Hacker News Reader

Because biomass will naturally released CO2 when decomposing

Add that biomass usually releases CH4 (methane) which is a considered a much more potent greenhouse gas. Even simply burning the methane to CO2 -- ignoring energy recapture -- is an environmentally beneficial action, which is why landfills sometimes have flares.

View on HN

But you have to grow that biomass first. After you did that, you can let is decompose (bad) or burn it (less bad), but you could just skip growing it entirely.

And you would get..? Nothing? So instead of forest and some energy you get just nothing.

Forest? It's not forest, it's an endless plain of monoculture - no insects, no birds, no ecosystem.

Energy can be extracted from forestry waste, thus creating more value from logging activities.

I don't think it is economically feasible.

Methane does not last all long and 'quickly' degrades into CO2 which is vary stable. (2xO2 + CH4 => 2xH20 + C02)

True, though quickly is still a period of time that is detrimental to the planet. Well obviously it was self-balancing historically, but add the natural methane with the enormous CO2 of humanity and you have a problem.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com