Conclusions

  • Biomass energy deserves low priority in nations where water is scarce or where agriculture is already hard pressed to meet needs for food. Logistics determine whether biomass energy makes sense. A nation with dismal prospects for biomass energy may have a few regions where it is profitable.

  • A major thrust for alcohol fuels is a gamble. A more cautious approach is to substitute biomass for coal, oil, and natural gas as chemical feedstock. Biomass is more reactive and suited better for enzymatic conversions.

  • Low technology means lower capital investment and less risk.
     

    N E X T