Industrial wind turbines and solar panels get the lion’s share of attention as “green” alternatives to fossil fuels. But biomass is in the mix, and like the other two, it presents stark tradeoffs that complicate government and NGO efforts to move the world off carbon-based energies. It is not easy being green, especially with a renewable that emits both carbon dioxide and significant pollutants.
Biomass power plants use wood and wood products, trees and forestry residues, as well as mill residues such as bark and sawdust, in place of fossil fuels. Advocates hope to create a sustainable cycle of harvesting, burning, and replanting in a way that adds no net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, growing new trees to remove the carbon added to the atmosphere by burning mature ones. Burning fossil fuels, by contrast, takes carbon that has long been sequestered and adds it to the atmosphere.
At first glance, the use of biomass appears to be a plausible solution to reducing carbon emissions. Serious opposition has arisen, however, after whole forests were clearcut to provide wood pellets to fuel biomass plants in the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The debate is even more significant because the United States, the UK, and the EU are subsidizing biomass power plants to the tune of billions of dollars every year. In the U.S., the federal government is spending about $13 billion annually through tax preferences and special programs administered by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other agencies. And across the pond, as Mary S. Booth with the Partnership for Policy Integrity observes:
Bioenergy operators in the European Union receive more than 16 billion euros in renewable energy subsidies annually…, and power plants burning biomass large enough to be subject to the EU’s carbon trading regulations avoid upwards of 5 billion euros (approximately $5.5 billion in US dollars) in carbon fees annually that they would have had to pay if biomass were not treated as having zero emissions.
An Ongoing Debate
Booth’s article is part of a biomass energy debate hosted by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and published in the May 2022 issue of its digital magazine. Papers arguing against biomass power make the following points:
- Burning wood produces more CO2 emissions per unit of energy than does burning natural gas, fuel oil, or even coal.
- Burning wood produces more pollution per unit of energy than does burning fossil fuels.
- Cutting down trees for fuel eliminates carbon sinks now with the promise – a promise that may or may not be honored – of replacing them sometime in the future.
- Newly planted trees will remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but only decades down the road.
- Cutting down forests leads to soil disturbance that releases carbon currently sequestered in the ground, carbon that significantly exceeds that contained in the trees themselves.
- Cutting down forests eliminates habitat.
- Cutting down forests and replanting them with tree “crops” reduces biodiversity, which lowers forests’ resistance to disease and insects.
The papers arguing for biomass claim that it can be done sustainably, but only if done right by:
- Burning wood instead of lignite – the dirtiest and least energy dense of the fossil fuels.
- Burning wood byproducts that would otherwise go to waste instead of clearcutting forests and turning them into wood pellets.
Raymond Pierrehumbert, the author of one of the pro-biomass papers, admits that neither the UK nor Europe are doing it right. On the other hand, he dismisses the criticism that biomass is predicated on producing CO2 now in exchange for sequestration later:
The New Yorker article naively views carbon emissions from biomass burning as a “giant loophole” in climate protection protocols, dismissing the regenerative possibilities on the grounds that it will take decades for forest regrowth to recoup the emitted carbon—but a few decades’ delay is in reality not a serious issue in comparison to the nearly irreversible climate disruption caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
But CO2 is CO2 whether it is produced by burning wood or burning coal, and neither is any more “irreversible” than the other. Further, burning coal and planting trees are not mutually exclusive activities. We have the following options:
|Burn Wood and Plant Trees
|Burn Fossil Fuels and Plant Trees
|More CO2 emissions
|Fewer CO2 emissions
|Immediate loss of forests and with them carbon sinks, habitat, and biodiversity
|No impact on existing trees, on carbon sequestered in the soil, on existing habitat, or on current biodiversity
|Plant new trees, sequestering carbon over time
|Plant new trees, sequestering carbon over time
The second set of options is ignored or dismissed by biomass advocates. They argue that fossil fuels represent permanently sequestered carbon. While trees also represent sequestered carbon, they are not permanent carbon sinks. Eventually, they will return their carbon to the atmosphere because of forest fires or through decay. Burning fossil fuels, then, adds “new” carbon to the mix, while burning trees does not.
This argument overlooks the fact that trees can be harvested and used for things other than firewood. Homes, furniture, books, and paper products are relatively permanent carbon sinks. Also, biomass power frontloads the carbon hit. Carbon sinks are lost immediately and carbon emissions over and above what would have been produced had fossil fuels been burned instead are produced immediately. If the IPCC’s climate scientists are correct, carbon must be sequestered now, and carbon emissions must be reduced now.
Finally, even their advocates see biomass powerplants as only stopgaps – alternatives to be used just until better solutions are available. But this stopgap comes with an upfront, long-term cost that is higher than using fossil fuels until the better solutions are available. Moreover, once cemented in place with government subsidies, biomass will be as hard to eradicate as corn-based ethanol has proven to be despite its continuing environmental damage.
The UK and the EU have created a new special-interest group that has a vested interest in keeping subsidies flowing and favorable regulations in place. As Kevin D. Williamson once observed, when government does stupid, it does immortally stupid.
Instead of subsidizing biomass plants and exempting them from carbon taxes, the UK and EU should consider creating a level playing field by eliminating all energy subsidies – both monetary and regulatory – as a first step toward fundamental policy reform.
In the U.S., programs such as Biomass Crop Assistance Program, Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, Rural Energy for America, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biomass Research & Development Initiative, and Community Wood Energy & Wood Innovation Program are candidates for cutbacks or elimination.
Level field, no favor is a pro-consumer, taxpayer-neutral approach to energy policy. Voluntary transactions between consenting adults within a rule-of-law framework can be expected to arrive at efficient solutions.
Viwanda vya upepo na paneli za jua hupata sehemu kubwa ya tahadhari kama mbadala wa "kijani kibichi" kwa mafuta ya mafuta. Biomass ni moja ya njia za kuimarisha nishati ya kaboni, na kama ilivyo kwa zingine mbili, inatoa biashara kali ambazo zinafanya juhudi za serikali na NGOs kusonga ulimwengu mbali na nishati ya kaboni. Si rahisi kuwa kijani, hasa na nishati mbadala ambayo hutoa dioksidi kaboni na uchafuzi mkubwa. Biomass mitambo ya umeme kutumia mbao na bidhaa za mbao, miti na misitu mabaki, kama vile vifusi mill mabaki kama vile bark na sawdust, badala ya mafuta ya mafuta. Wanasayansi wana matumaini ya kuunda mzunguko endelevu wa kuvuna, kuchoma, na kupanda tena kwa njia ambayo haiongezi uzalishaji wa kaboni dioksidi katika anga, kukua miti mpya ili kuondoa kaboni iliyoongezwa katika anga kwa kuchoma zile zilizokomaa. Kwa kulinganisha, kuchoma mafuta ya visukuku huchukua kaboni ambayo imefungwa kwa muda mrefu na kuiongeza angahewa. Kwa mtazamo wa kwanza, matumizi ya biomass inaonekana kuwa suluhisho la kuaminika la kupunguza uzalishaji wa kaboni. Hata hivyo, upinzani mkubwa umejitokeza baada ya misitu yote kukatwa ili kutoa pellets za mbao kwa ajili ya mitambo ya nishati ya biomass nchini Uingereza na Umoja wa Ulaya. Mjadala huo ni muhimu zaidi kwa sababu Marekani, Uingereza na Umoja wa Ulaya zinasaidia viwanda vya umeme vya biomass kwa kiasi cha mabilioni ya dola kila mwaka. Serikali ya Marekani hutumia dola bilioni 13 kila mwaka kwa njia ya mapendeleo ya kodi na mipango maalum inayosimamiwa na Idara ya Nishati ya Marekani, Idara ya Kilimo ya Marekani na mashirika mengine. "Kama Mary S. Booth, Mkurugenzi wa Ushirikiano wa Uadilifu wa Sera, anavyoona, ""Wajenzi wa Bioenergy katika Umoja wa Ulaya hupokea zaidi ya € 16 bilioni katika ruzuku ya nishati mbadala kila mwaka, na mitambo ya umeme inayowaka biomass kubwa ya kutosha kuwa chini ya kanuni za biashara ya kaboni ya EU hupuuza zaidi ya € 5 bilioni kwa ada ya kaboni kila mwaka ambayo ingekuwa lazima ilipe ikiwa biomass haingekuwa na uzalishaji wa sifuri.""" Makala ya Booth ni sehemu ya mjadala wa nishati ya biomass ulioandaliwa na Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, na kuchapishwa katika toleo la Mei 2022 la jarida lake la dijiti. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya kwanza ya jarida la Biological Biology, ""kuchoma kuni hutokeza uzalishaji wa CO2 zaidi kwa kila kitengo cha nishati kuliko kuchoma gesi ya asili, mafuta ya mafuta, au hata makaa ya mawe.""" - Kuungua mbao hutokeza uchafuzi mwingi kwa kila kitengo cha nishati kuliko kuchoma mafuta ya visukuku. - Kukata miti kwa ajili ya mafuta huondoa sinks kaboni sasa na ahadi <unk> ahadi ambayo inaweza au haiwezi kuheshimiwa <unk> ya kuchukua nafasi yao wakati fulani katika siku zijazo. Miti mpya itasafisha CO2 kutoka angahewa, lakini tu miongo kadhaa chini ya barabara. - Kukata misitu husababisha usumbufu wa udongo ambao hutolewa kaboni ambayo kwa sasa imefungwa katika ardhi, kaboni ambayo inazidi sana ile iliyo ndani ya miti yenyewe. - Kukata misitu huondoa makao ya wanyama. - Kukata misitu na kuipanda tena kwa miti <unk> mazao <unk> hupunguza utofauti wa kibiolojia, ambayo hupunguza misitu <unk> upinzani kwa magonjwa na wadudu. Karatasi zinazopinga biomass zinadai kwamba inaweza kufanywa kwa njia endelevu, lakini tu ikiwa inafanywa vizuri kwa: - Kuungua mbao badala ya lignite <unk> uchafu zaidi na chini ya nishati ya mafuta ya mafuta. - Kuungua bidhaa za mbao ambazo vinginevyo zingeharibiwa badala ya kukata misitu na kuigeuza kuwa pellets za mbao. Raymond Pierre-Humber, mwandishi wa jarida la Biomass, alisema kuwa nchi hizo mbili hazina uwezo wa kuimarisha uchumi wa nchi hiyo. "Kwa upande mwingine, yeye anakataa ukosoaji kwamba biomass ni predicated juu ya kuzalisha CO2 sasa kwa kubadilishana kwa sequestration baadaye: ""New Yorker makala naively inaona uzalishaji wa kaboni kutoka biomass kuchoma kama ""gigant loophole"" katika itifaki za ulinzi wa hali ya hewa, kukataa uwezekano wa regenerative kwa misingi kwamba itachukua miongo kwa misitu kukua tena ili kuokoa kaboni iliyotolewa, lakini miongo michache ""ni kweli si suala kubwa ikilinganishwa na karibu irreversible mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa." CO2 ni CO2 kama ni zinazozalishwa na kuchoma kuni au kuchoma makaa ya mawe, na hakuna zaidi ya irreversible kuliko nyingine. Isitoshe, kuchoma makaa ya mawe na kupanda miti si shughuli zinazopingana. """Tuna chaguzi zifuatazo: kuchoma miti na mimea, kuchoma mafuta ya makaa ya mawe na mimea ya miti, uzalishaji wa CO2 zaidi, uzalishaji wa CO2 mdogo, hasara ya haraka ya misitu na pamoja nao sinks za kaboni, mazingira, na bioanuwai, hakuna athari kwa miti iliyopo, kwa kaboni iliyohifadhiwa katika udongo, kwa mazingira yaliyopo, au kwa bioanuwai ya sasa, kupanda miti mpya, kuhifadhi kaboni kwa muda." Wanasema kwamba mafuta ya visukuku huwakilisha kaboni iliyofichwa milele. Ingawa miti pia huwakilisha kaboni iliyofichwa, si mifereji ya kudumu ya kaboni. Hatimaye, zitarudisha kaboni yao angani kwa sababu ya moto wa misitu au kwa kuharibika. Kwa hiyo, kuchoma mafuta huongeza kaboni "mpya" katika mchanganyiko huo, ilhali kuchoma miti hakuhusishi. Hoja hii hupuuza ukweli kwamba miti inaweza kuvunwa na kutumiwa kwa ajili ya mambo mengine mbali na kuni. Nyumba, fanicha, vitabu, na bidhaa za karatasi ni vyanzo vya kudumu vya kaboni. Pia, nishati ya biomass inazidisha kiwango cha kaboni. "Kupoteza kwa mabwawa ya kaboni ni mara moja na uzalishaji wa kaboni zaidi ya kile ambacho kingetengenezwa ikiwa mafuta ya mafuta yangeteketezwa badala yake hutengenezwa mara moja. """ Kwa hivyo, ikiwa wanasayansi wa hali ya hewa wa IPCC wanakosea, basi kaboni lazima iondolewe sasa na uzalishaji wa kaboni lazima upunguzwe sasa. Mwishowe, hata watetezi wao huona mitambo ya umeme ya biomass kama njia za ziada tu za kutumiwa hadi suluhisho bora zitakapopatikana. Lakini hii stopgap inakuja na gharama ya awali, ya muda mrefu ambayo ni ya juu kuliko kutumia mafuta ya mafuta hadi suluhisho bora zinapatikana. Kwa kuongezea, mara tu imefungwa mahali pake na ruzuku ya serikali, biomass itakuwa ngumu kuondoa kama ethanol ya mahindi imethibitishwa kuwa licha ya uharibifu wake wa mazingira unaoendelea. Uingereza na Umoja wa Ulaya zimeunda kundi jipya la maslahi maalum ambalo lina maslahi ya kuweka ruzuku ikitiririka na kanuni nzuri mahali. "Kama vile Kevin D. Williamson alivyosema, ""wakati serikali inafanya mambo ya kipumbavu, inafanya mambo ya kipumbavu sana.""" Badala ya kuunga mkono viwanda vya biomass na kuwakomboa kutoka kwa ushuru wa kaboni, Uingereza na EU inapaswa kuzingatia kuunda uwanja wa kucheza sawa kwa kuondoa ruzuku zote za nishati - zote za fedha na za udhibiti - kama hatua ya kwanza kuelekea mageuzi ya msingi ya sera. Programu za Biomass Crop Assistance Program, Biomass Energy Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biomass Energy Innovation Program, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Energy for America, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance Program, Biorefinery Assistance, Biorefinery Assistance, Biorefinery Assistance, Biorefinery Assistance, Biorefinery Assistance. ngazi ya uwanja, hakuna neema ni pro-matumizi, mtoa kodi-neutral mbinu ya sera ya nishati. Mabadiliko ya hiari kati ya watu wazima wanaokubaliana ndani ya mfumo wa utawala wa sheria yanaweza kutarajiwa kufikia suluhisho bora.