Forest soils often contain more carbon
than tree biomass — though this is less true in the Tropics.
Phytoplankton biomass does not last forever, any more
than tree biomass does.
Not exact matches
No, the EU now gets more
than 60 per cent of its renewable energy from
biomass: some from crops grown to make liquid biofuels, but mostly from waste wood and felled
trees.
In temperate forests a LOT of the
biomass is not in the standing
trees — remember, there is far more life in a «dead»
tree than in a «living»
tree.
«Cutting
trees for fuel is antithetical to the important role that forests play as a sink for CO2 that might otherwise accumulate in the atmosphere,» Schlesinger writes in an article published yesterday in the journal Science, adding later that carbon neutrality «is only achieved» if harvested forests are allowed to regrow more
biomass than was lost.
Biomass power plants do emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, but they release no more
than what is naturally in the carbon cycle as
trees are planted, downed — by man or nature — and replanted.
The major advantage of forests and
trees as a source of
biomass is their lower energy inputs and their ability to grow on sites with lower fertility
than those required for agriculture.
Trees turned into ethanol are less productive
than if the
biomass is used to supply power to PHEVs,
A new study, published earlier this year in Nature, shows that the Congolese rainforests store far more carbon
than previously thought: over 60 billion tonnes, about half of which in the living
biomass of the forest
trees, and the other... Continue reading →
For truly boreal systems (further north
than Adirondacks), my understanding is that there is enough evidence for a strong warming albedo effect of forests (counter-acting the cooling effect of C sequestration) that we probably should not attribute carbon offsets to boreal reforestation based simply on carbon accounting of
tree biomass.