Much has been said about the adoption of biomass technology to replace wind and solar energy production. Biomass involves the burning of sugars, starches and oils from crops to make biodiesel and ethanol. The cost of gathering this waste has not been factored in. Wind and solar need maintenance but for the most part they just sit there and do their job.
Farmers have simply left waste in the fields - ultimately burning or plowing them in. They do not see money in gathering up the left overs from crops. Environmentally, biomass looks good. However, financially they are a no-go. Who will pay a higher price for electricity? Charges are already extremely high using coal which is just dug from the ground.
The biggest problem is that biomass involves burning while wind and solar do not. Just substituting biomass for widely available conventional fossil fuels is not a an ideal move forward. This is like electric cars which are only substitutes for petrol motor vehicles - a poor and inefficient one at that.
Saying that biomass can be made from wood and straw and could reduce the use of normal fossil fuels is a mistake. It is not as if oil is running out: it isn't. Australia is a "bowl" of natural resources. We do not have to be efficient with industrial waste like European countries which have to import oil.
To make biomass productive will take capital that Australia does not have. This country has a large deficit. It caused the Coalition government to abandon the carbon tax and redistribute savings back to the consumer. After tax collection costs, the government got very little income from the tax. It is simply not rational for Australia to abandon coal in power generation when other countries do nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
Technology by Ty Buchanan