Biomass is considered as a renewable energy source because its inherent energy comes from the sun with the possibiliy to regrow in a relatively short time. Leaf Trees take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into biomass and when they die, it is released back into the atmosphere. Whether trees are burned or whether they decompose naturally, they release the same amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The idea is that if trees harvested as biomass are replanted as fast as the wood is burned, new trees take up the carbon produced by the combustion, the carbon cycle theoretically remains in balance, and no extra carbon is added to the atmospheric balance sheet—so biomass is arguably considered “carbon neutral.” Since nothing offsets the CO2 that fossil fuel burning produces, replacing fossil fuels with biomass theoretically results in reduced carbon emissions.
In fact, the reality is a lot more complicated. In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that “carbon neutrality cannot be assumed for all biomass energy a priori.” Whether or not biomass is truly carbon neutral depends on the time frame being studied, what type of biomass is used, the combustion technology, which fossil fuel is being replaced (since the combustion of both fossil fuels and biomass produces carbon dioxide), and what forest management techniques are employed in the areas where the biomass is harvested.
In 2010, a group of prominent scientists wrote to US Congress explaining that the notion that all biomass results in a 100 percent reduction of carbon emissions is wrong.Biomass can reduce carbon dioxide if fast growing crops are grown on otherwise unproductive land; in this case, the regrowth of the plants offsets the carbon produced by the combustion of the crops. But cutting or clearing forests for energy, either to burn trees or to plant energy crops, releases carbon into the atmosphere that would have been sequestered had the trees remained untouched, and the regrowing and thus recapture of carbon can take decades or even a century. Moreover, carbon is emitted in the combustion process, resulting in a net increase of CO2.
Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.
I guess the word 'Alternative Energy' is more appropriate for biomass.
I do not agree to the term alternative energy. Of course biomass is also renewable, fitting under the definition as stated above. Nonetheless, there are ethical issues that also may be relevant to consider : bio-energy in itself is good, but needs to be compared to other uses of biomass. When considering the carbon savings by bioenergy, one needs to take into account the entire biomass supply and energy production value chain. Neither the ethical questions, nor the footprint calclulations however justify that bioenergy in itself from a scientific perspective would be considerd other than 'renewable'
I think it depends of what type of biomass and growing land we are talking about (a life cycle analysis could be helpfull). It depends also on the approach we are considering: global or local. May be "alternative" is not suited for a classic old source of energy for human being, but even "renewable" must be used with caution when it comes to classify biomass ....
Biomass is a renewable energy because it is a raw material usable for energy generation in its different types and because it comes from a source that can be created, managed and planned (which differentiates it from solar and wind energy), then it must be Cataloged as a renewable energy according to the definitions already enunciated by other collaborators. On the other hand, all energies are "alternatives" because they depend on where and for what they want to be used....
Bioenergy, a general term for biofuels and bioelectricity, is possibly one of more complex forms of energy, with several connections to Nature and human society. Depending on how bioenergy systems are designed and implemented, they can be very beneficial and sustainable, or problematic and undesirable. High efficiency in solar radiation conversion to biomass, allowing elevated energy yield and efficient conversion process to final energy vectors (fuels and electricity) are essential features of sustainable bioenergy systems. It is important to take into account that bioenergy is very diversified and site specific, not all bioenergy is good or bad.
In the best cases, for instance, considering ethanol and electricity simultaneous production from sugarcane, the overall mitigation effect on GHG emission can be higher than 100%, depending on the primary fossil energy replaced.
I find this discussion odd, the discussion seems to imply the idea is new and not already occurring. The burning of biomass currently occurs by human and natural means. At present an untold amount of forest debris from timber harvest (regeneration harvest to thinning) is piled and burned to reduce wildland fire risk, following various activities. Not to mention the millions of miles of roadside vegetation management that takes place with road re-alignments or just clearing for line of sight. These activities occur across the world do not require vegetation management of unproductive lands.
In fact in most cases loss of older trees sequestering carbon are retained and site conditions are improved for faster growth. In fact if the harvest is a thinning, the residual trees gain an environmental buffer from plant competition, reduce wildfire ladder fuels, and thus lower risk of tree loss from a canopy fire. Canopy fires will change forest carbon sequestration from sink to source, by killing the entire tree. So the question to me is not should it be done, that question is moot. The real question is can we repurpose and better utilize what is currently being burned for a better use?
Retaking this debate:
It seems funny to imagine that biomass, our very first exogeneous energy source, used by mankind for millennia, be called "alternative". At same time, it is clear that biomass, the physical vector of bioenergy, is "renewable", in large extension, since the required conditions for production are provided.
I agree that classifying biomass with "alternative sources is...discutable...Is it a renewable energy? Biomass is a storable version of solar energy. May be we should redirect the discussion and re-ask the question: is Biomass a Sustainable source of energy?......
Woody biomass is far for just renewable energy source because a forest provide more services than just absorbing carbon dioxide…also only part of woody biomass used as energy the high quality wood used in many applications remain in use for centuries.
I am not fond of generalizations on biomass. In the discussion thread here, I have a feeling that experts tend to intuitively think about dedicated cultivation of crops and/or combustion of standing woody biomass. Nevertheless there are other forms of biomass: greenwaste from roadside & terrain management, VGF (vegetable/garden/fruit) from households, Agricultural waste (in Europe alone 1,8 BILLION tons of manure each year), organic biological waste from food industry and distribution... Utilizing these as resources for energy (as well as other purposes) makes sense and WILL contribute to GHG emission mitigation.
Also, material typically left on site from forestry operations can be used. It all depends on the crop and the time frame. For loblolly pine in the southern US, rotation lengths can be 20 years or less for energy crops. Even including CO2 emitted from harvesting and transport make them a viable source for carbon sequestration.
This debate is very rich indeed. Some remarks on the previous comments:
- It is at least controversial to associate bioenergy and food security, this a false conflict. Globally, the per capita production of food has been increasing more than population in the last decades: 2360 kcal per person day in 1960, 2800 kcal per person day in 2004 (+18%), and projections to reach 3000 kcal per person day in 2030 (+27%), according to FAO.
- Effectively, in global terms, there is no shortage of food, there is lack of access to food resources, due to limited resources of social groups in poverty. The growing food waste indicates the untapped surplus production.Obesity is currently a more serious problem than hunger in most countries.
- Recently FAO recommended to replace the “bioenergy or food” debate by “bioenergy and food”. In our planet there are about 13.5 billion hectares of arable land, but only 12% is used for permanent and annual crops; most of this area is occupied by low density use pastures; a small fraction could be dedicated to sustainable bioenergy production, fostering human development and welfare in many tropical countries.
- To mention a generic risk of bioenergy deployment on food security, without considering the actual and prospective data of land and water availability and the sustainable technologies already available is a kind of immobilizing neo-Malthusianism, which is in fact defending the global energy status quo, the empire of fossil and dirty sources of energy. Currently, US and Brazil are the main biofuels producers and at the same time the main exporters of agricultural products. Many Latin-American countries have implemented biofuels programs with positive results on their economy and development. This is a desirable reality and other countries should consider it carefully.
- Biomass is made with atmospheric CO2; the fossil carbon emission associated to burning biofuel depends directly on the fossil fuel consumed in its production (feedstock production and conversion) and, if the case, land use change. The assessment of bioenergy impact on mitigating greenhouse gases emission received much attention in several studies. Accordingly to IPCC, when properly produced, biofuels can mitigate up to 80% of emission from conventional fossil fuels. And in the best cases, for simultaneous production of sugarcane ethanol and electricity, this mitigation can reach about 130%, again as indicated by IPCC.
For details on these values, I strongly recommend to see the last SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment) report, Bioenergy and Sustainability: bridging the gaps, a comprehensive assessment of global sustainable bioenergy potential and perspectives, prepared by 137 experts from 24 countries. It is available for download at: http://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/.
OK Kenneth, my point is: sustainable bioenergy is part of the arsenal of measures needed to face this enormous challenge.
In conclusion bioenergy must be part of the mix when available but it should be limited to small scale private applications (Heating, steam/electricity,back-up energy...)...To reduce the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we need to lower use of high carbone foot print enrgy sources (Biomass???)...then comes another question to our colleagues from the forests authorities: what is the contribution of forest fires to the global carbone balance and then does it make sense to reduce the fraction of energy coming through Biomass?
Before the 19th century, the main source of energy was biomass in the form of wood. Then came coal and, later on, petroleum & natural gas. This shift of the trends of energy usage has caused enormous problems to humanity. At the same time, it resulted in huge profits for some powerful families & companies.
A return to biomass or utilizing other energy alternatives "of fossil fuels" has to be done but this collides, head on, with the interests of the powerful. Will there be a battle between the "wise" & the "greedy"? Let us wait & see.
Kenneth,
Avoiding methane emission from manure storage as a bio-energy source has the added benefit that avoided methane emissions have a CO2 eq of 25. Moreover, processed digestate can be used for substitution of synthetic fertilisers based on fossil resources. Finally, soil organic carbon build-up has been proposed as an additional path to carbon sequestration. Bio-energy processes do not only contribute to the energy replacement of fossil sources but have other advantages throughout the chain.
Thanks to all of you for relaunching the discussions...Of course returning to 350 ppm CO2 seems and is an impossible mission as it takes time to skip to clean energy plants and for sequestration of the corresponding 100,000,000,000 tons of CO2.
As far as Biomass energy has limited uses, its contribution to increase GHGs concentration is not significant. But if we want to get rid of these 100 billions tons we need a magic wand or hard work to innovate in transforming CO2 to fuels or bicarbonate or whatever ...
China’s Synthetic Gas Plants Would Choke Out 21 Billion Tons of Carbon Dioxide
By: Nidhi Goyal | October 17th, 2013
Synthetic Gas Plants being planned in China present a host of ecological worries. China’s government has permitted construction of nine such plants in northern and western China.
These plants are able to generate more than 37 billion cubic meters of synthetic natural gas annually. Moreover, private companies are also planning to put up more than 30 other such plants which are able to generate over 200 million cubic meters of natural gas annually.
Using coal to make natural gas is no doubt good for China’s energy security, but it will have severe environmental impacts. Experts fear if all the nine plants were built as planned, they would give out 21 billion tons of carbon dioxide over a usual 40-year lifetime. As per the study by Duke University researchers, these plants would produce seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional natural gas plants and will use up to 100 times the water as shale gas production.
Not only that, these plants would also emit hydrogen sulfide and mercury, which are very harmful to human health if not appropriately treated. If this synthetic natural gas were used as vehicle fuel, the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions would be about two times as from gasoline-fueled vehicles.
Considering the overall environmental impacts, emission of greenhouse gases, water use and mercury pollution, China government should give a second thought to it. The increased emissions from these plants alone will more than cancel out all reductions in green house gas emissions done by the Chinese rapid development in clean energy.
Nidhi Goyal
Nidhi is a gold medalist Post Graduate in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. You can also find Nidhi on Google+.
Dear Md. Rafsan Nahian,
Biomass is a renewable source, you can think about the carbon cycle.
I think everybody agrees that Biomass is globaly a renewable energy....but think of easter island where a thriving and industrious culture as evidenced by the island's numerous enormous stone moai and other artefacts led to gradual deforestation and extinction of natural resources which severely weakened the Rapa Nui civilization.
From my read of the last few comments, it seems folks are assume an all or nothing prescription. Maybe there is another option. If some measure of biomass in its use as energy results in a product that can be used in maintaining soil productivity, the acres harvested for biomass may sustain future harvests at a higher yield. When I say harvest, I am speaking in terms of the variety of forest silvicultural extractions and their varying intensities, regeneration, thinning, salvage... In the forest we can sustain the land without all of the stable carbon created by a given acre. The excess of this soil augmenting material can be used to help other acres. It is known that under the current agricultural paradigm some areas farmed have lost as much as 50% Soil Organic Matter (SOM). This lost SOM has a direct relationship to soil/water holding capacity lost. We can replace some of that lost SOM with the stable carbon form from the forest harvest and increase soil/water holding capacities on farms. This SOM augmentation redistribution has been shown to increase farm yield in some soil conditions and potentially reduce dependence on petroleum derived fertilizers. Though this multi-tiered approach is not perfect and does not solve every thing. It does answer some pressing issues in the environmental triage/treatment being discussed and has the potential to trend some lands toward improved conditions.
It is a renewable source of energy.
Biomass does not contributes with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it is considered neutral, because CO2 is taken from the atmospheric air and converted in biomass, then it is returned to the atmospheric air from the combustion, like a cicle. The problem with biomass is the concentration in the surrounding atmospheric air of a city, it could produces healt problems.
Fuel from oil industries contributes to increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, because it is never returned to its original state.
Dr. Towe, respectfully I have to disagree. We can convert carbon in biomass to a state that has less opportunity to increase atmospheric carbon. then place it in the soil. This will benefit soil/water interaction and affect productivity. This amendment will not be a one for one replacement of extracted carbon from the lithology, but reduce this newly stored carbons ability for atmospheric release regardless. Such amendments will also improve degraded crop lands (SOM losses) and buffer forest against climate variability. The soil has a huge capacity to store this carbon.
True, but we can convert the biomass to a form less susceptible to oxidative processes, charcoal. A material found in the soil and accumulations in the soil, are considered part of the development of that resource.
Currently in forestry, biomass that is logistically prevented from being used as bioenergy, is open air burned (millions of tons) as a disposal process to minimize wildfire risk. These piles are created from timber harvest to protection of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).
These piles are lit as we walk away from pile to pile and an individual pile can be a couple hundred pounds to hundreds of tons of woody debris. Then depending upon the size of the pile and duration of the burn, the soil under it is heat altered and soil productivity is inhibited. Lastly, the available feedstock (woody material) has the highest potential concentrations of C for that conversion to charcoal and sequestration. That disposal process can be altered to utilize the energy to do the conversion for later application.
Again this will not get us back to a desired ppm tomorrow and as you point out it may never. But, respectfully it improves conditions more than the current practices. Knowing this information, doesn't it seems absurd to burn this material with no purpose other than disposal?
May be we should boost Biomass energy after "cleaning" the mess using alternative capturing and sequestration methods
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3251141/
Economic and energetic analysis of capturing CO2 from ambient air
Kurt Zenz House,a,b,1 Antonio C. Baclig,b Manya Ranjan,c Ernst A. van Nierop,b Jennifer Wilcox,d and Howard J. Herzogc
Several researchers investigating chemical systems for capturing CO2 from the air* have suggested that air capture could be a viable climate mitigation technology costing no more than a few hundred dollars per tonne of CO2 avoided (1–3). It has been further argued (4) that air capture may be cost-competitive with more accepted climate change mitigation options like renewable power, nuclear power, and CO2 capture and storage from large stationary sources (carbon capture and storage, CCS). Indeed, during visits to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the spring of 2009, the US President’s Science Advisor, John Holdren, and Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, each mentioned capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from the air as an option that may be needed for stabilizing global CO2 concentrations and, thereby, global temperatures.
I agree with you Kenneth but I hope there is an Alternative ...may be after reaching 600 ppm CO2 we have to leave Earth to Mars?
NASA: “We’re Going to Try and Make Oxygen From the Atmosphere on Mars”:
What we know is that the Red Planet’s atmosphere is thinner than Earths, with some 95.32 percent carbon dioxide, 2.7 percent nitrogen, 1.6 percent argon, and about 0.13 oxygen, plus a bunch of other elements in even smaller amounts. By contrast, the Earth’s atmosphere has 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen. Water won’t be much of a problem, though.
Is it possible to make oxygen from Mar’s atmosphere? NASA’s had plans for this since 2014, when it first revealed the Mars 2020 Rover. The experiment, known as MOXIE, involves using the abundant carbon dioxide gas found on Martian atmosphere and turning it into oxygen. The oxygen could then be harnessed and made available for breathing and also to make rocket fuel for return flights to Earth.
It may sound like science fiction right now, but lab experiments have shown that it’s possible. That’s why the Mars 2020 Rover mission is crucial. Other efforts to make Mars habitable include plans of building a magnetic shield around the planet, similar to Earth’s, building a nuclear reactor, as well as growing potatoes like in Matt Damon in The Martian.
Terraforming Mars planet...and venus....needs advanced technologies and solutions we can get through solving first the earth CO2 concentration.....see link:
https://www.facebook.com/futurism/videos/535587486620455/
Biomass can be considered as a renewable energy source up to a certain level (depending on the production capability of a certain ecosystem or a country/region). This level, from my point of view, is determined by the fact that there are other resources that may be limiting the production of biomass (land, water and other resources that might be limited). Also in many cases plants that have a high biomass production most of the time require a soil that is rich in nutritious substances. In some cases there have been situations in witch production of biomass was opted for in the detriment of the long term development (if after the production of biomass one is left with a soil that is low in nutrients or has a PH that limits its usage and requires treatments in order to reuse it).
In my research I had a few articles written on this topic or similar ones that I thing might be good for literature reviews - in order to get a general idea of the things I tried to underline above:
Article Intellectual Capital a Strategic Factor of Socio-Economic De...
Article Clusters: Innovation, Knowledge And Competitiveness In The W...
Article Smart Specialization a Possible Solution to the New Global Challenges
Article Network Intelligence Studies Volume I, Issue 2, 2013 ECO-INN...
Article Social Cost of Carbon: Opportunities and Environmental Solutions
Article Enegy Forestry A Source Of Energy For The Romanian Economy
Article The Wood Processing Industry and Furniture Industry in Roman...
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.200.783&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40627.pdf
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/power-generation-from-renewable-energies-2016.pdf
http://sparknorthwest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Biomass_Energy_OP.pdf
Dr. Towe, sorry but I didn't understand your arguments. Please, consider the ethanol from sugarcane production and use, replacing fossil gasoline and emitting, according EPA about 80% less carbon, in the whole Life Cycle basis, to produce the same useful final work. If considered the use of bagasse to produce electricity we have an additional effect, resulting an negative carbon emission, or an substitution effect greater then the original fossil emission.
Wet tropical countries have been producing sugarcane in the same rain feed lands and using the same amount of inputs for many decades and in some cases for centuries. Observe that besides a carbon sequestration effect, when atmospheric carbon is stored in vegetable material, bioenergy has a substitution effect, quite more relevant, depending of course on the efficiency of production and use. In your opinion, sugarcane is a rational source of bioenergy?
Thanks. Definitively I have a very different perspective. If we develop rational and efficient bioenergy and other sources of renewable energy, we can avoid to burn fossil carbon and so, mitigate the main source of GHG emission, reducing expressively the build up of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. My concern is not reduce atmospheric CO2, but at least reduce sustainably its worrying increase. I do agree that CCS is unfeasible, the carbon storage in biomass plantation is a second order effect. Have a nice Christmas.
Dear Towe,
I believe that we are developing a useful discussion, as proposed by Galileu: only to clarify the truth. Definitely I agree, it is very difficult to reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide, but we must as soon as possible reduce the build up of GHG to mitigate climate change and unexpected socioeconomic consequences. To believe in climate change risk, I think that we don't need sophisticated forecasting models, it is enough to observe empirically the snow caps retraction in many mountains, the reduction of polar ice and the global temperature elevation during the last decades, when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased from 315 ppm in 1959 to 404 ppm in 2015.
In this context, modern bioenergy, definitively has a role to play. Based on solar energy, it is able to supply liquid biofuel and bioelectricity with a total energy value about 10 times greater the fossil fuel consumed in feedtock production and processing, which means a 90% net energy gain, leveraged by the Sun. This is the typical performance of the current Latin American sugarcane agroindustry, in many mills better results have been achieved,
In the sugarcane ethanol, for each MJ of gasoline displaced by a MJ of ethanol, an additional amount of bioelectricity is generated, proportioning an additional saving of fossil fuel (used in power plants) and so, an additional GHG mitigation, also called co-product credit. In few words, when produced efficiently, bioenergy contribute significantly to reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide build up. This subject is extensively discussed in the Special Report of the IPCC on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN).
Dear Professor Towe,
It seems that you are moving our focus. I mentioned the climate change symptoms just to argue that I personally do not need sophisticated climate models to believe that the planet is warming. I have observing enoug convincing changes and the thick IPCC reports are full of consistent data and assessment.
My original point is that sustainable modern bioenergy, as we can do in wet tropical countries, produce cost competitive energy vectors (liquid fuels and electricity), generating income and social benefits, and with a small carbon footprint, representing a really sound option to improve the global energy matrix.
Thus, bioenergy must be taken and evaluated more seriously, instead of receive superficial analysis. For instance, in a recent work, Tim Searchinger from Princeton Environmental Institute criticized bioenergy based on the low efficiency of photosynthesis when compared with solar cells, ignoring that the first one is evaluated along several months of a productive cycle, while solar cells efficiency is measured during some minutes at noon and clear sky, without include the need of batteries, and other relevant aspects. I mention this flawed perspective to stress the need of equilibrated and open-minded consideration of the bioenergy potential for our future.
Best, Luiz
Dear Prof. Luiz. Thank you so much for your enrichment ideas about bioenergy and more specifically on the bioethanol sector in "wet tropical countries".
Pursuing the main focus of this discussion, what do you think about the role of "controlled open burning" for harvesting sugarcane crops on the carbon footprint of bioethanol?
I was noticed that Sao Paulo, for 2017, prohibited this practice in order to have a more sustainable bioethanol, besides to decrease the negative impact on the air quality and the health of those who live in the sugarcane regions.
Thank you in advance for your clarifying ideas on this topic.
Dear Juan Daniel and colleagues,
Thanks for your good question. In fact, the pre-harvest sugarcane straw burning is a practice largely adopted in many countries, due the benefits in productivity in the harvesting operations. However, the harmful carbon particles polluted the neighbour households and towns and about one third of lignocellulosic material is lost. Thus, as you mentioned, In Brazil since the last decade the pre-harvest burning has been progressively eliminated, replaced by the so-called green cane harvest, associated to adoption of mechanical harvesting.
In the papers bellow the main questions associated with the introduction of green harvest of cane were addressed. I hope that they will be useful for you and stimulate new questions.
1. R S Capaz, 2012. Impact of mechanization and previous burning reduction on GHG emissions of sugarcane harvesting operations in Brazil, in Applied Energy.
2. M Galdos and other, 2017. Trends in global warming and human health impacts related to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production considering black carbon emissions, in Applied Energy.
3. T F Cardoso and other, 2017.Economic, environmental, and social impacts of different sugarcane production systems, in Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining.
Best regards.
Luiz Horta
Natural Gas is expected to lead energy transition while biomass is still in the mix with 10%...
I agree with you Kenneth concerning permanent sequestration of CO2 but just note that: may be most of the tree leaves die in autumn every year but not the tree itself which lives 40 years to 1500 years (oak trees) and even to 2000 years (olive tree).....and the record: 4600 years for a pin tree in California.
In the end humans think that they can reverse the climate change dynamics in a short time with a finger snap...we know that planting is not easy and needs time (and water) ...it s a waste of energy and the absorbed CO2 is unsignificant but at the end a tree is so beautifull that we must continue to plant trees.
What do you think of this report from the international edition of the Guardian?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/12/uk-must-move-now-on-carbon-capture-to-save-consumers-billions-says-report
UK must move now on carbon capture to save consumers billions:
The UK must immediately kickstart an industry to capture and bury carbon emissions in order to save consumers billions a year from the cost of meeting climate change targets, according to a high-level advisory group appointed by ministers.
This requires the setting up of a new state-backed company to create the network needed to pipe the emissions into exhausted oil and gas fields under the North Sea, the group said.
A CCS industry could also provide thousands of jobs, particularly in industrial heartlands such as Teesside and Grangemouth, and help reverse the fortunes of the declining North Sea fossil fuel industry. It could even tackle the major problem of cutting emissions from gas boilers, by enabling clean-burning hydrogen to be pumped into the grid.
Failing to deliver CCS would hugely increase the cost of tackling climate change, according to the government’s official climate advisors, the National Audit Officeand the UN’s climate science panel.
I fully disagree. Hardly CCS makes sense, to separate CO2 from flue gas and compress it cost a lot of energy. This is relatively easy to show using Thermodynamics and there are many options quite better than CCS. A good advise is: do not lose your time and your money with CCS.
I am Happy that Luiz and Kenneth share the same point of view with regard to CCS and I agree with them...Of course we have to hurry to find another solution to burry all these GWGs....
@ Kenneth ... is Biomass a Sustainable source of energy?" Even if it is, with a growing number of people to sustain?, it doesn't lower atmospheric CO2 and will add to it as the world tries to reach zero carbon emissions...in a hundred years or so.
Do you see Zero Carbon emissions in hundred years possible. Even if it is then talking in context of GHG emissions/global warming/climate change....the CH4, N2O and other green house gases still might be there. So would lowering only CO2 make sense?
@ Kamal.... MOXIE, involves using the abundant carbon dioxide gas found on Martian atmosphere and turning it into oxygen. The oxygen could then be harnessed and made available for breathing and also to make rocket fuel for return flights to Earth.
Was wondering what would be the emissions of bringing the O2 from Mars to Earth?...a LCA on this would be interesting :)
Anju, MOXIE project is a great idea for in situ O2 production for future Marsian Missions ..but bringing Mars O2 or CO2 to Earth ???...is not a good idea...We can reduce our GWGs emissions but reducing all this CO2 already in atmoshere is another story...
Thanks for the explanation kamal. I agree.....It would not be the best idea to bring more CO2 back to earth...and sustainability on other planets is a thing of centuries to come.
Thanks Ken. Nice explanation.
The model does show a dip assuming coal phase out and ALT land use scenario by 2030. However, I agree with your analysis on how 'effective' the ALT scenario would be!
Let's come back to Biomass Renewable energy and sustainability through these links:
https://youtu.be/-jln6yi7LF0
https://youtu.be/nVl17JLn_u0
https://youtu.be/yHWcddUZ35s
https://youtu.be/l5oFK9BrYRY
https://youtu.be/iE2SjMXEFsw
all videos introduce Biomass sources. Does the reduction of 200 000 tons CO2 a year from a medium electricity plant makes Biomass a serious and sustainable solution for next generations particularly if cutting trees? compared to 400-350 ppm scenario with 100.000.000.000 tons CO2....Unless we find a fast sequestration solution (combined with fusion energy?) to reduce the CO2 concentration, ...We have to accept the reality, As stated by Kenneth in his answers " CCS technology makes no sense in the current zeal to lower CO2 back to 350 ppm....~100 GIGAtons. It would take several hundreds of years and cost GIGA dollars...and only get us back to the climate of 1987... seems crazy, especially when only solar and wind energy can be used"
It all depends on how the biomass is produced and only taking it into account we can discuss the questions - can it lead to a mitigation GHG emission, or is biofuel production really contributing to this and how effective is it?
It is stressed that many projects and Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) are based on using fertilizers for nutrition microalgae. According to the ISO/TS 14067, we estimated day input of including fertilizers with nitrogen content in the total emissions of the product full life cycle by expanding of LCA boundary. Calculation emission by the use of last U.S. NPEL design of microalgae to biofuel showed that only used fertilizers with nitrogen content for the day microalgae biomass production release CO2 emission 63.56 kgCO2e per kg of the produced microalgae biomass. This is more that impact of CCS by algae cultivation – 1.83 kgCO2e per kg of algal biomass, gasoline and diesel emissions by combustion in motor vehicles (gasoline is realized 2.29 kgCO2/L (E10 - 2.21 and E85 - 1.61 kgCO2/L ) and diesel - 2.66 kgCO2/L (B5 - 2.65 and B20 - 2.62 kgCO2/L)) as well as sum of crude oils extraction-to-refining (4 to 50 gCO2e/megajoule (MJ) (about half of the total EU plants has extraction-to-refining emission from 4 to 9 gCO2/MJ) and combustion in motor vehicle emissions of 73 gCO2e/MJ). It, on the one hand, proves that phototrophic growth of microalgae has no perspective for commercial production and, on the another hand, indicates that the cultivation of microalgae in photobioreactors can have only limited application as well known difficulties for the high energy consumption by the cleaning of both the internal and external wall for the use of alternative nutrition sources as wastewaters and relatively low shelf of installation. Analysis of the wastewaters (industrial (biotechnological, organic chemistry, fertilizers plants, food processing, etc.) municipal and agriculture) and solid waste such as food waste, etc. contents as sources of nutrients show that their microalgae bioremediation coupled with cost-effective biomass producing have a great unlimited potential which remains unused. Food waste use for microalgae cultivation can lead to GHG mitigation up to 3.3 GTCO2e/yr or 8 % of global emissions. In case of producing by 100 tones of microalgae biomass in concrete ponds, CO2 mitigation can reach 0.764 MtCO2. Microalgae have historically approved by the ability to fix CO2 and with efficiency at 10 - 50 times more compared to terrestrial plants but the UNEP ignored high carbon capture and storage (CCS) potential of algae.
The additional stressed issue is that in 2016, biofuel crops boost fertilizer industry and nitrogen fertilizer consumption intended to biofuels production in the U.S. - maize to ethanol – 2.2, Europe – rapeseed to biodiesel - 0.6, Brazil - sugarcane to ethanol - 0.3 and other countries – 0.4 million tones. It is well known that nitrogen fertilizers production originate high GHG emission at 3.6 tCO2e per ton of nitrogen content. In addition, it is recognized that potash (0.095 - 0.161 tCO2e per ton) and phosphate fertilizer plants create GHG emission. Therefore, it offered that first generation biofuel producers should seriously think about the use of feedstock yields originated by the use of organic agriculture approach.
Armen B Avagyan 2018. Algae to Energy and Sustainable Development. Technologies, Resources, Economics and System Analyses. New Design of Global Environmental Policy and Live Conserve Industry. Amazon, ISBN-13: 978-1718722552, ISBN-10: 1718722559 BISAC: Technology & Engineering/Environmental/Waste Management, 220p. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1718722559/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527001872&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ADr.+Armen+B+Avagyan
At second:
Nitrogen is played a key role in enhancing food production and keeping half of the world’s population sufficiently fed as the majority of plants cannot fix nitrogen from the air and it must be usually added as fertilizers (Basosi et al. 2014, Mica 2013). However, fertilization of soil average 20.8 liters of fossil fuels/acre/yr are needed and U.S. farm uses 3 kcal of fossil energy to produce 1 kcal of food energy as well as crops utilize only from 1/3 to 1/2 of the nitrogen fertilizer (Connelly 2011).
Armen B Avagyan 2018. Algae to Energy and Sustainable Development. Technologies, Resources, Economics and System Analyses. New Design of Global Environmental Policy and Live Conserve Industry. Amazon, ISBN-13: 978-1718722552, ISBN-10: 1718722559 BISAC: Technology & Engineering/Environmental/Waste Management, 220p. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1718722559/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527001872&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ADr.+Armen+B+Avagyan
Kenneth, you moved away from the topic of discussion:
A renewable resource is a natural resource which replenishes to overcome resource depletion caused by usage and consumption, either through biological reproduction or other naturally recurring processes in a finite amount of time in a human time scale. Renewable resources are a part of Earth's natural environment and the largest components of its ecosphere. A positive life cycle assessment is a key indicator of a resource's sustainability.[1]
Definitions of renewable resources may also include agricultural production, as in sustainable agriculture and to an extent water resources.[2] In 1962, Paul Alfred Weiss defined Renewable Resources as: "The total range of living organisms providing man with food, fibres, etc...".[3] Another type of renewable resources is renewable energy resources. Common sources of renewable energy include solar, geothermal and wind power, which are all categorised as renewable resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource
Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.[2] Renewable energy often provides energy in four important areas: electricity generation,air and water heating/cooling, transportation, and rural (off-grid) energy services.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
Kenneth, you know but did not give a complete picture of the transformation of oxygen and therefore your equation between the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide is wrong. The proportion of oxygen by volume in the atmosphere is 21 percent and by weight in seawater is 89 percent. In rocks, it is combined with metals and nonmetals in the form of oxides that are acidic (such as those of sulfur, carbon, aluminum, and phosphorus) or basic (such as those of calcium, magnesium, and iron) and as saltlike compounds that may be regarded as formed from the acidic and basic oxides, as sulfates, carbonates, silicates, aluminates, and phosphates. Plentiful as they are, these solid compounds are not useful as sources of oxygen, because separation of the element from its tight combinations with the metal atoms is too expensive. Yes,during respiration, animals and some bacteria take oxygen from the atmosphere and return to it carbon dioxide, whereas by photosynthesis, but green organisms assimilate carbon dioxide in the presence of sunlight through the use of external energy and evolve free oxygen. Almost all the free oxygen in the atmosphere is due to photosynthesis. So, photosynthesis process can change O2 and CO2 rate and that is CCS technology. Thus, all depends also on the amount and effectiveness of the activity of photosynthetic units and whether we will be able to reduce oxygen consumption through the use of renewables and atomic energy
Sometimes, I just ask myself: are renewable energy sources sustainable....Most of renewable sources rely on sun....but we know that the sun life is limited ( the sun was born roughly 4.6 billion years ago, and will continue for about another 4.5 – 5.5 billion years, when it will deplete its supply of hydrogen, helium, and collapse into a white dwarf. ) ...so when talking about renewable enrgy, CO2 mitigation....we must specify the time scale and thboundary conditions of the system we are considering....
In the Biological era, there was an accumulation of solar energy and chemicals in bioenergy that we now excessively use with increasing of GHG emissions. In the Biological era, this primary accumulation of bioenergy by algae was accompanied by an increase in the oxygen content in the primary photochemical reaction - this is your first formula, which cannot be called “photosynthesis,” and the storage of bioenergy was originated mainly in the form of organic compounds in dark biochemical reactions (Calvin cycle) that currently we are now redundantly using. As a result of the Biological era process, the oxygen content increased and CO2 decreased.
With the development of higher organisms, the system of energy accumulation shifted towards the more efficient accumulation of bioenergy in their biomass.
Algae have remained the most effective tool for the primary accumulation of bioenergy. Therefore, in my theory they are offered as a primary tool for the formation and storage of bioenergy.
Only a part of bioenergy is used in “respiration” - the bulk is storage by increasing the biomass of higher life forms. This is evidenced by the balance - there is an increase in the population of people, animals, etc. Therefore, for a new regulation of the CO2/O2 ratio, we need to ensure the correct balance of bioenergy accumulation and pollution reduction. There algae also have a major role. The inclusion of algae in Industrial cycles: cultivation using wastewater and solid waste contributes - 1) to improving the balance of CO2/O2 in photosynthesis, 2) through the utilization of organic and mineral compounds + solar energy - bioenergy is storage in their biomass and at the same time sources of emissions and pollution are eliminated. 3) Only in the use of their biomass for the production of biofuels, carbon returns to the atmosphere but with mitigation vehicle GHG emissions by 50 - 80 % compared to petroleum diesel. Do not change the meaning of biofuel. When we talk about its impact, the term "GHG emission reduction" should be used instead of CO2 sequestation.
The inclusion of algae biomass in Biological Cycles makes possible to ensure storage of the bioenergy including C in higher organisms and increasing in this biomass indicates that this process dominates over the “respiration”which originated CO2.
Repetition nonsenses of Kenneth). This is not geochemistry. These are the laws of biology, biophysics, thermodynamics, the kinetics of biological processes and the accumulation of biomass through reproduction. First you need to have knowledge in these sciences and then express your opinion. You better no go beyond the borders of geochemistry
Kenneth, I do not need in teaching by non-professionals). I am Laureate of "The International Presidents Award for Iconic Achievement" and "Top 100 Professionals" (Cambridge, England), "The Albert Einstein Award for Excellence"(Top 50 Geniuses of World, USA) , Marquis Who's Who 2017 and 2018 Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award (USA), etc, Academic Member of the ATHER Academia, Expert of the EU Horizon 2020, ERA.NET and International Cooperation (InCo) programs, Expert of the Council of Chemistry and Petrochemistry of the CIS countries, Member of the American Chemical Society (ACS), Society of Chemical Industry (US, SCI).
I'm only saying expert opinions that you do not understand due to the lack of professional knowledge in various fields of biology, but this is your problem). I just asked you no to express an opinion on issues that are beyond your competence and do not take offense at it. I have already suggested that you stop discussing with me because you are not operating the facts well. I can not repeat myself if you do not get elementary dependencies in biology
Thanks Kenneth for making the difference between Fossil Biomass and Modern Biomass (this is important for the reader with regard to the asked question). Now does it mean that fossil biomass has a neutral CO2 balance too?
Kenneth, I find someone who is knowledgeable enough to teach you to read with comprehension and use logic: Falkowski P, Scholes RJ, Boyle E, Canadell J, Canfield D, Elser J, Gruber N, Hibbard K, Högberg P, Linder S, Mackenzie FT, Moore B, Pedersen T, Rosenthal Y, Seitzinger S, Smetacek V, Steffen W 2000. The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. Science 290: 291-296. DOI: 10.1126/science.290.5490.291,
1. Avagyan AB 2018. Algae to Energy and Sustainable Development. Technologies, Resources, Economics and System analyses. New Design of Global Environmental Policy and Live Conserve Industry. Amazon, CreateSpace, ISBN-13: 978-1718722552, ISBN-10: 1718722559, e-book of Kindle Edition, ASIN: B07DFQBFFD
Dear Armen
This discussion forum is for sharing ideas and point of views...As a lecturer I am learning from your answers and questions about the carbon neutrality and the sustainability of Biomass. Kenneth has continuously given rational answers to the question...So please feel free to express your point of view on biomass carbon neutrality...
Regards
Kenneth, books are written so that even such non-professionals as you read them and not write nonsense. Since you did not read my book, I especially attach the text from this book, although as a paletologist you must have known these well-known truths.
Dear Armen,
Thanks for these informations. What's the relation between bmp2 and bmp1 ?
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy