Many negative reports about biomass have appeared in the media in recent years. Entire forests would disappear into the power plants. “The objections to biomass as an energy source are largely unfounded,” says Martin Junginger, professor of biobased economy at the University of Utrecht. “If you generate energy from residual flows, in a modern biomass power plant with marginal particulate matter emissions, then I cannot think of any argument against that.” Together with a group of scientists working on the energy transition, he calls on politicians to continue to support biomass.
Where does the negative image come from?
“A municipal official told me that there are two things that always cause protests: the construction of a mosque and the cutting down of trees. Fighting for trees is very deep in us. Messages such as 'the biomass mafia has cut down trees again' often appear on Twitter. Unfortunately, these people often have little knowledge of forestry. There are many reasons why trees can be cut down, for example because they are sick.”
But there are power stations that use wood pellets from forests, right?
“It is often framed that entire forests are cut down to go into the biopower plant. That is not true. If you cut down a production forest, more than half of the wood is not suitable for sawn timber. You can still make some of it into MDF, fiberboard and paper. Application as a material yields more than burning; even if you include subsidies for incineration. However, there is not always a demand for wood for paper and MDF, and then whole trees are also used for pellet production.”
Despite the objections, why is it better to use biomass in the energy transition? Read the entire interview in Bloemisterij of Friday September 4, or immediately in the digital magazine (only for digital subscribers).
Click here for the original article
