Many students study and analyze the concerning impacts of using non-renewable energy sources like fossil fuels to utilize as the primary source of energy production. The new forms of renewable energy sources do give hope that the devastating effects of fossil fuels can be avoided and be able to save the current state of our environment. However, biomass, a "clean" source may sound practical in theory, but in practice, has shown consequences that are comparable to the impacts of fossil fuels, if not worse.
Biofuels are in competition with crops and land to generate energy. Canadian land is already providing many benefits to residents as 75% of the current land is for vegetation and agricultural purposes. The remainder of the land is to protect bodies of freshwater, maintain biodiversity and devote an important role to the carbon cycle. People start to cut down forests so there is land available for energy crops. Actions like this have caused outcomes of deforestation and loss of land which increases greenhouse gas emissions from 25% to 30%. It appears to not be logical to sacrifice so much land and its benefits to extract biomass energy, which harms the environment in the process.
Biomass’ purpose and its extraction is done in an inefficient way and produces less than other renewable sources. In terms of burning biomass energy, research done by Dr. Puneet Dwivedi, a professor at the University of Georgia compared biomass and fossil fuels of which is more effective to use. While a 1,000 kW hour wood-pellet power plant produces a total of 1,275 g of CO2 kW hour of electricity generated, a 1,000 kW hour coal plant emits 1,048 g of CO2 kW hour, making it a difference of 227 g less than biomass. Another article done by STRATA discusses the same idea and reveals the reason why biomass burns less efficiently than coal. According to the article, to use a certain amount of biomass energy, it requires more energy input to create the output results which is not balanced at all and decreases the value of Biomass. In 2013, Canada had produced 1.7 billion L of ethanol and 124 million L biodiesel based on estimates done by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) which can be found on the official Canadian government website. The Government would have been using more biomass to match up with high demand when the value isn’t strong, to begin with. Essentially, the amount of input work is not equal to the amount of output work.
Explained from multiple sources, biofuels are producing more CO2 emissions than fossil fuels which are now contributing ⅓ of Earth’s total CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere and this number only seems to be increasing. The reason for the high production of CO2 emissions is due to unsafe and unsustainable practices of extracting Biomass. To continue the beginning of the Biomass cycle, companies and governments are required to replant new forests to recycle the CO2 emissions released from Biomass and produce new materials for Biomass energy. The expectation is new forests will keep the CO2 in the balance left from the previous burning of biomass while in reality, they are not able to take in all the carbon from the atmosphere. A study done on Vancouver Island by UBC researchers found British Columbia was logging Douglas Fir seedlings after 3 years of growth when the trees weren’t at a stage of capturing large amounts of carbon yet. Instead, it resulted in one Douglas Fir seedlings releasing an average of 22 tons of carbon per hectare. Not only does it produce more CO2 emissions but it can cause major deforestation which can cause 25% to 30% of CO2 emissions like mentioned before. The particles released from the burning of Biomass can cause global cooling for the short term but once the gases overwhelm the cooling effect, it will cause global warming for the long term. This problem of giving trees limited time to grow before the timber harvest has been recognized by the auditor-general of British Columbia but no significant change has been made. Margaret Sheehan, a lawyer with the Cambridge, Biomass Accountability Project comments on how biomass is producing more greenhouse gases than coal and isn’t leaving a cleaner footprint on the Earth, like biomass had promised to have.
To understand cost as well, it’s important to think about what's more cost-efficient not only for the energy corporations but for the homeowners too. From this graph data below, other resources such as geothermal energy are far cheaper to use a pellet stove, which is generated from biomass energy. As for the companies and the economy, biomass plants are more expensive than other renewable sources. Biomass plants have a price range of $0.08 to $0.15 per kW, but this number could increase significantly with fuel costs.
Overall, it is best to keep in caution that biomass may not be a great alternative to use, based on the current implementation, usage, and setups in place that is slowly creating more problems than solving them. While biomass can be implemented in a more efficient way, the actions taken in countries such as Canada have shown that companies profits on the quick time production of biomass, which creates damaging impacts on the environment and overall carbon cycle and takes up far more costs and resources to produce energy, compared to other renewable sources.
Works Cited:
Basu, Zachary. “A Burning Question: Throw Wood on the Fire for 21st-Century Electricity?” CNBC,
CNBC, 18 Sept. 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/09/15/biomass-and-climate-change-burning-wood-for-
Canada, Natural Resources. Government of Canada. 13 Dec. 2017, www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/energy-
sources-distribution/renewables/about-renewable-energy/7295.
JT. Arnott, WJ. Beese, et al. “Two Decades of Variable Retention in British Columbia: a Review of Its
Implementation and Effectiveness for Biodiversity Conservation.” Ecological Processes, SpringerOpen, 1
Strata. “Reliability of Renewable Energy: BIOMASS.” Strata, Strata, 7 Mar. 2017,
www.strata.org/reliability-of-renewable-energy/biomass/.
Comments