Bioenergy In All Its Complexity: The Good the Bad and the Ugly

Under what circumstances is bioenergy a truly sustainable energy source, and when is it best filed under greenwashing?
In this video I delve into all the complexity and tell you my personal rules to separate bioenergy projects into the good, the bad and the ugly.
We cover sustainable forestry, traditional biomass, bioethanol, wood pellets, converted coal powerplants like Drax, and BECCS - bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.
Bookmarks:
00:00 Intro
01:18 What is bioenergy?
01:48 Is bioenergy carbon neutral?
02:16 Bioenergy cons
03:06 Bioenergy pros
04:30 Characteristics of a "Good" bioenergy project
05:18 Calling dead wood "waste" really wobbles my wallaby
06:51 Characteristics of a "bad" bioenergy project
07:07 Biomass from palm plantations
07:48 Bioenergy in IEA's Net Zero by 2050 roadmap
08:32 "Ugly" bioenergy projects
09:05 Bioethanol from corn
09:35 Bioenergy for hard to abate sectors
10:16 Summing up
11:22 Tradeoffs and complexity
#technology #engineering #science
If you would like to help develop the Engineering with Rosie channel, you could consider joining the Patreon community, where there is a chat community about topics covered in the videos and suggestions for future videos and production quality improvements. / engineeringwithrosie
Written, presented, produced by Rosemary Barnes
Cinematography by Meredith Barnes
Bird video footage all by confirmed bird nerd, Rosemary Barnes
Thanks for watching the video Bioenergy In All Its Complexity: The Good the Bad and the Ugly

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

This video is also available in written form on Medium, with many references linked: medium.com/climate-conscious/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-bioenergy-1293b0297cd7?sk=7d3073dc222481e0acd386744306405d

[@pingnick]

That is excellent terminology wow ugly to sequester carbon by burning or whatever the biofuels🤯🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥☮️💟🌈🗽♾😻🥰😍😘🙃

[@_aullik]

Thanks. While I like watching the video, when I have to look something up later on, I much prefer the article version where i can search more easily. As I really like to discuss those topics, I often have a lot to double check.

[@JakubSkowron]

I love it

[@rjung_ch]

Those in power don't care in my eyes, it's a lip-service they are handing out. Look at Glasgow, nothing really moving coming from there...yet? Biden speaks about how dire it is, a week earlier he allowed new exploration on national land/indigenous lands. And he's just one of the liars there... Why all fly to Glasgow instead of including the world via some new technology? Most of the "south" didn't show up to COP and they are once again left out. Globalism, colonialism and capitalism aren't interested in anything but ROI and money and power. Thanks for your input, if more would care like you we'd be in a way better spot.

[@handsofrhythm3415]

I am an aussie about the same age as Rosie. It is hard not to be completely jaded by our politicians inaction and perverse focus on unproven technology to "solve" the climate crisis. Rosie, you are a beacon of hope. You show us the realities of the industry because we are not exposed to it's intricacies. Please keep making videos, you make me feel less shit about being Australian.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Aww thanks! I share your frustration, and it was actually the reason that I moved to Denmark for 5 years so that I can contribute to solutions. I'm back in AUS now and though the fed gov hasn't changed much, I actually don't feel bad because I know that renewable technology has already won most of the battle. In my opinion, we are on an unstoppable trend towards completely green electricity and more electrification of other sectors like transport. And For the remaining challenges, the rest of the world has the politcal momentum on the right side, Austalia can't stay in oppositition to that for too long. So I am more optimistic now than ever before!

[@joecummings1260]

I can't say I agree with you on everything, but I absolutely love your channel. I love the way you present both the positives and the negatives of alternative power generation. I believe that everyone has their biases, myself included, but I think you're doing a great job of providing very educational unbiased content

[@adriancarey7848]

A wealth of information. I live in Ireland, we import "bio" wood from Australia. 10 week voyage (37,000 tonnes) per ship; so we burn less peat. Can you imagine how much heavy oil is burnt on each trip then all the lorries to transport the last 100 miles, if each lorry carries only 30 tonnes. It's madness. We import coconut husks from central America also!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

From Australia?? Are you sure? I had no idea it was going so far. We are still logging native forest here (hopefully not for much longer) which I'm not happy about!

[@justmechilling...]

I think from the usa as well...

[@tcroft2165]

I can understand the US/EU. But from Aus seems a surprising long distance to be economic.

[@bknesheim]

One sad thing is that the last 100 miles on truck is often the major energy cost. Transport on ships are very efficient, but it is still madness to get it from Australia.

[@eastcorkcheeses6448]

I thought that was scrapped - the former peat plants are all closed down ..

[@jakegomez-fort3810]

Wish I had found your channel earlier. This is great educational content. Its also great to see an Australian with some good sense on youtube too

[@ganjalogic]

Great video! An exciting idea I've heard is to use biochar for carbon sequestration, as it doesn't require commercialization of new carbon capture technology. Essentially you bake biomass without oxygen to form flammable gasses and charcoal. You burn the gasses to produce energy and till the charcoal into farm fields, where it retains fertilizers and releases them slowly over time. Terra preta soils from South America seem to indicate that the carbon could be sequestered for up to thousands of years. The problem of sourcing the biomass remains, but we're also learning more about the importance of periodic fires to many ecosystems. I wonder if we could either use scheduled harvesting to simulate beneficial effects of fire, or harvest areas before planned burns to reduce the amount of carbon released. On an unrelated note, if we could just all agree to consider peat a fossil fuel I think that would help the overall bioenergy conversation.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

What a timely comment! I just interviewed a researcher working on this exact topic. I will have a video on this and other CCU out in a few weeks, so keep an eye out.

[@gurrz1126]

the amount of massaging of facts that's needs to be done to be able to call peat "renewable" is kind of fascinating. Here in Sweden they are only allowed to remove a couple of centimeters of the top layer and it still takes hundreds years for it to grow back. Grows at about 1 mm/year.

[@eskileriksson4457]

If you translate the energy consumption per capita, and the amount of carbon stored, you'd have to bury about six ton of charcoal per person and year (Swedish figures). Doesn't sound doable.

[@bknesheim]

@@EngineeringwithRosie I love the concept, but there is a lots of problems with the scale needed before it will have any meaningful impact. To supply biochar it is of course the correct way to go, but not for sequestration. Using the carbon to replace coal always give the largest effect at the lowest cost. A different side of the problem is also the amount of land needed before you can harvest any amount that can make a difference. Sorghum has the highest yields at nearly 10 ton per acre, about 50% dry mass, equal 5 ton dry mass/acre. Than is about 2 ton carbon per acre. I a mono culture you could get about 500 ton/km2. Then you have to subtract all the carbon cost connected to growing the Sorghum. Worlds CO2 emissions in billion metric tons = 33.5 and or close to 10 billion metric tons carbon. That is 10 000 000 000 ton / 500 ton per km2 = 20 million km2 with Sorghum needed if that was all we did. That is more than 50% of all arable land in the world. If we only did 1% the need would still be a major part of the land where we can grow food, and 1% would not make much difference.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

@@bknesheim That is really interesting, I think I will have to do a whole video on biochar because I'm not going to be able to cover it in much depth in the broader video I recorded on CCU. I am particularly interested in the possible scale. I haven't checked your numbers, but I do note that they seem to be in contrast to this recently published article about biomass intermediate pyrolisis pol-generation (BIPPS). From the authors: "Here we find that a BIPP system can be profitable without subsidies, while its national deployment could contribute to a 61% reduction of carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product in 2030 compared to 2005 and result additionally in a reduction in air pollutant emissions. With 73% of national crop residues used between 2020 and 2030, the cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction could reach up to 8620 Mt CO2-eq by 2050, contributing 13-31% of the global GHG emission reduction goal for BECCS, and nearly 4555 Mt more than that projected for BECCS alone in China." Like I said, I need to actually check your and their calculations to see if there's a discrepancy. But this paper does make it sound like we can acheive some meaningful scale just by using crop residues. I'd be interested to hear your opinion! www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21868-z

[@barryhamm3414]

This morning there was a new video from ClimateAdam and this afternoon this one from Engineering with Rosie - life is indeed good. This thing with waste is that it is really a resource for which we haven't found a good use. I use waste from furniture manufacturer to make simple toys for charity. Although this certainly won't have any meaningful environmental impact I am keeping several hundred kilos of wood waste out of landfill. People need to realise that the near future will not look like the near past, we are at a fork in the road and which path we take will have consequences.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I didn't see the Climate Adam one! I will take a look this evening, something to look forward to 😊

[@pavelsulc2617]

I am afraid that I do not share your thoughts on the amount of waste available. I think that a lot of waste is already being used today and, for example, there is really no waste from agriculture. Because the maximum amount of material should be returned to the field where it will serve as a source and not burn it somewhere in the power plant.

[@andyhodchild8]

@@pavelsulc2617 but if less animals are eaten then we all the land growing their food and may have enough land for our food and some biomass Biomass..... Still it does not look good while our politicians lie to the public and just continue with Blah Blah Blah. Public want sound bite answers to complex issues so very easy for politicians to pull the wool over their eyes.

[@Beregar79]

@@andyhodchild8 In what fantasy world is less animals getting eaten when global meat consumption is consistently increasing?

[@jasonlongsworth4036]

Waste is really frustrating, because of the potential risks with scaling it up and creating more waste than actual product Compost is really important and great

[@ianpgeorge]

FYI .. another (I find) often overlooked 'bio-energy' .. is the biological decomposition that happens all the time in trash land fills .. that produces methane .. the landfill happens anyway .. the methane off-gassing happens anyway even if we don't collect it .. but there are some places that have installed a methane collection system .. this reduces the green house emissions (that happen anyway) from the landfill by converting the methane to less potent green house gasses (like CO2) .. and it can provide heat and electrical power as well .. it can be stored for long periods of time for later use , when it's needed.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

There are plenty of projects near me that are capturing landfill gas. I might have to do a video on that soon! Not as scenic a location as for this video though 😋

[@ThomasBomb45]

We really should be diverting food waste into compost instead of letting it rot into methane in landfills. We can do intentional biodigesters from food waste too, and use the remainder for fertilizer. But I really don't like just tossing everything into a landfill and siphoning off the gas

[@andyhodchild8]

@@ThomasBomb45 Totally agree

[@FG-vf7pq]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Landfills are inefficient anaerobic digesters....I will leave the rest to you!

[@oootoob]

I look at Drax in the UK using non-waste wood shipped from Canada to burn in converted coal furnaces for power (currently without CCS) and find their insistence that it is sustainable and low carbon rings somewhat hollow, yet they seem to have government support.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Is it non-waste wood? I thought that they were at least saying it was waste. Even though I know many people don't believe it. I saw they have a CCS trial, where they capture carbon and then... just release it back into the atmosphere 🙄

[@oootoob]

@@EngineeringwithRosie I suspect it's like you were saying in the video, if there's demand of the scale they need, how much can it really be waste? I just can't see how it makes sense to ship it thousands of of miles to just burn. We're many years from having commercially functional CCS too, so in the meantime, all that wood carbon that could have been used for other purposes has been released.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

The wood for Drax is being clear-cut in rural Appalachia during land clearance to put up Wal-Marts. It's a giant scam. Dynamite Drax's boilers and replace them with nuclear steam generators. Repowering the newer coal fired power stations would reduce the stranded assets associated with coal abandonment. We also need to get used to nuclear reactors near population centers, so we can take advantage of cogeneration for district heating or even process heat.

[@stanwhitson2599]

"Unintended consequences" summarises this video best.

[@dansshop]

This is absolutely my new favorite channel on youtube.

[@Byzmax]

Great video. Everything is more complicated than it first appears but we don't have the luxury of time right now. Taking into account all the points made in your video, we must find and apply those changes that produce the biggest reductions in the shortest time at an achievable cost. This will create longer term issues without doubt but we must then set to work solving or mitigating those. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. Sadly, for most of the developed world at least there is little interest in change on an individual level. People are not able to see the train crash about to happen. Legislation created by governments under pressure from the voter is the only way this will happen. There is too much procrastination. This will only happen through education and that is why your videos are so important. Keep it up!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Thanks Iain!

[@tommclean7410]

I shared your discomfort with bioenergy. Due to the slippy definition of "waste", the burning of biomass can easily be used for green washing. As you also point out, both large scale removal of biomass from natural forests and land use changes (e.g. for plantations) are more likely damaging than helpful. They can hurt wild life systems while still causing net carbon emissions. Definitely one of your top videos.

[@ericlotze7724]

I think doing "controlled burns" via a biomass plant (i am team Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle !) would be neat. I need to look into it more, and see if there are papers on it, but i think it would go like this: 1.) Area in need of a "controlled burn" is selected 2.) (This is probably just me being naive, but possibly shoo out animals with air cannons and whatnot?) 3.) Mow (or Mulch + Pelletize?) + Bale Grasses/Droppings 4.) Potentially add this step for small actual fires to do things like activate pinecones etc? (need to look into the environmental impact of this) 5.)Burn the harvested biomass in a thermal power plant (thus instead of the "burn" part happening in the forest, it is harnessed for energy) 6.) Return the ash to the site, in either pellets (may need to be diluted with filler?), or just dilute solution?; this prevents the process from essentially "bio-mining" the nutrients out of the soil 7.) Optional Char burial (total in the case of pyrolysis, or biomethane pyrolysis?, or partial if some is burned for energy as well) to improve soil 8.) Optional Replanting of Ground Cover / Trees I need to make a wiki page on this^ concept, i did make one for the ash return though: wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/Biomass_Origin_Ash_Return

[@judelarkin2883]

Another great video! It’s tough knowing that everything we currently do has some kind of negative impact on the environment. We are left looking for the least harmful solution. You’re one of the good ones, educating and looking for the best solutions.

[@ngavigan]

I have worked in the Bioenergy industry for the past 15 years and complement Rosie on this video, while I might not agree 100% with everything said (perhaps 95%) she clearly has the intelligence and balance needed to understand and examine the complexity of the sector. Bioenergy - done correctly is an integral part of meeting the huge challenge the world faces. The European Union have set out very detailed criteria to assess the good from the bad and ugly in the Renewable Energy Directive and its amendments (currently RED 2 - RED 3 is under negotiation). Rosie or viewers might find that an interesting resource.

[@ngavigan]

Note on transport comments: Electrification of cars is achievable but depending on the electric grid emissions often does not achieve very impressive CO2 reductions. If the grid emits 400g CO2/kWh then emissions are 54% less than diesel, and only 27% less if you include embedded emissions to produce the car! Biofuels under the RED 2 reduce emissions by 65% compared to diesel, and 50% if including embedded. Electrification is not an option for large fleet such as marine, heavy road haulage or agricultural tractors. Compact energy forms such as biofuels, biogas and (distant potential) hydrogen so far are the best options we have for these.

[@_aullik]

@@ngavigan The efficiency of a diesel car is between 10% and 20% depending on how you use it and how powerful it is. Trucks can get close to 30%, Long haul even above that. Still your average efficiency is shit. In fact you are better of buying an electric car and charging it with a diesel generator. The overall efficiency will end up somewhere in the range of 30-35%. It is correct that purely electric agricultural vehicles make little sense, but many of them have extremely varying loads and are big enough for a diesel-electric system which could increase their mean-efficiency drastically. Personally I would like bioenergy to be outlawed nearly completely. While it is true that there are a lot of useful applications for it, there are even more missuses and the question is whether or not the good can even makeup for the bad. Currently I don't think it can which makes the whole industry net negative.

[@ngavigan]

@@_aullik Your analysis (amongst others) that you could use a diesel generator to power an electric car to reduce emissions clearly has no scientific basis, however I admire your passion and encourage you to educate yourself on these matters with proper science and engineering based literature, techniques and critiques - accurate assessment is required and a clear understanding of the challenges and technological possibilities needs to be understood by all. In terms of outlawing bioenergy - in your own terms throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Currently a very high proportion of the worlds water reserves are misused, wasted and polluted - yet we all understand that its use can't be banned: we can however use the resources available to us in a far more sustainable and responsible way. According to the UN FAO currently 2.4 billion people rely on bioenergy to provide their basic energy needs (cooking, heating and lighting), if we "ban" bioenergy what do you propose we do for them. Bioenergy provides 67% of the worlds renewable energy, and is seen as vital to decarbonise high temperature heating and transport. If we want sustainable building materials to build houses and other buildings the only option is wood, you can't produce wood without cutting up a tree, and you can't cut up a tree without producing sawdust, bark, pulpwood and brash - all of which provide the majority of bioenergy. Facts and details are important - the challenge is complex, the solutions are complex.

[@matthewbrooker]

If profit becomes the primary goal of any given solution, trouble is sure to follow. Local solutions and a tight regulatory framework for traceability of source material arexan important part of successful deployment. Personally, I see biodeisel from local food oil waste as a quick win.

[@dempa3]

Where I live, we separate our food waste garbage, from other garbage, and it is used for methane production. Our methane is used as fuel for buses and cars (aka "biogas"). The sources are 64% food scraps from homes, 15% slaughterhouse waste, 9% is from sewage, 8% waste from other food industry and 4% other. The weird part is that 13% of the waste is imported from a neighboring country (we pay them for it :P). But it is quite much better than importing palm oil from the other side of the planet I suppose. If you have a car this biogas ends up being cheaper, per km, than regular gas by maybe 20% to 33% (according to my more pessimistic calculations, rather than the more optimistic marketing). I think this is a pretty good step in the right direction. Since practically all gas engine cars can be converted to methane, I'm surprised that we don't ramp up this type of solutions (without starting cutting down forests and importing from dubious sources), and convert as many already existing cars to methane, as possible. And also produce diesel from our waste (can be done from fats and oils in our local food industry, sewage, and from forest industry waste (instead of importing palm oil)). And lastly electrify our highways for trucks and highway buses, like in this Tom Scott video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWSzkIZtpbFqj8k ! We could eliminate fossil fuels in 5-10 years if we really wanted. A part of my disappointment with efforts so far comes from the fact that a lot of the technologies aren't new either! The first time a passenger type plane flew on hydrogen and methane (which both can be made from renewable sources) was 1988!

[@nicosmind3]

"not all bio-energy is made from koala..." Video pauses.... And it's still paused... "habitat" oh thank god for that, those poor koalas

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

😂

[@joecummings1260]

Remind me of the little Lisa recycling plant on The Simpsons. Mr. Burns makes the little Lisa slurry from RECYCLED ANIMALS

[@philherb3843]

Woodstoves are a great example, of how good and bad are often the same thing. A friend has a house about 40 years old with a new wood gasifier stove. The house is not insulated. He takes about 30-35 m³ of firewood per year to keep himself and his family worm. Another friend has a 100 year old, completely renovated and insulated house, also with a wood gasifier stove. He only uses about 6-8 m³ of firewood. He also has a family and it's always nice and worm at his house. With gas or electric heating, the price for heating an old house is so high, that you are going to insulate. With wood it is extremly cheap (but much work) when you do everything by yourself. So you can heat up four houses or only one house with the same amount of wood.

[@chrishyslop1]

Great video and great editing.

[@Conservator.]

Thank you for a very well balanced video on bio-energy.

[@_aullik]

Another example of bad bio energy is using fallow land that would otherwise be a place for insects and animals to live. If you have waste material, you can also just put it into the ground where it will serve as a natural fertilizer instead of burning it.

[@ThomasBomb45]

Cover crops are awesome!

[@philreilly6959]

Hi Rosie, I've only just found your channel. I think it's brilliant. Putting your channel together with the Just Have A Think channel gives a really excellent view of all things energy and environment. With regards to this video, my view is possibly aligned somewhat with yours. As rich countries (I'm in the UK) we can't dictate to poor countries how to manage their environment unless we are prepared to subsidise those countries, or, more particularly, the locales where biomass use has been a way of life for a long time. It is, as you said, a very complicated subject. One point that I feel needs saying, is that carbon capture and storage is a bit like a holy grail. But Carbon that has been captured and stored in the natural environment for hundreds of years (I.e. in trees) should be seen as an untouchable form of storage. I can't see that saying the tree has taken carbon out of the atmosphere over hundreds of years and burning it just releases it again means that biomass from trees is carbon neutral is crazy! If we do ever manage to copy nature and capture/store carbon dioxide from the air, would it also be a good idea (if, at some point in the future technology produces a way to re-use that captured carbon dioxide) to release all of that gas back into the atmosphere? That's what biomass from forests is doing now. I say that we should be thankful for ANY captured carbon dioxide and ensure that it stays captured. Saying that burning timber is carbon neutral is a clever way that big industries can make huge profits at the expense of poor countries and their people and, of course, at the expense of the whole planet. Low or zero polluting technology has to be the way forward - not further damage to the already fragile natural world. That's my rant for today!!! Thanks for a very thought-provoking video.

[@anoxisify]

I would love to know more about your project you were talking about! Great Video, very informative

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

It's in development, a few years away from release so too early to talk details now!

[@indlovubill7100]

Great video, Rosie. Thanks.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Glad you liked it!

[@joshfernandes4150]

Great accompaniment to your medium post a few weeks back 👏🏼

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Wow, so people do actually read those 😂

[@Sondan1988]

Dr. Rosie all of your points are good and valid......well GREAT and valid, because it is you. :) But the real problem that no one wants to talk about is our population. I am a doctor here in the States and I had to take a lot of biology classes. An ecosystem has a defined carrying capacity which is represented by the letter 'k'. A rancher can easily put 5 head of cattle on 40 acres and they will do fine. If he sticks 50 head on that same 40 acres they will quickly overgraze those acres and starve. We are adding about 80 million people to the planet every year. What is the earth's k (carrying capacity) for humans ? I just don't believe we can cut emissions enough to offset the increases we keep adding in new people. Especially when we could add another 3 billion people by the end of the century. Everyone one of those 'new people' is going to require more land for food, more water for drinking, and more land to live on. (On a lighter note, ornithology was one of favorite classes when in school. I enjoyed your clips of what you have seen. As always, I love your slightly dumbed down videos for us non-enginerds !! Your big fan in America.) Current human pop. = 7.9 Billion year 2200 ~ 11 Billion www.worldometers.info/world-population/

[@fjalics]

My favorite biofuel is biogas from animal feces including human. Less flies, smell, and fugitive methane emmisions. I think a key thing to keep in mind, is plants capture about 1% of the sun's energy in biomass, and solar pannels about 20% and doesn't need water. That multiplier is tough to overcome.

[@bknesheim]

Yes, but a solar panels capture 0% carbon.

[@fjalics]

@@bknesheim So do coal plants, and cars. The most productive biofuel in theory, is micro algae. I say in theory, because in practice there are a lot of problems to overcome, but productivity is several times higher than palm.

[@ThomasBomb45]

@@bknesheim biofuels also capture 0% carbon. If you grow something just to burn it, the carbon is not captured anywhere

[@bknesheim]

@@ThomasBomb45 The point was capturing CO2 not energy. That was why solar panel had no meaning. When you talk about electricity, solar panel is great.

[@RobFerrer]

I've always been similarly skeptical of biomass energy, and this nicely summarises why it's not a simple good or bad. We're currently working out what to do with the fireplace in our house. We've just installed an air-source heatpump, but would like to retain a fireplace for very occasional use. We're aware the wood-burning stove we have has at least localised emission problems, and don't want to keep gas in the house just for a fireplace. Electric fires look too fake, but are considering a bioethanol fireplace, the thinking being as an occasional luxury the slightly "ugly" source of fuel might be an ok compromise.

[@bknesheim]

The local problems are negated when you use an electrostatic dust filter, and a modern stove (produces very little tar). You are still generating CO2, but that is not a local problem. With a stove you can also convert thing that will go into the wast to something useful when you need some heat.

[@samuelchamberlain2584]

May I suggest that security of supply is also a consideration . Hedge your Bets with wood or gas .

[@danielvivian3282]

Excellent video again. Thank you. You had mentioned using bioenergy for seasonal energy storage. As mentioned off hand I would be concerned that would be in the "bad" catagory. In the north where I live we would need seasonal storage for the winter if we relied on solar energy alone. However wind energy is stronger here in the north so a blend of wind and solar very likely reduces the storage times to only those grey days with low wind levels. Generally down from months to a few days. However to move that amount of now natural gas to wind would require huge amounts of industrial wind generation. It would be very interesting to know if that significantly affects local and migratory bird populations and how to mitigate against that if a problem? Would small individual VAWTs for Net Zero houses and buildings generating energy along with solar on the buildings be a better more sustainable way to build? Less impact on the birds and less nimby-ism when it is literally in your backyard.

[@theelectricwalrus]

Wow, Australian bush birds seem incredibly beautiful!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

They really are. And they are not just bush birds, they are backyard birds too here in Canberra.

[@paulbrouyere1735]

I think it is very important to understand that the best way to use bio-energy is the one where you don’t burn it, but transform it into a useful new product. Better insulate houses with natural materials against heat and cold. The best way is not to need energy. Think about making a solar oven for cooking 10 years with the sun in stead of burning the same amount of wood for one meal. Same with windenergy. You can make several windmills out of one tree lasting for years generating everything you need. If you really need to burn something, create biogas out of manure in power and heat cogeneration. It is not bad when the blades of your turbine decay. You can improve the time they last with natural oils. In the end you can burn them when you need heat. But they will have provided you with years of energy, and can easily be replaced. Stop burning stuff.

[@DivergentMind]

Hey Rosie, I really liked this video. I appreciate the "it's complicated" conclusion at the end - I feel that while that's often an unpleasant answer (because we'd all like there to be simple answers), it's more honest. I live in a deeply rural, conifer forest in the Pacific Northwest US. Most folks out here have a huge slash pile that they just burn off in the spring or late fall when the wild fire hazard is low. I have one in my side yard right now that is easily 1000lbs of wood. I've always felt like it's a bit of a waste to just burn it off. Do you have any suggestions about what we could do with it that would be more useful? It would need to be relatively low cost/low effort. If I can come up with something that is more eco- friendly while also providing a benefit to my household, I can probably get my neighbors on board. I know this would be "drop in the bucket" kind of change but it's something I might actually have the power to do... Cheers.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

that's a really interesting question. I will give it some thought. I know there are programmes in developing countries (I think I saw one in India) where they coordinate the collection of such waste to take it for central processing to make it into biofuel that's sold on a market. But that mainly works where the cost of labour to collect it all is low. I guess you could chip it and use it for mulch, or press it into pellets or logs if you are already burning wood for fire. It will be the processing cost/ effort that makes such a project tricky, but if you can coordinate enough neighbours perhaps you could buy some small equipment that would reduce the labour, and that everyone can share?

[@DivergentMind]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Thanks Rosie!~

[@andyhodchild8]

I used to install small scale pellet and log heating but government support dwindled which drove market to cheap equipment. So what with winding down to retirement and not being able to fit quality equipment I have stopped this, still doing both solar technologies. I have a froling pellet boiler heating my business premises and I love it, great bit of kit. It has lambda control which I think is very good and should have been a phased in requirement in my opinion. The issue that needs addressing is Particulates if a fraction of money wasted on carbon Capture and fusion had been invested in this for small sale we might be in a different place. We had mayor of London kicking off about PM's and it didn't do Biomass any good but a lot of these trad stoves never get serviced and often falling to bits and leaking air. I heard from one of the Permaculture people I follow that trees actually put carbon into the soil. I always thought that Biomass carbon cycle was maybe 80/90% effective. However if carbon goes in to the ground it might even be carbon positive. Love the show so nice that I can see that you care about our planet and that the issue facing us are very complex.

[@nc3826]

Very well thought out... But its a 1st world way view of bioenergy, which has the luxury of considering 1000s of different parameters.... While most for the world needs far simpler choices based on "dollars and cents" for their survival... Also saying palm oil plantations should not also produce bioenergy since palm oil production is so destructive.... reminded me of the the expression... that the perfect is the enemy of the good....

[@ThomasBomb45]

The first world is by far the least sustainable way of life, so I think it is fair to be so critical of indistrial scale biomass energy. But regardless of where you are, people need to be able to live in ways that meet their needs and also let future generations meet their needs. Whatever that means in your area is what we should strive for

[@nc3826]

@@ThomasBomb45What you said is debatable but WADR you totally missed the maiin point anyway.... For our desire for cleaner options to be adopted by most of the world, it needs to make "simple" economic sense.... To everyone who is choosing between a clean or dirty option to pick the cleaner option, since it costs less to do so.... If that's not the case, all of this will just be a rallying cry of complex elitism, by a tiny fraction of the world that has the luxury to caring.... Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us this is true....

[@stauffap]

Best video on Bioenergy i've seen so far. It's not all bad and like you said it's complicated. Many people make it far to easy for themselves and just demonize it. But like you said there are a lot of unproblematic sources of biomass and in a lot of countries it can be important as a seasonal energy storage solution - countries with cold winters need such seasonal storage solutions.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I agree that the easiest thing is to just oppose all bioenergy so you can avoid thinking about the complexity. But I don't think that any technology comes without negatives, and if we want to make progress we need to entertain all options, not just the "perfect" technologies which actually will never exist.

[@stauffap]

@@EngineeringwithRosie I totally agree.

[@GauchoJonny]

I saw a dokumentation about germany. They are paying a fix price for reneweble power, so biofuel plants power also. And this has moved several farmers to plant power korn to only generate power, there is no food production. Price of farmland blows up, because its so beneficial. And since smaller plants get more from goverment to build it, its like a pandemic rise of biofuel powerplants. I found it very counterproductive from germany since they say they want to get out of nuclear, they have coal plants, now are more biofuels plants that get co2. Its frustrating to hear the consequences. From my perspective, if a country is doing such thing they should think it to an end and say that only waste is allowed to be used. Germany over all is interessting to see, what such a power law can cause in the power market. I'm new to your channel. And its great. Im very interessted in stirling engines and i would realy like to see it more in places where waste heat could be used to do power.

[@ericlotze7724]

I think "Bio-Petrochemistry" will be an important aspect, even not for fuel. Plastics, Pharmaceuticals, Industrial Chemicals, Dyes etc are all currently made from Oil / Gas, this will need to come from something else. I think a mix of Algae Hydrothermal Liquification (HTL) "Bio-Crude" and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) + *Sustainable* Biomass based Syngas Refineries can sustainable, if not *carbon negatively* replace this fossil fuel based industry. Also with less fuel being used, due to electrification / fuel cells, as well as public transit etc, the refineries can be made MUCH smaller.

[@jamesgrover2005]

Thanks for covering this issue, my government does a lot of this crap, ships wood from CA to NL then burns it, places the output into renewables 🤬 #greenwashing

[@maroon9273]

Bioenergy has a diverse and unlock potential. Especially with biocoal, bio-oil, biogasoline, bio/white/gold hydrogen, sythetic fuel, biogas, algae, waste/sewage/green waste/ landfill to energy/fuel and ect. Which all can regenerate theselves and less harmful for the ecosystem.

[@kalpitkumar1260]

Very nice video Rosie. Can you do a video on Be-Wind LLC Wind Turbines, Cal Power Wind Turbines and Semtive Wind Turbines?

[@michaelwhimpey7651]

But we also burn a lot of forest residue due to fire breaks and forest fuel reduction to minimize the chance of bush fires. This where we can use the biomass as bioenergy, including making green methane, green hydrogen and biochar to put back into the soil.

[@MaillonRecordz]

On the subject of biology for sustainable energy, you should definitely look into what companies like Bioo and plant-e are doing. Also look up Shelly minteer at the university of Utah and others like her that are using biomaterial science and electrochemistry to make renewable energy. Might change your perspective about using biology for renewable energy.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Will do, thanks for the tips!

[@42thgamer80]

What are your thought on garbage Incineration to generate electricity (or heat)? Would love to see a video on it!

[@markthomasson5077]

I thin trees from my garden to use in the wood stove. I would assume that this is neutral, the trees being self seeded since we moved in some years ago. That said I have heard that I should I let it get absorbed into the ground and buy gas?

[@brianjonker510]

Above ground crop residues do very little to improve the soil. It is the root mass that does 90% or more of the benefits.......although some peculiar climates and soil combinations do benefit from the mulch effect of crop residue

[@stanwhitson2599]

I guess you haven't heard of trash cover farming. It's popular on the Canadian prairies where the crop residue stays on the surface to keep the soil from drying out and blowing away. It prevents another era of the Dirty Thirties when farmland literally blew away.

[@brianjonker510]

@@stanwhitson2599 I guess your reading comprehension is poor. Wind erosion is one of those peculiar climates and still roots hold the soil very much more than surface residue

[@wjhann4836]

As I fully agree with your categorization, I'm not sure whether something including carbon capture and deposition can be other than "ugly" - I always assume much energy involved in that capture and storing. Do you have other examples?

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Yes for sure it is ugly if it is not purely from otherwise unusable waste. I'll be doing a video on CCU (carbon capture and use) soon, and I will talk about the amount of energy needed for that in that video. I already did one on traditional carbon capture, which is the kind that would be used in BECCS, and I believe the chemical engineer I interviewed said about 30% of the power plant's output is needed to run the carbon capture. It's A LOT! And that's why CCS or CCU is never going to be something we can do *instead* of renewable electricity, it can only be done in combination with renewable electricity. Here's the carbon capture video, probably my favourite one I've made actually. In terms of the technical content anyway. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHSWaWurg6-bi7s

[@wjhann4836]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Thank you Rosie, I simply forgot, that I already saw that. So - for me CCS seems to be some brain damaged. But - there is also CCU. But before CCU there are some questions remaining: - I know a little about using CO2 in synthetic fuel production. Are there other significant use cases for large amounts of that captured CO2? - I would like to know what quality (purity) of CO2 do the using processes need? - In the moment the ratio of capture seems not relevant. - What quality of CO2 do the processes mentioned in above video produce?

[@andyhodchild8]

@@EngineeringwithRosie what do you think of Dale Vince and his sky diamonds?

[@mikegofton1]

Hey Rosie, great video. Did you get your complimentary copy of “The Australian Way” net zero emission plan when you arrived back in Oz ? Angus Taylor and Keith Pitt reckon we need lots more coal seam gas to produce blue hydrogen. The ‘plan’ indicates we may have 63% intermittent renewables in the Australian electricity grid by 2030, with gas + ccs and/or blue hydrogen providing base load capacity. The ‘plan’ Section 3.2 only talks about batteries providing short duration grid stability, with hardly a mention of pumped hydro expansion. The underlying assumption seems to be that energy storage will be more costly than CCS (per kWhr). I’m sure that has nothing to do with retaining the NSW Hunter and Central QLD electorates in the upcoming federal election…. Unfortunately, politicising major infrastructure investment never ends well. Hopefully we will vote to let engineering and science determine the best path forward to address climate change / sustainability issues.

[@RedBatteryHead]

I think the effort in making biofuels for just some 5-20% CO2 cut down is a waste if energy on its own. When other solutions are implemented. Like less biofuel grop grounds and electrification of other transport. It's better all in all to keep the normal fuel on these usage until it has a proper solution. When the forest and seas can absorb CO2 cause they get restored instead of cut down for crops you have a better solution to overcome the transition.

[@mikeklein4949]

Totally agree, clearing native land to create bio energy is simply bass ackwards.

[@andyhodchild8]

So from what you say about carbon accounting I wonder if that is why Drax takes timber from the US?

[@michaelseldon3815]

i find it challenging to understand the benefit of drawing food to substitute readily available fossil oil and making food prices higher for the most vulnerable

[@dougowt]

Pretty good assessment in my humble. Although Carbon Capture is firmly in my greenwashing category until they show they can vastly increase capacity at economical cost. It also consumes too much power and needs too much space and materials. There is no evidence of this improving in the timescale we have.

[@michaelrenper796]

You are mixing things up. "Greenwashing" is when a measure pretends to reduce CO2 but in fact doesn't. Most "bio-energy" falls into this category as explained in this video. Carbon capture on the other hands works, its net removes CO2. The egergy needed will not offset the gain. Therefore its NOT greenwashing. Carbon capture is not scalable and no cost efficient today. And about timescales .... Bio energy can never make a substantial contribution no matter the timescale. Its usage impact is limited to available land area. Carbon capture MAY make contribution. It is not limited by natural constraints (just economics and available technology).

[@DavidKennyNZL]

It is complicated. We are telling people not to clear their forests because we have already cleared ours. My town was all forests till it was cleared 200 years ago.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I definitely did not feel like my European friends had any reason to feel smug about having stopped clearing their native forests when they haven't got any left anyway (practically). Still, that doesn't make me feel good that we are still clearing ours in Australia.

[@nc3826]

@@EngineeringwithRosie They need to have smug Europeans come on holiday to Australia to pay the kalos to poo on eucalyptus trees.

[@DavidKennyNZL]

@@EngineeringwithRosie similar in New Zealand. Lots cleared for farming. Trees planted where other things impractical.

[@richardgoldsmith7278]

The problem with CCS is it is mostly theoretical and rarely as effective as its purported to be.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

I am a bit obsessed with CCS/ CCU at the moment. I made one video on the topic already (the capture part) and I have videos in the works on uses for CO2 and another on storage. So it will be quite some depth on the topic by the time I am finished with all those! kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHSWaWurg6-bi7s

[@PinataOblongata]

The issue with "waste" - why is there so much waste product in the first place? In the us, there's all that corn waste, but there's so much corn from all the subsidising that has gone on in the industry, with another downside of that high-fructose corn syrup, also initially a waste-product, being put into all their food and increasing diabetes and public health costs. One should consider whether a wasteful and inefficient industry should exist at all, or whether governments and local governments should bite the distasteful bullet of of the job-losses and end the industry for a better option. Bio-fuels seems to be a way of making something crappy just a little less crappy, and only in the best-case scenarios, so I'm pretty skeptical - and there's so much to be skeptical of in this arena, like carbon credits and offsets and "plans" that push any action to 30 year away and leave it to commercial entities to invent new technology to achieve...

[@ThomasBomb45]

I think the waste they're talking about is the inedible parts. The corn stalk with all the leaves. It should be used for compost or biofuels

[@macroman91]

I always thought that CCS was a sham - the energy used to store the carbon must certainly offset the power generated.

[@_aullik]

Tangent: 11:18 This picture shows exactly why you shouldn't trust YTs statistics on view time.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Interesting, what do you mean by that?

[@matbroomfield]

The one thing I took from this is that you are a closet Aussie! :-) Perhaps it will never be possible to achieve carbon neutral bio-energy, but surely, LESS carbon is better than high carbon? Also, considering biofuel plantations as potential food is perhaps as illogical as considering land in the Hebrides as potential for low cost housing. Would ordinary people be using that land for affordable food otherwise?

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

A closet Aussie?! I wasn't trying to keep it a secret 😊

[@matbroomfield]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Ahhh, but that's what I would expect you to say Rosie. Fiendishly clever! :-) In seriousness, your accent sounds kind of rural English though. Have you spent time here?

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

@Mat Broomfield 😂 no but I did go to London a few years ago to see a Tom Jones concert, maybe I picked it up then! It's most likely because I spent most of the last 5 years working with non-native English speakers. A proper Aussie accent is pretty hard for them to deal with, so I had to "internationalise" the way I spoke. My old colleagues would say that I was not very successful, they often struggled to understand me!

[@matbroomfield]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Tom Jones eh, that's not unusual. Either way, you have a lovely accent and I continue to enjoy your thoughtful content. Be well Rosie.

[@andyhodchild8]

I don't see dead wood being used for pellets or chip

[@williamevans6522]

These bioCOGEN plants must be local, and fueled from dedicated waste stream-residential GREEN bins, restaurant food and grease, and local farmers or food processors... tipping fees for all this waste can be substantial( along with the power generated). Forest/ brush fuels management should be geared towards grinding and mulching it all... Not hauling it to a bioCOGEN .

[@tcroft2165]

Can we just ignore the biomass a second: Is "wobbles my wallaby" really a colloquial expression!!!!

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

It is now!

[@tcroft2165]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Well it did make me laugh over my morning tea so alls good :-)

[@justinelliott3529]

Ethanol from corn 🌽 is a horrible waste of food. I’m surprised nothing was mentioned about Methane capture

[@GarretKrampe]

Wallaby Ted's brother Roo Ted, said Wobbly Wallaby was trying to crack on Toowoomba and waited till gum leaves of course. how much can a koala bare ? He already tried to Mount Isa . he he

[@hyric8927]

You can't really go wrong with converting sewage to energy. The volume will, of course, be limited.

[@martinsoos]

Ya, fireplace.

[@lorenzoventura7701]

No fuel is sustainable as soon as you raise a profit on it, because free market laws will force you to make your business grow limitless. My two cents.

[@ThomasBomb45]

Capitalism is unsustainable and inherently extractive

[@blackjack8957]

Horse, cow and ox, sheep, camel and goat, they can grass-cutting, transporting, plowing and producing fertilizer.. Dog can watch and hunt, cat can hunt rats and mice. These lovely animals are more than the bio-energy and bio-co-workers. They have been proven sustainable for more than 47,000 years. I am not here to deny modern industrialization. I love machines and electricity. However, Electric vehicles and most of SGDs policies are dubitable. They might be good for progressive inventions. Total cost of carbon and heat emission higher. 1. Reduce spending (if we can) 2. Absorb carbon dioxide (Once I came up with Hyponex spray into sea, unfortunately this one was re-inventing wheel.) 3. Make human population into a half size, I was growing up when humans were 3 billions, it was good. Let's go back to 1980s. (#3 doesn't mean anything harsh.) Nature teaches better than wise men do. And I think we can elaborate some ideas for absorbing CO2. Photosynthesis!

[@jasonlongsworth4036]

I can tell that you're trying to be objective here, but objectivity went out the door for me the minute I learnt anything beyond the definition of biofuels Corn fuel hardly replaces the fuel needed to grow that corn, acting as a continued reliance on carbon-based fuels more than anything 10:06 "...staring down the barrel of 2 degrees of warming..." Yeah, which is where what you said earlier in the video about the use-point release of carbon is relevant. "Doing everything we can" doesn't mean allowing the bad systems to control and limit our possibilities for a better future, it means redefining who makes that call. It means letting the carbon store of the forest (and its affiliated ecosystem services of ground carbon sequestration and what have you) do its thing "...then, that is going to be extremely bad for native forests and biodiversity anyway" wow. That is some weird logic. Maybe think through your words a bit more next time? Reasons being twofold, one that humans don't have the right to assert themselves like that (like what happened to caring about the koalas?) and two being that pawn sacrifice does not apply to something that literally gives us air and filters our pollution and restores life to the planet BECCS is unproven and fraudulent at best and a ploy by the fossil fuel industry at worst I like your videos because you're smart and clearly a good engineer. This is not something engineers can just do some surface level/bachelor's degree-level research on and call it a video. There's too many conflicts of interest and manipulations. If you want someone to talk to on the topic, the Tyndall institute investigate similar topics to biofuels, Kevin Anderson is lovely and intelligent (I'm sure the others are too I just haven't met them)

[@thomassutrina7469]

Dead wood in forest is it waste or not? Forest management principles, prevention of forest fires looks at the stored fuel in a forest that aids in both starting and supplying forest fires. The large forest fires in America and Europe all come with a comment that there was too much dead fuel in those forest. Prior to industrialization the local people just as campers do now collect dead wood to burn as fuel for cooking and heating. They in effect were managing the forest by often burning the smaller dead would that was the easiest to catch fire. And this didn't effect significantly the animal and insect habitats and their food supplies.

[@ThomasBomb45]

Dead decaying wood is a vital part of the forest ecosystem. Fungi, insects, and microbes have evolved to live on and in decaying wood, and some even eat it! And when the wood decays it makes the soil healthy and full of carbon

[@ThomasBomb45]

You do have a point about preventing forest fires by eliminating the smaller brush

[@GarretKrampe]

If Australians could afford land and housing .. distributed self sufficient housing and cars etc could be done relatively cheaply under 20K . AU council Laws prevent bio-digestors, alcohol making, disconnection from sewerage, water and grid. They also dictate housing so you can not make a passive house . When that changes the Australian landscape can be set free from the rape of elitists who own the infrastructure and fail to manage it .

[@justmechilling...]

Can we convert are own poop instead of dumping it into the sea. Mad Max beyond the thunder dome was right.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

There have been proposals to gasifiy crop residue, municipal solid waste, and sewage sludge into synthesis gas, and run it through a Fischer-Tropsch reactor to make liquid fuels.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Sure! no reason why not, but you go first...

[@justmechilling...]

@@EngineeringwithRosie haa I might blow myself up! We do use a treated human waste on the land in a limited way and way too much animals waste it happen on my dads land years ago the farmer who rented put so much of it on that the worms bacteria didn't come back for years. Basically a way of getting rid of it. It could it not be convert it into methane like on mad max film? The UK and others are dumping untreated human waste into the sea as they don't have the chemicals to treat it. Just a thought...👋

[@justmechilling...]

@@gregorymalchuk272 hoping it will be more that just proposals soon. They were talking here about using the motorway fodder to use in biomass tech but that's all, talk.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@justmechilling... You mean the stuff they mow along the highways? I've thought about that before. There is a concept called "regional biomass processing center" system. Basically, you have to have a lot of logistics systems in place because it's expensive to transport not so energy-dense wet biomass. I guess they would gasifiy it, but I don't know if it would be converted to liquid fuels locally or sent to even larger Fischer-Tropsch plants.

[@pavelsulc2617]

6:06 it was not a good example. Straw is burned in the field only by a fool and not a clever farmer. He knows that straw will serve the soil as food so that it can give another harvest.

[@doktaahwho8858]

Let's face it, the only way to go green, is the solar fountain.

[@doktaahwho8858]

@muhahaha Do you even know what a solar fountain is?

[@nc3826]

let's face it, there only way to be short sighted and it is to pretend that we need just one green option.... especially one as limited as this one.... smh...

[@tonystanley5337]

Pretty much all human activity causes "harm", the question is it recoverable. Going for a walk in the park does harm, and if you have 1M people walking on the same spot in a week the soil may well not recover. Its very much a least worst scenario when comparing. We may have to kill some bats to avoid killing everything.

[@andymckee53]

Good video but would have been 200% better if you’d used actual examples rather than generalisims throughout.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Noted for next time! Sometimes I like to do a more general video to introduce a topic before I make any detailed videos, so that I don't need to cover it all at once. I will probably do some other bioenergy videos next year and they'll get into the details.

[@NoTengoIdeaGuey]

The Koch bros and 3 of their loser buddies must've downvoted this video. Keep it up!

[@gregvanpaassen]

The combination of bioenergy and capitalism is evil. We can have one or the other but not both, and still have a livable planet. The way capitalism works is that once there is demand for something, the cheapest way to provide it wins. So if there is demand for bioenergy, we get oil palm plantations that used to be highly diverse tropical rainforest in Indonesia, and sugar cane plantations that used to be Amazon rainforest. There are other problems. Bioenergy cannot scale to be useful globally either for energy or for carbon sequestration. For energy it is limited by the abysmal efficiency of photosynthesis, and for carbon sequestration, there is just not enough usable land or coastline to make a noticeable dent. Accelerated weathering of olivine would be much cheaper and easier to do, and can scale up to the required scale.

[@EngineeringwithRosie]

Well that is very gloomy however I can't say I disagree. I've got a video coming up on uses for CO2 which you might be interested in. But I don't think that is ever going to be a major carbon sink. The main part is stopping emitting in the first place.

[@gregvanpaassen]

@@EngineeringwithRosie Yes, it made me sad. But it is what it is. There is hope on the "stop emitting" front, though. According to a report I found on the IEA's web site, the world is currently investing about 0.8 trillion dollars into renewables. Conveniently, world GDP is about $100T, so that's 0.8%. By my very rough (and probably faulty) estimate, we just need to increase that 0.8% to about 8% of world GDP for 30 years, and then pull back to about 2% of world GDP forever after (to replace worn panels and turbines, assuming lifespans increase a bit). Then we have a 50-50 chance of keeping the global average temperature increase to 2 K. Annual fossil fuel capital investment is also about 0.8% of GDP (if i'm reading the IEA's reports right). Spending on the fossil fuels themselves is about 2% - 3%. Total "gross fixed capital formation" (new investment and replacements) is about 21% of world GDP. It seems to me that 8% is doable if we accept having fewer and smaller roads, buildings, cars and planes than we want. Or change what we want.

[@johndoudna7055]

Go nuclear, and design better nuclear.