Pros And Cons Of Biomass And Fossil Fuels

A renewable source of a fuel to produce energy because waste residues will always exist-in terms of scrap wood, mill residuals and forest resources. We could use cow manure to burn and produce electricity so it can become cheaper for the people of Texarkana. It can use manure from farms around the Texarkana area. Pros: It is a renewable source of energy. The dependency on fossil fuels is reduced. It is carbon neutral. It is widely available to the public. It can be used in many forms. Cons: It is not totally clean when burned. It can lead to deforestation. It is in-efficient. It requires a lot of space. It is very expensive. The personal safety aspects are it can clear landfills so people can build houses and it can remove dead trees from

The Philippines, the U.K., and Malaysia lead the world's biomass interest In 1992 biomass generated $1.8 billion in personal and corporate income and employed 66,000 workers. Although presently the majority of humankind's energy requirements are fulfilled by fossil fuel combustion, 14% of the world still utilizes biomass.Biomass and fossil fuels differ mostly in age. Yes, they are both formed from once-living matter, but the organisms that form fossil fuels lived and absorbed carbon millions of years ago under different environmental conditions.When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon is released into the atmosphere, but it takes millions of years to be re-absorbed and form new fossil fuels. This means that fossil fuels are adding more carbon to the atmosphere than what is being removed.Because biomass has a shorter life cycle, the carbon released when it’s burned is the same amount absorbed during its lifetime.2 The process of producing (growing, harvesting) and converting the biomass does not produce any extra carbon dioxide. This is known as a closed carbon loop and qualifies biomass as a carbon-neutral energy