Especially when you start massively turning organic waste (which counts as a carbon repository) and burning it.
There was a nuclear advocate around these parts who used to argue that growing trees, pulping them for paper and then dumping the paper into a landfill instead of recycling it is a form of carbon capture. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
The energy balance costs of transporting waste paper for burning to regional centres beat de-inking energy costs for recycled paper (that can endure the process max 5 -7 times and still produce optically efficient paper.
The recent results of the major Finnish paper producers are nasty. They are in deep trouble. Meanwhile the unused fibre stock of plantation Finland grows by some 70 million cubic metres annually.
Trees anyone? You can't be me, I'm taken
A hypothetical: The biomass is carbon rich, the bug transforms that biomass/carbon into liquid fuel but not with 100% efficiency. There is 'waste' biomass. That waste biomass could be charcoaled and used as soil enrichment (re biochar). That biochar would be profitable (improving soil productivity) while capturing the carbon on centuries+ time scale. That sort of 'maybe' creates the potential for a carbon-negative lifecycle for this process. Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!
Obviously, if the feedstock is produced in a carbon positive, unsustainable way, that approach to producing the biomass is unsustainable.
Obviously, if you burn down rainforest to get the feedstock, that's not likely to be carbon negative ... the un-sustainability of cutting down rain forest for palm oil plantations for European biodiesel is just as unsustainable even if you double or triple the EROI or get ten times the yield per acre. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
