By the way, I wonder why biomass is green while coal is not? I mean, in the end you burn organic materials?
Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for that kind of money you could make like really nice coal plants.
Of course, existing coal plants are dirty, but for that kind of money you could make like really nice coal plants.
So - if you're burning timber from a forest which is sustainably managed (so you're renewing wood at the same rate you're using it), then there is no net carbon released.
Burning biomass could be sustainable if we make sure that new biomass is grown at the same rate as it is burned. I have yet to see a document assuring me that is the case.
In any case burning biofuel is not greenhouse gas neutral. And hence not green.
On the other hand, when you are burning coal, you released CO2 that was previously sequestered.
Add that biomass usually releases CH4 (methane) which is a considered a much more potent greenhouse gas. Even simply burning the methane to CO2 -- ignoring energy recapture -- is an environmentally beneficial action, which is why landfills sometimes have flares.
Depending on one's definition of 'green' it may or may not be green. However it is renewable (in a sensible time frame).
Biomass is green because it does not change the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere: it fixes it into wood first, to put it back later. The net effect is zero over the human timescale.
Burning coal has also a net effect of zero, but over the Earth lifespan timescale, which is not very good for the current ecosystem (including us).