 Text of a 4-by Gianni Tamino: First of all, however, as a biologist, let me explain What are biomass, whether it makes sense to use biomass, when it makes sense to use them ... Why newspapers [...], it seems that the biomass can solve energy problems worldwide. Just to give you a rough idea. If we were to cover 10% of the Italian energy needs with biomass, we should have an area three times in Italy used to grow biomass. I think this makes you realize that the biomass can not solve the problem. So, let's be clear what are the biomass. To a biologist, biomass is all that is produced from ' solar forfeit the photosynthesis by plants. So, we are biomass, as biomass there are the plants but also animals and even humans. Now here is clearly not talking about burning animals and humans, but for example if one wanted to take out the pork fat and burn it, might make a biomass power plant with pork fat. I hope not .... To say that here, first of all, we always talk about biomass in general, but we are talking of plant biomass. Now, I must say just one thing: the biomass formed in nature, as I said, from solar energy. It might seem reasonable to say "we want solar or derivative, and biomass are fine. Not good. Let me explain just why. The plants are a more than sufficient for them, that is, for the needs of the plants in turn feed herbivorous animals that feed carnivorous animals, and so on ... There are more than enough as the ability to capture solar energy. But if instead of using the energy from plants forfeited, as chemical energy, we want to use to burn it and use the heat, the efficiency is very low. That is, we do not burn what you eat. We're turning through chemical processes and this is a very efficient and ensures that in any case all that is needed in a living organism. Let us understand this aspect because it is crucial. Then, the plants use solar energy through photosynthesis. What do they do? They capture the air and also from the ground CO 2 that is a climate-altering gases (ie, climate change etc..) and water. With solar energy, and these two substances form sugars. The sugars are what we use. Zuicchero eat when we eat pasta, bread we eat when we eat sugar. And that's fine. The amount of production of sugars that plants can do together in this way is that to feed them and they become food for all animals, including animals that are food for other animals. Well, how the amount of solar energy that plants use in this way? Plants capture only a value of between one thousand and one per cent of solar energy reaching the Earth. That is, a share minimum. Which is fine because it does not alter the situation. absorb CO 2, produce oxygen in practice, and this ensures longer life. But if I do not get to burn the same energy, because the combustion process has a yield even lower, ie below 50%. Which means that burning plants to produce electricity delivery from very low use of solar energy and use less than half of what the plants [absorb]. A photovoltaic panel capture, in this land where I put it, between 15-20%. Now we have made between a value that is also a value of 0.5% and 15%, mean 30 times more efficient than a solar panel that maybe now that means that for [...] obtain the same energy with solar panels, I use a surface 30 times smaller. One says, but what does it matter so much, I will have the fields .. yes but if I use the fields to produce energy, not use them to produce food. Not that we can do both. I would be OK if I used the field to produce corn. I use corn and corn stalks burn them. However, an impact on pollution, but at least I do not waste food. Or do any production, what is left of them used to burn waste. The problem is there but it's something. But here, it proposes to use waste, it is proposed to use only the sugar, produce or produce wheat or corn or vine produce fruit or vegetables or produce ... or only the sugar to burn. Either one or the other, I can not do both. Would seem to tend to grow more convenient to burn and then import food from outside Italy. But think that all this makes sense? Where is the deception? Then, we try to understand this because there is something formally comes back and then we'll see what comes out, as explained. In practice, energy efficiency is low, the possibility to cover a significant share of energy in this way is crazy. If I do not produce food, the food must be imported. And I imported food is expensive. Where is the collective cost? Who gains? This is the initial question. Now let's see. Links
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment