Justin Catanoso is no stranger to wood pellet plants, as he lives near four of them in the U.S. state of North Carolina, where biomass giant Enviva has several facilities. While that company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this year, it remains the single largest producer of wood pellets globally. This firm is one of […]
In the transition to more sustainable agriculture, I think that there could be a place for burning biomass on the local level. For example, some sugar cane plantations use the fibre left over after juicing as biofuel for the evaporation process. I imagine that using coconut fibre for energy production would also work (to power machinery for processing oil and so forth).
But in a sustainable agricultural system (i.e. agroforestry and tree-based systems) there wouldn’t be “waste” in the first place; all organic material would be recycled back into the land in order to maintain soil fertility, just like what happens in a forest (minus the small amount lost to natural erosion processes and migrating animals and such). The ultimate goal of sustainable agriculture must be keeping the organic matter in (or on top of) the soil and in living tissues. Otherwise, the system will require inputs from outside in order to replenish fertility, which in turn will require transportation, well-organised distribution networks, humans or machines working to produce the additional agriculture inputs… all of which also consumes energy, which requires more biomass, and around and around we go.
What if you burn it and then bury the ashes?
That would ensure that the rain doesn’t carry away the minerals, but again, the organic component of the wood/vegetation would be lost to the atmosphere.