Talk:Pellet fuel

message: Wikipedia is not a site for commercial links wp:links Statsone 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: 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)
thread_title:  MBTU/ton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Written like an advertisement.  

message: 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)
replies: text: i agree, there is a lot of bloat with material being drawn in to support arguments. I have done some pruning but more would be appropriate, however editing should be cautious because of some contention. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biomass 

message: 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)
replies: text: Tagging every sentence with 'citation needed' was not constructive: the article already had a banner stating it needs more citations. 66.87.0.128 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I find the high number of 'citation needed' looks to me like vandalism by an editor. I've done my bit to remove some. Dougmcdonell (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on 27 August 2011 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there another name that would work?   The new title doesn't work for the section that discribes wood pellets made for horse bedding.  (I tried to reply a couple of months ago, but wikipedia was blocking edits by all Sprint customers for some reason) 108.113.136.116 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: 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)
thread_title:  EU usage table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  handling/transport hazards, explosion, carbon monoxide 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120426085811/http://www.bape.com.pl/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zv64RqEj-5E=&tabid=312&mid=697 to http://www.bape.com.pl/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zv64RqEj-5E%3D&tabid=312&mid=697
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are the figures in ton or tonne ? Use of non-SI metric units 

message: The first sentence currently reads "Pellet fuels (or pellets) are biofuels made from compressed organic matter or biomass."
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)
replies: text: Good point, I changed it. Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the first sentence