Your Questions About Biomass Energy Pros And Cons

admin answers:

It depends on what kind of biomass you are talking about. For a while, biofuel was just converting corn to ethanol, which in itself takes a lot of energy to produce. It also drove up the price of corn, posing the question: should we be driving up the price of a food staple for energy consumption? Also, it takes a lot of land and water to grow corn, which encourages deforestation.

Nowadays, a lot of biofuel options involve human and agricultural waste, or other types of biochemical waste that doesn’t involve using up our resources that we can eat. Reusing Methane as a biofuel is also being considered.

However, the problem is to use biofuel, a combustion still has to take place, converting hydrocarbons to CO2. This still produces greenhouse gases which isn’t entirely fixing the whole problem.

admin answers:

It has advantages of being a renewable energy source, unlike coal, oil, or natural gas, which will eventually run out (although over millions of more years, it will eventually be created in new places, but that isn’t exactly renewable).

On the other hand, biomass energy (which comes from burning organic matter) releases almost the exact same amount of carbon dioxide and methane as burning any fossil fuel, which would just increase the problem of greenhouse gas presumptively global warming.

Proponents of biomass energy insist that the carbon dioxide emitted during the combustion process would be absorbed back into the healthy ecosystem by simply planting new trees, crops, and other plants, which use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis. However, this may not actually be realistic, as the logging community has long been trying renewable logging, planting a tree for each tree they fell. The problem is that trees don’t grow quickly enough to be continually harvested. So the possibility of “scrubbing” the atmosphere of the new carbon dioxide gas might not be a realistic concept.

The methane is even worse, because there is no large-scale natural method for taking it out of the atmosphere. There are mechanisms to artificially remove it and store it (which doesn’t fix the problem, it just hides it), but if these machines were actually good enough to do the job, then we’d already be using it to take the current harmful methane out of the air.

admin answers:

To say that any of this is free is to misunderstand economics. The raw material, be it electromagnetic radiation, heat, kinetics, gravity, or chemical is readily available. The cost is in the effort to make it usable. In other words wind may be free, windmills are not.

Geothermal works only in places where there is hot magma near the surface. Iceland has made great use of geothermal power.

Solar is the most promising. Sun is readily available in much of the world (polar regions during their winter being the exception). Biggest drawback is that it isn’t available at night, however power usage surges during the day so it is most available when most needed. The cost is a bit prohibitive, but technology is slowly making solar power competitive. We will see the day where in more tropical latitudes every square inch of rooftop is covered in solar panels.

Wind is unsteady and usually the most available where it is least needed. The high plains have lots of wind potential, and not many people to consume it. This means long distance transmission, with its attendant costs.

Hydroelectric, most of the good rivers in the west already are dammed, though there is plenty of potential in the rest of the world. Tidal and ocean currents have great potential, but the cost and technical challenges are prohibitive.

Biomass, similar problems to coal and oil, puts carbon particulate matter into the air. Waste from crops or garbage is a good use of otherwise unused material, but when we go to corn or cane we are taking food supplies generally from the poorest and diverting it to energy generally for the richer world.

For all these ideas, coal and oil are going to be king for quite some time to come.

Actually the biggest source of untapped energy is in reducing usage, better insulation, telecommuting, smarter homes and appliances for instance.

admin answers:

A WISE combination of renewables (i.e. Clean, SAFE energy),
to include:
1). Mini wind turbines fitted onto / nearby buildings
(no metal blades to cut, for safety),
2). Corporation strength solar storage cells, (with magnifying mirrors / recollect light too), (also use lasers…)
3). Water wheels in mains water pipes, in rivers, along coasts etc.,
4).kinetic energy on moving vehicles – cars, planes, ships etc.,
5) + some human power (optional) EG excercise bikes that generate elec.

admin answers:

Crops for renewable energy are generally a bad idea. They appeal to those who think there must be a way of solving our energy and climate change problems without interfering with business as usual. As such they appeal to our politicians who would otherwise have to announce the end of economic growth. Naturally politicians fear that they would lose votes conveying such a message and they latch on to any alternative.

Why are energy crops a bad idea? Because they push up the cost of food and they encourage further deforestation. Increased food costs impact more on the poor and lead to social unrest and war which impacts on everybody. Deforestation adds to global warming which will also cause economic and social upheaval.

The only real solution to the energy crisis and global warming is to adopt simpler, less wasteful lifestyles and to generate energy from sustainable sources such as wind, wave, tide, geothermal, solar and hydro sources. The good news is that we can make a start individually. We will find simpler, less wasteful lifestyles more fun than trying to keep up with what the neighbours spend and we will demonstrate to governments that there are votes in adopting more sustainable policies instead of jumping from one crisis to another.

Best wishes

admin answers:

Biomass
+Renewable
+Can be used on small scales in local communities as well as large plants (methane extaction)
+simple biomass is cheap so can be used with very low income groups, and in developing countries as fuel (eg stoves powered on dried excriment….use your imagination there, sick, but it works for the poorest, ethenol from crops)
+can be found everywhere
+can come in different forms (methane, dried animal excriment, bio diesel from ethenol from crops etc)
+ biofuel can be used in cars, and is already being done in brazil or mexico i believe, with western countries following suite
- to harvest in large quantaties will be very time consuming for things like methane
- crops for ethanol may be seen as wasted on fuel rather than food, a concern where famine is a problem
- it still releases carbon
- in third world countries, access to large plants requires alot of money
- small plants or individual use in third world countries, especially handling faeces poses a potential health hazard, as they are unlikely to be able to afford protective equipment
Hydropower (dams)
+renewable
+0 emissons
+can produce large amounts of electricity
+as there is almost always no problem of lack of water running through, there the dams power output is not dependant on everchanging scenarios (like drop in wind etc)
+ extra income/ recreational use can be provided by the resovoir behind the dam, for activities such as boating etc
- flood land required to make resovoir. – may displace homes and grazing areas etc for people
-expensive to build
-may cause problems downstream, for example lack of water downstream etc
- environmental issues such as denying the ability for fish to swim upstream and spawn
- very large, and takes time to build
Geothermal
+0 emissions, uses earths natural heat energy
+i dont think its that expensive compared to dams or nuclear
+cheap operating costs passes savings onto consumer with cheaper electricity (other renewable sources may be expensive to cover costs of development, and non renewable costs may increase with decreasing availiblity of fuels)
+they can be small in size but provide sufficient enough energy to sustain communities
pipes run underground to heat source, so on the surface, the size of the plant is reduced.
- is only really useful in areas with volcanic activity eg iceland
-the tectonics and geography of an area may change, making the plant useless in the future
-tapping into volcanic areas may release volcanic gasses containing sulphur into the atomshpere
-hot water needs to be dispersed in the area after electricity has been generated. May cause problems in dealing with where to dispose of it
-it is usually said to be less efficient than coal powered plants due to lower input of steam temperature and pressure
wind
+renewable
+0 emissions
+can be placed on land and offshore
+is suitable for almost anywhere in the world
+can also be used for individual power generation at home
- eyesore to some
- may hit birds during flight, killing off bird populations
- may need to cover large areas to get significant power output
-may be too expensive for developing countries still
- power output varies on winds availible
solar
+renewable
+can be used for individuals at home
+can be placed in strategic areas like deserts to get vast amounts of consistant power
+doesnt emit any steam, noise, smoke etc like nuclear/geothermal plants, wind turbines and fossil fuel plants respectively.
+ self managing to a large extent….less moving parts mean theres less to go wrong like turbines, and people dont need to be involved with the energy transformation, like coal plants (chemical to heat and then electrical energy)
-may need to have a large space to get suitable power output
-can only be consistant in power in places with high amounts of sunshine
-stops working at night
-expensive to cover large areas
-too expensive to a large extent for developing countries
petrol, gas, coal (inc propane)
+large amounts of energy
+easy to burn
+can be used as it is (petrol and gas) to power household appliances like ovens etc or vehicles
+portable in its raw form (gas is, when it is contained)
+cheap to mine or obtain
- gives off great amounts of pollution
-coal being the worst offender
-coal also emits soot which can cover houses etc in soot (yes its true!)
- emits other harmful chemicals into the air, and lead to acid rain
- unsustainible….we suspect we may run out of petrol in 20 years now, coal and gas to follow aswell
-mining for all 3 damage the environment
-can lead to environmental hazards like oil spills or gas leaks
-coal mining is quite dangerous
nuclear
+pretty sustainable (low amounts of raw radioactive material can produce verrry large amounts of energy)
+produces immense energy from a single plant
+zero emissions (thats steam coming from the plants, nothing else)
+will use less space than most renewable and
-when it goes wrong, it can lead to large areas of radiation and damage to people and wildlife. (look up chernobyl)
-expensive
-needs to be near water to run turbines, so may be an issue for space
-may be used for a couple of decades, but to take down may take alot longer due to radiation cleanup
-radiactive waste is a bi product

admin answers:

Biomass:
Pro:. Comes from a renewable source.
Con: Can not be scaled up to a level to provide the world with energy.
Hydropower:
Pro: Renewable resource. Clean
Con:. Environmentalist don’t like it and will sue to stop any new Hydro projects. Most of the best sites have already been developed.
Geothermal:
Pro: Clean. Will last a long time.
Con: Environmentalist don’t like it because most of the good geothermal sites are in parks, like Yellowstone national park. They will sue to stop geothermal production in those areas. Very limited number of areas that can support geothermal. The geothermal environment is hard on equipment so operating cost are high.
Wind:
Pro: Clean
Con: Environmentalist don’t like it because the look ugly and kill birds and bats. They don’t work when the wind is to weak or to strong. Current wind farms in Europe have a history of only producing energy about 20% of the time. Because of the unpredicatablility of wind a normal coal/oil/nuclear plant has to be on hot standby (which means it is still burning some fuel) ready to come on line when the wind dies. Very expensive. Dangerous. One failure recently sent a blade flying over half a mile away. Lucky it landed in a field.
Solar:
Pro: Clean.
Con: Environmentalist have opposed large solar farms and have sued to stop there construction. They only work in the day and there is no good way to store large amounts of electricity for the night. Expensive.
Petroleum:
Pro: Relatively inexpensive. Infrastructure already exist for it’s use. Very good energy to volume ratio. Easy to transport. Relatively safe.
Con: Environmentalist don’t like it. Limited supply on earth. Probably only 200-300 years worth left. A lot of it comes from countries with unpopular governments. It’s takes special equipment so that it burns clean and only produces CO2 after combustion.
Natural gas:
Pro: Burns clean with very little special equipment.
Con: Environmentalist don’t like it and will sue to stop new natural gas production. Hard to store and can be dangerous if it leaks.
Coal:
Pro: There is a lot of it left. 700 years worth is the current estimate. Cheap. Very safe. If it spills you just pick it up. Easy to transport. The US has an ample supply and doesn’t need to import it.
Cons: Environmentalist don’t like it. It requires special equipment to keep the pollution levels down. The US & Europe us them now so it is clean to burn. Places like China don’t. Mining can be destructive to the land.
Uranium:
Pro: Very clean to use. Enormous energy to volume ratio
Con: Environmentalist don’t like it.Waste product is very dangerous to handle. Accidents can be dangerous but not likely to happen in a well run plant.
Propane;
Pro: Burns relatively cleanly
Con: Environmentalist don’t like it.Can be dangerous if it leaks. Not as clean as natural gas. Energy to volume ration lower than natural gas.

You should also think about waste to energy plants.
Pro: They burn trash. We have to get rid of it some how so why not energy.
Con: environmentalist don’t like it but then they don’t like anything and want everybody to live in caves with not fire.

admin answers:

What is a wind energy?

A method of harvesting energy from the natural phenomena of wind.

Why wind energy eco-friendly? Add the word “relatively”. It isn’t completely eco-friendly.

It is considered eco-friendly solely due to the fact that you don’t need to pollute continuously to operate your devices.

IT isn’t necessarily eco-friendly, because to build the devices requires the technology, the research and development, the resources for building, the complicated rectifier and inverter and charge controller systems.

IT just looks like it is eco-friendly….because common people don’t necessarily do the full cost-benefit analysis.

What are wind turbines? How were they invented? Who invented them?
The same thing as the classical windmill blades…just a modern re-design.

- Is wind energy more efficient than other alternative resources?
Only by the means that it is just a turbine and a generator and hasn’t anything to really cause an inefficiency…of course, the availability of wind resources makes it not necessarily as feasible.

Ok,….I am tired of answering.

admin answers:

I think it is an all of the above aproach. They all have pros and cons like anything else, but in order to feed energy needs in the future we must use all sources of energy while we have it. The longer we do this will buy more time and research to maybe someday develop a source of energy that is 100% clean, renewable, and very effecient.
I have taken many semesters in college science courses and my feelings are:
Nuclear-is a great source of energy because it is very efficient, very clean, and the best part of all is that it has proven itself to do this. Cons are that there may be only a 40 year supply, and the waste has become an issue. But many countries have already taken nuclear waste that has been put into storage and renewing 90% of that waste back into useful energy. We should do the same here in the U.S. But we have old laws from the Cold War that restrict us at the time being in doing so. The power plants we run in America are very safe and use technology that prevents fallout, 3 mile island is a great example because the plant did everything it was supposed to do and guess what, no one died. Comparing our technology to older Russian technology that caused Chernobyl is not even in the ball park. Also, Chernobyl could have been prevented on many levels, and was the cause of a very careless Russian General not nuclear energy. No matter what these uneducated hippies say, all you have to do is ask them how many people died from nuclear energy? And also if so show me the dead bodies, more people die every year from being accidently cut by dirty razor blades. But really when it comes down to it Nuclear Technology has saved more lives than you can imagine, just go to any hospital and find out how many lives have been saved by nuclear medicine?

Solar-is a good source if you live in dessert areans where sunlight is constant. But expensive, and does not have a good “constant” if you live in places like Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia, or more low sunlight areas. I guess the many enviromental groups and a California Senator are already criticizing solar because the sight of solar panel farms are an eyesore on desert landscapes and are supposedly ruining some animal habitats.

Hydroelectic Dams-are exellent because they are highly effecient and have a great constant from the water and 100% clean. But environmentalist are criticizing this because the dams have ruined some aqautic habitats and have interupted spawning regions of fish.

Wind Turbines-are good becase it is clean, but can a low constant depending on the geographical location of the Wind Turbines. But many environmentalist hate wind turbines because many bird populations have been drastically reduced as well as many bat populations, which is true of wind turbines.

Geothermal-is wonderful for many new homes and buildings to be powered on. But is incredibly, incredibly expensive, to install, but I have heard it saves money for the user in the long run.

Biomass-has been criticized for being very inefficient and expensive.

Oceanic Energy or Tidal-is rarely spoken of but could be a the solution to alot of energy needs in countries with high oceanic activity. Many northern European contries will benefit as well as Canada, and the U.S. Especially in the Pacific Northwest, and North Eastern States. I read an online article in Mechanical Engeering magazine called “Harvesting the Waves.” What the articel states is that oceanic waves are more reliable thatn sun or solar because oceanic waves are more predictable and have a greater constant, which would be very effecient in putting out lots of energy that could more than double todays needs. The state of Oregon is working with technological companies and colleges to develop oceanic wave farms. The only problem for the time being is that we must develop techonology that can be reliable and withstand the abuse of ocean waves and currents. But certain environmental groups are already being ciritical because the technology may affect whale and dophin migration patterns……seriously I couldn’t make this shit up!

Crop based Ethanol-has already been proven by many colleges and instiutions to be very inefficient, has a low reliabitly (because it has to be grown seasonaly, and would not do so well if there were a bad growing season), is expensive to make, and is not reliable no matter what someone tells you, because fossil fuels are still used at the ethanol plant to make the ethanol fuel. If ethanol were renewable the whole factory would run on ethanol and the everypiece of machinerey the farmer used to grow the crop would be fueled by ethanol. So when that day comes I might consider it a good source of energy. Also, and this is a big one, we should not use food to make fuel for our cars, food should be used to feed people especially the people starving, the cost and demand of ethanol has driven up feed prices for farmers and has caused increased prices in many items you