Biomass just as Bad as Coal

[Blobfish]

With everyone talking renewables .. Biomass has been as an alternative to using coal as a renewable source of fuel

Truth is , Biomass puts more carbon into the atmosphere than coal does.

It's often claimed that biomass is a “low carbon” or “carbon neutral” fuel, meaning that carbon emitted by biomass burning won't contribute to climate change. But in fact, biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced.




Europeans are crazy for Biomass, and see it as a viable alternative to coal in reducing C02 and making the Paris agreement on Climate Change.

Why are Europeans burning Biomass.. when it causes just as much C02 to be released into the atmosphere as coal.

It is just Silly.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...-idUSKCN1SY184

Finland faces having to import biomass because, despite being Europe’s most densely forested country, it will be unable to meet an expected 70% rise in demand for the fuel after it phases out coal.


Health Groups to Congress: Burning Biomass is Bad for Health. The environmental impacts of burning biomass for electricity are well documented. When power plants use biomass as fuel—in particular biomass that comes from forests—they can increase carbon emissions compared to coal and other fossil fuels for decades.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ists-disagree/

Using biomass for energy has positive and negative effects

Biomass and biofuels made from biomass are alternative energy sources to fossil fuels—coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Burning either fossil fuels or biomass releases carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. However, the plants that are the source of biomass capture a nearly equivalent amount of CO2 through photosynthesis while they are growing, which can make biomass a carbon-neutral energy source.


https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...ss_environment

But scientists have been expressing concern for years about the emissions produced by burning biomass. Many experts suggest that declaring wood burning a carbon-neutral form of energy is not only inaccurate, but a potential step backward for global climate change mitigation efforts.
Renewable, yes. But carbon neutral?

William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist and former president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, was among the latest to weigh in with commentary published in Science yesterday. He said that “recent evidence shows that the use of wood as fuel is likely to result in net CO2 emissions.”

Biomass is technically a “renewable” energy source, in that trees can be replanted after they’re harvested. And some lawmakers have argued that because trees store carbon as they grow, replacement forests will gradually remove the carbon dioxide emitted when the previous trees were burned for energy, making the whole process carbon neutral—that is, putting no net emissions into the atmosphere.

[XDurionX]

Producing biomass, however, consumes a lot of CO², so its a lot better than coal at the end of the equation if we produce the amount we`re consuming. The carbon doesn`t magically appear from thin air.

Coal has been biomass once, it`s just compressed. It`s basically the same. And i dont get where you get that "europeans are crazy for biomass" from. Faux News i assume?

[LiveFree]

NASA is considering using wood as rocket fuel

From newswire: https://dangerousmother.com

[Thekri]

Producing biomass, however, consumes a lot of CO², so its a lot better than coal at the end of the equation if we produce the amount we`re consuming. The carbon doesn`t magically appear from thin air.

Coal has been biomass once, it`s just compressed. It`s basically the same. And i dont get where you get that "europeans are crazy for biomass" from. Faux News i assume?

This is the key part the OP is missing. It is not an apples to apples comparison. The carbon released from petrochemicals was previously stuck underground, so releasing it increases atmospheric carbon. The carbon released from burning "Fresh" plant material was just pulled from the atmosphere when the plant was growing, so it isn't a net change in atmospheric carbon. It is cleaner on a net level, even if it burns dirtier.

[apples]

This is the key part the OP is missing. It is not an apples to apples comparison. The carbon released from petrochemicals was previously stuck underground, so releasing it increases atmospheric carbon. The carbon released from burning "Fresh" plant material was just pulled from the atmosphere when the plant was growing, so it isn't a net change in atmospheric carbon. It is cleaner on a net level, even if it burns dirtier.

if we cant cherry pick data to fit our narrative, whats even the point of being on a forum?

[Thekri]

if we cant cherry pick data to fit our narrative, whats even the point of being on a forum?

Well to be fair it can be worse for local air quality, which is the context of a lot of the original post. So while it is better for the planet, it certainly could be worse for the air quality of a certain city or region. Especially when you are importing it into some area that was not involved in growing it. Biomass is generally not a great fuel for major urban areas. Natural Gas is still king there.

However "Just as bad as coal" is a dramatic oversimplification. It certainly isn't for climate change purposes.

[Raelbo]

Truth is , Biomass puts more carbon into the atmosphere than coal does.

Truth is, that is a grossly misleading statement. Truth is, you need to look at the entire story.

I[I]t's often claimed that biomass is a “low carbon” or “carbon neutral” fuel, meaning that carbon emitted by biomass burning won't contribute to climate change. But in fact, biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced.

Both statements are fact.

The difference between biofuels and fossil fuel in terms of climate change is that biofuels actively take CO2 out of the atmosphere during their replenishment (to all intents and purposes, fossil fuels don't replenish themselves - not in a time frame that is relevant to the climate change problem)


That is not to say that biofuels are automatically environmentally friendly. The production of the biomass used needs to be carried out in a sustainable manner. Cutting down a rainforest and turning the area into a desert to produce some biofuel is, absolutely, an environmental catastrophe. But harvesting biomass that is constantly replenishing itself is the objective.

[Independent voter]

There's a Canadian company who extracts CO2 from the air and makes fuel out of it.

I couldn't help but wonder, isn't that just a temporary solution? I think biomass is the same.

Best not to put the CO2 into the air to start.

[Flarelaine]

Well to be fair it can be worse for local air quality, which is the context of a lot of the original post. So while it is better for the planet, it certainly could be worse for the air quality of a certain city or region. Especially when you are importing it into some area that was not involved in growing it. Biomass is generally not a great fuel for major urban areas. Natural Gas is still king there.

However "Just as bad as coal" is a dramatic oversimplification. It certainly isn't for climate change purposes.

It's still burning shit, though.

[Mrbleedinggums]

It's still burning shit, though.

Using shit to burn shit is better than digging shit and burning that which adds more shit in the air.

[Thekri]

There's a Canadian company who extracts CO2 from the air and makes fuel out of it.

I couldn't help but wonder, isn't that just a temporary solution? I think biomass is the same.

Best not to put the CO2 into the air to start.

Well we do need energy. And burning something is one of the easiest ways to get it. We aren't going to be ready to move on from combustion for a long while yet. It is better to remove CO2, then add it back, then just add it without ever removing it.

Still, as many people noted, Biomass is definitely not a silver bullet for energy needs. It does cause a significant amount of local air pollution, it is much less efficient then petrochemicals, and it does have health effects on people living nearby. It is also a huge problem if the biomass is harvested from a non-replenishable source (Such as any sort of natural growth forest) as opposed to a farmed solution. But when used intelligently it is a decent way of supplementing energy production. We aren't going to find one magic cure, and burning agricultural waste or crops specifically designed for it can be environmentally responsible.

[Flarelaine]

Using shit to burn shit is better than digging shit and burning that which adds more shit in the air.

I suppose so. I would still prefer a move to not burning shit. Or at least burning less shit.

[LiveFree]

Well we do need energy. And burning something is one of the easiest ways to get it. We aren't going to be ready to move on from combustion for a long while yet. It is better to remove CO2, then add it back, then just add it without ever removing it.

There are people who have 5 cars, personal plane, big houses, 100s of clothes, parties, pubs. These people are the real polluters.

[Lynarii]

Ultimately there is probably never going to be a 'magic bullet' for energy production, if only because different forms of energy production are ideal for different tasks. Any good energy plan designed with the future in mind is going to have to draw from many different sources (including some fossil fuels, be they natural or artificial) because for certain tasks they simply do the job so much better than the alternatives that trying to force an inefficient solution on it costs the environment more in the long run.

I still think that the backbone power source of the future is going to be nuclear once people get their heads out of their asses on it. None of the other options available even come close to being as good at it for powering major cities through heavy draw periods. But that's only one of many things we need power for.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Producing biomass, however, consumes a lot of CO², so its a lot better than coal at the end of the equation if we produce the amount we`re consuming. The carbon doesn`t magically appear from thin air.

Coal has been biomass once, it`s just compressed. It`s basically the same. And i dont get where you get that "europeans are crazy for biomass" from. Faux News i assume?

I wouldn't say we are crazy about biomass, but it is getting more and more traction around here.

Wood (most often in the form of pellets) is getting more and more popular as a domestic heating fuel (but open hearths are becoming illegal due to poor efficiency/high soot levels). There are even some district heating plants running on wood and biomass, some even being cogeneration plants.

Biogas production could also be linked to that, given its excess : waste food stuff that used to go to pig farms now go directly to digesters, and apparently there are some factory farms where, financially, the meat is now a biproduct of the biogas production... so essentially subsidised feed to gas...

And on the whole subsidised foodstuff to energy, which is biomass if the worst kind, there's the recent EU-wide change of automobile fuel nomenclature... out with octane, fuels are now named after their bioethanol or biodiesel percentage...

- - - Updated - - -

Truth is, that is a grossly misleading statement. Truth is, you need to look at the entire story.



Both statements are fact.

The difference between biofuels and fossil fuel in terms of climate change is that biofuels actively take CO2 out of the atmosphere during their replenishment (to all intents and purposes, fossil fuels don't replenish themselves - not in a time frame that is relevant to the climate change problem)


That is not to say that biofuels are automatically environmentally friendly. The production of the biomass used needs to be carried out in a sustainable manner. Cutting down a rainforest and turning the area into a desert to produce some biofuel is, absolutely, an environmental catastrophe. But harvesting biomass that is constantly replenishing itself is the objective.

Reminds me of that documentary I had watched 1 or 2 decades ago, on a brazilian industrial iron furnace running on coal, wood coal, of which the production was shown : 2 buldozers, a chain, and the forest goes in the kiln

[InTheEnd]

Climate Change denialists at it again it seems

[Forogil]

Biomass is technically a “renewable” energy source, in that trees can be replanted after they’re harvested. And some lawmakers have argued that because trees store carbon as they grow, replacement forests will gradually remove the carbon dioxide emitted when the previous trees were burned for energy, making the whole process carbon neutral—that is, putting no net emissions into the atmosphere.

I don't understand the hedge words here.

Obviously you should replant forests after cutting them down, that's sort of been the standard for foresting since the middle of last millennia, and I don't understand why it says "some lawmakers" have argued that trees remove carbon dioxide.

Wouldn't it be better to ask biologists (who will confirm it) instead of lawmakers?

Switching from a slow-growing forest to biomass production can, of course, cause a one-off increase of carbon dioxide (land use changes are overall an important factor) - what matters is how much - not whether there are "net CO2 emissions".

[Pentai]

Yes it's bad, but where are you getting that we are crazy about it? We use it because we are too broke for other types of fuel.

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/06/smog-shrouds-athens-as-greeks-choke-on-fuel-bills.html
https://phys.org/news/2012-12-wood-burning-pollution-alarm-bells-athens.html

[Najnaj]

It takes up too much space to be a viable option and this isn't so much an opinion as an undeniable fact. Someone did the math on the UK and you would need something like 8 times (can't remember the actual nr but it was a lot more than the size of the country) the size of the UK to support the country with bio-fuel.

On a related note....... These sort of topics is why we have global warming deniers. Man made global warming is super simple. We have dug up coal and turned it into co2 using fire which has an effect on our climate. That really is 99% of the problem. Then we have vegans trying to attach themselves to the debate with meat consumption in addition to all sorts of political maneuvering where people try to use the topic for their own goals. Last but not least we have 19 year old "climate scientists" making one idiotic dooms day prediction after another which garbage media is only too happy to snap up. This all just adds to a situation when most people just can not be bothered anymore.

It would be pretty easy to get people onboard with this problem if shit like this bio fuel (which is never going to happen anyway) could stop making people feel helpless. Stop burning fossil fuel and there you go, problem solved.

[Attackrabbit]

There's a Canadian company who extracts CO2 from the air and makes fuel out of it.

I couldn't help but wonder, isn't that just a temporary solution? I think biomass is the same.

Best not to put the CO2 into the air to start.

You stop breathing first and then ther rest of us will consider it.