Talk:Biofuel in the United States

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. Peer reviewers: Timareenelson.

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

suggestions for reference sources

Quantities of ethanol produced in the USA by year, by US government statements: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol.html 140.139.35.250 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Oppose. Just don't see the need to merge. Would be good to keep a complete series of "Ethanol fuel in xxx" articles. Johnfos (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Biofuel and Ethanol fuel are different, it doesn't make any sense. Biofuels refers to all fuels that can be produced from biomass, such as ethanol fuel, biodiesel and biobutanol. Just read the explanation in the biofuel article. The fact that ethanol is the more widespread used biofuel in the world, more than warrants its own article. Finally, I suggest deleting the banner for merging, it is been more than four months. Mariordo (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Biogas

It seems this article largely overlooks biogas. Does the US not utilise any biogas from sewage sludge? I'm aware there is growing interest for the creation of biogas from manures. This is an area that should be covered in the article. --Alex Marshall (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting minor edit

In the section titled "Biofuel Companies" near the bottom (6th paragraph at the time of this writing), there is a reference to "Poet Energy, LLC." which should be changed to "POET, LLC" since that's the real company name. It'd also be helpful to link that to the Wikipedia page for POET. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhauge (talk • contribs) 08:19, 17 August 2012‎

Done. DES ^(talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Article Review

(B) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

       There are some detracting/distracting aspects about this article. I feel that some information, such as of the potential research opportunities in the
       field or briefly mentioning but not elaborating on varied studies done. There is also a lot of seemingly random percentages and mixes that are given
       and take away from the general explanation of biofuels. These are distracting when the significance of these facts are not connected or explained.  

(G) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

       Info being up to date is not an issue (there are current and up-to-date facts and statistics), but I feel there are definitely missing aspects. 
       Comprehensive papers/articles/Wikipedia pages have clear definitions of the terms it discusses along with elaboration on the topic. In this article, t 
       that is not seen. I feel that in the very first section, there should have been more extensive discussion on what biofuels are. The article does 
       provide a hyperlink for biofuel that takes you to a page that defines it, but with the whole page being about this, I feel like more elaboration 
       within the actual article is appropriate. In later sections with other terms, hyperlinks make sense to allow for readers to look up terms they aren't 
       familiar with. In the following section of the article, I feel like there it is a constant issue that information is introduced but then not backed up     
       nor elaborated on with examples/explanations. This continues from the introduction throughout (up and through United States Department of Energy 
       Projects-- Biofuel companies section is pretty comprehensive and fine as is). 

Timareenelson (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)