4 ms·
By the way, I wonder why biomass is green while coal is not? I mean, in the end you burn organic materials? Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for
by guard-of-terra 14y ago
By the way, I wonder why biomass is green while coal is not? I mean, in the end you burn organic materials?
Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for that kind of money you could make like really nice coal plants.
- Avshalom 14y agoIf it is considered green by some it's probably because biomass doesn't result in things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagebau_Garzweiler_Panorama_2005.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagebau_Garzweiler_Panoram...
- guard-of-terra 14y agoWell, it might still result in refitting agricultural areas for biofuels, increased food prices and people starving.
- Loic 14y agoBiofuels is also destroying ecosystems because of the use of pesticides and fertilizers you a sharp decrease of the number of insects living in fields, decreasing the number of birds. In Germany, in 30 years, we had a 90% decrease of the number of "field birds". This is really worrying but at least, it is now a known fact and the EU agricultural subventions are going to shift to help prevent such issues. Still a long way to go...
- tomgallard 14y agoFor the same reason burning wood is green- as long as you are regrowing it. So - if you're burning timber from a forest which is sustainably managed (so you're renewing wood at the same rate you're using it), then there is no net carbon released.
- dijxtra 14y agoThat would be true if carbon dioxide was the only greenhouse gas. But it isn't. Burning biomass could be sustainable if we make sure that new biomass is grown at the same rate as it is burned. I have yet to see a document assuring me that is the case. In any case burning biofuel is not greenhouse gas neutral. And hence not green.
- tomgallard 14y agoWhat other greenhouse gases does burning biofuel create?
- dijxtra 14y agoSulphur and nitrogen oxides.
- plehoux 14y agoBecause biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing. Burning it won't add to the footprint. On the other hand, when you are burning coal, you released CO2 that was previously sequestered.
- huggyface 14y agoBecause biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing Add that biomass usually releases CH4 (methane) which is a considered a much more potent greenhouse gas. Even simply burning the methane to CO2 -- ignoring energy recapture -- is an environmentally beneficial action, which is why landfills sometimes have flares.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoBut you have to grow that biomass first. After you did that, you can let is decompose (bad) or burn it (less bad), but you could just skip growing it entirely.
- nosse 14y agoAnd you would get..? Nothing? So instead of forest and some energy you get just nothing.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoForest? It's not forest, it's an endless plain of monoculture - no insects, no birds, no ecosystem.
- plehoux 14y agoEnergy can be extracted from forestry waste, thus creating more value from logging activities.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
- gonvaled 14y agoPutting long-accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere does not look green to me (unless reaching the very-high levels of CO2 that were present several hundreds of millions of years ago can be defined as 'green') Biomass is green because it does not change the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere: it fixes it into wood first, to put it back later. The net effect is zero over the human timescale. Burning coal has also a net effect of zero, but over the Earth lifespan timescale, which is not very good for the current ecosystem (including us).
- rmc 14y agoBiomass is renewable. Depending on one's definition of 'green' it may or may not be green. However it is renewable (in a sensible time frame).
- coldarchon 14y agoBecause we don't understand to use CO2 as fertilizer. We could easily make our deserts green,we could easily have more fish in our oceans, but then we had more conflicts about the resources. And psshht, coal plants release much more nuclear material than nuclear plants ..