Reef Central Online Community - View Single Post

wertoiuy · 10/04/2017, 02:55 PM

Math time!

First of all, using forests to produce biomass is actually a really poor strategy, as newly growing forests of fast-growing trees are poor at sequestering carbon. Forests are amazing carbon sinks, but only for mature, slow-growing forest. This is due to the massive amount of biological diversity provided by this environment, most of which isn't included in biomass. Land is much better used as forested habitat than as farmed forest. Biomass production is most effective with typical crops such as corn and wheat. About 60% of the biomass comes from the grain portion.

So for conversion of coal and natural gas powerplants to consume biomass:
- 66% of power comes from coal and natural gas.
- 66% of US energy consumption (adjusted for use in gas-burning heaters as well as powerplants) is 4,419,360,000 Gigajoules/year.
- Each ton of typical non-tree biomass produces 3.7 gigajoules
- 1,194,400,000 tonnes of biomass/year therefore necessary to meet demands
- This needs 173,100,000 acres of land farming corn in addition to that which already is farmed to meet food demands (current land usage for corn farming is 90,000,000)
- This translates to 270000 square miles, or roughly the size of Texas
- This is just for the US, which has one of the lowest population densities in the world. Countries such as India, China, and most of Western Europe are heavy polluters with little land left to spare.

Perhaps algae, kelp, or bamboo could be more efficient, but I don't believe it would be enough. Personally I like solar panels installed on house roofs, and just placed in the deserts of the Southwest. Ultimately, what it boils down to though: There are WAY too many people and none of them live very efficiently.

10/04/2017, 02:55 PM	#26
wertoiuy Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 26	Math time! First of all, using forests to produce biomass is actually a really poor strategy, as newly growing forests of fast-growing trees are poor at sequestering carbon. Forests are amazing carbon sinks, but only for mature, slow-growing forest. This is due to the massive amount of biological diversity provided by this environment, most of which isn't included in biomass. Land is much better used as forested habitat than as farmed forest. Biomass production is most effective with typical crops such as corn and wheat. About 60% of the biomass comes from the grain portion. So for conversion of coal and natural gas powerplants to consume biomass: - 66% of power comes from coal and natural gas. - 66% of US energy consumption (adjusted for use in gas-burning heaters as well as powerplants) is 4,419,360,000 Gigajoules/year. - Each ton of typical non-tree biomass produces 3.7 gigajoules - 1,194,400,000 tonnes of biomass/year therefore necessary to meet demands - This needs 173,100,000 acres of land farming corn in addition to that which already is farmed to meet food demands (current land usage for corn farming is 90,000,000) - This translates to 270000 square miles, or roughly the size of Texas - This is just for the US, which has one of the lowest population densities in the world. Countries such as India, China, and most of Western Europe are heavy polluters with little land left to spare. Perhaps algae, kelp, or bamboo could be more efficient, but I don't believe it would be enough. Personally I like solar panels installed on house roofs, and just placed in the deserts of the Southwest. Ultimately, what it boils down to though: There are WAY too many people and none of them live very efficiently.