there will be a build-up of a carbon credit also after the first rotation, i.e. from the moment in time when the trees have been replanted. If the researcher at that time change to "late" carbon accounting, no carbon credit will be calculated, and at the end of the second rotation (at harvest) a large carbon debt will be created instead, causing payback and parity times to increase dramatically. Long carbon payback/parity times for forest residues EU's Joint Research Centre provides time-dependent emission estimates for electricity production on a large scale from residue-based wood pellets, cereal straw and biogas from slurry, compared against a no-bioenergy scenario with emissions equal to EU's current electricity mix. Conversion efficiencies are 34%, 29% and 36% for wood pellets, straw and biogas, respectively. If not used for electricity production, the forest residues would have been left to decay on the forest floor, the straw residues would also have been left behind in the fields, and the raw manure would have been used as organic fertilizer. The results show that if these biomass types instead were used to produce electricity, a global warming mitigation effect would start after approximately 50, 10 and 5 years of use, for wood, straw and biogas respectively. The main cause for the long parity time for wood pellets is the comparison with electricity from EU's electricity mix (which includes electricity from solar, wind and fossil fuels with lower emissions than coal). Also, the forest residue category includes stumps. The JRC also found parity times ranging from 0 to 35 years for harvest residues (including branches, thinnings and stumps), when compared to some other alternative scenarios. In Finland, parity times for stumps were 22 years compared against oil, and 35 years compared against natural gas, with stand level carbon accounting. In Canada, parity time increased from 16 to 74 years when the harvested biomass was used to produce ethanol instead of wood pellets, and compared against a gasoline-based alternative scenario instead of a coal-based alternative scenario. Ethanol production from whole trees removed from old-growth forests in Oregon, USA, (categorized as residues because the trees were felled to prevent wildfire) increased parity time dramatically, with the worst-case scenario at 459 years. The authors used stand level carbon accounting starting with the harvest event, assumed an additional, controlled burning every 25 years, and compared this to a scenario with no wildfire-preventive fellings and a severe wildfire every 230 years. The trees in question were huge western hemlock and coast Douglas fir trees which both take hundreds of years to mature and can withstand wildfires due to very thick stems. Since energy-intensive ethanol production caused a low displacement factor of only 0.39, a long parity time was calculated. Generally, the JRC's reported parity times were influenced by displacement factor, alternative scenario, residue size and climate type. See chart above. Short carbon payback/parity times for stemwood If an existing natural forest is clear-cut in order to make room for forest plantations, the implied carbon change create a significant carbon debt roughly equal to the amount of carbon residing in the felled trees (fossil based forestry operations create an additional, small debt.) But for new plantations on "empty" land like agricultural or marginal land, with no standing vegetation, no carbon is removed. In this case, a carbon credit is instead soon built up as the trees mature. When those trees later are felled, the amount of carbon that resides in the trees is subtracted from the built up carbon credit (not the carbon amount in the standing trees), so in this case no carbon debt is created. With no carbon debt created at harvest, carbon payback/parity times will be zero or very low, for residues and stemwood alike. Jonker et al. calculated both carbon payback and carbon parity times for stemwood with rotation times of 20–25 years harvested from southeastern forests in the US, using both stand level, increasing stand level, and landscape level carbon accounting. With stand-level carbon accounting, the authors found carbon payback times of 5, 7 and 11 years in the high, medium and low yield scenario, respectively. With increasing stand level accounting, the payback times were 12, 13 and 18 years in the high, medium and low yield scenario, respectively. With landscape level accounting, the payback time was below 1 year for all yield scenarios. The authors also calculated parity times for a scenario where wood pellets from stems only (no residue collection) were used for co-firing in an average, coal-based electricity plant. The conversion efficiency was 41%, which together with an efficient supply chain leads to a relatively high displacement factor of 0.92. The alternative scenario was a no-bioenergy scenario where the stemwood was instead used for lumber production, so no co-firing at all in this case (electricity from coal exclusively.) When using the increasing stand level accounting principle, the authors calculated parity times of 17, 22 and 39 years for the high, medium and low yield scenario, respectively. When using the landscape level accounting principle, the authors calculated parity times of 12, 27 and 46 years for the high, medium and low yield scenario, respectively. A different alternative scenario was a forest protection scenario where no biomass was extracted from the forest at all; not for lumber, and not for bioenergy. The forest was simply left to itself and therefore regrew rather slowly. Landscape level parity times for this scenario was 3, 3, and 30 years for the high, medium and low yield scenario, respectively (stand level or increasing stand level parity times were not provided.) The authors note that "the result of the carbon balances clearly demonstrate that the choice of carbon accounting method has a significant impact on the carbon payback and carbon offset parity point calculations." They argue that the short parity times are caused by the fast growth rates (10–12 tonnes dry mass per hectare per year) in softwood plantations in the southeastern USA. Other researchers have often based their calculations on the slow growth rates typical for hardwood in natural boreal forests, which generates much higher payback and parity times. The authors also argue that for established softwood plantations, there is no carbon debt caused by land use change. Also, the displacement factor is higher here than in some other studies, due to the efficient supply chain and the high conversion efficiency achieved when wood pellets are used for co-firing in regular coal plants rather than in small-scale bioenergy plants; the latter often assumed to be the case in other studies. In effect, these favourable system boundaries cause the parity time to reduce to one or two rotations. The carbon debt is small before the parity point, and the subsequent carbon credit rises high after the parity point has been passed: "It is also clear that the absolute size of the temporary negative carbon balance is limited, whereas the positive carbon balance after break-even soon reaches levels many times greater." The authors argue that the no-bioenergy and the forest protection scenario is unrealistic in the study area, since the forests here are privately owned and there is a large wood processing industry already in place. In this situation (without viable alternative scenarios) the authors argue that the most relevant temporal metric is the carbon payback time of below 1 year for all yield scenarios, based on the landscape level carbon accounting principle. Abt et al. also argue that in the southeastern USA, forest protection scenarios are unrealistic since the forests are privately owned. Carbon parity times for stemwood harvested exclusively for bioenergy, compared against various alternative fossil-based scenarios. EU's Joint Research Centre reviewed a number of studies and found that if stemwood is harvested for both bioenergy and wood products, continued harvesting works better for the climate than forest protection given a 40 years timeframe. The reason is the larger displacement effect of wood products compared to bioenergy. If wood products are used for energy when reaching their end of life (so-called "cascading"), the displacement effect grows even larger, and under optimal conditions, parity times can reduce from several centuries to zero. The JRC therefore argue that studies that fail to include the wood for material displacement effect may come to misleading conclusions. On the other hand, if a forest is harvested exclusively for bioenergy, there is no displacement effects happening for wood products, which means a lower displacement factor and therefore a net increase in calculated CO2 emissions "[...] in the short-and medium term (decades) [...]" when compared to fossil fuels, except when it is harvested from new plantations on marginal, agricultural or grazing land. In this case there is an immediate net increase in carbon at the site, as planting without prior tree felling increases the amount of biomass there. Again, when there is no carbon debt, the payback and parity times reduce to zero. Long carbon payback/parity times for stemwood Zanchi et al. found that parity times can reach 175 years with a coal-based alternative scenario and 300 years with a natural gas-based alternative scenario if spruce stems in the Austrian Alps are harvested exclusively for bioenergy. The main reason is the long rotation time for these trees (90 years). Generally, trees take 70–120 years to mature in boreal forests. Critics reply that stems that meet quality requirements are used to produce high-value products such as sawn wood and engineered wood products such as cross laminated timber, rather than low-value products such as wood pellets. In a different scenario where forests of this type is clear-cut and used 50/50 for bioenergy and solid wood products, and then subsequently replaced with short rotation forest, parity times varies between 17 and 114 years for the coal alternative scenario, with the shortest parity time achieved by the forest with the shortest rotation time and highest yield (10 years rotation time with a yield of 16 tonnes per hectare per year.) Parity times increased to between 20 and 145 years when compared to an oil-based electricity alternative case, and between 25 and 197 years when compared to a natural gas-based electricity alternative case. For an afforestation vs. fossil fuel mix scenario, a parity time of 0 years was reported. The authors note that these scenarios are "illustrative examples" and that "results are strongly influenced by the assumptions made." The authors assumed that residues were left un-collected on the forest floor, where they decay and therefore produce emissions. If these residues instead are collected and used for bioenergy, the parity times decrease by 100 years. The extra emissions produced by the longer supply routes for fossil fuels compared to wood fuel were not included in the calculation. Extra emissions from pests, windthrows and forest fires (normally expected to increase when unmanaged forests age), were also not included in the calculation. Market effects were not included. On the other hand, landscape level carbon accounting was used, and the assumed conversion efficiency for bioenergy and coal were the same. Like other scientists, the JRC staff note the high variability in carbon accounting results, and attribute this to different methodologies. In the studies examined, the JRC found carbon parity times of 0 to 400 years (see chart on the right) for stemwood harvested exclusively for bioenergy, depending on different characteristics and assumptions for both the forest/bioenergy system and the alternative fossil system, with the emission intensity of the displaced fossil fuels seen as the most important factor, followed by conversion efficiency and biomass growth rate/rotation time. Other factors relevant for the carbon parity time are the initial carbon stock and the existing harvest level; both higher initial carbon stock and higher harvest level means longer parity times. Liquid biofuels have high parity times because about half of the energy content of the biomass is lost in the processing. Climate impacts expressed as static numbers Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (heat production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal, light fuel oil, most relevant fossil fuel alternative, and natural gas. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%. Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (transportation). The stippled line show net emissions for the most relevant fossil fuel alternative. Dotted areas show emission savings percentages also compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 50–60%, green 60–70%, blue 70–100%. Net emissions from various biofuel pathways (electricity production). Stippled lines show net emissions for EU coal (black), most relevant fossil fuel alternative (green), electricity mix (red) and natural gas (blue). Dotted areas show emission savings percentages compared to the most relevant fossil fuel alternative (white 70–80%, green 80–85%, blue 85–100%. Greenhouse gas emissions from wood pellet production and transport from the US to the EU (Hanssen et al. 2017). EU's Joint Research Centre has examined a number of bioenergy emission estimates found in literature, and calculated greenhouse gas savings percentages for bioenergy pathways in heat production, transportation fuel production and electricity production, based on those studies (see charts on the right). The calculations are based on the attributional LCA accounting principle. It includes all supply chain emissions, from raw material extraction, through energy and material production and manufacturing, to end-of-life treatment and final disposal. It also includes emissions related to the production of the fossil fuels used in the supply chain. It excludes emission/absorption effects that takes place outside its system boundaries, for instance market related, biogeophysical (e.g. albedo), and time-dependent effects. Because market related calculations are excluded, the results are only seen as valid for small-scale energy production. Also, the bioenergy pathways have typical small-scale conversion efficiencies. Solid biofuels for electricity production have 25% efficiency in most cases, and 21–34% in a few cases. Biogas for electricity production have 32–38%. Heat pathways have 76–85%. The forest residue category include logs and stumps, which increases carbon intensity especially in forests with slow decay rates. The charts have vertical bars that represent the emission range found for each bioenergy pathway (since emissions for the same pathway vary from study to study.) The higher end of the range represents emission levels found in studies that assume for instance long transport distances, low conversion efficiencies and no fossil fuel displacement effect. The lower end of the range represents emission levels found in studies that assume optimized logistics, higher conversion efficiencies, use of renewable energy to supply process-heat and process-electricity, and include displacement effects from the substitution of fossil fuels. The bars can be compared with emission levels associated with multiple alternative energy systems available in the EU. The dotted, coloured areas represent emission savings percentages for the pathways when compared to fossil fuel alternatives. The authors conclude that "[m]ost bio-based commodities release less GHG than fossil products along their supply chain; but the magnitude of GHG emissions vary greatly with logistics, type of feedstocks, land and ecosystem management, resource efficiency, and technology." Because of the varied climate mitigation potential for different biofuel pathways, governments and organizations set up different certification schemes to ensure that biomass use is sustainable, for instance the RED (Renewable Energy Directive) in the EU and the ISO standard 13065 by the International Organization for Standardization. In the US, the RFS (Renewables Fuel Standard) limit the use of traditional biofuels and defines the minimum life-cycle GHG emissions that are acceptable. Biofuels are considered traditional if they achieve up to 20% GHG emission reduction compared to the petrochemical equivalent, advanced if they save at least 50%, and cellulosic if the save more than 60%. Consistent with the charts, the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) states that the typical greenhouse gas emissions savings when replacing fossil fuels with wood pellets from forest residues for heat production varies between 69% and 77%, depending on transport distance: When the distance is between 0 and 2500 km, emission savings is 77%. Emission savings drop to 75% when the distance is between 2500 and 10 000 km, and to 69% when the distance is above 10 000 km. When stemwood is used, emission savings varies between 70% and 77%, depending on transport distance. When wood industry residues are used, savings varies between 79% and 87%. Based on a similar methodology, Hanssen et al. found that greenhouse gas emissions savings from electricity production based on wood pellets produced in the US southeast and shipped to the EU, varies between 65% and 75%, compared to EU's fossil fuel mix. They estimate that average net GHG emission from wood pellets imported from the US and burnt for electricity in the EU amounts to approximately 0.2 kg CO2 equivalents per kWh, while average emissions from the mix of fossil fuels that is currently burnt for electricity in the EU amounts to 0.67 kg CO2-eq per kWh (see chart on the right). Ocean transport emissions amounts to 7% of the displaced fossil fuel mix emissions per produced kWh. Likewise, IEA Bioenergy estimates that in a scenario where Canadian wood pellets totally replace coal in a European coal plant, the ocean transport related emissions (for the distance Vancouver – Rotterdam) amounts to approximately 2% of the plant's total coal-related emissions. The lower percentage here is caused by the alternative scenario being a particular coal plant, not EU's fossil fuel mix. Cowie et al. argue that calculations from actual supply chains show low emissions from intercontinental biomass transport, for instance the optimized wood pellet supply chain from the southeastern USA to Europe. Lamers & Junginger argue that future EU import of wood pellets "[...] will likely continue to be dominated by North America, especially from the South-East USA [...]." In 2015, 77% of the imported pellets came from the USA. While regular forest stands have rotation times spanning decades, short rotation forestry (SRF) stands have a rotation time of 8–20 years, and short rotation coppicing (SRC) stands 2–4 years. 12% of the EU forests is coppice forests. Perennial grasses have a rotation time of one year in temperate areas, and 4–12 months in tropical areas. Food crops like wheat and maize also have rotation times of one year. Because short rotation energy crops only have managed to grow/accumulate carbon for a short amount of time before they are harvested, it is relatively easy to pay back the harvest-related carbon debt, provided that there is no additional large carbon debt from land use change to deal with (for instance created by clear-cutting a natural forest in order to use this land area for energy crops), and no better climate-related use for the areas in question. Schlamadinger & Marland write that "[...] short-rotation energy crops will provide much earlier and larger C [carbon] mitigation benefits if implemented on previously unforested land than if an initial forest is harvested to provide space for the plantation." EU's Joint Research Centre state: "In case that there is no raw material displacement from other sectors such as food, feed, fibers or changes in land carbon stocks due to direct or indirect land use change, the assumption of carbon neutrality can still be considered valid for annual crops, agriresidues, short-rotation coppices and energy grasses with short rotation cycles. This can also be valid for analysis with time horizons much longer than the feedstock growth cycles." Other researchers argue that the small carbon debts associated with energy crop harvests means short carbon payback and parity times, often less than a year. IRENA argues that short-rotation energy crops and agricultural residues are carbon neutral since they are harvested annually. IEA writes in its special report on how to reach net zero emissions in 2050 that the "[...] energy‐sector transformation in the NZE [Net Zero Emissions scenario) would reduce CO2 emissions from AFLOU [Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use] in 2050 by around 150 Mt CO2 given the switch away from conventional crops and the increase in short rotation advanced‐bioenergy crop production on marginal lands and pasture land." Since the long payback and parity times calculated for some forestry projects is seen as a non-issue for energy crops (except in the cases mentioned above), researchers instead calculate static climate mitigation potentials for these crops, using LCA-based carbon accounting methods. A particular energy crop-based bioenergy project is considered carbon positive, carbon neutral or carbon negative based on the total amount of CO2 equivalent emissions and absorptions accumulated throughout its entire lifetime: If emissions during agriculture, processing, transport and combustion are higher than what is absorbed (and stored) by the plants, both above and below ground, during the project's lifetime, the project is carbon positive. Likewise, if total absorption is higher than total emissions, the project is carbon negative. In other words, carbon negativity is possible when net carbon accumulation more than compensates for net lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Miscanthus × giganteus is a perennial energy grass. The most climate friendly energy crops seems to be perennial energy grasses, because of low energy inputs and large amounts of carbon stored in the soil. Researchers argue that the mean energy input/output ratios for the perennial crop miscanthus is 10 times better than for annual crops, and that greenhouse gas emissions are 20-30 times better than for fossil fuels. Miscanthus chips for heating saved 22.3 tonnes of CO2 emissions per hectare per year in the UK, while maize for heating and power saved 6.3. Rapeseed for biodiesel saved 3.2. Other researchers have similar conclusions. Typically, perennial crops sequester more carbon than annual crops because the root buildup is allowed to continue undisturbed over many years. Also, perennial crops avoid the yearly tillage procedures (plowing, digging) associated with growing annual crops. Tilling helps the soil microbe populations to decompose the available carbon, producing CO2. Soil organic carbon has been observed to be greater below switchgrass crops than under cultivated cropland, especially at depths below 30 cm (12 in). A meta-study of 138 individual studies, done by Harris et al., revealed that the perennial grasses miscanthus and switchgrass planted on arable land on average store five times more carbon in the ground than short rotation coppice or short rotation forestry plantations (poplar and willow). McCalmont et al. compared a number of individual European reports on Miscanthus × giganteus carbon sequestration, and found accumulation rates ranging from 0.42 to 3.8 tonnes per hectare per year, with a mean accumulation rate of 1.84 tonne, or 25% of total harvested carbon per year. Fundamentally, the below-ground carbon accumulation works as a greenhouse gas mitigation tool because it removes carbon from the above-ground carbon circulation (the circulation from plant to atmosphere and back into new plants.) The circulation is driven by photosynthesis and combustion: First, a plant absorbs CO2 and assimilates it as carbon in its tissue both above and below ground. When the above-ground carbon is harvested and then burned, the CO2 molecule is formed yet again and released back into the atmosphere. Then, an equivalent amount of CO2 is absorbed back by next season's growth, and the cycle repeats. Carbon negative (miscanthus) and carbon positive (poplar) production pathways. This above-ground circulation has the potential to be carbon neutral, but of course the human involvement in operating and guiding it means additional energy input, often coming from fossil sources. If the fossil energy spent on the operation is high compared to the amount of energy produced, the total CO2 footprint can approach, match or even exceed the CO2 footprint originating from burning fossil fuels exclusively, as has been shown to be the case for several first-generation biofuel projects. Transport fuels might be worse than solid fuels in this regard. The problem can be dealt with both from the perspective of increasing the amount of carbon that is stored below ground, and from the perspective of decreasing fossil fuel input to the above-ground operation. If enough carbon is stored below ground, it can compensate for the total lifecycle emissions of a particular biofuel. Likewise, if the above-ground emissions decreases, less below-ground carbon storage is needed for the biofuel to become carbon neutral or negative. Relationship between above-ground yield (diagonal lines), soil organic carbon (X axis), and soil's potential for successful/unsuccessful carbon sequestration (Y axis). Basically, the higher the yield, the more land is usable as a GHG mitigation tool (including relatively carbon-rich land). Whitaker et al. argue that a miscanthus crop with a yield of 10 tonnes per hectare per year store enough carbon to compensate for both agriculture, processing and transport related emissions. The chart on the right displays two carbon negative miscanthus production pathways, and two carbon positive poplar production pathways, represented in gram CO2-equivalents per megajoule. The bars are sequential and move up and down as atmospheric CO2 is estimated to increase and decrease. The grey/blue bars represent agriculture, processing and transport related emissions, the green bars represents soil carbon change, and the yellow diamonds represent total final emissions. The second chart displays the mean yields necessary to achieve long-term carbon negativity for soils with different amounts of existing carbon. The higher the yield, the more likely carbon negativity becomes. Other researchers make the same claim about carbon negativity for miscanthus in Germany, with a yield of 15 dry tonnes per hectare per year, and carbon storage of 1.1 tonnes per hectare per year. Successful storage is dependent on planting sites, as the best soils are those that are currently low in carbon. For the UK, successful storage is expected for arable land over most of England and Wales, with unsuccessful storage expected in parts of Scotland, due to already carbon rich soils (existing woodland). Also, for Scotland, the relatively lower yields in this colder climate makes carbon negativity harder to achieve. Soils already rich in carbon include peatland and mature forest. The most successful carbon storage in the UK takes place below improved grassland. However, since the carbon content of grasslands vary considerably, so does the success rate of land use changes from grasslands to perennial. Even though the net carbon storage below perennial energy crops like miscanthus and switchtgrass greatly exceeds the net carbon storage below regular grassland, forest and arable crops, the carbon input is simply too low to compensate for the loss of existing soil carbon during the early establishment phase. Over time however, soil carbon may increase, also for grassland. Researchers argue that after some initial discussion, there is now (2018) consensus in the scientific community that "[...] the GHG [greenhouse gas] balance of perennial bioenergy crop cultivation will often be favourable [...]", also when considering the implicit direct and indirect land use changes. References

Content removed about soil + carbon

I've removed this content because I felt it was digressing. Maybe it could be moved to carbon farming? What do you think, User:Lfstevens? EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC) EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't see it belonging here. Possibly Carbon sequestration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)

Pinging User:ASRASR as they have worked on the carbon sequestration article. EMsmile (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

+++++++++++++

Soil organic carbon has been observed to be greater below switchgrass crops than under cultivated cropland, especially at depths below 30 cm (12 in). A meta-study of 138 individual studies, done by Harris et al., revealed that the perennial grasses miscanthus and switchgrass planted on arable land on average store five times more carbon in the ground than short rotation coppice or short rotation forestry plantations (poplar and willow).

Fundamentally, the below-ground carbon accumulation works as a greenhouse gas mitigation tool because it removes carbon from the above-ground carbon circulation (the circulation from plant to atmosphere and back into new plants.) The circulation is driven by photosynthesis and combustion: First, a plant absorbs CO₂ and assimilates it as carbon in its tissue both above and below ground. When the above-ground carbon is harvested and then burned, the CO₂ molecule is formed yet again and released back into the atmosphere. Then, an equivalent amount of CO₂ is absorbed back by next season's growth, and the cycle repeats.

The problem can be dealt with both from the perspective of increasing the amount of carbon that is stored below ground, and from the perspective of decreasing fossil fuel input to the above-ground operation. If enough carbon is stored below ground, it can compensate for the total lifecycle emissions of a particular biofuel. Likewise, if the above-ground emissions decreases, less below-ground carbon storage is needed for the biofuel to become carbon neutral or negative.

Successful storage is dependent on planting sites, as the best soils are those that are currently low in carbon. For the UK, successful storage is expected for arable land over most of England and Wales, with unsuccessful storage expected in parts of Scotland, due to already carbon rich soils (existing woodland). Also, for Scotland, the relatively lower yields in this colder climate makes carbon negativity harder to achieve. Soils already rich in carbon include peatland and mature forest. The most successful carbon storage in the UK takes place below improved grassland. However, since the carbon content of grasslands vary considerably, so does the success rate of land use changes from grasslands to perennial. Even though the net carbon storage below perennial energy crops like miscanthus and switchtgrass greatly exceeds the net carbon storage below regular grassland, forest and arable crops, the carbon input is simply too low to compensate for the loss of existing soil carbon during the early establishment phase. Over time however, soil carbon may increase, also for grassland.

References

Removed "Further reading" list

I've removed the "further reading" list. These publications used to be in the sources for content that has in the meantime be removed. I don't think we need them anymore now. EMsmile (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kahle, Petra; Beuch, Steffen; Boelcke, Barbara; Leinweber, Peter; Schulten, Hans-Rolf (November 2001). "Cropping of Miscanthus in Central Europe: biomass production and influence on nutrients and soil organic matter". European Journal of Agronomy. 15 (3): 171–184. doi:10.1016/S1161-0301(01)00102-2.
• Milner, Suzanne; Holland, Robert A.; Lovett, Andrew; Sunnenberg, Gilla; Hastings, Astley; Smith, Pete; Wang, Shifeng; Taylor, Gail (March 2016). "Potential impacts on ecosystem services of land use transitions to second-generation bioenergy crops in GB". GCB Bioenergy. 8 (2): 317–333. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12263. PMC 4974899. PMID 27547244.
• Harris, Z.M.; Spake, R.; Taylor, G. (November 2015). "Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions". Biomass and Bioenergy. 82: 27–39. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.008.
• Anderson, Eric; Arundale, Rebecca; Maughan, Matthew; Oladeinde, Adebosola; Wycislo, Andrew; Voigt, Thomas (9 April 2014). "Growth and agronomy of Miscanthus x giganteus for biomass production". Biofuels. 2 (1): 71–87. doi:10.4155/bfs.10.80.
• Felten, Daniel; Emmerling, Christoph (October 2012). "Accumulation of Miscanthus‐derived carbon in soils in relation to soil depth and duration of land use under commercial farming conditions". Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 175 (5): 661–670. doi:10.1002/jpln.201100250.
• Hastings, Astley; Mos, Michal; Yesufu, Jalil A.; McCalmont, Jon; Schwarz, Kai; Ashman, Chris; Nunn, Chris; Schuele, Heinrich; Cosentino, Salvatore; Scalici, Giovanni; Scordia, Danilo; Wagner, Simon; Harding, Graham; Clifton-Brown, John (June 2017). "Economic and Environmental Assessment of Seed and Rhizome Propagated Miscanthus in the UK". Frontiers in Plant Science. 8: 1058. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01058. PMC 5491852. PMID 28713395.
• van den Broek, Richard (1996). "Biomass combustion for power generation". Biomass and Bioenergy. 11 (4): 271–281. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(96)00033-5.
• Flores, Rilner A.; Urquiaga, Segundo; Alves, Bruno J. R.; Collier, Leonardo S.; Boddey, Robert M. (October 2012). "Yield and quality of elephant grass biomass produced in the cerrados region for bioenergy". Engenharia Agrícola. 32 (5): 831–839. doi:10.1590/s0100-69162012000500003.
• Ghose, Mrinal K. (2011). Speight, James (ed.). The Biofuels Handbook. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, The Ingram Publisher Services distributor. ISBN 978-1-84973-026-6. OCLC 798795266.
• ISO (2014b). "ISO 17225-6:2014(en) Solid biofuels — Fuel specifications and classes — Part 6: Graded non-woody pellets". International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved 11 July 2020.
• Schwarz, H. (January 1993). "Miscanthus sinensis 'giganteus' production on several sites in Austria". Biomass and Bioenergy. 5 (6): 413–419. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(93)90036-4.
• Smil, Vaclav (2008). Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-69356-1.
• The World Bank (2010). "Electric power transmission and distribution losses (% of output)". Retrieved 11 July 2020.
• IEA (2017a). "Plotting a path for greater bioenergy use". International Energy Agency.
• EPA (2020). "Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories" (PDF). Environmental Protection Agency.
• FutureMetrics (2015a). "Debunking two so-called "facts" about Wood Pellets" (PDF).
• FutureMetrics (2012). "A Look at the Details of CO₂ Emissions from burning Wood vs. Coal" (PDF).
• ISO (2014a). "ISO 17225-2:2014(en) Solid biofuels — Fuel specifications and classes — Part 2: Graded wood pellets". International Organization for Standardization.
• Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research (2008). "Coal Characteristics - CCTR Basic Facts File # 8" (PDF).
• Manomet (2010). "Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study". The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
• Miner (2010). "Impact of the global forest industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases" (PDF).
• FAO (2020). "Global Forest Resources Assessment" (PDF). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
• NAUFRP (2019). "Science Fundamentals of Forest Biomass Carbon Accounting" (PDF). National Association of University Forest Resources Programs.
• Favero, Alice; Daigneault, Adam; Sohngen, Brent (2020). "Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both?". Science Advances. 6 (13). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): eaay6792. Bibcode:2020SciA....6.6792F. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay6792. ISSN 2375-2548.
• FAOSTAT (2020). "Forestry Production and Trade". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
• FutureMetrics (2016). "The Washington Post and 65 "Experts" that Wrote a Letter to Congress Are Wrong about Biomass for Energy" (PDF).
• FutureMetrics (2017). "'Alternative Facts' in the Recent Chatham House Paper" (PDF).
• FutureMetrics (2011a). "Response to the comments made by Manomet regarding the recent paper by FutureMetrics about the Manomet Study on biomass" (PDF).
• Gunn (2011). "The Biomass Carbon Debate: When To Start Counting?".
• FutureMetrics (2011b). "Good News, FutureMetrics and Manomet Agree (sort of – and of course that is our opinion)" (PDF).
• IPCC (2019f). "2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Chapter 4. Forest Land" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• IEA (2017). "Technology Roadmap – Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy". International Energy Agency.
• IEA (2017b). "Technology Roadmap – Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy". International Energy Agency.
• IEA Bioenergy (2006). "GHG Impacts of Pellet Production from Woody Biomass Sources in BC, Canada" (PDF).
• IPCC (2012). "Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (PDF). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2021-11-02.
• Miner, Reid A.; Abt, Robert C.; Bowyer, Jim L.; Buford, Marily A.; Malmsheimer, Robert W.; O'Loughlin, Jay; O'Neil, Elaine E.; Sedjo, Roger A.; Skog, Kenneth E. (2014). "Forest Carbon Accounting Considerations in US Bioenergy Policy". Journal of Forestry. 112 (6). Oxford Academic: 591–606. doi:10.5849/jof.14-009. ISSN 1938-3746.
• Holmgren (2021). "The forest carbon debt illusion" (PDF). Swedish Forest Industries.
• EEA (2013). EU bioenergy potential from a resource-efficiency perspective. Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2800/92247. ISBN 9789292133979. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
• Jonsson, Ragnar; Rinaldi, Francesca; Pilli, Roberto; Fiorese, Giulia; Hurmekoski, Elias; Cazzaniga, Noemi; Robert, Nicolas; Camia, Andrea (2021). "Boosting the EU forest-based bioeconomy: Market, climate, and employment impacts". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 163. Elsevier BV: 120478. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120478. ISSN 0040-1625. S2CID 229446716.
• Abt, Bob; Abt, Karen; Henderson, Jesse; Kanieski da Silva, Bruno (2021). Southern Forest Markets: Pellets and Forest Carbon (PDF). NC State University - College of Natural Resources.
• Marland, Gregg; Schlamadinger, Bernhard (1995). "Biomass fuels and forest-management strategies: How do we calculate the greenhouse-gas emissions benefits?". Energy. 20 (11). Elsevier BV: 1131–1140. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(95)00061-k. ISSN 0360-5442.
• Buchholz, Thomas; Gunn, John (2017). Biomass Stack Emission Estimates for Drax power plants in the UK 2013-2017 (PDF). Southern Environmental Law Center.
• Drax (2020). "Drax launches new biomass carbon calculator that will enable industry to cut emissions from supply chain".
• Walker, Thomas; Cardellichio, Peter; Gunn, John S.; Saah, David S.; Hagan, John M. (2013). "Carbon Accounting for Woody Biomass from Massachusetts (USA) Managed Forests: A Framework for Determining the Temporal Impacts of Wood Biomass Energy on Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels". Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 32 (1–2). Informa UK Limited: 130–158. doi:10.1080/10549811.2011.652019. ISSN 1054-9811. S2CID 85106924.
• Zanchi, Giuliana; Pena, Naomi; Bird, Neil (2011-12-22). "Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel". GCB Bioenergy. 4 (6). Wiley: 761–772. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01149.x. ISSN 1757-1693. S2CID 54997743.
• Zetterberg, Lars; Chen, Deliang (2014-05-02). "The time aspect of bioenergy - climate impacts of solid biofuels due to carbon dynamics". GCB Bioenergy. 7 (4). Wiley: 785–796. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12174. ISSN 1757-1693. S2CID 85748777.
• Liu, Wei; Peng, Cheng; Chen, Zhifen; Liu, Yue; Yan, Juan; Li, Jianqiang; Sang, Tao (2016-08-02). "Sustainable bioenergy production with little carbon debt in the Loess Plateau of China" (PDF). Biotechnology for Biofuels. 9 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 161. doi:10.1186/s13068-016-0586-y. ISSN 1754-6834. PMC 4971626. PMID 27489566.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Kim, Hojung; Kim, Young-Hwan; Kim, Rahyun; Park, Hyun (2015-04-07). "Reviews of forest carbon dynamics models that use empirical yield curves: CBM-CFS3, CO₂FIX, CASMOFOR, EFISCEN". Forest Science and Technology. 11 (4). Informa UK Limited: 212–222. doi:10.1080/21580103.2014.987325. ISSN 2158-0103. S2CID 129175719.
• European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2010). "Commission decision of 10 June 2010 on guidelines for the calculation of land carbon stocks for the purpose of Annex V to Directive 2009/28/EC". Official Journal of the European Union.
• Schlamadinger, Bernhard; Marland, Gregg (1996). "The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle". Biomass and Bioenergy. 10 (5–6). Elsevier BV: 275–300. doi:10.1016/0961-9534(95)00113-1. ISSN 0961-9534.
• Myllyviita, Tanja; Soimakallio, Sampo; Judl, Jáchym; Seppälä, Jyri (2021-06-29). "Wood substitution potential in greenhouse gas emission reduction–review on current state and application of displacement factors". Forest Ecosystems. 8 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1186/s40663-021-00326-8. ISSN 2197-5620. S2CID 235664582.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Sathre, Roger; O'Connor, Jennifer (2010). "Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution" (PDF). Environmental Science & Policy. 13 (2). Elsevier BV: 104–114. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005. ISSN 1462-9011.
• Leskinen, Pekka; Cardellini, Giuseppe; González-García, Sara; Hurmekoski, Elias; Sathre, Roger; Seppälä, Jyri; Smyth, Carolyn; Stern, Tobias; Verkerk, Pieter Johannes (2018). Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation (PDF). Joensuu: EFI. ISBN 978-952-5980-70-7. OCLC 1178663221.
• Munnings, C.; Kulkarni, A.; Giddey, S.; Badwal, S.P.S. (2014). "Biomass to power conversion in a direct carbon fuel cell". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 39 (23). Elsevier BV: 12377–12385. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.03.255. ISSN 0360-3199.
• Kim, Ye Eun; Kim, Mi-Young; Lee, Jae Kwang; Uhm, Sunghyun; Seo, Gon; Lee, Jaeyoung (2011-05-17). "Surface Modifications of a Carbon Anode Catalyst by Control of Functional Groups for Vitamin C Fuel Cells". Electrocatalysis. 2 (3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 200–206. doi:10.1007/s12678-011-0055-0. ISSN 1868-2529. S2CID 93344222.
• Mukhopadhyay, Subhas (2013). Wireless sensor networks and ecological monitoring - Chapter 6 – Application of Microbial Fuel Cells to Power Sensor Networks for Ecological Monitoring. Berlin New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-36364-1. OCLC 828615445.
• Badwal, Sukhvinder P. S.; Giddey, Sarbjit S.; Munnings, Christopher; Bhatt, Anand I.; Hollenkamp, Anthony F. (2014-09-24). "Emerging electrochemical energy conversion and storage technologies". Frontiers in Chemistry. 2. Frontiers Media SA: 79. Bibcode:2014FrCh....2...79B. doi:10.3389/fchem.2014.00079. ISSN 2296-2646. PMC 4174133. PMID 25309898.
• IEA Bioenergy (2017). "State of Technology Review – Algae Bioenergy" (PDF).
• EU Science Hub - European Commission (2021-01-14). "How have European forests evolved over the past 30 years? - EU Science Hub". EU Science Hub - European Commission.
• Sabatini, Francesco Maria; Burrascano, Sabina; Keeton, William S.; Levers, Christian; Lindner, Marcus; Pötzschner, Florian; Verkerk, Pieter Johannes; Bauhus, Jürgen; Buchwald, Erik; Chaskovsky, Oleh; Debaive, Nicolas; Horváth, Ferenc; Garbarino, Matteo; Grigoriadis, Nikolaos; Lombardi, Fabio; Marques Duarte, Inês; Meyer, Peter; Midteng, Rein; Mikac, Stjepan; Mikoláš, Martin; Motta, Renzo; Mozgeris, Gintautas; Nunes, Leónia; Panayotov, Momchil; Ódor, Peter; Ruete, Alejandro; Simovski, Bojan; Stillhard, Jonas; Svoboda, Miroslav; Szwagrzyk, Jerzy; Tikkanen, Olli-Pekka; Volosyanchuk, Roman; Vrska, Tomas; Zlatanov, Tzvetan; Kuemmerle, Tobias (2018-05-24). Essl, Franz (ed.). "Where are Europe's last primary forests?". Diversity and Distributions. 24 (10). Wiley: 1426–1439. doi:10.1111/ddi.12778. ISSN 1366-9516. S2CID 90082011.
• JRC (2018-03-28). "Biomass database". European Commission Joint Research Centre – JRC Big Data Analytics Platform.
• JRC (2015-05-13). Solid and gaseous bioenergy pathways : Input values and GHG emissions : calculated according to the methodology set in COM(2010) 11 and SWD(2014) 259. ISBN 9789279478956. Retrieved 2021-12-15. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
• Cintas, Olivia; Berndes, Göran; Cowie, Annette L.; Egnell, Gustaf; Holmström, Hampus; Ågren, Göran I. (2015-07-14). "The climate effect of increased forest bioenergy use in Sweden: evaluation at different spatial and temporal scales". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment. 5 (3). Wiley: 351–369. doi:10.1002/wene.178. ISSN 2041-8396. S2CID 55114491.
• Repo, Anna; Tuomi, Mikko; Liski, Jari (2010-08-25). "Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues". GCB Bioenergy. 3 (2). Wiley: 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01065.x. ISSN 1757-1693. S2CID 83841679.
• Swedish Wood. "The forest and sustainable forestry".
• ARS (2022-01-05). "Soil carbon stands under switchgrass and cultivated cropland". U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service. Retrieved 2022-01-05.
• IPCC (2013). "AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 2022-01-08.
• Georgescu, M.; Lobell, D. B.; Field, C. B. (2011-02-28). "Direct climate effects of perennial bioenergy crops in the United States". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 108 (11): 4307–4312. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.4307G. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008779108. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3060251. PMID 21368189.
• European Commission (2018b). "Biomass". European Commission Glossary.
• Norton, Michael; Baldi, Andras; Buda, Vicas; Carli, Bruno; Cudlin, Pavel; Jones, Mike B.; Korhola, Atte; Michalski, Rajmund; Novo, Francisco; Oszlányi, Július; Santos, Filpe Duarte; Schink, Bernhard; Shepherd, John; Vet, Louise; Walloe, Lars; Wijkman, Anders (2019-09-09). "Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy". GCB Bioenergy. 11 (11). Wiley: 1256–1263. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12643. ISSN 1757-1693. S2CID 202007944.
• Chatham House (2020-10-01). "Sweden". Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank. Retrieved 2022-01-26.
• Forest Research (2022b). "Resources – Grasses". Retrieved 2022-01-26.
• Lewandowski, Iris; Clifton-Brown, John; Trindade, Luisa M.; van der Linden, Gerard C.; Schwarz, Kai-Uwe; Müller-Sämann, Karl; Anisimov, Alexander; Chen, C.-L.; Dolstra, Oene; Donnison, Iain S.; Farrar, Kerrie; Fonteyne, Simon; Harding, Graham; Hastings, Astley; Huxley, Laurie M.; Iqbal, Yasir; Khokhlov, Nikolay; Kiesel, Andreas; Lootens, Peter; Meyer, Heike; Mos, Michal; Muylle, Hilde; Nunn, Chris; Özgüven, Mensure; Roldán-Ruiz, Isabel; Schüle, Heinrich; Tarakanov, Ivan; van der Weijde, Tim; Wagner, Moritz; Xi, Qingguo; Kalinina, Olena (18 November 2016). "Progress on Optimizing Miscanthus Biomass Production for the European Bioeconomy: Results of the EU FP7 Project OPTIMISC". Frontiers in Plant Science. 7: 1620. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01620. PMC 5114296. PMID 27917177.
• Emmerling, Christoph; Pude, Ralf (2017). "Introducing Miscanthus to the greening measures of the EU Common Agricultural Policy". GCB Bioenergy. 9 (2): 274–279. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12409.
• Felten, Daniel; Fröba, Norbert; Fries, Jérôme; Emmerling, Christoph (July 2013). "Energy balances and greenhouse gas-mitigation potentials of bioenergy cropping systems (Miscanthus, rapeseed, and maize) based on farming conditions in Western Germany". Renewable Energy. 55: 160–174. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.004.
• Nelson, Mark D.; Liknes, Greg C.; Butler, Brett J. (2010). "Map of forest ownership in the conterminous United States. [Scale 1:7,500,000]". Res. Map NRS-2. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 2: 1–2. doi:10.2737/NRS-RMAP-2. Retrieved 2022-01-28.
• Agostini, Francesco; Gregory, Andrew S.; Richter, Goetz M. (2015-01-15). "Carbon Sequestration by Perennial Energy Crops: Is the Jury Still Out?" (PDF). BioEnergy Research. 8 (3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 1057–1080. doi:10.1007/s12155-014-9571-0. ISSN 1939-1234. PMC 4732603. PMID 26855689.
• Zang, Huadong; Blagodatskaya, Evgenia; Wen, Yuan; Xu, Xingliang; Dyckmans, Jens; Kuzyakov, Yakov (2017-11-13). "Carbon sequestration and turnover in soil under the energy crop Miscanthus : repeated 13 C natural abundance approach and literature synthesis" (PDF). GCB Bioenergy. 10 (4). Wiley: 262–271. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12485. ISSN 1757-1693. S2CID 53688550.
• Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2021). "Biomass Policy Statement" (PDF). Crown. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
• Hoefnagels, R.; Klutz, I.; Junginger, M.; Visser, L.; Resch, G.; Mantau, U.; Pelkmans, L.; Devriendt, N. (2017). "Sustainable and optimal use of biomass for energy in the EU beyond 2020. Annexes of the Final Report" (PDF). European Commission.
• WBA (2021). "Global bioenergy statistics 2021" (PDF). World Bioenergy Association.
• IEA Bioenergy (2016). "IEA Bioenergy – Task 43 – 2016: Agricultural residues for energy in Sweden and Denmark – differences and commonalities" (PDF).
• IRENA (2015). "From baseload to peak: Renewables provide a reliable solution" (PDF). International Renewable Energy Agency.
• Brauch, Hans Günter; Spring, Úrsula Oswald; Grin, John; Mesjasz, Czeslaw; Kameri-Mbote, Patricia; Behera, Navnita Chadha; Chourou, Béchir; Krummenacher, Heinz, eds. (2009). Facing Global Environmental Change. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace. Vol. 4. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68488-6. ISBN 978-3-540-68487-9. ISSN 1865-5793.
• ETIP Bioenergy (2021). "Lignocellulosic crops for production of advanced biofuels".
• CRCES (2018). "Biomass energy" (PDF). Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies. p. 3.
• MAGIC (2021). "MAGIC Decision Support System - Suitable industrial crops and marginal land areas in the EU". Marginal Lands for Growing Industrial Crops.
• European Commission (2018). "Biofuels (Advanced)".
• Mitchell, Stephen R.; Harmon, Mark E.; O'Connell, Kari E. B. (2009). "Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems" (PDF). Ecological Applications. 19 (3). Wiley: 643–655. doi:10.1890/08-0501.1. ISSN 1051-0761. PMID 19425428.
• Mitchell, Stephen R.; Harmon, Mark E.; O'Connell, Kari E. B. (2016-08-04). "Appendix B. Biofuels analysis calculations". Wiley. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.3514190.v1. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Gustafsson, Örjan; Kruså, Martin; Zencak, Zdenek; Sheesley, Rebecca J.; Granat, Lennart; Engström, Erik; Praveen, P. S.; Rao, P. S. P.; Leck, Caroline; Rodhe, Henning (2009-01-23). "Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion?". Science. 323 (5913). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 495–498. Bibcode:2009Sci...323..495G. doi:10.1126/science.1164857. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 19164746. S2CID 44712883.
• Biofuelwatch (2018). "Biomass Basics".
• Euracoal (2019). "Euracoal statistics – coal and lignite production and imports in Europe".
• McKechnie, Jon; Colombo, Steve; Chen, Jiaxin; Mabee, Warren; MacLean, Heather L. (2010-12-10). "Forest Bioenergy or Forest Carbon? Assessing Trade-Offs in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Wood-Based Fuels". Environmental Science & Technology. 45 (2). American Chemical Society (ACS): 789–795. doi:10.1021/es1024004. ISSN 0013-936X. PMID 21142063.