User:JonnyZzzz/sandbox

From the environmental impact section of [Biomass]. I feel the paragraph could use a comparison of why biomass releasing CO2 is advantageous against the fossils releasing CO2.

Some are carbon neutral or even negative, though, especially perennial crops. The amount of carbon sequestrated and the amount of GHG (greenhouse gases) emitted will determine if the total GHG life cycle cost of a bio-energy project is positive, neutral or negative. Specifically, a GHG/carbon negative life cycle is possible if the total below-ground carbon accumulation more than compensates for the above-ground total life-cycle GHG emission. Advantageously, biomass releases carbon dioxide gas that was absorbed during its growth cycle; meaning the gas released can be processed by photosynthetic methods, since the gas is of a recent time. For example, the burning of fossils releases carbon dioxide that was absorbed by photosynthetic processes that took place millions of years ago, which is fundamentally a new greenhouse gas that enters the atmosphere and cannot be processed. This further adds to the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. While in comparison, the plants that are the source of the biomass, can serve as an almost carbon-neutral energy source, as the biomass can capture roughly the same amount of GHG produced growing as the amount of gas produced if burned. Currently, Whitaker et al. estimates that for Miscanthus x giganteus, carbon neutrality and even negativity is within reach. Basically, the yield and related carbon sequestration is so high that it more than compensates for both farm operations emissions, fuel conversion emissions and transport emissions. The graphic on the right displays two CO2 negative Miscanthus x giganteus production pathways, represented in gram CO2-equivalents per megajoule. The yellow diamonds represent mean values.