"...Man, that fickle, erratic dangerous creature whose restless mind would try all paths, all horrors, all betrayals... believe all things and believe nothing. . then in a generation or less, forget what bloody dream had so obsessed him " Loren Eiseily
With the evolution of fire, our ancestors realized the promise of trees, grasses, and other plants to provide heat. Since then, we have developed heat into usable quantities of energy; this has allowed us to advance our technology to present levels, bound, it seems, by the infinity of innovation. Being careful not to forget our humbling status against nature, it is important that we realize what is allowing us to live is killing us as well. In times of adversity, we have been known to look to our roots for answers, and this, according to many, is certainly where part of the answer may he. Biomass power, energy derived from plants and plant residue for fuel, has been shyly entering the spotlight of scrutiny as a renewable energy resource for the present and the future. It has many positive attributes that supercede even natural gas, and it is a resource that must be considered as part of the remedy for the ailments of our home.
Biomass energy is gaining popularity as a valuable energy supplement and is being acknowledged for its capability to help counteract many environmental problems facing us today. Amidst the controversy surrounding global warming, utilization of biomass energy has been noticed for its ability to inhibit increases in carbon dioxide and decreases in toxic pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere. Its high potential to alleviate stresses on the environment due to unnecessary waste of biomass residues, of usable croplands, of jobs that could be created, of total energy overall has been identified and should be recognized for its value to socioeconomic trends as well as environmental ones.
Where Can It be Found and Used?
Any green plant can be considered for use in the production of biofuel or bioenergy. Releasing the stored energy (from the sun) in the plant mass, green plants can offer a substantial supply of power when grown, harvested and combusted properly. Growing plants strictly for the purpose of biomass energy production typically requires intense management of land and crops.
Because biomass energy is dependent on the diversity of land, climate and harvested crops, careful discretion with respect to locale and crop type is needed in order to make the most efficient use of time, energy and other resources involved in production.
Though much of the current bioenergy production today comes from plant residues (crop waste, wood pulp, agro -forestry slash, etc.), primary energy sources must be examined for future predictions of increased bioenergy use. Since plants tend to be specialized for certain growing environments, it is important that native species, or species that require very little addition of extra products and resources, such as fertilizer or excess irrigation, are used. Factors of nutrient availability, prevalence of pests and disease, rainfall or water supply, and annual sunlight intensity and duration of each locale should be largely considered. The production of biomass energy becomes increasingly inefficient when these and other variables are skewed to adjust non -native species to climates and land regions for which they are not suited.
There are many types of crops that can be harvested in large quantities, which are also adaptable to varied and changing conditions. They are tolerant to many disturbances.. and are thus highly suited for increased bioenergy efficiency. These crops, called "power plants", include willow, alfalfa, sugarcane, native prairie grasses, short -rotation trees such as poplar and eucalyptus, and even plants that are treated as pests in some regions such as mesquite. Many of the crops that can be grown for energy production have dual uses as well. Sugarcane, for instance, can be grown for the sugar in the cane, and for the combustion of the waste debris. Alfalfa could be used for animal feed after usable parts of the crop for biomass fuel is removed. Mesquite, which can grow from seed to nearly four meters per year, is native to and regions, can help enrich nitrogen poor soils and is also adequate in breaking down hardpan. (Hardpan, or caliche, is a concentration of hard, calcium rich minerals common in and region soils; it often hinders healthy growth of plants in soils where the root base reaches the hardpan layer.) Although many argue that surplus cropland is needed for the production of food, it is estimated that much of the 33 million acres of set aside cropland is available and could be made suitable for biomass crops.
Location of generating stations is an important factor that is often overlooked. Because of the regionality associated with biomass production (due to energy lost as the biomass decomposes and the cost of transportation that increases with distance), the most feasible placement of power generating stations would be close to harvest regions. Stations would be smaller scale, more numerous and more widely dispersed than strictly coal -fired plants. In addition, having a greater concentration of power stations would prove useful to the factor of unpredictable and changing energy demands. In considering biomass energy alternatives, regard for land availability and sustainability must be given.
The Carbon Exchange
Using biomass to produce energy generates no net carbon dioxide increase. Because it releases as much carbon dioxide as it takes in, if the biomass burned is replaced with more biomass per unit the process can counteract its carbon release. Carbon dioxide reduction from coal power plants can be expensive (S100 -200 per ton for some methods), but cofiring biomass with coal (in quantities as small as 15 percent biomass) would reduce costs by as much as 95 percent. According to Tayor Moore, replacing I megawatt of coal -fired power by biomass power offsets about 6000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Carbon dioxide has been targeted as the greenhouse gas. Other gases, such as CFC’s and nitrous oxide offer far larger positive feedbacks to global warming than carbon dioxide. The concern, however, is over the extreme levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which adds immensely to the problem of global warming. Considering this factor, offsets such as this would help to significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not the only harmful emission from fossil fuel combustion. Compounds such as sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides (which change into acids and aerosols in the atmosphere) are also main concerns. Biomass has a considerably lower sulfur content than even low sulfur coal (which is costlier than regular coal), and would release less sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide emmisions from biomass have not been as extensively studied, but it is expected that they, too, would be emmitted in smaller concentrations than from coal firing processes.
Current Uses
Using biomass for fuel is not a new idea, and even the modem technology is, in comparison, relatively old. There are various biomass combustion techniques being used around the globe to meet 15% of the world’s energy demand. Pyrolysis, old fashioned pile burning or furnace burning is probably the most widely used procedure. Gasification of biomass involves several factors, many of which focus on extracting volatile components of the biomass, including water, to power generators. The most feasible uses of biomass as an energy supplement lie, with current and forseeable technologies, in the process of cofiring. Small quantities (less than 15 percent) of biomass residues (wood pulps and other wastes, agricultural and forestry slash, and other excesses of resource utilization) are combined with coal, combusting the two to produce electricity. Cofiting biomass allows for use of the boilers that already exist for coal firing, and does not require making major modifications to the equipment. Other promising energy supplies from biomass are in the liquid form as ethanol or methanol, and are now being regulated as a component of gasoline products in many areas of the United States.
There are several new gasoline alternatives derived from biomass. Fuels such as ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, lactic acid, and furfural are making their way up in the market. The two major players, ethanol and methanol, have been gasoline additives for years, but now, there is a push for making vehicles that can use "neat fuel," ethanol fuel with gasoline as an additive (85 percent ethanol). Biodiesel is slowly gaining popularity as an alternative to conventional diesel fuel. During this decade, several regions in the United States have been experimenting with varieties of biodiesel. Tests include engine performance and wear diagnostics, as well as environmental sensitivity (toxicity and biodegradability) evaluations. Biodiesel use in the United States is still restricted primarily to farm machinery, but is making its way, through intensive research and development, into the market.
Currently in the US alone, 6.5 gigawatts of power are supplied by biomass (mostly as waste from agriculture and forestry), and other industrialized countries are far ahead. While 15 percent of the world’s energy comes from biomass, 12 percent of it is utilized in developing countries. Much of this energy comes from wood and dung burning, processes which are leading to extreme deforestation and decreasing biodiversity. Although the capacity of biomass to lead toward sustainability is increasing, there are many factors (political, technological, and socioeconomical) that are hindering its progress.
Aids and Obstacles
In the time of big business run politics, politically based technology, and societies striving for the capitalistic apex of wealth, it is ever -more difficult to discern the positive effects of innovation from the negative ones. It is becoming more evident every that the status quos are losing ground, becoming obsolete. Americans especially are itching for a change, and rightly so, because we are falling behind other industrialized countries. It is the concern that we will be unprepared for the future overconsumption of resources that is driving us to find alternatives such as renewable energy.
Unfortunately there have been a number of slowups in this progressive arena. Technological advances, while highly regarded as the saving grace of any future calamity, are being stumbled over. Biomass fuel production is not a foreign idea to humans, even the new innovations such as using biodiesel and lignin residue to produce substantial amounts of energy, are on their way to becoming household terms. If subpar technology is slowing the takeoff of biofuels, it is only due to society’s demand for a fuel that is higher quality, more efficient cleaner burning, and less expensive than the highly subsidized, intensely researched fossil fuels consumed today.
Leslie Lamarre has reported that "70 percent of the general population and 88 percent of the group identified as the ‘green’ population would participate in an energy program to increase uses of biomass power "at a slightly higher cost to the customers." With popular support as strong as this, what else could be in the way of more rapid progress toward sustainability?
Petroleum products are the single highest subsidized commodities by the United States’ government. Without these extreme subsidies, gas and oil prices would skyrocket. Comparatively, biomass fuels cost at most only twice what standard fossil fuels cost; were the government to subsidize biomass fuels as much as fossil fuels, competition for price would no longer be an important issue.
Political and economic regimes controlling the market are the most accountable obstacles in the arena of renewable energy. In many countries, biomass energy is becoming a substantial secondary energy source. The technology exists already to expand biomass energy production far above current levels. Popular support for renewable energy exists, as well, Perhaps the next stepping stone would appear if government subsidies were shifted from fossil fuels to renewables. Economically and politically, however, the mega -corporations involved in fossil fuels have the dominating pull. The struggle will be long and arduous, but will have to favor renewables in the end.
The Future
The key defining component of reserve resources is their nonrenewability (within practical time ranges). For years, scientists have been arguing over the specific length of time that remains before coal and oil reserves are depleted. The important issue, however, is that eventually, they will run out; at current consumption rates, some estimates place coal reserves at 235 years before they will be exhausted. Whatever the time frame, it is getting smaller everyday; multisource renewables (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) are likely to be the best choice for tomorrow.
In 1978, the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act was passed, granting incentives for using alternative and renewable resources. This act had a considerable effect on the increase of biomass energy consumption, growing from 200 MW to more than 7000 MW in less than 20 years. The World Energy Council (WEC) estimates that global electricity consumption will double by 2015 from 1990 levels. Chances are, current reserve estimates may be overestimating the time we have left.
Already, though, goals are being made for renewable energy utilization. The European Community plans to use biomass constituents of 5 percent or more in their motor fuel by 2005. This step alone could reduce atmospheric carbon by 50 megatonnes per year. Future predictions for American biomass production have calculated the potential supply for over 50,000 MW of energy. Reaching this point however, would cause need to sacrifice food crop land and drastically alter the current technologies for biomass fuel manufacture. These, and others, are side effects typical of the base argument against the increase of biomass fuel use, and also tend to compromise sustainable goals for the future
Biodiversity loss and soil erosion are two basic arguments presented against mass production of biomass for fuel. In a lateral scope, these are significant effects of large -scale harvesting. In viewing the entire panorama, however, they could be largely minimized, accounted for, and compensated for or counteracted by more positive side -effects. Given land that is already designated for agricultural use, ecosystem disturbances leading to biodiversity loss have likely already taken over from past uses, and would not be the direct result of harvesting for energy crops. Utilizing good management practices, such as crop rotation or selective harvesting, would cause less erosion than would total crop clearing per each harvest. Holistic regimes are becoming the practice of choice among land managers who are realizing the need for a whole and integrated system approach.
Incorporating several renewable alternatives, rather than relying upon one resource (or one dominant resource), would tend to go with the trend towards regional and social diversities already established on Earth. Whole societal changes or overturns should not be necessary, but adaptations nonetheless require sacrifices and compromises to be successful. Making changes with consideration for numerous rather than singular variables is going to be the only way to work toward sustainable ends.
The driving force of progress as we know it is innovation, and innovation has borne the child of technology. Without technology, humans could not exist as we do, but many fight the nutrient provider of technology - fuel. We need it. There is no way around it. There are many ways to get around wasting the enormous quantities that we do exploit but many are not willing to forfeit their comfort to do so. Does it not seem logical then that we work with nature to get what we need, rather than scar her face and move elsewhere when we’re done?
The point that we need technology to survive as we know it no matter how close to sustainability we may get is no longer arguable. Not only are our current exploits of coal and petroleum as energy resources very dirty, by many standards, but their reserves are running out. With global warming, not to mention health -related concerns due to air pollution, as increasingly important international agendas, and facing the wake of the Kyoto Protocol, it is evident that the train of technology we have created has reached runaway status. The question now remains, can we have the forethought, and take the responsibility of removing the blanket of ignorance ourselves, or will the last lump of coal ignite the fire that bums it away from our eyes?