Talk:Fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. |
| Start | Fuel has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
"Advantages and Disadvantages of Fuels over use as Feed Stock" What does this mean? I'm moving it to the talk page. If its author can explain what it is or improve its quality, then it can go back in the article. JohnJohn 06:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Advantages and Disadvantages of Fuels over use as Feed Stock
advantages:
- widely available
- cheap to
- mine / extract / purify
- transport / distribute
- efficient
disadvantages:
- non-renewable / wasting
- impurities:
- sulfur (leads to SO2 which causes acid rain)
- metal oxides
- silicates
- incomplete burning:
- CO
- C (soot) which causes respitory problems and is toxic
- NO -> NO2 -> O3 (acid rain and Photochemical smog)
- flammable hazard
- horrible smell
- residue
otherwise
Being based around a hydrocarbon many synthetic materials in todays society require the use of fossil fuels in their manufacture.
I removed this:
July 2006: By lifting restrictions on India's ability to buy nuclear technology and fuel from abroad, America will be helping it out of a uranium squeeze: its usable stocks of the enriched stuff (lower enriched for power generation, higher for weapons) have been dwindling fast.
from the section on nuclear fuel because a certain countries use or need of nuclear fuel has nothing to do with a general article on fuel.Yesukai 05:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future of the article
This is such a fundamental, multidisciplinary topic that I'm struggling to think of how best to present it. I'd like to at least bring this up to A class. Two problems, one is deciding what topics deserve coverage in this article. Certainly chemical and nuclear are the major headings with chemical including fuels meant for combustion, and those used in metabolism, what else? Nuclear should cover fission and fusion of course. Anything significantly missing there? Another problem is not to forget that it's not just human use of fuel that needs to be covered, but uses of fuel in general, such as stars. So it could be broken into natural uses of fuel and those by mankind. Second problem is what sources would be most suitable to use for this article? General chemistry and physics textbooks have some but not really much general discussion of fuel. Where else to look for the best sources? As you may be able to tell from my questions I'm not the best one to tackle this, but hopefully if I can help get the right foundation built, then others more knowledgeable can take over. I've made a stab at it, ideas would be very welcome. - Taxman Talk
[edit] Wood
Obviously not a fossil fuel (it's also carbon neutral, growing it removes the same amount of CO2 as is given out when it's burnt). The sentence "The utilization of fossil fuels has enabled large-scale industrial development and largely supplanted water driven mills, as well as the combustion of wood or peat for heat." from the fossil fuel article might have lead to wood being included here. On careful reading it tells us wood (and peat) use has been supersceded.--Mongreilf 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
