• 4 minutes 5 Tweets That Change The World?
  • 7 minutes Trump Tariffs NOT China's Biggest concern. Chinese Shadow Banking Bigger. What is Shadow Banking You Ask ?
  • 11 minutes Wonders of US Shale: US Shale Benefits: The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018
  • 15 minutes Glory to Hong Kong
  • 6 hours Trump will capitulate on the trade war
  • 11 hours China's Blueprint For Global Power
  • 3 hours The power of propaganda has no boundaries: Which country has larger territory US od China
  • 6 hours Support Held. Back in UGAZ
  • 10 hours Any difference btw Hunter Biden on BOD of Ukraine Company vs. Qatar bailout of Kushner Real Estate 666 Fifth Ave ?
  • 13 hours PETROLEUM for humanity 
  • 1 hour Iranian Oil Tanker struck by missiles off Jeddah
  • 4 hours Crazy Stories From Round The World
  • 11 hours ISIS Prisoners Escape Syria Camp After Turkish Shelling. Woohoo!
  • 14 hours How The US Quietly Lost The 1st Amendment
  • 15 hours Leftists crying to make oil patch illegal friendly: 'Broken system' starves U.S. oil boom of immigrant workers: CONGRESS DO YOUR JOBS INSTEAD OF PANDERING!
  • 8 hours China 2019 - Orwell was 35 years out
  • 10 hours Total SA In Expansion: $600 million For India's Adani Gas
Alt Text

Oil Prices Fall After Misleading Trade War Rumors

Oil prices fell significantly on…

Alt Text

The Biggest Problem For The Aramco IPO

While Saudi Arabia gears up…

MasterResource

MasterResource

MasterResource is a blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy.Precisely because energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy –…

More Info

Premium Content

Would Replacing Fossil Fuels with Biomass Reduce Co2 Emissions

One of the reasons governments have been pushing biomass burning is the notion that it would displace fossil fuels and thereby reduce CO2 emissions. Biomass is renewable and displaces fossil fuels. But would it reduce CO2 emissions?

Fossil Fuels: Ancient Storage

In Batteries from the Carboniferous, I noted that fossil fuels are Nature’s ancient method of storing solar and photosynthetic energy in the ground. Inadvertently, fossil fuels have served as a multimillion year old storage battery, which sat in the ground because no species had learned to use it efficiently until human beings figured out how in recent centuries.

Because using it releases a number of pollutants, however, fossil fuels are a somewhat imperfect battery.  These pollutants are: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, various hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (the latter two if combustion is less than 100% efficient). [Note: CO2 is not in my list of pollutants. It is the stuff of life, rather than a pollutant. You, dear reader, are 18% carbon, virtually all of which originates in CO2 in the atmosphere. Don’t try to go without carbon!]

An Analogy

In order to figure out whether burning biomass rather than fossil fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 emission, consider the following analogy.

Whether you pay your electricity bill out of your savings account (analogous to carbon in fossil fuels) or your checking account (analogous to carbon in newer biomass), your total wealth (checking + savings, analogous to total carbon in fossil fuels and newer biomass) is the same assuming the bill is paid out with equal efficiency, i.e., all fees are equal, whichever account you use.

From the electrical company’s point of view, its revenues are also the same.

Although paying it from your checking account makes your savings account larger, you are no better or worse off, on net. So, it makes no difference which account you use, either to your net wealth or the electrical company.

What will make a difference is being able to decrease your electricity bill or increasing the amount you bring in to your checking account. But if the total bill is the same, it makes no difference which account you use.

Similarly, what carbon is no longer tied up in fossil fuels and in newer biomass ends up in the atmosphere (minus what is dissolved in the oceans and re-used in photosynthesis). Thus, it makes little or no difference to the atmosphere whether one uses new biomass or old biomass (aka fossil fuels).

That using biomass is any more sustainable than using coal, for instance, is based on compartmentalization (between checking and savings accounts). What is more “sustainable” (or “sustainable” for a longer time) — note the quotes, I use the word advisedly, but that’s another story — is either to reduce the use of energy or to generate biomass more rapidly (without displacing something else that would generate equal or more biomass).

Finally, note that for the combustion phase, it is possible to burn fossil fuels more efficiently than biomass. Hence, the former ought to reduce CO2 emissions overall. But a more sophisticated analysis ought to consider life-cycle consequences (including CO2 released in extraction, preparation, transportation, etc., of the two forms of biomass).

Conclusion

Biomass may be renewable, politically correct, and fossil-fuel displacing. But it is unlikely to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations much, if at all.

By. Indur Goklany

This article was provided by MasterResource




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage



Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play