Question

I'm doing a project on biomass energy. Biomass energy is plant materials and animal waste used as fuel. I need help with this question about biomass energy: What part of the U.S would benefit most from biomass energy and why?

Answer 1

agricultural states, cause they produce lot of biomass

Answer 2

So they would make the most money therefore benefiting from it? And which states are "agricultural state?" Thank you!

Answer 3

Sorry "agricultural stateS forgot the s

Answer 4

well yes, they would benefit most from it. and im not from US so i dont know which are agricultural, i guess california (lots of sun, lots of fruit and other stuff...)

Answer 5

I lived in Vermont for a few months, and biomass is something they are very serious about. Considering the size of the state, there are ample existing forests and farms. Many residents are questioning why they have a nuclear power plant after the Fukushima meltdown; and biomass is being discussed as a possible (if at least partial) replacement.

Answer 6

So Vermont is a state, but what is the Fukushima meltdown? And why would Vermont benefit from it? Thanks!

Answer 7

*So Vermont is a state that benefits from biomass* sorry wrote that wrong in first sentence!

Answer 8

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Fukushima+meltdown

Answer 9

Um thanks? ^^

Answer 10

Thanks Kryten.

From one perspective, Vermont would stand to gain if they close their nuclear reactor. They would not have to risk the possibility of allowing a radioactive material leak if a disaster like Japan's earthquake ever strike in Vermont. The biomass would be an alternative source of energy. If I recall correctly, that single power plant provides 50% of the state's energy needs. Approximately the other half comes from an agreement with HydroQuebec for hydroelectric power on the St. Lawrence River.

Answer 11

Thank you Kryten and Adastra!

Answer 12

You're welcome. Everything make sense?

Answer 13

not a problem, glad to help

Answer 14

Of course, the way you convert biomass -- otherwise known as wood and other plant materials -- to energy is to burn it. So if you replace a nuclear power plant (which has no emissions at all) with a plant that burns wood, you are looking at a giant increase in air pollution and CO2 emission. There are trade-offs, in other words.

It's actually not that likely an agricultural state would be particularly interested in biomass energy, I think. Almost all of the residue from crop growth is plowed back into the soil to reduce the need for fertilizer. There's nothing left over. Furthermore, this doesn't even make sense from a conservation point of view. As it is, crop growth and recycling takes lots of carbon out of the atmosphere. If you instead grow it to burn, you might as well just put up another fossil-fuel power plant.