Why is Biomass better than Fossil Fuels?
As biomass interest begins to take hold as gas and fossil fuel prices continue to rise, one might wonder; why is biomass better than fossil fuels? This question first crossed my mind when I realized that burning wood chips, corn, ethanol, or switchgrass (all common biomass fuels) releases Carbon Dioxide (CO2) just like burning gasoline or natural gas.
Yes, it is true that burning biomass fuels releases CO2, and yes CO2 is a primary concern for global warming and pollution. The real differences in sustainability, and the "clean tech" nature of bio mass, is that it can be produced locally which saves on transportation costs, it doesn't have to be drilled out of the ground or strip mined like coal, and most importantly that the CO2 being released from biomass is not new to the atmosphere. Lets expand on this last point. When I say that biomass does not release new Carbon Dioxide I mean that the CO2 in plants that are being burned is a part of our life sustaining balanced atmosphere, and that it was recently absorbed from the atmosphere by those same plants that are now being burned. There is no net gain in CO2 from growing plants and then burning those same plants, the Carbon Dioxide being stored and then released is going through a balanced cycle.
The real concern with burning fossil fuels is that CO2 that is not a part of our balanced ecosystem is being drilled up and released into the atmosphere which creates unbalance and global warming. For hundreds of thousands of years there has been a process of sequestration of CO2 by the mass die offs of dinosaurs, plants, and other living matter. As humans mine, burn, and release these fuel sources CO2 is added to the system in a non cyclical way that our current plant life cannot sustain and convert through photosynthesis. The primary fear is that we will reach a tipping point where CO2 levels become unsustainable for human life to exist. This process will also induce changes in weather patterns, water levels, and ecosystem destruction.
By burning biomass CO2 levels remain constant and net out in a way that does not significantly alter the earth's environment. Every year there is a pattern of CO2 levels rising and falling globally, and this can be attributed to the life cycles of plants growing and then dying off. This ebb and flow is purely natural on an annual basis, the concern is that over the past hundred years as man has begun introducing CO2 from fossil fuels there has been a steady increase in addition to the ebb and flow of seasonal CO2 emissions. This increase could be limited if biomass products came into mass production and use. The stipulation is that they would have to be created using non-fossil fuel energy which ultimately means that we would be using plants to harvest solar energy.
Yes, it is true that burning biomass fuels releases CO2, and yes CO2 is a primary concern for global warming and pollution. The real differences in sustainability, and the "clean tech" nature of bio mass, is that it can be produced locally which saves on transportation costs, it doesn't have to be drilled out of the ground or strip mined like coal, and most importantly that the CO2 being released from biomass is not new to the atmosphere. Lets expand on this last point. When I say that biomass does not release new Carbon Dioxide I mean that the CO2 in plants that are being burned is a part of our life sustaining balanced atmosphere, and that it was recently absorbed from the atmosphere by those same plants that are now being burned. There is no net gain in CO2 from growing plants and then burning those same plants, the Carbon Dioxide being stored and then released is going through a balanced cycle.
The real concern with burning fossil fuels is that CO2 that is not a part of our balanced ecosystem is being drilled up and released into the atmosphere which creates unbalance and global warming. For hundreds of thousands of years there has been a process of sequestration of CO2 by the mass die offs of dinosaurs, plants, and other living matter. As humans mine, burn, and release these fuel sources CO2 is added to the system in a non cyclical way that our current plant life cannot sustain and convert through photosynthesis. The primary fear is that we will reach a tipping point where CO2 levels become unsustainable for human life to exist. This process will also induce changes in weather patterns, water levels, and ecosystem destruction.
By burning biomass CO2 levels remain constant and net out in a way that does not significantly alter the earth's environment. Every year there is a pattern of CO2 levels rising and falling globally, and this can be attributed to the life cycles of plants growing and then dying off. This ebb and flow is purely natural on an annual basis, the concern is that over the past hundred years as man has begun introducing CO2 from fossil fuels there has been a steady increase in addition to the ebb and flow of seasonal CO2 emissions. This increase could be limited if biomass products came into mass production and use. The stipulation is that they would have to be created using non-fossil fuel energy which ultimately means that we would be using plants to harvest solar energy. Is Corn Getting too Expensive?
You don't have to own an ethanol stock to know that the media and the people who believe what they have to say have become apoplectic in their disdain for ethanol over the past year. Many pundits are parroting each other and blaming ethanol as the root cause for rising food prices and worldwide food shortages. They do this with such conviction that you'd think they must spend their free time collecting bushels of corn to donate to starving people of the world when they are not pontificating on the topic. There's only one problem with their assertions: They are...Headlines:
Biomass Resources
State Programs
Leave a comment