1.1.9: Phytomass.

1.1.9.1: Background.

1.1.9.1.1: The Traditional Fuel.

Oomans have used Phytomass as their main source of energy almost throughout ooman history. During the industrial revolution it was supplanted by coal but it is still the main source of energy for billions of poor people throughout the industrializing/disintegrating world. Greens hope alternative fuels will replace fossil fuels. But, alternative fuels are nothing new. The world's first cars ran on biofuels. Although it is now taken for granted that cars run on petrol/diesel, in the early days of the car, oil companies had to engage in a propaganda battle against biofuel suppliers to win customers, "In the early days of oil, it was kerosene that was the industry's most prized product; gasoline was thrown away. Henry ford's cars were built to run on grain alcohol, produced from corn grown by u.s. farmers. Once a role was found for gasoline, however, the oil companies undertook a massive, orchestrated advertising campaign to convince american drivers that grain alcohol was no longer a modern, fashionable fuel." [1]

1.1.9.1.2: The Difference between Phytomass and Biomass.

In this work a distinction is made between Phytomass and biomass. The former refers to Trees, Crops, (including agricultural wastes), and Phytoplankton, whilst the latter refers to manure, Animals' bodies, and organic matter such as cardboard, paper, etc. [2]

1.1.9.1.3: Renewability.

Phytomass is the only renewable form of energy. The main characteristic of Trees, crops, and Phytoplankton, is that their consumption is the means of their regeneration. They are self renewing forms of energy because their use as a source of energy is both an act of destruction and a vital means of regeneration. However, there are occasions when Phytomass is used in a non-renewable way causing ecological damage and the geophysiological disruption of the climate.

1.1.9.1.4: The Efficiency of Global Photosynthesis.

The amount of sunlight converted into energy by Photosynthesis is only a tiny fraction of the total sunlight received by the Earth, "The net primary production of the whole earth, land plus sea, is probably within the range 30-50 x 10²⁰J yr^-1. This is about 0.1% of the incoming short wave radiation (from the sun)." [3] Another estimate suggests Photosynthesis is an order of magnitude larger, "From an industrial point of view, Photosynthesis is highly inefficient. On average only 1% of sunlight is converted into energy-yielding compounds such as wood." [4]

1.1.9.1.5: The Scale of Global Photosynthesis in Comparison to the Scale of Anthropogenic Energy Consumption.

According to malcolm slesser, "Total solar radiation impinging on the Earth is about 86 x 10¹³ GJ per year and the current annual energy consumption is merely around 15x10¹⁰ GJ per year. The amount of solar energy captured by plants is vastly in excess of the world's current energy use. Commonly quoted values are 190 x 10¹⁰ GJ primary production on land with another 110 x 10¹⁰ in the seas, whereas the world's energy use is around 15 x 10¹⁰ GJ/yr." [5] What this shows is that the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity is currently producing twenty times more energy than this being generated by anthropgenic sources of energy. Of course a considerable fraction of this Carbon absorption capacity is currently beyond oomans' harvesting capacity but given oomans' record of expropriating more and more of the Earth's Phytomass how much longer is it going to be before they expropriate it all? To put this another way .. "to replace the whole of our present fossil fuel use by biomass would require only about 10% of the world's net primary productivity." [6]

1.1.9.1.6: The Increasing Non-Renewability of Anthropogenic Energy.

During the industrial revolution the anthropogenic consumption of non-renewable energy has increased dramatically in proportion to the use of renewable energy, "More than nine-tenths of the energy used by Homo sapiens (sic) is now derived from sources other than each year's crop of vegetation" [7] Despite the fact that the former estimate suggests that global Photosynthesis generates twenty times more energy than oomans are currently consuming, the latter estimate implies that oomans would need another nine planet Earth's to replace their current consumption of fossil fuel with energy derived from crops. In terms of the latter estimate, the possibility of growing enough Phytomass to meet current demands for both food (global population 5 billion going on 10 billion in 2030) and petrol (400 million cars on the world's road) is negligible.

The relationship between the energy created by Photosynthesis and anthropogenic energy consumption is different for each country. The following quote shows the differences between brutland and sweden .. "to provide 50% of its present energy use on a continuous basis, sweden would need 60,000 km² of biomass plantations, or 15% of its land area. Assuming the same yield per hectare in the u.k., over 400,000 km² of energy plantations would be needed to provide half of the u.k's present energy use, which is more than the country's total land area (about 70% more!)." [8]

1.1.9.1.7: The Anthropogenic boost to Global Photosynthesis.

The improbability of generating enough Phytomass to feed oomans and cars is underlined by the fact that oomans' mass production of synthetic fertilisers has given such an enormous boost to global Photosynthesis that, according to one commentator, roughly one-third of the ooman population is alive today solely because of synthetic fertilisers, "If all farmers attempted to return to purely organic farming, they would quickly find that traditional practices could not feed today's population. There is simply not enough recyclable nitrogen to produce food for six billion people. Currently at least 2 billion people are alive because the proteins in their bodies are built with nitrogen that came - via plant and animal foods - from a factory using this process. Barring some surprising advances in bioengineering, virtually all the protein needed for the growth of another two billion people to be born during the next two generations will come from the same source - the haber-bosch synthesis of ammonia." [9]

1.1.9.1.8: The Flexibility of Phytomass.

Phytomass can be used to produce various forms of energy. It can be burnt directly to provide heat; processed and burnt in power stations to provide electricity; and used to generate biogas and bioliquids, "Trees ... furnish biomass for direct combustion to thermal energy or feedstocks for conversion into any of the same chemical products now extracted from crude petroleum, natural gas, or coal." [10]

1.1.9.1.9: The Political Flexibility of Phytomass.

Phytomass is the most flexible form of energy because, unlike most other alternative forms of energy, it can be burnt in huge, capital intensive, power stations or in small, household furnaces.

1.1.9.1.10: The Certainty of Phytomass Energy.

Unlike solar, hydro, wave or wind power, Phytomass can provide energy when consumers demand it.

The following sections explore the geophysiological damage caused by the sources of various types of Phytomass energy.

1.1.9.2: Tree Plantations.

Tree plantations provide Phytomass which can be converted for use as a solid fuel, charcoal or biofuels.

1.1.9.2.1: Background.

1.1.9.2.1.1: Different Types of Tree Plantation.

1.1.9.2.1.1.1: Harvesting.

There are different ways of harvesting wood from Tree plantations. In some plantations Trees are allowed to grow before being logged so that all the Phytomass that has been created is used. On other plantations only the branches are harvested. Trees are pruned back to their trunks every five years or so i.e. short rotation arable coppicing using fast growing Willows or Poplars, "But large scale short rotation arable coppicing does not involve full tree development - instead thin willowy growths reaching perhaps 15 feet, are cut back to stumps every 3-5 years." [11]

1.1.9.2.1.1.2: Types of Tree Used.

The most popular type of Tree used for energy plantations is the eucalyptus because of its remarkable growth rate. There is a common tendency to plant imported varieties of Trees rather than indigenous varieties, "Exotic cypresses have no appropriate place or function in the African ecosystem. They are all exotic trees which have been imported in the past by colonialists." [12]

1.1.9.2.1.1.3: Rate of Tree Growth.

The rate of Tree growth is a contnetious issue which goes to the heart of the viability of Tree plantations. Those who support Tree plantations argue that, "Regularly coppiced plantations will actually absorb more Carbon dioxide than mature trees - since carbon dioxide absorption slows once a tree has grown." [13] This issue is discussed later.

1.1.9.2.1.2: The Monocultural Nature of Phytomass.

Tree plantations are laid out in a regimented fashion to allow cropping machines to move between the rows of Trees, "Large areas could also be involved with mechanized cutters passing periodically along corridors through the coppice plantations." [14] The mechanization of the harvesting process increases profits.

1.1.9.2.2: The Development of Tree Plantations.

1.1.9.2.2.1: The Scale of Tree Plantations.

Tree plantations have been planted for a variety of reasons: to provide timber, raw materials (like rubber, oil palms), food (such as nuts) or energy. The statistics for Tree plantations rarely distinguish between these different uses.

By Continent.

"Plantation forestry now covers 13 million ha in northern europe, 11 million ha in north america and 17 million in the ussr and eastern europe." [15]

Globally.

"Since 1950, nearly a fifth of the Earth's forested area has been cleared. Industrial logging has more than doubled since 1950 .. ." [16] ; "As of 1985, industrial plantations worldwide covered nearly 12 million hectares." [17] ; "According to Sedjo and Clawson plantation Forests on a global basis occupy some 9x10⁷ ha which is equivalent to about 3% of the extent of the world's closed Forests." [18]

1.1.9.2.2.2: Examples of Energy Tree Plantations.

The Arbre project at North Yorkshire.

.. "what should be the first power station fuelled by short-rotation willow coppice in england - the 8mw arbre project at eggborough, north yorkshire. Project arbre is a joint venture between yorkshire environmental ltd (a subsidiary of yorkshire water), south wales power, associated energy projects, and tps termiska processor ab. It is also supported by the e.c's thermie programme." [19]

The following sections explore the geophysiological damage caused by the source of Phytomass energy i.e. Tree plantations . Once Phytomass has been produced it needs to be converted into a useable fuel and the geophysiological damage this causes is explored in part two. For the damage caused by the consumption of this fuel see part four. For an overall assessment of the damage caused by the energy derived from Tree plantations see part six.

1.1.9.2.3: The Geophysiological Damage to the Supply Side of the Carbon Spiral caused by Tree Plantations.

1.1.9.2.3.1: Site Clearance.

If the creation of Tree plantations involves razing/cutting down natural Forests this releases considerable quantities of greenhouse gases. Natural Forests store huge amounts of Carbon in the soil, leaf litter and Wildlife and when the Forests are razed/logged much of this Carbon is dumped into the atmosphere. The tragedy of logging the world's old growth Forests is not simply that the Carbon stored in Trees is dumped into the atmosphere but that Soil erosion, and the obliteration of Biodiversity, dumps even more Carbon into the atmosphere.

1.1.9.2.3.2: Mining.

Pollution is released by the mining of the ores needed for the manufacture of the equipment used in setting up and running Tree plantations e.g. tractors, harvesters, lorries, chainsaws, bulldozers, all terrain vehicles, etc.

1.1.9.2.3.3: Processing.

The processing of the ores needed for the manufacture of the equipment used in setting up and running Tree plantations releases Carbon emissions.

1.1.9.2.3.4: Manufacturing .

Pollution is released by the manufacturing of the equipment used in setting up and running Tree plantations.

1.1.9.2.3.5: The Harvesting of Tree Plantations.

The energy used by machines harvesting Trees release greenhouse gases.

1.1.9.2.3.6: Soil Erosion.

The creation of monocultural Tree plantations leads to soil erosion which releases Carbon emissions.

1.1.9.2.3.7: Insect Damage.

The creation of monocultural Tree plantations leads to an increase in Insect damage to Trees which boosts Carbon emissions.

1.1.9.2.3.8: The Use of Insecticides.

Tree plantations are sprayed regularly to reduce 'pest damage' - a strange phrase given that from the Earth's point of view it is the moncultural crops which are the pest causing ecological damage. It has been argued that arable coppicing or short rotation coppicing requires only one application of pesticide, "Pesticides only need to be used in the first year to help the crops become established .." [20] This is doubtful. Tree plantations have to take some responsibility for the greenhouse emissions released by pesticide manufacturers.

1.1.9.2.3.9: Transportation.

The transportation of the ores needed for the manufacture of the Tree plantations equipment; the transportation of the equipment to Tree plantations, etc, releases Carbon emissions.

1.1.9.2.3.10: Waste Disposal.

If there are wastes from Tree plantations these may be allowed to decompose and thereby release greenhouse gases.

1.1.9.2.4: The Damage to the Demand Side of the Carbon Spiral caused by Tree Plantations.

1.1.9.2.4.1: The Creation of Tree Plantations Reduces Photosynthesis.

If Tree plantations are created by razing Forests this causes a considerable reduction in the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. However, it is commonly held by right wing, free market, extremists that the destruction of old growth Forests and their replacement by Tree plantations leads to an increase in the amount of Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere. They argue that young Trees in Tree plantations absorb more Carbon than mature Forests, "Growing trees require more carbon than do mature trees." [21] ; "Mature forests can continue to accumulate Carbon for remarkably long periods (300-1000 years) but this is at very slow rates. Carbon uptake is at its highest in young, vigorous Forests." [22] ; "At first sight increased afforestation would seem a very attractive proposition .. But large scale short rotation arable coppicing does not involve full tree development - instead thin willowy growths reaching perhaps 15 feet, are cut back to stumps every 3-5 years. (The reason for this is that) Regularly coppiced plantations will actually absorb more Carbon dioxide than mature trees - since carbon dioxide absorption slows once a tree has grown." [23] As a consequence, Tree plantations are touted as an answer to the greenhouse effect.

The argument that young Trees absorb more Carbon than older ones is, of course, nonsense. Quite how ageing Trees with tens of thousands of leaves absorb less Carbon than young Trees with a few thousand leaves is difficult to understand. Take for example short crop rotation coppicing where the willow branches are removed every three years leaving only the trunk. In the first year, the number of leaves growing on the branches is very small. It is much higher at the end of the three year cycle but, over the three year period, the average number of leaves is that found after 18 months, the midway point in the harvesting cycle. This average number of leaves is far lower than those on a mature Tree growing in a natural Forest. The proposition that young Trees are more vigorous than older ones has never been scientifically validated.

1.1.9.2.4.2: The Creation of Tree Plantations Reduces Carbon Storage.

Forests absorb Carbon which is turned into Phytomass growth, creates soil litter, is transported into the soil or provides sustenance for the huge range of biodiversity which depends on Forests, "So long as harvest does not occur, considerable Carbon accumulation continues to take place in litter, soil organic matter, and the below ground portion of Trees." [24] The Carbon storage of natural Forests is fairly high. The longer a Forest survives in its natural state, the greater its store of Carbon.

If a natural Forest is razed/logged to make way for a Tree plantation there is a considerable change in Carbon storage. On a Tree plantation the storage is much lower. The only Carbon that Tree plantations store is in Trees rather than the soil, soil litter or Wildlife. They do not contribute to Soil formation nor do they provide a habitat for a wide range of Wildlife. Take the most extreme example of short rotation coppicing where coppicing is carried out every 3 years: at the start of this cycle the Trees are little more than a trunk and, at the end of this cycle, they have a bloom of branches which is harvested. The average amount of Carbon stored on these Trees over the three years is roughly equivalent to the Carbon absorbed after 18 months. The more frequent the harvesting, the smaller the Carbon storage, "Tree plantations cannot be considered forests in any meaningful sense of the word. In reality they are industrial timber stands .. dubbed "forestry's equivalent to the urban tower block" - they are ruinous to wildlife, detrimental to the soil and destructive of water supplies." [25] "Even where forests are harvested on a renewable basis, there is carbon loss of anywhere from 10-25% in temperate and boreal forests. The same reduced carbon storage is found in "recovered" forests that regrow on abandoned agricultural land." [26]

Even if Tree plantations absorbed more Carbon from the atmosphere than old growth Forests, they cannot store it if they are regularly harvested. The scale of the reduction in global Photosynthesis brought about by the replacement of natural Forests by Tree plantations is not known.

1.1.9.2.4.3: Mining.

Geophysiological damage is caused by the mining of the ores needed for the manufacturing of the equipment used in setting up and running Tree plantations e.g. tractors, harvesters, lorries, chainsaws, bulldozers, all terrain vehicles.

1.1.9.2.4.4: Processing.

Geophysiological damage is caused by the processing of the ores needed for the manufacturing of the equipment used in setting up and running Tree plantations.

1.1.9.2.4.5: Manufacturing.

Geophysiological damage is caused by the manufacturing of the equipment used in setting up and running Tree plantations.

1.1.9.2.4.6: Soil Erosion.

The creation of Tree plantations leads to soil erosion which reduces the land's Photosynthetic capacity. This is exacerbated by the fact that some Tree plantations are grown on marginal land, prone to erosion, "One promising approach is to grow energy crops on marginal lands not currently used for food." [27]

1.1.9.2.4.7: Removal of Nutrients.

The continual logging/coppicing of Tree plantations means that more and more nutrients are removed from the soil without being replaced by nutrients extracted from the atmosphere and pumped into the soil. This boosts soil erosion, "Plantations are not without problems. When Trees are harvested, they generally take along a large stock of nutrients, requiring increasing applications of fertilisers to maintain the site's productivity." [28] ; "Among the largest uncertainties are the environmental impacts of energy plantations or other biomass supplies including nutrient leaching, insect attack, disease, and land use competition." [29] If Tree plantations are grown to protect the viability of the soil this reduces the amount of Phytomass which can be removed from the land, "In virtually every present method of biomass energy production, all the plant material is removed and converted to fuels or Animal feed residues that are too valuable to return to the soil. (The single, notable, exception is again biogas production; in china the nitrogen rich fertiliser residue is considered a more important byproduct than the gas itself). The loss of most or all of the plant material that is normally recycled to maintain soil structure and fertility is potentially far more serious. Several studies have recently established that if husbanding the soil is given high priority, the potential for net production of biomass energy from each acre of land is drastically reduced." [30] There is therefore a trade-off between maintaining the health of the soil and the harvesting of wood.

1.1.9.2.4.8: Insect Damage.

The monocultural nature of Tree plantations are much more vulnerable to Insect damage and diseases which thereby reduces the plantations' Photosynthetic capacity, "Moreover, like many monoculture cropping systems, (Tree) plantations are particularly susceptible to attack by Insects and disease." [31]

1.1.9.2.4.9: Transportation.

Geophysiological damage is caused by the transportation of ores and manufactured equipment to Tree plantations.

1.1.9.2.4.10: The Impact of the Changes of the Albedo Effect and Rainfall on the Photosynthesis carried out by Tree Plantations.

When natural Forests are replaced by Tree plantations there is a considerable shift in the albedo effect. "Through their capacity to evaporate vast volumes of water vapour through the surface of their leaves, Trees may serve to keep the ecosystems of the humid tropics and the Planet cool by providing a sunshade of white reflecting clouds. Their replacement by cropland could precipitate a regional disaster." [32]

Deforestation can also lead to a reduction in rainfall which also reduces Photosynthesis, "Cutting the (rain) Forest can be expected to have severe impacts on (local) weather patterns. When malaysian Rainforest was cut to create rubber plantations, the clouds stopped at the edge of the remaining jungle." [33]

1.1.9.2.5: Conclusions.

A few commentators demand Reforestation in the industrializing/disintegrating world in order to provide fuelwood for the poor (and boost economic and social development). But, they recognize that if Reforestation is carried out for the purposes of obtaining energy then Forests' ability to help stabilize the climate will be negligible, "This report (has) provided ballpark estimates of Reforestation needed for fuelwood, industrial wood and ecological rehabilitation of 55 million hectares, 10 million hectares and 100 million hectares, respectively. For the sake of a rough estimate, assuming 35 million hectares of overlap seems reasonable, leaving the equivalent of 130 million hectares of needed planting." [34] The ecological rehabilitation mentioned in this quote is not the stabilization of the global Carbon spiral but local ecological benefits such as the prevention of soil erosion, the stabilization of the local water cycle, and other local benefits, all of which are inteneded to maximize Phytomass production. The emphasis is entirely on local ecological benefits not global geophysiological benefits. As a consequence, when Forests are used to meet local needs the Carbon-fixing role of these Forests is limited, "Some of the Trees planted for fuel wood would offer little Carbon-fixing benefit, since the carbon they accumulate during growth would quickly be released to the atmosphere when they were burned." [35]

It has been concluded that the potential of Phytomass as a fuel .. "is a minefield of unknowns. An agricultural biomass life cycle assessment model can help clarify the potential benefits from developing this fuel source." [36] The Carbon spiral analysis above suggests there are serious doubts as to the geophysiological viability of Tree plantations.

1.1.9.3: Crops.

Crops provide Phytomass for conversion into solid fuels or biofuels.

1.1.9.3.1: Background.

1.1.9.3.1.1: Types of Crop Plantations.

There are various types of crop grown to produce energy e.g. fodder beet, cannabis, rapeseed.

1.1.9.3.1.2: Estimates of the Amount of Land needed for Energy Crops.

Fodder Beet in Brutland.

"Could a country like britain ever produce enough petrol from biological sources to support the present number of cars on our roads? The answer is yes. The average family car travels about 13 kilometres per litre, consuming about 1250 litres of petrol each year. The country's 20 million cars would therefore need 25 billion litres. A hectare of fodder beet will produce about 60 tonnes of carbohydrate, which would convert to about 28 tonnes of liquid fuel or roughly 40,000 litres. Britain would therefore need to grow about 600,000 hectares of this crop to meet its transport fuel needs. - it would mean planting an area eight times the size of london, or a third the size of wales." [37]

Oil Seed Rape in Brutland.

"In a sense its just a 'technical fix' to keep cars going. One estimate suggests that each car needs roughly one hectare of oil seed rape to run for a year. There are 24 million hectares of land in the u.k. and almost 24 million vehicles. So we'd have to use all the u.k's land area - including roads!" [38]

Marijuana in the United States.

"Planting just 6% of the US with cannabis plants could provide enough hemp oil to meet the country's energy needs, according to Help End Marijuana Prohibition." [39]

1.1.9.3.1.3: Examples of Energy Crops.

Brazil (Ethanol).

In brazil, vast areas of land are being used to grow sugar cane for the production of ethanol, "By 1990, the brazilians were growing 25 million tonnes of sugar cane a year on 4 million hectares (8% of their cultivated land) and turning three-quarters of it into 12 billion litres of ethanol." [40] ; "Local production of ethanol provided a crop for 10% of brazil's farmland .." [41] ; "More than 6 million acres of the best agricultural land are now devoted to feeding cars .." [42] ; It has been estimated that .. "each alcohol distillery needs about 15,000 acres of land to be viable ..." [43]

Brazil (Methanol).

Brazil also grows crops to produce methanol to fuel cars. The following quote indicates the scale of the land required to produce methanol, "In Brazil, where yields average 12 tons per hectare annually, eucalyptus is cultivated for charcoal and for methanol production. To supply a plant with sufficient feedstock to manufacture 1,000 tons of methanol a day, 72,000 hectares of eucalyptus must be harvested on a 7 year cutting cycle." [44]

Europe.

In europe, the land no longer used for growing food could be used to provide energy, "Surplus agricultural land could be made available for cultivating both oil crops and plant-based alcohols." [45]

1.1.9.3.2: The Geophysiological Damage to the Supply Side of the Carbon Spiral caused by Crop Plantations.

The growing of crops for energy causes similar pollution problems as the growing of Tree energy plantations. This section covers only the additional boost to the supply side of the Carbon spiral created by crop plantations.

1.1.9.3.2.1: Fertilisers - the Haber-Bosch synthesis of Ammonia.

It is likely that fertilisers will be used to boost the growth of energy crops. If this is the case then the geophysiological damage caused by growing crops for energy must take some responsibility for the geophysiological damage caused by the manufacture of fertilisers, "The real breakthrough (in fertiliser production) came with the invention of ammonia synthesis .. (this) led directly to the first commercial ammonia factory in oppau, germany, in 1913. Its design capacity was soon doubled to 60,000 tons a year - enough to make germany self sufficient in the nitrogen compounds it used for the production of explosives during world war 1. Commercialization of the haber-bosch process was slowed by the economic difficulties that prevailed between the (world) wars, and global ammonia production remained below 5 million tons until the late 1940s. (During the 1950s it rose to 10 million tonnes, and by the late 1980s there had been an eight fold increase). At present, developing countries use more than 60% of the global output of nitrogen fertilizer. .. careful assessment of the various inputs indicates that around 175 million tons of nitrogen flow into the world's croplands every year, and about half of this total becomes incorporated into cultivated plants. Synthetic ferilisers provide about 40% of all nitrogen taken up by these crops. .. about one third of the protein in humanity's diet depends on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser." [46]

It is suspected that more energy can be obtained from Tree plantations than crop plantations because the latter uses far more fertilisers than the former, "The overall energy ratio of short rotation coppice (SRC) is approximately 15 to 20:1 based on practical trials (energy out: energy in). This is substantially higher than energy balances of other biofuels such as biodiesel (with an energy balance of 1.3-3.8), produced from arable food crops. This difference is explained by the fact that the production of Woody biomass requires very low levels of external inputs. Consequently the large scale production of Woody biomass as an energy source offers the opportunity to decrease the intensity of agricultural production and level of agricultural pollution whilst providing a clean and renewable energy source." [47]

1.1.9.3.2.2: Burning Crop Wastes.

Most farmers around the world set fire to the stubble left over after the harvesting of crops in order to prepare the field for next season's crop. Stubble burning is wasteful, often dangerous, and usually unpleasant for neighbours. It also releases greenhouse gases which boost global burning. Whilst this practice has been banned in brutland it still continues in many countries.

1.1.9.3.3: The Geophysiological Damage to the Demand Side of the Carbon Spiral caused by Crop Plantations.

The growing of crops for energy causes many of the same geophysiological problems as the growing of Tree plantations for energy.

1.1.9.3.3.1: The Creation of Crop Plantations.

It was noted above that there was a reduction in Photosynthesis when natural Forests were razed to make way for Tree plantations. The drop in Photosynthesis is even greater when natural Forests are replaced by energy crops.

1.1.9.3.4: Conclusions.

In conclusion, since crops are not efficient collectors of solar energy, it would be better to concentrate upon Trees.

1.1.9.4: Aquatic Phytomass.

There are various sources of aquatic Phytomass.

1.1.9.4.1: Phytoplankton.

Phytoplankton are microscopic Plants which are the start of marine food chain. They could be harvested from the oceans and converted into fuels. There are, however, limitations. Phytoplankton does not grow in the tropics because the clear waters expose Plants to high levels of ultra violet radiation. The optimal conditions for Plankton are in the polar regions where levels of ultra violet radiation are lower.

1.1.9.4.2: Algae.

Whilst the harvesting of Photoplankton would have detrimental effects on the marine food chain, the harvesting of Algae, especially the poisonous varieties currently polluting the coasts of the over-industrialized nations, would have beneficial effects, "Algae could be converted into fuel for car engines and power stations." [48] Algae could also be grown artificially, "There's a new fuel that can be grown, eats sewage and Carbon dioxide, and is stuffed with hydrocarbons. It's a remarkable alga called Botryococcus braunii .. a green collection of cells that bulges with hydrocarbons, up to 86% of all its dry weight is oil. .. there is a growing suspicion that when its ancestors laid down their lives they made some of the world's great oil fields. To create your own oilfield, all you have to do is grow the alga, harvest it and burst it open. The first part is no sweat because it grows on treated sewage. The harvesting is okay because you grow it in tanks and then filter the algae off. The tough bit is extracting the oil because it's trapped inside the cells. Scientists at the national institute for resources and environment (have a cheap technique for doing this which) involves boiling the cells in a chemical brew which squeezes out three-quarters of the algalm oil. The oil can be upgraded into high octane fuel by old-fashioned refinery techniques. And because the alga is a photo-synthesizing plant it absorbs Carbon dioxide. So burning algal oil would make little overall difference to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere .." [49] Algae could also be used to produce hydrogen (see below).

1.1.9.4.3: Hyacinths.

Various sorts of fast growing plants such as hyacinths could be grown under artificial conditions to produce Phytomass, "Sewage enriched warm water can produce several tons of hyacinths each day which is enough to yield several thousand cubic feet of methane." [50]

1.1.9.4.4: The Geophysiological Damage to the Carbon Spiral caused by Aquatic Phytomass.

There is very little information about the use of aquatic Phytomass for the generation of energy and there is even less information about its impact on the climate.

1.1.9.4.5: Combatting Global Burning Through Seeding the Oceans.

There are a number of proposals to enhance the oceans' take up of CO₂ in order to combat global burning. It is possible that this research could also indicate the viability of seeding the oceans in order to obtain energy. However, as is the case with Tree plantations, it may well be that the objective of seeding the oceans to counter global warming may be in conflict with the need to maximize energy from marine sources.

It is believed that, "The growth of phytoplankton is limited by nutrients - nitrogen, phosphorous and silicon." [51] so suggestions for boosting marine Photosynthesis centre around providing one or more of these deficient nutrients. Some scientists suggest sprinkling the oceans with iron filings, "Giant clumps of outsize seaweed reared on iron pellets could be the answer to global warming, according to scientists at America's National Research Centre. Huge blooms of marine algae would gobble up excess CO₂. They say that the cost, which the council has estimated at $1 billion, would be cheaper than abandoning current sources of energy." [52]

The growth of marine Phytomass could be encouraged if countries agreed to restart (or, in brutland's case, be allowed to continue with) the oceanic dumping of manure. This would be ecologically sound only if sewage sludge is not heavily contaminated with heavy metals from industrial wastes and domestic debris such as condoms, chlorine bleached lavatory paper, tampons, etc..

There have been a number of criticisms of the proposal to seed the oceans. Firstly, there is no proof the oceans could be coaxed into increasing their take-up of CO₂ nor how much could be absorbed. Secondly .. "philip williamson said, "6 million tons of iron dumped in the ocean was likely only to remove about 300,000 tons of carbon, which doesn't look very effective." He warned that the models already suggested the oceans could flip from one state to another in as little as 50 years by entirely natural processes which could then style="mso-spacerun: yes"> persist for up to 1,000 years with enormous climatic consequences." [53]

Thirdly, the oceans' ability to absorb Carbon has recently been under revision. It was once believed the oceans absorbed all CO₂ emissions. This changed in the 1970s when it became accepted that they absorbed 50% of the planet's CO₂. However, one of the most recent scientific studies suggested that the oceans absorb only 30% of the world's CO2 emissions. [54] This suggests that huge quantities of nutrients would be required to extract the required amount of atmospheric Carbon.

Finally, the ecological implications for marine life of biomass are not known. If Photoplankton is a benefit to marine life, the same cannot be said for Algae, "All around the world, red tides, glutinous green slimes and filthy looking froths of yellow foam, caused by algae, have become more frequent. Blooms are an increasing sign of eutrophication." [55] In conclusion, it is simply not know whether it is possible to use aquatic biomass to combat global warming.

1.1.9.4.6: Conclusions about Aquatic Phytomass.

Aquatic Phytomass grown in vats could be a substantial source of Phytomass energy. The oceans could also be a far greater source of energy but there are no estimates as to its accessibility. It is not known whether it is possible to seed the oceans to boost marine Phytomass. If seeding the oceans was carried out to combat global burning this would make it far more difficult to harvest marine Phytomass for energy. However, whilst harvesting Photoplankton would probably have detrimental effects on the marine food chain, harvesting Algae is likely to have beneficial effects. Given the sparcity of information, it is difficult to assess the impact of using marine Phytomass as a source of energy.