In addition to what Jed points out, I would like to remind the nonfarmer
readers that a large fraction of biomass is returned to the soil,
without which productivity would drop. Once the value of this biomass
increases, to be converted to fuel, farmers would use less in the soil,
with predictable bad consequences. We don't want to give the greedy an
additional reason to mine the soil and reduce food production, with a
corresponding increase in cost. Everything has consequences. This is
one we don't need.
Ed
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
The tonnage of available future biomass is not clear - but it could be
as much as an order of magnitude greater than once thought at a fully
sustainable level.
Again let me point out that Pimentel and others show that the total
annual biomass production in North America amounts to half of our fossil
fuel consumption. Photosynthesis is only 0.1% efficient, and plants do
not grow in winter. Even under ideal circumstances I do not see how
biomass could supply more than a few percent of our total energy needs.
Of course it is a good idea to extract energy from leftover agricultural
products and garbage, and this should be done with maximum efficiency.
It has the additional benefit of reducing waste and pollution. So this
kind of research is important. But it resembles research to improve the
efficiency of things like refrigerators or computer power supplies: at
best, it only addresses a small part of the problem.
Liquid fuel is most useful for transportation. If plug-in hybrids
greatly reduce the need for liquid fuel, then perhaps biomass can supply
most of our needs. But my guess is that liquid or gas fuel synthesize
with solar energy or fission will be cheaper in the long run, and this
could easily be done on a scale large enough to replace all chemical fuel.
- Jed
