on October 11, 2009 by admin in Business, World Business News, Comments (4)

Biomass Power Plants Feared to Create Deserts

Hundreds of biomass power plants, those operational and under construction, are exponentially increasing the demand for wood, and are likely to trigger industrialized plantation of trees. A sudden increase in demand for particular woods has led to rapid growth in monoculture tree plantations worldwide.

Monoculture trees or commercially sourced trees are widely blamed for drying up hydrological basins and polluting air and soil by using pesticides and other agrochemicals. Furthermore, natural forests are sacrificed to encourage industrialized tree plantation with adverse impact on the biodiversity.

Several studies have shown natural forests contained far more species than monoculture tree plantations. Since 1980 tropical forest plantations have expanded by almost fivefold.

Simone Lovera, of the non-governmental Global Forest Coalition told Tierramérica that Europe was going to cook the world’s tropical forests to fight climate change. She was referring to the number of mega biomass plants coming up across Europe. Tierramérica is a communications platform for Sustainable Human Development and Environment in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In the last two months in the UK alone, energy companies have announced the construction of at least six new biomass power generation plants to produce 1,200 megawatts of energy, primarily from burning woodchips. A single power plant requires millions of tons of biomass, and the new plants are expected to burn 20 to 30mn tons of wood annually, nearly all imported from other regions and equivalent to at least one million hectares of forest.

The advocates of natural forests questioned the logic of carbon emissions by transporting the wood from far off places and then burning them to produce energy with another carbon emitting process of biomass plants. Experts claim reforestation of fast growing trees through pesticides and other agrochemicals will cause irreversible damage to the soil thereby to expedite the desertification process of once lush green natural forest cover.

Interestingly, burning wood for energy is regarded as carbon neutral by the US, and this has fuelled proposals for some 102 biomass or bio-fuel energy facilities in the region. However, a study by the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, a US environmental group, indicates that burning trees for energy produces 1.5 times as much carbon as coal and three to four times more than natural gas.

Toboc Trade News

Tags: , , ,

4 Comments

  1. Geoff

    October 12, 2009 @ 5:51 am

    Biomass burners, after construction, often switch fuel sources. In Maine, most burners proposed to be “clean wood burning” are now burning construction and demolition debris. Used auto tires, and “waste-derived fuels” (garbage) also can be classified as biomass.

    Local real estate values in areas where biomass incinerators are constructed generally fall 10-20%.

    The designation of biomass burning as an alternative energy source worthy of promotion by governments is due to skillful and sustained lobbying by the paper and waste-disposal industries and other incineration-utilizing concerns.

    It is sad that speculators and their government enablers, taking advantage of poor understanding of the CO2 issue, are pushing incineration, an activity that makes global warming worse.

  2. auto quote

    March 8, 2010 @ 12:24 am

    What’s the difference between today’s global-warming models and medieval astrology? Answer: We know which astrological models were correct. That’s the conclusion of scientist Kanya Kusano in a January report published by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an Osaka-based professional scientific association. The paper, recently translated into English by British technology news Web site the Register, argues that medieval astrologers confirmed their theories by testing their predictions against celestial events that actually unfolded. Similarly, today’s climate science is so complex that only time — and a lot more observation — will tell whether what scientists think they know is really correct. Until then, the alarmist findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are “an unprovable hypothesis,” Mr. Kusano argues. Two of his colleagues on the five-member panel agree.

  3. reverse phone number lookup

    March 9, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

    Hello, this is really interesting. Can you show me additional resources to read more ??

  4. Lawrence Khay

    March 21, 2010 @ 1:37 pm

    Great post, I bet a lot of work and research went into this article.

Leave a comment

XHTML: Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>