3 ms·

Personally I imagine biomass/fuel could be a very attractive option if executed properly (sustainably and locally sourced): * Where you grow the biomass you co

Personally I imagine biomass/fuel could be a very attractive option if executed properly (sustainably and locally sourced): * Where you grow the biomass you could create somewhat biodiverse piece of nature * Storage of biomass is cheap * Knowledge and machinery from regular fossil fuels can be (partially) reused * No waste that will need to be looked after for 1000s of years in fear of leakage/terrorism Unfortunately biomass seems to be looked at similarly as nuclear; just because it could be executed poorly the whole idea is written off..

pfdietz 6y ago
Biomass's effective power/area is too low.
dredmorbius 6y ago
That was an initial thought of mine about a decade ago. The energy densities don't work out. At present rates of per-capita energy consumption, population, and rates of plant growth, there is either not enough primary productivity, or too large an environmental impact. Humans simply use immense amounts of energy. Other sources, lower per-capita usage, and/or fewer people, are the options. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/tag/biofuels/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/tag/biofuels/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026391317686 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A102639131768... https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intractable_problem_of_biomass_for_fuels_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_int... https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wo2hl/boeings_biofuel_breakthrough_less_than/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wo2hl/boeings...
- this_was_posted 6y ago
  Thank you for providing these links backing your claim, so far I haven't been able to disprove the numbers that have been used. I still feel like it could be made competitive somehow, I'll get back to shouting that biofuel is an option when I've found out how :)
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    I strongly recommend Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History and Energy and Civilization (along with many other books on resources). The "Burning Buried Sunshine" paper (Springer link above)describes human energy use relative to net primary production. As of the late 1990s humans wwere accounting for (using directly or indirectly) 20% of all net primary production, with other energy use roughly doubling that. Whether or not remaining biological systems could survive on just 60% of plant life is a possibility, though the impacts would likely be large. Further growth in human energy consumption would obviously be limited. I'd come across that independently, Smil also cites it.

pfdietz 6y ago

Biomass's effective power/area is too low.

dredmorbius 6y ago

That was an initial thought of mine about a decade ago. The energy densities don't work out. At present rates of per-capita energy consumption, population, and rates of plant growth, there is either not enough primary productivity, or too large an environmental impact. Humans simply use immense amounts of energy. Other sources, lower per-capita usage, and/or fewer people, are the options. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/tag/biofuels/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/tag/biofuels/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026391317686 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A102639131768... https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intractable_problem_of_biomass_for_fuels_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_int... https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wo2hl/boeings_biofuel_breakthrough_less_than/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1wo2hl/boeings...

this_was_posted 6y ago
Thank you for providing these links backing your claim, so far I haven't been able to disprove the numbers that have been used. I still feel like it could be made competitive somehow, I'll get back to shouting that biofuel is an option when I've found out how :)
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  I strongly recommend Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History and Energy and Civilization (along with many other books on resources). The "Burning Buried Sunshine" paper (Springer link above)describes human energy use relative to net primary production. As of the late 1990s humans wwere accounting for (using directly or indirectly) 20% of all net primary production, with other energy use roughly doubling that. Whether or not remaining biological systems could survive on just 60% of plant life is a possibility, though the impacts would likely be large. Further growth in human energy consumption would obviously be limited. I'd come across that independently, Smil also cites it.