This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Wikipedia is not a site for commercial links wp:links Statsone 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This article lacks fundamental information about the grey energy content of the pellets (the energy needed to manufacture the pellets). Unfortunatelly, I don't have the info so please help out. -- TomTompa 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Most pellet manufacturers use saw dust from the pellet production process to dry the pellets. Delivery is like anything else you need to put fuel in the trucks and in the chainsaws for that matter. The energy density of pellets is not as high as oil, so delivery energy plays a larger role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteen85EAGLE ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While MWh does mean mega(million)-watthours, MBTU is sometimes read as thousand-BTU. To refer to million-BTU, the abbreviation MMBTU is used to avoid confusion. See British_thermal_unit.
Re the suggested nerger: It may be better to combine the wood pellets with data on wood chips as fuel, and keep a separate page for equipment burning wood pellets/chips. In Europe, particularly Sweden, heater manufacturers supply equipment for burning either pellets (made from compressed sawdust) or wood chips. Wood pellets are useful for making use of what might otherwise be waste from wood products manufacture, and are usually dry, so they burn well. As noted above, wood pellets carry a significant energy cost if wood is ground to powder and dried specifically for pellet manufacture E.g. One manufacturer indicates up to 20% of sawdust is burned to dry the remaining sawdust. Wood chips are therefore a very practical option which avoids the unnecessary steps of grinding the wood and then compacting or extruding to form pellets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.60.11 ( talk) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This article does not present a neutral discussion of the environmental impact of burning wood pellets. The author's viewpoint clearly favors their burning and dismisses the legitimate concerns of the side who believes there are environmental concerns. That section should be revised to present a neutral stance on the issue. Barring any comments, my edit would be to remove the "justification" about the carbon cycle and simply include the links to the outside articles on this topic.
Wow, reading this article I am left to believe that wood pellets are the most perfectest pieces of technological innovation ever. Really? People can't even write articles about unimportant things like hairbrushes or scented candles without listing unperfect characteristics and yet wood pellets have no problems? Whatsoever? Except maybe C02 emissions? Yeah I think article was written by someone with a stake in wood-pelletism. -I agree. Disadvantages are pellets are more expensive per BTU than other fuels in some markets, the initial cost of the burner is high, and the burner may malfunction if you attempt to burn wood chips, coal dust, shredded paper and/or sawdust in it. Ccpoodle ( talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have noted that certain editors have taken exception to the fact that pellets are produced from sawdust, and that combustion of sawdust, releasing carbon dioxide with a GWP100 of 1, is less contributive to global warming than allowing sawdust to decay, producing methane, with a GWP100 of 25.
If these editors can prove that combustion of sawdust (in pellet form) is more contributive to global warming than sawdust decay, surely they have evidence to back their claims. And surely they have evidence to back their claims that the carbon neutrality of wood pellets harvested from sustainablely managed forests is carbon positive, or the carbon balance of properly controlled biomass combustion using sustainable biomass waste sources is somehow under dispute. Who's disputing it? A coal trafficker? An oil dealer? Katana0182 ( talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that a large portion of this article belongs in the article on biomass. Unless the information is specific to wood pellets as opposed to any use of biomass waste wood, it should be in the biomass article and referenced from this article. Does anyone here disagree? 67.150.10.100 ( talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I share the concerns above expressed by many others, and have tried to add some balance to the article. It still needs a lot of work in that regard. Also, I have flagged the many places were citations are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Pellet fuels are not just made of wood, they can also be made from straw, hay/grass, etc. Propose a move to pellet fuel -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I updated the EU usage numbers. I believe the source has a typo in the Sweden number. The countries are in order of usage and the given figure of 650 does not fit in between the Netherlands and Germany. It looks like a '1' was dropped and the figure should have been 1,650 instead, SwineFlew? ( talk) 22:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently there are regular dust explosion at pellet plants And outgassing / oxygen depletion / carbon monoxide generation .... info needs incorporating :) http://www.pellet.org/images/2010-02-26_Review_of_Off-gassing_from_Wood_Pellets.pdf http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pdf/mai061116_f.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL8p413ECQc The Lethal Dangers of Wood Pellets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.147.76 ( talk) 11:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pellet fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
When I read in the "Cost" section "... BTU equivalent: 1 ton pellets = 118.97 gallon of #2 Fuel Oil" I was at first convinced that the "
ton" stood for "metric ton" or "
tonne" (=1000 kg). But by putting it in context with the "gallons", it probably is the US ton that is meant here?
Given that "ton" can represent at least 3 different units, using it in an article is very confusing.
Moreover, in the sections "Europe" and "New Zealand" it is not clear at all what type of "ton" is meant here. In those regions they only use the SI variant, thus I doubt very much that the given figures in ton should be interpreted as US variant.
I followed the
reference 58 link given for the European figures: they were originally given in "MT" which stands for "megatonne" (but should officially be spelled "Mt". MT could be interpreted as megatesla), and they were taken over without conversion to US ton (but divided by 1000 to convert from Mt to t).
My advice is to use SI-units in all Wikipedia Scientific pages as standard. Non-SI units can be added for the comfort of US-readers.
But at very least it should be very clear what unit is used. In this article it is not clear at all.
-- Tom.van.lint ( talk) 14:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence currently reads "Pellet fuels (or pellets) are biofuels made from compressed organic matter or biomass. [1]" I am wondering if we can change this wording (and replaced biofuel with something else) because the term biofuel is nowadays more commonly used to refer to liquid or gaseous fuels for transportation? See also at biofuel and bioenergy. - I came to this page as part of a broader effort to improve bioenergy, biomass (energy), biofuel, solid fuel and everything related to that. Courtesy ping to User:Clayoquot. Thanks. EMsmile ( talk) 10:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Wikipedia is not a site for commercial links wp:links Statsone 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This article lacks fundamental information about the grey energy content of the pellets (the energy needed to manufacture the pellets). Unfortunatelly, I don't have the info so please help out. -- TomTompa 14:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Most pellet manufacturers use saw dust from the pellet production process to dry the pellets. Delivery is like anything else you need to put fuel in the trucks and in the chainsaws for that matter. The energy density of pellets is not as high as oil, so delivery energy plays a larger role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteen85EAGLE ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While MWh does mean mega(million)-watthours, MBTU is sometimes read as thousand-BTU. To refer to million-BTU, the abbreviation MMBTU is used to avoid confusion. See British_thermal_unit.
Re the suggested nerger: It may be better to combine the wood pellets with data on wood chips as fuel, and keep a separate page for equipment burning wood pellets/chips. In Europe, particularly Sweden, heater manufacturers supply equipment for burning either pellets (made from compressed sawdust) or wood chips. Wood pellets are useful for making use of what might otherwise be waste from wood products manufacture, and are usually dry, so they burn well. As noted above, wood pellets carry a significant energy cost if wood is ground to powder and dried specifically for pellet manufacture E.g. One manufacturer indicates up to 20% of sawdust is burned to dry the remaining sawdust. Wood chips are therefore a very practical option which avoids the unnecessary steps of grinding the wood and then compacting or extruding to form pellets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.60.11 ( talk) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This article does not present a neutral discussion of the environmental impact of burning wood pellets. The author's viewpoint clearly favors their burning and dismisses the legitimate concerns of the side who believes there are environmental concerns. That section should be revised to present a neutral stance on the issue. Barring any comments, my edit would be to remove the "justification" about the carbon cycle and simply include the links to the outside articles on this topic.
Wow, reading this article I am left to believe that wood pellets are the most perfectest pieces of technological innovation ever. Really? People can't even write articles about unimportant things like hairbrushes or scented candles without listing unperfect characteristics and yet wood pellets have no problems? Whatsoever? Except maybe C02 emissions? Yeah I think article was written by someone with a stake in wood-pelletism. -I agree. Disadvantages are pellets are more expensive per BTU than other fuels in some markets, the initial cost of the burner is high, and the burner may malfunction if you attempt to burn wood chips, coal dust, shredded paper and/or sawdust in it. Ccpoodle ( talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have noted that certain editors have taken exception to the fact that pellets are produced from sawdust, and that combustion of sawdust, releasing carbon dioxide with a GWP100 of 1, is less contributive to global warming than allowing sawdust to decay, producing methane, with a GWP100 of 25.
If these editors can prove that combustion of sawdust (in pellet form) is more contributive to global warming than sawdust decay, surely they have evidence to back their claims. And surely they have evidence to back their claims that the carbon neutrality of wood pellets harvested from sustainablely managed forests is carbon positive, or the carbon balance of properly controlled biomass combustion using sustainable biomass waste sources is somehow under dispute. Who's disputing it? A coal trafficker? An oil dealer? Katana0182 ( talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that a large portion of this article belongs in the article on biomass. Unless the information is specific to wood pellets as opposed to any use of biomass waste wood, it should be in the biomass article and referenced from this article. Does anyone here disagree? 67.150.10.100 ( talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I share the concerns above expressed by many others, and have tried to add some balance to the article. It still needs a lot of work in that regard. Also, I have flagged the many places were citations are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise ( talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Pellet fuels are not just made of wood, they can also be made from straw, hay/grass, etc. Propose a move to pellet fuel -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I updated the EU usage numbers. I believe the source has a typo in the Sweden number. The countries are in order of usage and the given figure of 650 does not fit in between the Netherlands and Germany. It looks like a '1' was dropped and the figure should have been 1,650 instead, SwineFlew? ( talk) 22:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently there are regular dust explosion at pellet plants And outgassing / oxygen depletion / carbon monoxide generation .... info needs incorporating :) http://www.pellet.org/images/2010-02-26_Review_of_Off-gassing_from_Wood_Pellets.pdf http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pdf/mai061116_f.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL8p413ECQc The Lethal Dangers of Wood Pellets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.147.76 ( talk) 11:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pellet fuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
When I read in the "Cost" section "... BTU equivalent: 1 ton pellets = 118.97 gallon of #2 Fuel Oil" I was at first convinced that the "
ton" stood for "metric ton" or "
tonne" (=1000 kg). But by putting it in context with the "gallons", it probably is the US ton that is meant here?
Given that "ton" can represent at least 3 different units, using it in an article is very confusing.
Moreover, in the sections "Europe" and "New Zealand" it is not clear at all what type of "ton" is meant here. In those regions they only use the SI variant, thus I doubt very much that the given figures in ton should be interpreted as US variant.
I followed the
reference 58 link given for the European figures: they were originally given in "MT" which stands for "megatonne" (but should officially be spelled "Mt". MT could be interpreted as megatesla), and they were taken over without conversion to US ton (but divided by 1000 to convert from Mt to t).
My advice is to use SI-units in all Wikipedia Scientific pages as standard. Non-SI units can be added for the comfort of US-readers.
But at very least it should be very clear what unit is used. In this article it is not clear at all.
-- Tom.van.lint ( talk) 14:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence currently reads "Pellet fuels (or pellets) are biofuels made from compressed organic matter or biomass. [1]" I am wondering if we can change this wording (and replaced biofuel with something else) because the term biofuel is nowadays more commonly used to refer to liquid or gaseous fuels for transportation? See also at biofuel and bioenergy. - I came to this page as part of a broader effort to improve bioenergy, biomass (energy), biofuel, solid fuel and everything related to that. Courtesy ping to User:Clayoquot. Thanks. EMsmile ( talk) 10:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
References