Talk:Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brentwick, Jeremy.lan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oski999, Ndieu, Athenangocvu97, Thachng88, Thienng93. Peer reviewers: Bjarkemy, Robinwdj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BritStewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete article (earlier discussion)?

This thing doesn't deserve it's own article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why? It's a legit geoeng technique. It's distinct from BECS, as it does not include biochar projects. It's a well cited technique and is therefore WP:NOTABLEAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley I couldnt agree more ! It´s a puff piece for biomass and CCS!--Wuerzele (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the article imho GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

GRALISTAIR you are supposed to post your replies chronologically- This article can hardly stand alone.It´s an outdated puff piece for biomass and CCS.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If it is outdated, lets update it then rather than delete.GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion continues further down below in a separate section. EMsmile (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Blanking

This has been through the AfD and the result was 'no consensus'. The outcome is therefore to retain the article. See Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. I have therefore rv Atmoz as vandalism. I have given this user repeated warnings about breaching the AfD process. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bio-energy with carbon storage

Discussion of redirect at Talk:Bio-energy with carbon storage#Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. -Atmoz (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have commented, but this has already been properly considered and rejected during the AfD process. Pls respect consensus. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The AfD closed with no consensus. It wasn't "considered and rejected" - and Merging is not and AfD subject, although it can be a result. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The result of discussion was 'no consensus', the resulting action was 'keep' - therefore the article stays. Further, we see again another example of 'merge' being used as an euphemism for arbitrary deletion. See WP:REDIRECT to understand why this is unacceptable. I've asked for that, and the AfD page, to be clarified to ensure that this repeated misinterpretation is forever quashed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry? no consensus => no consensus. Not keep, or whatever outcome you feel rubs you the correct way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Take it up with the closing admin if you don't like it. It's a keep, and that's that - AfD closed. Re-nominate if you want a different outcome. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage&diff=289448447&oldid=289418320 shows that there is NO CONSENSUS for removal. Further, closing admin on the AfD has determined there is no consensus and as a result it stays. Kim, please stop edit warring / vandalism / whatever and respect the consensus process. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD's have no influence on whether or not articles can be merged - sorry. It was a nice attempt at gaming, but no cigar. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a merge, as no content was merged. It was a delete/redirect. The AfD process said keep, and you weren't the closing admin, so please stop your whining. Nice attempt at gaming, Kim, but no cigar. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, you are confusing things. Delete means complete removal of page - salting the earth - no revert possible - history gone - do not resurrect page. That is what an AfD does. That is not what has happened here - this is a merger, a change of page content to a redirect (page still exists, history still there, can still be changed). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what RELEVANT information from this article is NOT included in the Bio-energy with carbon storage? All relevant information was edited to the Bio-energy with carbon storage already two month ago. If you think that any important and RELEVANT information is missing, I don't see any problem with adding this. Right now your claims are just a WP:WL. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

therefore the article stays - I think we're just going to have to learn that AJL always says this. There is no informational content. We just have to learn to ignore him William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

and here is one of the finest examples of the Connolley, Petersen cabal tag team attempting to control the POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Is it just me or does the phrase "believed to be too much to be able to be absorbed by conventional sinks such as trees and soil" not sound right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.157.35 (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106035708/http://www.cmclinnovations.com:80/TESBIC/ to http://www.cmclinnovations.com/TESBIC
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biochar/documents/Bio-CCS%28BECCS%29.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Current Projects

The current projects section only speaks of Illinois when there is currently a new project in Texas as well and 2 others slated to open in the future in Texas and Louisiana. A section detailing all current projects and future projects would add to this page. Current and new projects are listed on the link. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects Ortizj1987 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Applications of CCS

The applications sections list 5 sources that the application can be applied to. Food and drink, the manufacturing of chemicals just to name a few could be added to list of applications. The link provides more information on other applications. https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ccs-applications/ccs-applications Ortizj1987 (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Technology for Capturing CO2

Inherent Separation is another way of capturing CO2. This method is used in gas processing and fermenting based biofuels. Information on this can be found at link. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapCarbonCaptureandStorage.pdf and https://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/01_iea_juho_lipponen.pdf Ortizj1987 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Enviromental consideration

Another environmental consideration that is not mentioned at all is the increase of Ammonia emissions by 3 times or more. Ammonia contributes to the acidification and eutrophication of the environment. https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/carbon-capture-and-storage-could Ortizj1987 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent literature

Two recent publications might be useful for this article. UNEP (2017) discusses the emissions gap and chapter 7 examines carbon dioxide removal technologies. Geden and Löschel (2017), among other things, note the need for massive negative emissions technology deployment past 2050 and the fact that policymakers have been reluctant to even raise this issue. Contact me if you need access to the second article. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305183438/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/avoid/files/resources-researchers/AVOID_WS2_D1_18_20100730.pdf to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/avoid/files/resources-researchers/AVOID_WS2_D1_18_20100730.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Current Project

Thienng93 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC) What is the previous study cases before the implementation of IL-CCS on the industrial scale?

Thien Nguyen's Article Evaluation

The article that I review is "Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage" on Wikipedia. The information of the article is relevant with the topic. There are some errors that need to fix. For the post-combustion, and re-combustion, the authors need to add more information about these processes. In addition, the information need to update, the IL-CCS was the first project on the world that implemented the BECCS techniques on the industrial scale. Thienng93 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete article?

I see there is discussion - which I have particpated in - to delete the article. I have added this section so it is better for chronology etc. Why can't we improve the article instead of deleting it? GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is well referenced though I admit some more upto date references from peer reviewed academic journals would be useful. I will make a start as I have access to these. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also it has multiple ratings of C-Class so again, why delete? GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is the deletion discussion? I haven't seen it. EMsmile (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

COPY AND PASTED FROM ABOVE ---------

==Untitled==

This thing doesn't deserve it's own article William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why? It's a legit geoeng technique. It's distinct from BECS, as it does not include biochar projects. It's a well cited technique and is therefore WP:NOTABLEAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley I couldnt agree more ! It´s a puff piece for biomass and CCS!--Wuerzele (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the article imho GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

GRALISTAIR you are supposed to post your replies chronologically- This article can hardly stand alone. It´s an outdated puff piece for biomass and CCS.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If it is outdated, lets update it then rather than delete.GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

So I made a mistake in that it came up in my watch pages. I saw the comment from User:William M. Connolley dated September 2023 and replied to it. I commented that the article should be kept. It wasnt chronological so I started another section GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't (yet) comment on the quality of the article but with regards to the topic, I would say it meets the criteria of being WP:notable. So rather than proposing deletion how about spelling out exactly the problem areas and then addressing them? Or at least adding a maintenance tag? The IPCC Sixth Assessment report does include BECCS, so I don't see reasoning for deletion. Or are you arguing that it should be merged into either bioenergy or into carbon capture and storage? EMsmile (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)