Talk:Biomass (energy)

Expansion

This article really could use expansion. There should be at least two or three sentences discussing the environmental impact of biomass production (generally an impact on the land). SarcasticDwarf 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the impact is generally much the same as with all agriculture and forestry. --Tunheim 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would also be good to mention something along these lines: Recent UK Government directives have required power generators to generate a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable sources, in order to help reduce the UK's CO2 emission levels in line with the Kyoto Protocol. This has resulted in a variety of "renewable" products being co-fired with coal, including wood pellets, olive expeller (waste olive), olive expeller pellets, straw pellets, palm kernel expeller and energy crops like miscanthus and short rotation willow coppice etc.

This looks like it needs attention

"Note: Biomass releases Typo aside; this seems like an odd statement. Is this meant to state "PREGNANT" women? Even then though, I think I can safely say it is accepted public knowledge that carbon monoxide is harmful to all people.

I just looked up 'biomass' because I'd come across the term and wanted explanation; this statement really jumped out at me and I thought I'd note it in case the original author would care to clarify, or someone knowledgeable would care to remove or correct it. --LeisaPhish 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference gone

^ Oh, Chicken Feathers! How to Reduce Plastic Waste. Yahoo News, Apr 5, 2007. The Yahoo! reference link no longer works.24.123.3.106 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate template

The template:renewable energy sources has been vandalized to change it to say "Energy development" instead of "Renewable energy" which is what it should say. Nuclear power also needs to be deleted. Very few people think that nuclear power is "renewable energy". Template has been restored and protected for one week.199.125.109.108 07:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All marine biomass 3.87 Gtonne?

According to WB Whitman et al. (1998) PNAS USA 95:6581 the marine biomass from prokaryotes alone is estimated at 303 Gt. Plasmodesmata 17:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Plasmodesmata

the table is only biomass for human use/consumption. —Pengo 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, note that the data may be outdated as they are quoted from a book issued in 1975. --Rpremuz (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Table headings unclear

The table "Biomass production for human use and consumption" lists "billion tonnes" as units. The word "billion" is not well-defined. This needs to be fixed and replaced with "giga tonnes" or "tera tonnes" as the case may be; as it stands, the table has next to no information content. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wood Biomass

Deleted due to lack of citation or source material. Please reset if edit is too drastic, but consider the sections relevancy to the topic... Are we going to write such detailed sections on each promising form of biomass? Smile4Chomsky (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with biofuel

There is no reason to consider "biofuel" and "biomass energy" separate subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.50 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between these. Biomass is the material which can be used to create bioenergy - bioenergy can be electricity, heat of solid or liquid fuel generated from biomass. Biofuel is used to refer to liquid fuels such as bio-ethanol and bio-diesel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.251.47 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) 

Manure

Many cultures collect manure for use as fuel. Does this count as biomass? I notice it has a brief mention in Biofuel... — Hiddekel (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) yes yes it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.37.202 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

i would like to know how cost efficient biomass is and what the economic cost is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.37.202 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Carbon neutral

Sorry guys but this biomass article is not necessarily carbon neutral, for example when a tree sucks up carbon from the ground and then you burn it into the air. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Merge recommendation is because these articles are too similar. Also these 2 articles are giving too much weight to the Renewable Energy issues. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Biomass article seems well developed and merging it all back into Biofuel might make that article too long. What's the basis for saying that they give too much weight to renewable energy issues?   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No Merge: Agree with Will that both articles are sitting here quite happily, and that a merged article would be way too long. Johnfos (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fact Check

I cut the following paragraph because it is full of mistakes:

Though biomass is a renewable fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanization of green sites. When biomass is used as a fuel, as a replacement for fossil fuels, it still puts the same amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere. The carbon in biomass material, which makes up approximately fifty percent of its dry-matter content, is already part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. Biomass absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere during its growing lifetime, after which its carbon reverts to the atmosphere as a mixture of CO₂ and methane (CH₄), depending on the ultimate fate of the biomass material. CH₄ converts to CO₂ in the atmosphere, completing the cycle. Controlled combustion in a power plant converts virtually all of the carbon in the biomass to CO₂. :P

A. Biomass burning can only contribute to atmospheric CO2 increase if it is happening globally at a rate faster than photosynthesis is removing CO2. Most biomass is converted by respiration into CO2 and H2O annually anyway. Burning it as fuel is merely an alternate respiration pathway. hey girl heyy

--

I don't really understand your point, the statement you removed was trying to show that in all cases, biomass return CO₂ contained in the plant in the atmosphere thus increasing CO₂ levels. The only thing it if safe to assume is that biomass from crop is planted before being harvested (i.e. there is no crop witch can be burned so you have to plant more crop witch will result in no net increased or decrease in CO₂ levels (if you forget about agriculture pollution). Any other method implies net increase in CO₂ levels, except if we plant trees. I am proposing new explanation about this, please discuss:

Though biomass is a renewable fuel, its use can still contribute to global warming. Most of the carbon captured during the lifetime of biomass is released upon burning. Using biomass as an energy source while not replanting trees or creating more biomass will result a net increase in CO₂ levels (Ex: Cutting down a whole forest for fuel while not replacing it). You may also note that decaying trees already release CO₂, even if we don't burn them, and agriculture produce some CO₂ emissions too.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/bio.htm

--132.203.168.176 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from action by mankind, the biosphere is in a state of near equilibrium where photosynthesis is roughly equivalent to respiration on a global scale. However, plants have the capacity to have higher rates of photosynthesis when provided with more "fuel" in the form of CO2 and water. So when forest fires, hurricanes, volcanoes, or people suddenly combust a large amount of biomass, there is a corresponding increase in photosynthesis that converts this CO2 back into biomass in a short period of time. When CO2 is at 1000 ppm the photosynthesis rate is about 2.5 times the rate at 380 ppm. So there is a natural feedback mechanism that prevents biomass burning from significantly altering the CO2 of the atmosphere on a global scale.

B. The statement that "combustion in a power plant converts virtually all of the carbon in biomass to CO2" incorrect. The reason is that Photosynthesis unites a CO2 molecule to the H in a water molecule, leaving O2 as waste. Combustion rejoins the O2 with the H, producing water vapor and releasing the CO2. No new CO2 is produced though. It was already there. The carbon in biomass is already CO2. Burning it does release that CO2 into the air, but it does not create new CO2. The same CO2 would be released if the material were allowed to rot naturally.

By contrast, burning fossil fuels does introduce new carbon (or old depending on how you look at it) into the biosphere.

Using biomass as fuel essentially takes energy away from organisms that would break it down naturally, such as bacteria and fungi. So by using biomass as fuel, there is a necessary decrease in the organisms that could have fed on that material. That is the only real environmental impact. The carbon is going to get recycled anyway.

Fossil fuels put new carbon into the atmosphere/biosphere. However, the total use of fossil fuel worldwide is equivalent to 3-5% of the biosphere's natural respiration process. Since fossil fuels have been. RADARRR. burned at high rates for over a century, and CO2 has not doubled, the question is where is that CO2 going? The answer is probably BIOMASS. The biomass of the Earth is growing as a result of carbon input from fossil fuels and possibly also from ocean warming.

To make a long story short, the assertion that biomass burning affects atmospheric CO2 in any significant way is totally unsupported by any citations.

Cadwallader (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously think burning woodchips from old growth for electricity is just an "alternate respiration pathway"?

Quote: "the assertion that biomass burning affects atmospheric CO2 in any significant way is totally unsupported by any citations"

Errr. Let's take an extreme example. Say we take an old temperate rainforest, which contains trees which are 500 years old or more, and being a cold environment the organic matter on the ground decomposes very slowly, so there's deep leaf litter and many old logs on the ground. I.e. there's a large carbon store, which continues to increase despite being very old forest. Then say we clearfell that forest and effectively empty the ecosystem which was there. We take only the good, solid trees, and everything else is burnt, including the undergrowth, the branches, the dead standing trees, the stumps, and the ground (the ground contains 40-60% of the carbon). This not only puts most of the carbon from the forest into the atmosphere but also reduces the carbon storage capacity of the forest to about 25% of what it had (and to reach that may take 50 years). Then we transport those logs we've harvested and grind them into woodchips. Then we burn them for electricity generation. Now if your last name happens to be Protocol and your first name Kyoto you might think that whole process is completely OH I BET carbon neutral, but to anyone with half a brain, it's obviously releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and is going to take hundreds, if not thousands of years for that land to mop it up again. It might seem like an extreme example, but it's exactly what's being proposed for the Eden Chip Mill, which is in part fed by old growth temperate rainforests (such as Brown Mountain from my home state of Victoria, Australia, which have some of the most carbon-dense forests in the world. The carbon accounting for biomass is not all the same. Of course this situation is hardly comparable to, say, biomass energy from agriculture waste. The article needs to consider a number of examples. Generalisations are likely to have problems. —Pengo 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge of articles

I think the article Biomass Fuelled Power Plants goes well to be merged into this article. Both share the same subject. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. There was nothing to merge. This article already had all facts that was there. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the information on the typical efficiency of a biomass plant. I think that should be included. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Plant/wood specific

From my understanding biomass is not specifically plant material (see algae, and other microorganisms). Perhaps this article should be slightly reviewed to reflect this more fairly. Shuggyg (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if all plant material is considered Biomass, than peat is biomass too, right? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Peat is fossil carbon, or perhaps more accurately sub-fossil carbon. In a system (such as a peat bog) which is actively accreting carbon, yes, it is potentially a renewable source of fuel – but the accretion rate in such systems tends to be low, the biodiversity impacts of harvesting tend to be very high, and there are few (if any) cases where peat harvesting can be regarded as sustainable (and many where it is blatant carbon mining). Even where it is potentially sustainable, any accreting peat system is probably more valuable as a carbon sink: it's surely better to take carbon permanently out of the atmosphere and to harvest renewable carbon from non-accreting systems elsewhere. We have few enough opportunities to sequester carbon permanently, and we can't afford to waste them – and we should be doing our utmost to protect all peat and peat soils from drying out, which releases their carbon to the atmosphere anyway.

As far as your first point is concerned, yes, animals are biomass too. However, it takes a lot of plants to produce an animal, and in most cases biomass harvesting is best done at the lowest trophic level: plants. There are exceptions, where animal material in an ecosystem is more easily accessible than the plants – for example, the 19th century use of whale oil for lighting was effectively using whales to harvest small sea creatures, which harvested smaller creatures, which harvested planktonic algae. The amount of whale oil harvested would however have been in the order of a thousandth, a ten-thousandth or perhaps even less of the energy in the algae (a loss of roughly a factor of ten per trophic level). Likewise using tallow as fuel. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.193.134.74, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It says in relation to fossil fuels and biomass that the use of fossil fuels disrupts the co2 in the atmosphere, this is totally unrelated and is a 'controversial' Statement.

66.193.134.74 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Puzzling request... It is certainly not controversial that the use of fossil fuels hugely changes natural CO₂ levels, which will have doubled before too long. The final outcome of this enormous unplanned experiment with the Earth's atmosphere is not yet absolutely certain, but the overwhelming consensus amongst reputable scientists is that the very large change in CO₂ is having large effects on the climate – there are very few rational sceptics left.

In any case, discussion of fossil fuels here is hardly "unrelated". The whole point of biomass fuel is that it replaces fossil fuel. A climate-change denier may disagree about whether the use of biomass is necessary, but cannot deny that it does replace fossil fuels.

Omitting mention of fossil fuels in a biomass article would be omitting a fundamental part of the subject, and would be blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed.  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Darkwind (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Air Pollution

I'm a little confused by this summary used to justify a reversion: not necessarily true that it "produces air pollution" but (like other fuels) that it may do so, which was already well covered. Firstly, burning biomass invariably produces air pollution, period. There are no cases where it does not. Further, its incorrect to say it "presents the same challenges as other fuels". It produces less pollution than some sources, but more than others, as the references show. Finally, burying anything even remotely critical so deep down, and presenting it in such a whitewashed manner presents NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is very much POV pushing. And I've reverted it. —Pengo 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is the phrasing as it is now that reads as POV. It says that biomass "produces air-pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, NOX (nitrous oxides), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), particulates, and other pollutants". It does not say "may produce", it says "produces". As I said in my edit summary, that is not necessarily true: for example, biogas burnt fully will not produce CO, VOCs or particulates. In fact, if suitable technology is used, biomass can be burnt to produce virtually nothing but CO₂ and water, as for other fuels . So the statement that "there are no cases where it does not" is wrong – and of course unlike fossil fuels even the CO₂ pollution is offset exactly by sequestration (of course if the biomass is sustainably produced). There are of course many cases where biomass used as fuel is polluting, as for other fuels: what we cannot have is a statement that it is always so.

At present the section reads as if written to emphasise problems of biomass over other fuels, though I'm sure that cannot have been the intention. The previous version was more balanced, although I take the point that the discussion of pollution could be nearer the top and I see no reason why it should not be moved there. Likewise the statement that it "presents the same challenges as other fuels": yes, arguably all fuels present different challenges in one way or another, so why not have "presents similar challenges as other fuels"? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not say "may produce" because that's incorrect. You cannot burn biomass without producing these compounds. Your belief that biogas does not produce them is in defiance of basic chemistry -- "biogas" is essentially natural gas (methane), diluted with additional CO2. Its air pollution profile is thus identical to natural gas. Furthermore, its debatable whether biogas should even be called biomass. The way this article is currently written, for instance, doesn't define it as such, but as a fuel that biomass can be 'converted into'.

Biomass does not present the "same" challenges, because every fuel is different. Hydrogen, for instance, generates no pollution whatsoever. None. Burning of non-converted biomass in a residential environment (e.g. a home cooking stove) is the most polluting fuel source on the planet. It is also, unfortunately, the most common use of biomass by far worldwide...and accounts for a huge number of the health problems of rural Africans and Asians. An advanced industrial biomass plant can burn biomass as clean as natural gas, and cleaner than coal -- but pollution still exists in all cases. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on some of your statements:

• "You cannot burn biomass without producing these compounds." The pollutants listed include some (like CO and particulates) which are normally products of incomplete combustion at relatively low temperatures. You yourself say that biomass can be burnt cleanly in an industrial plant, and if it is, it will not produce these pollutants in significant quantities (perhaps not even measurable ones) – though no doubt it might produce more NOxes. What we need in the article is a statement which is factually correct, and doesn't slant either one way or the other. At present it reads as if all biomass must produce all the pollutants listed, which is not correct. It might be true to say that when burnt, biomass always produces some pollutants, but not necessarily all of those listed in significant quantities.
• "Your belief that biomass does not produce them". No, I didn't say they didn't, I said they didn't always, which is why I suggested "may produce".
• Your sentence "Burning of non-converted biomass ... is the most polluting fuel on the planet". Yes, burning it like that is of course highly polluting – but it is not always burnt like that. The problem is not the biomass, but the method. Also, there are far more polluting fuels, such as coal, oil or plastics (some of which would kill you pretty well straight away in such an environment). Which hut would you prefer to be in, the one burning wood on the fire, or the one burning PVC...?
• "Biomass does not present the same challenges". Yes: please see the last sentence of my previous post in which I agreed with you on that, and suggested "similar challenges". Likewise I agree that biogas could be regarded as separate from biomass in this context, or at least as a special instance of it.
• "Hydrogen ... produces no pollution whatever". What about NOxes? (Leaving aside of course how this hydrogen is being generated.)

I wonder if you have perhaps misunderstood some what I am saying. I am not by any means suggesting that biomass does not produce any of those pollutants ever. I'm saying it does not produce all of them always, which is what the text says now. It ought to say that it can (and often does) produce pollutants including these, and it should also make clear that biomass is comparable to other fuels in its overall pollution potential. I don't think these points are controversial, are they?

Incidentally, the Asian smoke cloud is mostly not from biomass use, but from habitat destruction and associated burning of trees and peat, either accidentally or for land clearance, which is hardly what this article is about. I think these sentences need more explanation or perhaps complete removal. Sustainable use of biomass for cooking etc is really a trivial pollution component in that area by comparison, and indeed in most others (once it's out of the hole in the roof), because sustainable traditional use is always going to be small-scale. Another point to remember is that the pollution products from burning biomass in domestic contexts are virtually the same as those from natural fires, unlike many of those from other fuels. This is not so relevant where natural (or semi-natural) fires are rare, such as in wet tropical areas of Asia, but it is in areas where natural fires do occur, such as sub-Saharan Africa and western North America, where pollution from biomass use as covered in this article is dwarfed by them. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sustainable traditional use" is not a small scale operation, my friend. Take this quote for instance, which I believe comes from the NYT: "Nearly three billion people in the developing world cook their meals on primitive indoor stoves fueled by crop waste, wood, coal and dung. Every year, says the UN, smoke from these stoves kills 1.9 million people, mostly women and children. The stoves also contribute to global warming."

In other words, this single usage kills more people worldwide than all other sources of air pollution combined. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, traditional use is more than small scale – I ought to have said small in comparison with industrial fossil-fuel use. However, I was actually talking about pollution of the wider environment: I did say "once it's out of the hole in the roof". As you say, smoke is indeed a serious indoor pollutant, but it's the type of stove that's the problem, not the fuel itself, and fuels such as coal, paraffin or even LPG in the wrong burner can be just as bad as biomass. Of course it's not the biomass use in those stoves that's contributing to global warming, but the coal. (Incidentally, in the UK the way you used "my friend" could easily be taken to be patronising or even downright rude, though I'm sure you didn't mean it like that.) Richard New Forest (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No more comments. I suggest the following form of words for the first para in this section, which I think answers the criticisms on both sides:

Using biomass as a fuel may produce air pollution, including, depending on the method of combustion, carbon monoxide, NOx (nitrogen oxides), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), particulates and other pollutants.

This omits the material about black carbon, which applies to all carbon-based fuels, and about the brown haze, which is not from the use of biomass as a fuel but from habitat clearance. I think we do however need a para or at least a sentence about indoor pollution, though that does need to be clear that it's not just biomass. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

The title of this article should be Biomass(energy) because there is also an article named Biomass (ecology). When a Wikipedia user is making a search for "biomass," the two choices should be presented.

I don't know how to edit-in this change. Can someone do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The way it usually works on WP is that disambiguation epithets (the bits in brackets) are used to distinguish minor meanings from a main one, the "primary topic", which is so well known that it doesn't need disambiguation. So at present this meaning of "biomass" is treated as the primary topic, and that's why it does not have an epithet. Where there is no primary topic, then the version without the brackets becomes a disambiguation page with links to all the others, and of course these are all disambiguated.

Are you suggesting that the subject of this article is not the primary topic, or are you saying that it should be disambiguated just for reasons of symmetry or fairness? Richard New Forest (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who wants Biomass (ecology) would get there in two steps whether Biomass is a disambiguation page or as it is now. But people wanting Biomass in the sense of energy would need an extra step if Biomass was a disambiguation page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Biomass production

The following was embedded in food web:

Biomass production

Primary production is generation of biomass through photosynthesis. It can be measured in grams per square meter per year (g/m²/yr). The highest producers of biomass are

• swamps and marshes, 2,500 g/m²/yr of biomass
• tropical rainforests, 2,000 g/m²/yr of biomass
• algal beds and reefs, 2,000 g/m²/yr of biomass
• river estuaries, 1,800 g/m²/yr of biomass.

Others include

• temperate forests, 1,250 g/m²/yr of biomass
• cultivated lands; 650 g/m²/yr of biomass

while lowest producers are deserts (3 g/m²/yr), open ocean (125 g/m2/yr), and tundra (140 g/m²/yr).

It doesn't belong there and I'm deleting it. Perhaps this might be useful to this page?Thompsma (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources of biomass

It is written: "Biomass energy is derived from five distinct energy sources: garbage, wood, waste, landfill gases, and alcohol fuels" This sentence is arbitrary and inaccurate. And what is the difference between 'garbage' and 'waste'? Isn't landfill gas also waste? what about plant matter, is all plant matter alochol fuels? Isn't wood also plant matter? You get the drift. This statement should have a reference if it is true. The reference already used for biomassenergycentre (UK) has good stuff that could replace this. Waterproof-breathable (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Difference exists between Dendrothermal energy and Biomass energy

It is like difference between solar power and solar energy.......Solar energy is tremendous but the way we use is Solar power, which is considerably small.Similarly Biomass energy is tremendous, and an application like winter fire is also an example.......but use for industrial production is termed dendrothermal energy.

I think this article needs to be rewritten

I write a lot in blogs and magazines. I use Wikipedia as a prime source, and cite it when I do, because it is usually accurate and has good references.

This article is probably the third in Wikipedia that I have wanted to use as a source, but decided not to use. The reasons for this, unfortunately, are all in the talk section already. The list of sources is a mess; what is "garbage" anyway? The idea that biomass produces air pollution is stated as a fact in the article, and discussed at length in the talk section; why not just make the simple change suggested? (I think I will do it myself.)

Why not compare the output of a specific power plant using a fossil fuel with the same power plant using biomass fuel? The Jenbacher J920 engine might be a good choice. If you burn natural gas, and ignore the production problems arising out of exploration and fracking, you get one result. If you burn biogas, and ignore the production problems arising out of production of the fuel, you get the same result, except that there is no radon in the exhaust. Including fracking and opposing it to raising algae from a farm, as is already being done, biogas wins hands down. Including fracking and opposing it to cutting old grown forest is not so easy. Just a suggestion.

But I cannot use this article, and I don't have time to change it to what I need before the magazine goes to press.ghh 12:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)