There are so many myths and manipulations about using biomass for electricity generation or for biofuels that it's hard to nail them all. But you really only need to nail one to (hopefully) put this vamp to sleep.. That's the myth that because biofuels are a net absorber of CO2 during plant growth and that they emit a smaller amount of CO2 when taken to the incinerator and burnt to produce electricity --- that they are a ZERO CARBON energy source. This is also referred to as "cyclic carbon" fuels. No equations necessary, no chemistry necessary to reveal the obvious fallacy in thinking here. It has to do with land use. The assumption is that biofuels will replace a portion of our existing cropland or be used in rotation with crops like corn and wheat. Problem is -- the NET ZERO CARBON assumption neglects the obvious point that putting switchgrass into a field previously growing food like corn doesn't sequester a lot more CO2 (if any) than the previous land use was producing. So giving a CO2 credit against the emissions that result from burning it for power makes no sense. Doesn't matter to the ardent eco-frauds at the EPA who use the Zero Carbon fuzzy math for cyclic fuels. In the case where it is not desired to interfere with food and agriculture and NEW land is set aside for biofuel production --- the same simple argument is valid. The Zero Carbon lie still doesn't work. Likely the unused land was an AMPLE absorber or even a SUPERIOR absorber of CO2 before you put the biofuel crop on it. So there is no net uptake from a yearly production of your favorite biomass for combustion. The CO2 uptake was already working just fine. Even if the biofuel is a SUPERIOR uptaker of CO2, say by 20% -- that's still not ZERO CARBON. It means that you MIGHT deserve a partial credit for the improvement. Simple truth is -- Biomass combustion for power is a dirty incinerator. Many stakeholders have ample motivation to propagate the NET Zero Carbon lie. Once the dirty incinerators are built in YOUR neighborhood, there will be NO distinction about WHAT exactly they use for fuel.. EPA doesn't care. The generator doesn't care. As long as the fuel is "renewable". What a sham. They can burn ANYTHING from woodchips to hemp to garbage under that definition. That sets up a circus of garbage operators, timber & paper folks, agricultural interests, and a whole TENT full of clowns trying to "green-up" the incinerator concept. The BIGGEST Clowns to benefit from this bastardization of science are the coal plant operators who can now get EPA exceptions to CO2 emissions guidelines if they throw some wood chips or corn stalks on the fire.. Unfreaking believeable -- ain't it? I hate this idea. The Sierra Club and most honest environmental groups who aren't composed of mostly lawyers hate this idea. It need to removed from the "clean and green" alternative energy list along with other dirty ideas like geothermal mining. Right now I could use a special SnookersBill "FAIL" demonstration.. Gotta be one of the perverse abuses of science and truth in advertising out there.