|
|
|
|
|
|
by tablespoon
1516 days ago
|
|
|
> Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas. And won't they decay, releasing the CO2, anyway? IIRC, I think I heard decay referred to as "slow fire." The only bad aspect of biomass fuel that I can think of is that people might be tempted to cut down established forests to get it. |
|
|
Let's not forget the simple logistical difficulty of using biomass. It is not as energy dense, which makes moving its own weight around more expensive too.
"The net energy ratio between energy output and input was 10.41.. Energy used for hauling hog fuel represented the largest part (36.27%) of the total energy input. The net energy ratio decreased 0.11 with each additional transportation mile
the net energy ratios reported here were on the high end of this range as energy input for possible active drying, storage, and final delivery was not included. " [0]
"The energy content was taken at 137,000 BTUs per gallon for diesel, and 125,000 BTUs per gallon for gasoline (Adams 1983)...
output: the mean HHV ranged from 8,946 to 9,105 BTUs/pound " [0]
A gallon weighs about 6 pounds, so it seems like pound-for-pound (pine-tree) biomass is less than half as productive as gasoline.*
Honestly, I was expecting worse. But over doubling energy costs isn't negligible, especially for poorer countries.
*this is at a glance work, not an actual deep dive
[0] Net energy output from harvesting small-diameter trees using a mechanized system Fei Pan Han-Sup Han Leonard R. Johnson
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL VOL. 58, NO. 1/2 William J. Elliot