[djsumdog]

I feel like this might go the other direction once the lockdowns end and once people realize a huge chunk of their "green" energy labeled as biomass is actually just burning down trees.

Even if you use the fast growing forests used for paper in places like Oregon, there is still petroleum used in planting, cutting and fertilizing biofuel forests. In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly.

Baring some massive breakthrough in fusion, society as a whole needs to consume less energy, purchase less stuff and make durable goods that last a lot longer (a cellphone should last 8 years, not 3). Mass consumption is going to kill our environment a lot faster than energy consumption or CO2 emissions. CO2 pales in comparison to the ecological devastation in Chinese factory cities, the large amount of plastic particulates/trash in our oceans and completely unsustainable economic doctrine of infinite growth.

[supernova87a]

The end of your comment makes some sense. The beginning is a puzzle. Who's using biomass? It's <1.5% of energy generation in the US -- you're pretty special and living in an unusual place if you get any substantial energy from that source.

[jeffreyrogers]

Biomass is over 40% of Europe's "renewable" energy.

Edit: see this for numbers: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/ren...

[irrational]

So, yes, "you're pretty special and living in an unusual place"

[jeffreyrogers]

It's over 10% of renewables in the US. So not that unusual.

[irrational]

I was referring to Europe. Right now Europe looks like a paradise compared to the US.

[afandian]

Up to 5% of car fuel in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Transport_Fuel_Oblig...

[eloff]

Biofuel is a small industry. But the big difference is it's carbon neutral because the carbon released into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere.

Oil is releasing carbon from prehistoric atmospheres.

[andi999]

Actually it is tax neutral, not carbon neutral. The kicker here is (i cant find the source anymore) at least in Germany agriculture is energy intensive. It seems one energy unit of crop need one energie unit of (tax excempted) fossil fuel (for the machineries).

So basically you are pumping fuel into a black box, and out comes bioful (which has tax breaks as well, if I remember correctly)

It is a left picket right pocket game.

[eloff]

That's true, one must also account for the carbon footprint of the inputs. Of course oil extraction and refining also has a carbon footprint.

It's a problem that could be solved over time if using green energy for the agriculture.

[ogre_codes]

> CO2 pales in comparison to the ecological devastation in Chinese factory cities, the large amount of plastic particulates/trash in our oceans and completely unsustainable economic doctrine of infinite growth.

No... not remotely. While these things you mention are a big threat, and truly terrible disasters themselves, they pale in comparison to the planet changing disaster that is Climate Change.

[marcosdumay]

> a huge chunk of their "green" energy labeled as biomass is actually just burning down trees.

Nearly all it comes from some variety of grass. Be it corn, sugar cane or some foraging grass. Trees are way too inefficient to be practical.

[gerbal]

> In many ways, it's even worse for the environment than just burning the oil directly.

This seems like a testable claim. Is there research about this subject that could confirm or debunk this claim?

[vkou]

Only napkin math. The typical sources of climate change denial don't see biomass as a threat (Because it is tiny, growing slowly, and augments fossil fuels, not replaces them), so they don't fund any research to attack it.

The proponents of it probably know that its numbers don't look great, so they don't push for research that thoroughly audits it.

It's also difficult to thoroughly audit the carbon costs of a complex supply chain that has to move tens and hundreds of millions tonnes of lumber - when the costs greatly vary based on how the lumber was sourced.

[762236]

It can be tested in the other direction too: is there research that can confirm or debunk the opposite claim?

[_michaelll]

to confirm one is to debunk the other of course.

[babypuncher]

Biomass only makes up a small fraction of the energy economy. Wind and solar have much more promising futures.