Talk:Embodied energy

message: "The energy 'embodied' in the component is quite different from the energy 'embedded' in the product. The embedded energy is what we could recover from the metal, and as we know from chapter 8, this is its exergy, which is largely defined by its composition and uninfluenced by all other processing)." p 189 on the pdf file at http://withbotheyesopen.com/ (p 195 of the book)
I'll comment the consequence on the related discussion topic.
--RP87 (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  embedded not equal to embodied 

message: You should not be discussing Embodied Energy without mention of the concepts of Emergy and of H.T. Odum who began discussing embodied energy in economic analysis in 1971. Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley Interscience, New York.152.3.112.9 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Editing

message: ===Bias===
I could not help but notice the heavy-handed bias in the discussion about embodied energy in building materials, specifically about straw bales.  I won't make arguments here, but would suggest that instead of using negative language in regards to a specific material, that be replaced by wording along the lines of "the scope of the energy used in the manufacture of the materials is difficult to determine, often allowing for wide ranges in embodied energy values for a given material."  Andrew Netherton, 15:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrew. I've tried to clear up the article a little. How does it read now? Sholto Maud 21:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Sholto - It reads much more neutrally now.  Thank you.  Andrew Netherton, 22 March 2006
===NPOV===
I added the NPOV tag because significant criticisms of the entire concept of embodied energy are not reported in the article. See Talk:Emergy#Neutrality. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you be more specific? I (tried to) read the discussion you've pointed to, but I couldn't find anything in there criticising the basic proposition that trying to figure out how much energy goes into the making of something mightn't be a useful exercise.Lordrosemount (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjectivity

message: I added the NPOV tag because significant criticisms of the entire concept of embodied energy are not reported in the article. See Talk:Emergy#Neutrality. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? I (tried to) read the discussion you've pointed to, but I couldn't find anything in there criticising the basic proposition that trying to figure out how much energy goes into the making of something mightn't be a useful exercise.Lordrosemount (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The difference between embedded and embodied is quite a heavy burden here. 'Embedded' is exergy and no ongoing debate that I know make trouble to 'calculate' things.
Embodied on the contrary faces a major obstacle. There is no objective embodied energy to be calculated. The reasons is our activities are multi-functional. So energy used to produce things leads to several things produced. And as no objective way to cut energy shares for each products exist, it is no surprise definitions are different.
To help comprehension (as it is regularly required by readers or persons attending the explanation I give while discussing the topic) here is an example:
A process (an activity) is for instance cutting wood boards. It produces the intended boards and saw dust (to make it simple). The saw dust is produced at the exact same time the boards are. They both have potential economic values (they are potentially worth money). They have embodied energy and could be burned as fuels. The dust can be agglomerated and give a board (with different mechanical properties). The dust can also serve as human or other animal litter... In short, multi-purpose products produced in a simple but thus multi-functional process.
The many ways you can cut energy shares for building an "embodied energy" indicators make it hard to apply such evaluation out of normative (debatable) prescriptions.
For those wanting to see some math about it : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01356211 ; pdf available : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01356211/file/FLINS2016.pdf
As a consequence, it should be mentioned for each assertion of "embodied energy" of what method it is based on (and even then what choices inside methods).
Be it said that as an evaluation, results are always related to value judgments built-in the methods.
--RP87 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some light on causes

message: The proposed wide use of hydrogen as the medium in an energy transport, storage and recovery process (the "hydrogen economy") presents an opportunity to consider the energy embodied in an energy medium -- first in its generation (say, by the use of electricity and the electrolysis process), then in its compression for storage/transport and finally in its utilization.  When used as a combustible fuel, the conversion yields either mechanical energy or electrical energy, but when converted in a fuel cell, the product is limited to electricity.  
Apparently none of these processes -- electricity to electricity -- is very efficient at this time, representing a serious handicap to the "hydrogen economy" concept.  That is, there is too much embodied energy in hydrogen energy transport, storage and recovery.
.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.237.3 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embodied Energy in Energy 

message: I've noticed that the approach taken in this article is highly theoretical and, as Takeitupalevel notes above, largely impenetrable to the lay reader beyond the lead paragraphs. For professional reasons I came to this page looking for information about how the concept of embodied energy might have been, or be being, applied in the real world - whether any companies or pressure groups, for example, have attempted to use it as part of an effort to figure out the ecological impact of a specific product, as a supplement or alternative to carbon footprint or food miles calculations. Does anyone know anything about this that they could add, to make the article more useful for a general readership? Lordrosemount (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical applications 

message: I'm going to translate this article into Italian; in Italian embodied energy is called "Energia grigia" (grey energy), much less self-explanatory that English term, but perhaps interesting to underline the undefined, invisible content of it. In my opinion it's a fundamental concept, a necessary criterium to consider, when talking about any energy-related issue. So far, it.wiki has just a few row stub about: it's a hole to fill as soon as possible, it's a pity that there's a discussion about this article, but I think that present version is an excellent starting point. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian translation 

message: In looking at some of the references, I found that the link for reference item 7, which also appears in the External links section, is no longer valid. It goes to the CSIRO site, but to an overview page, not to the URL linked, nor to an equivalent page which provides indicated information on the topic. I spent some time trying to find an equivalent section of the CSIRO site that would be appropriate for the reference but did not succeed. It appears a new reference for publicly available embodied energy information is needed.
JSchinnerer (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference item 7 link no longer valid 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Embodied_energy&diff=614172337&oldid=608313910
I happened upon this page and was immediately struck by the fact that an encyclopedia article, long known as a source of answers, was suddenly acting as a source of questions. I apologize if my belief is uncommon, but I don't believe an encyclopedia should be asking anything. And if there's a wikipedia guideline pertaining to the inclusion of questions in articles, do me a favor and link it here.
Mattman00000 (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for 614172337 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Embodied energy. 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/20070930190108/http://www.esnips.com/doc/ac5215f1-e91d-4c30-8648-2eee1f31488c/Network_Energy_Thesis.pdf to http://www.esnips.com/doc/ac5215f1-e91d-4c30-8648-2eee1f31488c/Network_Energy_Thesis.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225154902/http://www.cmit.csiro.au/brochures/tech/embodied/ to http://www.cmit.csiro.au/brochures/tech/embodied/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303192010/http://www.volkswagen.de/content/medialib/vwd4/de/Volkswagen/Nachhaltigkeit/service/download/umweltberichte/umweltbericht_20012002deutsch48mb/_jcr_content/renditions/rendition.file/umweltberichte_par_0009_file.pdf to http://www.volkswagen.de/content/medialib/vwd4/de/Volkswagen/Nachhaltigkeit/service/download/umweltberichte/umweltbericht_20012002deutsch48mb/_jcr_content/renditions/rendition.file/umweltberichte_par_0009_file.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The section with a comparison of ICE (Internal combustion engine) mode car vs Electric car concludes through a single source that the hybrid car is a more reasonable carbon choice across the lifespan of a vehicle vs electric. Justification is given that the kWh expenditure is higher and therefore the electric car is worse. The section needs further sources and explanations to avoid misleading the reader (i.e. Source suffers from localism, the source is not shown to be peer-reviewed, LCA models are highly variable and can meet completely different outcomes depending on generic data/time periods/scenarios used). Additionally, the role of grid decarbonization hasn't been given.
Comparison of transport modes should be holistic and take into account multiple sources as many bodies have produced studies showing a lower whole-life carbon for electric cars. The section conclusion would be best if left open to interpretation and counterbalanced.
Nyanix (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute of Transport Automobiles section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion