Funny thing is, I bought a wood burning stove a few years ago and haven't paid to heat my house since. I use wood from my 5 acres of grapefruit trees that I trim back every year.
Now with the arguments about biomass being carbon neutral, I think both sides of the issue are probably exaggerating a bit. I cut my trees with a chain saw, I haul them to my house with a club car, then I burn the wood. Likewise, biomass uses energy for cutting, transportation, torrification, and shipping overseas. Opponents argue that the moisture content of the wood requires additional energy to get it to dry out. I'm sure it does, but the CO2 generated to produce and ship biomass probably dwarfs in comparison to the CO2 sequestered in the wood. I don't even use a gallon of gas to bring my wood to my house, but I would go through 100 gallons of propane pretty quickly to heat my house if I didn't burn my wood. Anyway, despite arguments on both sides, my opinion is it's probably best called "Almost Carbon Neutral." The crux of the issue is the fact that burning a tree releases carbon that is theoretically used up by a new tree that grows to replace the one that is burned.
One other thought I had was on the topic of moisture content in wood using more power to evaporate . . . one could argue that the carbon cycle uses that evaporated water vapor to produce clouds and rain. Rain coming down absorbs CO2 to produce carbonic acid that leaches into the ground/ocean. Can't say that I know if this process is carbon neutral also, but there are so many facets to this topic that I'm sure people tend to pick and choose the once that best support their opinion or agenda. Anyway, I wouldn't disregard the environmental concerns raised. True or not, if they are believed, things could go awry.
Phillip
