The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? ×

Can Biomass Replace Coal?

Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation
June 25, 2009  |  26 Comments

Wind and solar power are clean and free but they only work part of the time. When the sun goes down and the wind dies, coal is still the workhorse for generating baseload power. But coal is killing us by warming the planet, acidifying our lakes and oceans and sprinkling mercury over the landscape. Geothermal can do part of the job but it will take decades to drill enough wells.

One quick fix that is finally catching on is converting existing coal plants to biomass. Fuel and maintenance costs are actually reduced and expensive pollution control upgrades can often be avoided because biomass contains very little sulphur or mercury. Often the biomass can be grown locally, providing good local jobs and keeping the ratepayers dollars in the community. Biomass burning is carbon neutral because the CO2 emitted by one crop is taken back by the next.

But wait! The U.S. burns a billion tons of coal per year. Since biomass is less energy dense than coal it would take 1.6 billion tons of biomass per year to replace all that coal. According to a DOE study, we can grow about 1.3 on exising available land.

Not quite enough. But there is a way: Efficiency! Existing coal power plants are only about 33% efficient. That means that 67% of the coal’s energy is simply thrown away, often simply heating up a nearby river!

A DOE study estimated the U.S. biomass growing capacity as 1.3 billion tons/yr.

We can get quick reductions in pollution and global warming by simply repowering existing coal power plants. However, a better long-term approach is to start building much more efficient, small-scale power plants where the waste heat can be put to immediate use. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants can achieve efficiencies of up to 90% by using the waste heat from electrical generation to produce hot water, heating and air conditioning. Office buildings, hotels, industrial parks and shopping centers are already proving the practicality of CHP.

Efficient, small-scale electrical generation is already possible using fuel cells and microturbines. Systems as small as 300 kW can generate electrical power at 47% efficiency and then deliver the remaining 338 kW for heating applications. Most systems today are powered by natural gas, but biomass can be gasified to produce carbon-neutral syngas, which burns just like natural gas. Small plants can run unattended because internet-connected remote control consoles at the manufacturer can be monitored by experts.

Biomass gasifiers aren’t fussy about what they burn. Even plants that look very different to us are chemically very similar and all produce about 7000 Btu-per-pound when dry. This means that monoculture is not necessary and complimentary mixtures of plants can be grown as feedstock. Marginal land can be used by growing specially-selected crops. Agave, for example, grows happily in semi-desert and produces four times the yield of corn.

Biomass has a tarnished reputation because early attempts to use it were so inefficient. When you ferment ethanol from corn, you get only 330 gallons of ethanol per acre. If you burn 1/7 of an acre of corn you will get the same amount of heat as burning 330 gallons of ethanol. To make matters worse, the ethanol will be burned in a car engine that is only about 25% efficient. Elecric car motors are 90% efficient, so an electric car charged by a 90% efficient biomass CHP plant can go about 22 times as far on an acre of corn as one burning fermented ethanol!

New generation ethanol plants actually use a gasifier to make syngas, which is then transformed into ethanol by catalysts or enzymes. Coskata has a process that makes 100 gallons/dry ton of biomass. A big improvement, but still no match for the efficiency of an electric car. Making ethanol by fermentation also uses lots of energy cooking, fermenting and drying the ethanol. Gasifiers need no external energy once they are started. Gasifiers are also very convenient for converting coal power plants because the syngas can be piped to burners inside the coal-fired boiler. The gasifier can be built in any convenient place leaving the coal burning boiler intact for fuel flexibility.

Gasifiers aren’t fussy about what they are fed. In fact old automobile tires and municipal waste work just fine. In fact, the trash left over after recyclables are diverted works just fine. There are already 90 Waste-to-Energy (WTE) plants in operation in the U.S. This connection between biomass and trash burning turns out to be most unfortunate because an amazingly negative activist movement has grown up to fight against incinerators.

Paul Connett, who also crusades against fluoridation, took up the cause of incinerators, back in the 1980’s. At that time incinerators were a serious source of dioxins and mercury. Now, the incinerators are 1000 times cleaner but the fight continues. By quoting “facts” from studies done before the cleanup, it is still possible to scare well meaning people into marching down to city hall to block permits. Your backyard barbeque produces seven times more dioxins than are allowed at the stack of a modern incinerator.

Unfortunately, the panic about incinerators has spread across the blogsphere and well meaning but misinformed volunteers have blocked permits for far to many well-conceived biomass power plants and WTE facilities. Every time the activists shoot down a project the environment suffers as people are forced to bury the waste or burn it in a backyard barrel. By stopping clean power generation the activists also perpetuate our dependence on dirty coal power plants!

The internet is a wonderful thing, but bad ideas can spread like wildfire. Just like the global warming denial sites, Zero waste sites sound very convincing. The problem is we can’t economically recycle everything. “Zero waste” sounds good just like “clean coal” does, but both are impractical. We must provide a clean, safe way to detoxify the trash that remains after recycling. Plasma gasifiers leave only 0.2% ash residue and generate significant green power in the bargain. If we run short of trash they can happily run on biomass too.

26 Comments

Register To Comment
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
July 10, 2009
Here's an excellent compilation of PowerPoint presentations for Biomass production and Torrefaction:

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/1stMeet-0209.html

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/Dickinson-Torrefaction.ppt
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
July 10, 2009
The "small scale" & "Convert existing Coal plants to Biomass" links should be changed to this:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/austria-flexes-its-bioenergy-muscles

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/05/clean-coal-here-now

The "rea" addition changes the file locations
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
July 7, 2009
fred #16
I was hoping to get a lot more from ethanol fans since my statement that you can drive 22x farther by not making ethanol seems too good to be true.
distiller's grain takes a lot of heat to dry it out to a product that only sells for about 5c/lb (seasonal avg) It's a fraction of the value of the ethanol. Yes it has energy, but the efficiency of converting it to steak is less than 10%.
Burning the whole plant to make electricity just makes a lot more sense than the wasteful things we do now. Gasifying elephant grass makes even more sense.
It amazes me than nobody seems to care if we use something at 1/15th of its potential.
Hello!! Is anybody listening?
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 30, 2009
ooops----here is the link

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/techline/fuel-value-calculator.pdf
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 30, 2009
Since no one uses coal to heat with anymore---comparing biofuels or biomass with coal is not really relevant.

The more relevant comparison would be electricity vs. seasoned firewood---much more likely choices in today's market.

Based on USDA data(assuming a 100 million BTU heating season) the cost to provide the same heat energy for your house would be:

electricity (coal) $2.390
propane $1,730
fuel oil #2 $1,220
wood pellets $ 882
natural gas $ 854
firewood $ 747

Wood pellets are rated at the same energy efficiency level as #2 fuel oil, 83%-------and better than either natural gas(80%) or propane(79%).

Note the prices-----the fossil fuels have gone up considerably since this was published. It is still relevant however---because the spread is still close to the same.
terry badger
terry badger
June 29, 2009
why does everyone seem to forget about geothermal? no CO2, constant, plentiful, and widely distributed, it makes up 7% of California's electrical generation.
Ruzena Svedelius, AgrD
Ruzena Svedelius, AgrD
June 29, 2009
Questions to Jim Miller:

1) What happend to nitrogen, phosphorus and microorganisms during production of syngas?

2) Can "bioproducts" be made without activity of living organisms?
(bio = life; biogas is product of anaerobic bacteria)

You wrote: "we need to move toward BioOil infused Biochar which is much cleaner burning. We can use the syngas to make biodiesel and other bio products."
Frank J. Heller
Frank J. Heller
June 29, 2009
In N. New England, the biomass is growing at 2-3% beyond current use...this stat. is only from registered forest lands.

Beyond that, is the enormous green waste from the landscapping, tree trimming, lawn care, and wood lot industry...most is just landfilled or burn't in bio-mass boilers, nor is it used in the nascent pellet industry again because of the preference for high btu hardwood.

Once again, the solution is out back, moldering away or being burn't. Why?
Frank J. Heller
Frank J. Heller
June 29, 2009
Maine has several hundred thousands of acres of PEAT bogs now 'mined' for gardeners.

PEAT is a living, renewable energy resource and a precursor of coal, It has been harvested in a sustainable manner in Ireland and other countries for CENTURIES.

Yet, it is ignored because of it's low BTU value.

It could be cultivated, fertilized and harvested.

...perhaps the solution is right under your feet?
James E Miller
James E Miller
June 29, 2009
Burning biomass along with coal is just a bit of greenwashing. Biomass has a very low specific heat per gram/ton as compared to coal. Why buy into a public relations scheme just to benefit the wealthy coal mine owners?

There is no such thing as "clean coal", only "King coal". Coal needs to be cut out of the energy platform or at least be priced to include bioremediation of the open pit mines. When coal goes from $1.70 per million BTU's to $5.00 per million BTU's, then the electric generating plants will switch from fossil coal to "BioCoal", which is charcoal from pyrolysis infused with BioOil, a contemporaneous co-product of the first stage of making syngas.

The Federal government should require open pit coal mines to post huge bonds to ensure that when the coal in the pit is exhausted, that the mountain top be replaced, replanted and maintained for 10 years. More effort and money needs to be added to the mix of coal extraction and burning so as to enable remedation/prevention of toxic wastes entering our biosystems.

As things stand now, our air, streams, rivers and lands are dumping grounds for the coal waste by which operators damage our environmental resources at no cost to them. We need to shut down or reduce open pit coal mining first then work on shaft mining (dangerous) and move to torrified wood and municipal waste, infused with BioOil = "BioCoal". I would guess that all open pit mines would be designated as "Superfund" sites, but for the politics (read bribes to members of Congress by the coal and utility industries). The issues before us are not technical, they are political. We need to ensure that coal pays for all of its costs to prevent harm to our environment. Meanwhile, we need to move toward BioOil infused Biochar which is much cleaner burning. We can use the syngas to make biodiesel and other bio products.

Jim Miller
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
Fred Linn
Fred Linn
June 28, 2009
Tom---you are giving statistics as if producing ethanol from corn is the sole application of the corn. The ethanol produced represents only a small fraction of the energy produced from an acre of corn. The end result of producing ethanol from corn is DDG, used as animal feed----there is a considerable amount of energy in DDG, passed to the animals it is fed to, and passed on to people who eat meat, eggs, dairy products or anything else that the animals produce.
And the corn itself represents only a small fraction of the entire corn crop. There is all the stover(non grain parts of the corn plant---cobs, stalks, leaves etc.) too. These can be dried and pelletized into a condensed, easily handled, transported and stored fuel as well.

Pelletized biomass from corn(or any other source) can be used alone to replace coal, or mixed and burned together with coal. Cogeneration means lowering the emissions of toxic pollutants from the coal, and can make a big difference in the need for extensive pollution controls that are expensive and inefficient to operate.

Many people deny that global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas effect exists. Personally, I think it does. But I STILL see a lot of other reasons to reduce coal usage regardless, even if we discard global warming all together. Strip mines destroy the land and watersheds, both above and below ground. Even if you clean up smoke stacks----coal still comes from strip mines. And there is still fly ash and creosote to get rid of. If we used 100% biomass to produce electrical power---we could spread the ash directly on the corn fields we harvested to make the power, the ashes would be a perfectly natural fertilizer. Just mix it with water and spray it on. It has been done for thousands of years.

We need to get rid of coal. But we do not need to get all of the energy needed to do that from just one source.
Arturo Velez
Arturo Velez
June 28, 2009
Great article!
I think Tom is looking for a 'Here and Now' solution, that is economically feasible (the cheapest way) for substituting coal in REAL electricity generating facilities, that are burning coal right now.

Around 50% of US electricity is generated by burning coal. If we use biocoal or biomass instead of coal, we will get the greatest reduction of GHG emissions, at the lowest cost and the lesser hassle. That is a real advantage of biomass/biocoal.

I´d like to add that one hectare of our ultra-high density agave variety annually produces 500+ tonnes of biomass per hectare, equivalent to 50+ tonnes of dry-bone biomass with 75% cellulose content. This way, we will sell biocoal at a lower price than coal (~US$50), and still make an annual profit of ~US$40 per hectare.
Not bad for an energy crop that grows on marginal, semiarid land, huh?
Ruzena Svedelius, AgrD
Ruzena Svedelius, AgrD
June 27, 2009
Burning (= chemical oxidation) of renewable organic material and thermal gasification brings dead. These methods are NOT SUSTAINABLE!
Microbial transformation (= biochemical oxidation) of renewable organic material to biogas and biofertilizers (by high solids anaerobic digestion using high-tech) supports life. This method IS SUSTAINABLE!
Biogas can be used in Combined Heat and Power plants.
Why is anaerobic digestion still undeveloped? Who is lobbying against biological processes?
Without efficient recycling of nitrogen and other plant nutrients still will increase Reactive Nitrogen by input of artificial fertilisers.
Since 1950, when use of artificial fertilisers started, run of from cultivated soils is documented (carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus), that cause dead seas and other problems. Incineration and decreased recycling of plant nutrient make the situation even worse.
Please read:
"Reactive Nitrogen: The Next Big Pollution Problem"
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/reactive-nitrog/?cid=114894316
"Dead water" From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11367884
"Human Sources of Reactive Nitrogen"
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/482775_3
"UNEP Report: Reactive Nitrogen in the Environment"
http://www.whrc.org/policy/Reactive_nitrogen.htm
"Nitrous Oxide Emissions and the Anthropogenic Nitrogen in Wastewater and Solid Waste." Both solid waste and wastewater sludge incineration have been demonstrated to result in the thermal formation of nitrous oxide.
http://gis.lrs.uoguelph.ca/AgriEnvArchives/bioenergy/nutrient_flow_btb.html
"Creeping Dead Zones"
http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/oceanColor/dead_zones.shtml
"Reactive Nitrogen"
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/penner00/node4.html
and other articles about Reactive Nitrogen on Internet.

R. Svedelius, Aktion Skåne-Miljö, Sweden
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
June 27, 2009
Burning biomass is certainly NOT the long term answer. Billions of years of biomass evolution has given us our topsoil that we have far more than half decimated in the last century. To continue the depletion of topsoil through biomass depletion merely delays the inevitable destruction of the life support on earth. Only the use of current sunshine will be sustainable for energy sourcing here. There are ways of storage of this energy we haven't fully developed as yet. I find it very heartening that we are so many moving in this direction. This is truly a great and expanding age of discovery. I am happy to be a part of it. Peace to all.
Frank Palani Cipriani
Frank Palani Cipriani
June 26, 2009
CO2 comprises 58% of the input requirements to feed the Algal Biomass in my Photo-bioReactor. Algal Plant Production Lines supported by zero carbon footprint WTE Platform. All emissions & solids captured & recycled into products....no waste!

Frank Cipriani
BioFarms Hawaii
http://www.biofarmshawaii.com
http:www.proterrabio.com
p.s.: Enjoyed Author "Anonymous" posting on "Biotic Carbon" and addressing Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation Article
Frank Palani Cipriani
Frank Palani Cipriani
June 26, 2009
CO2 comprises 58% of the input requirements to feed the Algal Biomass in my Photo-bioReactor. Algal Plant Production Lines supported by zero carbon footprint WTE Platform. All emissions & solids captured & recycled into products....no waste!

Frank Cipriani
BioFarms Hawaii
http://www.biofarmshawaii.com
http:www.proterrabio.com
p.s.: Enjoyed Author "Anonymous" posting on "Biotic Carbon" and addressing Thomas R. Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation Article
Derek Boyle
Derek Boyle
June 26, 2009
Southern VA in particular has excellent supply potential for Biomass energy (instead of Coal).

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/

VA Municipal Solid Waste (WSW) Biomass presentations:

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/BCApr09/MSWMethane-MikelChoen.pdf

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/pdfs/Bioenergy-Brochure.pdf

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/BCApr09/WoodEnergy-Comer.pdf

http://www.virginiabiomass.org/ppts/BCApr09/MSWWaste-Michaels.pdf


Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) reports that Southern States have more than enough potential to get 100% of its power from Local Renewable Energy resources at a price lower than Coal and Nuclear:

http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php

http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/files/SERenewables022309rev.pdf

http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Reports-and-Publications.html

http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/files/SAFERBiomassRoadmapBook.pdf (Large File: 13MB)

http://www.NewEnergyAmerica.org
Joanne Ivancic
Joanne Ivancic
June 26, 2009
Remember that 2/3 of the power generated at the plant gets to the end user. It takes a good amount of power to push the electricity from the plant through the wires and transformers to the car's battery. So the 90% electric car efficiency rate is a bit deceptive. It might be accurate if the power was coming directly from solar cells on the car. See Myth of the Electric Car on the Advanced Biofuels USA web site.
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
June 26, 2009
Electrolysis? Some people want to ignore economics at the expense of the world's poor.
Matt Karber
Matt Karber
June 26, 2009
Mr. Blakeslee, your initial comment, "Wind and solar power are clean and free but they only work part of the time," is true, but the title of your article "Can biomass replace coal?" asks the wrong question, which unfortunately, can't lead to the right answer. The correct question is, how do we compensate for the intermittent nature of wind and solar? The answer is to work with facts. Recent studies have shown that the wind blows more at night. Since the sun is shining during the day, you have the potential for slightly less than 24-hour generation (if you have access to both sources). Even with only one of these, you have access to lots of energy. Since electric demand also fluctuates, and producing excess power can be a problem just like insufficient power, we need to match the supply to the demand. The answer: hydrogen production via electrolysis. When you have excess capacity, you make H2 and store it. When you need capacity, you put the H2 through a fuel cell and make electricity (and clean water). A recent article in Scientific American Earth 3.0 points out the current conflict between water and power generation. We will soon need wind and solar not just for clean air, but to have enough water. Water-intensive power plants (coal, biomass and others) will have to go away to solve both problems. Electrolysis actually consumes much less water than most of these power plants, and the method I've described is completely clean. Also, all the necessary technology exists to make this a reality. We simply need to exercise the will to implement it.
Thomas Blakeslee
Thomas Blakeslee
June 26, 2009
Fuel cells are eliminating the need to scale up power plants for efficiency. 60% is doable:
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Electrical_Efficiency/
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/dfc3000.php
Mike Holly
Mike Holly
June 26, 2009
The author asks "Can Biomass Replace Coal?" Biomass was replacing coal before the wind energy industry moved US policy from PURPA to renewable mandates and competitive bidding. In 1994, biomass and geothermal accounted for 95% of renewable energy production. Since then, wind has accounted for 97% of new capacity. The US needs a more balanced approach - feed-in tariffs for all renewables. No one source can replace all fossil and nuclear fuels, but maybe together we can.
ANONYMOUS
June 26, 2009
Good article, but a few facts are off a bit. Unfortunately physics do not support the idea that microturbines are more efficient than large gas turbines, tip clearances are the major inefficiency in a gas turbine, and they become a larger percentage of the total losses as a turbine becomes smaller, which is why companies continuously strive for larger and larger turbines. I believe the efficiency advantages you are referring to come from the advantages of cogeneration as opposed to straight electrical power generation. Cogeneration plants producing steam or hot water and electricity in the US, maximize the use of available energy to the greatest extent currently possible, that is where the improvements you mention are actually coming from. Technically if we got rid f the individual boilers at everyone's house and we shared a common system across several neighborhoods with piping under the streets, we would drastically improve efficiency everywhere as your numbers indicate. Unfortunately that is unlikely in the near future for most of us outside major US cities. Second, large generating stations can actually be operated remotely today, the technology exists and it has proven safe and reliable, several countries outside the US have done it for several different power generation technologies. The US hasn't done it purely because of politics.
I definitely support your push for gasification especially in WTE applications and hope that America begins to increase the use of this technology especially to address MSW as opposed to our continuing reliance on landfills.
Evgeny Yantovsky
Evgeny Yantovsky
June 26, 2009
As I think, every atmospheric emission of CO2 from biomass combustion is more detrimental than any other fuel use. I see the unavoidable the oxy-fuel
CCS combustion. The best is biomass of seaweed Ulva, which grows up to 20% in a day even on 55 degree of latitude. For details see our book ZERO EMISSION POWER CYCLES.
The real way to a zero emissions city see at our presentation at ELCAS 2009 Workshop in Nisyros. It includes Oxy-fuel power plant, electrical vehicles, electrical heat pumps and oxy-fuel incinerators.
E.Yantovsky
ANONYMOUS
June 26, 2009
Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= 1ton CO2e) + 1 MWh of exported electrisity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
As one microbiologist said on the Biochar list; "Microbes like to sit down when they eat".
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders of life.

Another significant aspect of bichar and aerosols are the low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease. http://terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems http://biocharfund.org/ with the Congo Basin Forest
Fund (CBFF). The Biochar Fund recently won $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
(1) Hunger amongst the world's poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
(4) Climate change.

This ordering of priorities is a compelling mantra against the Biofuel Watch UK group who have consistently misrepresented Biochar research work.

Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
June 25, 2009
This is a good article. The future is all about radical leaps in efficient use of energy. Hybrid cars increase average gas mileage well over 100%. Burning biomass instead of converting it to liquid fuels for cars would accomplish similar leaps.

And good point about incinerators. Sometimes we environmentalists are our own worse enemies.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in Pasadena, California in 1962. After working for IT&T in Antwerp, Belgium, he...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Most Commented

  • 32
    The Finnish Hydrogen Roadmap: Hydrogen to Join Electricity in Ending Traffic Pollution
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 2
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Rotork plc
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Natural Power
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information