"Up to 1500, “good paying Jobs “could be created by development the Bioenergy resources available in this part of the province. Not only would this diversify the economy, Larson said , but also would improve the air quality and reduce the green house gas emissions."

Obviously she does not understand physics and chemistry ......

"Coal Biomass" ???????

seems if you put the word "biomass" next to a word such as "coal", it all of the sudden puts an environmental acceptable spin on it.

Coal by any other name is still coal. You could call it ralsh if you wish, it's still the same olde same olde.

The term "biomass" covers a lot of material from virgin forest to farming to fishing to poop. What kind of biomass energy generation are they talking about. Is it ethanol production? is it methane from sewage fermentation? is it thermal depolymerisation of waste animal parts? Is it coal fired electrical generators? All of them are biomass energy conversion systems, but not all of them are desirable. Coal will increase global warming. The others are recycling so would be largely carbon dioxide neutral.

The depolymerising plants are the exception and could help sequester carbon from the atmosphere and may be the best option in the long run since they recycle carbon already in use and produce some elemental carbon from each run which could be dumped in a mine or used for manufacturing, effectively removing a small amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A small amount for 100 years could reverse our current problems, potentially, although I am sceptical.

It looks like Biomass is the word of the week, however it will fade into the sunset before too long. BioBull might be a better way to describe it.

"The others are recycling so would be largely carbon dioxide neutral."

That is a fallacy that is being perpetrated by those seeking the "easy" way out of the eventual fossil fuel crisis.

The fact is that the carbon cycle which we were all supposed to be taught in basic biology in the early high school years includes a component of "biomass" which remains on site in the decaying process. After all, that is how fossil fuels were created in the first place. In the forest situation we are short circuiting that part of the normal carbon cycle.

As well, it is far better if we were to use most of the forest fibre for products used in construction and production of other wood products. That way the fibre is sequestered for a few more generations. Even after that, it may actually be better to put the discarded lumber, panels, etc. into landfills so that the carbon is returned mostly back into the ground, rather than released to the air.

Determining which is the best approach to managing forest carbon is an ongoing exercise which several organizations throughout the world are working on, including Canada's National Research Council.

For those interested in a bit more insight into the complexity of the decisions which need to be made how to best use forest fibres from the point of view of carbon management, the following page from the Canadian Forest Service should be a good start.

Notice that the Carbon Budget Model has been used to analyze carbon stocks for over a decade.

Those who think that burning forest biomass, or even rangeland biomass, is carbon neutral are conveniently forgetting about what is called the "carbon soil pools" on the site.

http://carbon.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/cbm/index_e.html

For a shorter version as written up in the Canadian Silviculture winter 2006 issue, go here:

http://www.canadiansilviculture.com/fall06/carbon.html