Bioenergy – what is it? 

Bioenergy is defined as a “energy produced from biomass.”

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines biomass is “renewable organic material that comes from plants and animals. Biomass can be burned directly for heat or converted to liquid and gaseous fuels through various processes.”

Depending on the available resources, land availability, emissions, economic goals or constraints of the region, and willingness of a population, biomass may or may not work for your community. Of note, many studies of biomass emphasize one factor while leaving others unaddressed; therefore, below we aim to share where different biomass works and doesn’t work based on several factors.

While biomass expansion possesses potential for energy production from waste, no evidence was found to support using healthy forest as a primary biomass feedstock.

Bioenergy can come from many types of biomass:

• Wood and wood-processing waste – firewood, wood pellets, wood chips, sawdust, and wastes from pulp and paper mills.
• Agricultural crops and waste materials – corn cob and rice husks, soybeans, sugarcane, woody plants, algae, and residues.
• Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – food, yard, and wood waste (essentially garbage that is not man-made – which is also a candidate for composting)
• Manure and sewage – producing biogas

Below is a quick chart to understand thermal processes, or processes that use heat, that biomass might be used to create energy. The feedstock in Red boxes present challenges regarding economic, environmental and health benefits. The feed in Orange boxes have some potential to reduce waste but could pose potential health and environmental threats if proper investment and oversight are not applied.

Sources for image: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2022),MDPI Energies (2022),Journal of Hazardous Materials (2022),MDPI Polymers (2021),Journal of Hazardous Materials (2021),Energy and Conversion Management (2023),EPA (MSW),Journal of Sustainable Mining (2013)

Wood and wood waste comprised about 2.1% of the 2023 U.S. annual total energy consumption.  Wood waste includes things like wood chips, wood scraps, paper mill residues,  bark, and sawdust. These waste materials are sometimes manufactured  into wood pellets which are cylindrical compressed wood products used for biomass fuel, but round wood, or forested trees, are often the main source of wood pellet production.

Most of GA’s biomass comes from wood biomass. The state has 6 wood pellet plants where the production “capacity is about 1.8 million tons per year” according to the Georgia Forestry Association reported by the EIA. Some of the processing facilities burn their product to produce some their operating  energy. The Southeastern U.S. saw an increase of production capacity of wood pellets “from less than 0.5 million tons per year (tpy) before 2009 to around 7.3 million tpy by 2017.” Market reports show that “Georgia is a leading exporter of wood pellets, sent mostly to Europe, where wood pellets are used to generate electricity as an alternative to coal.” The company Andritz located in Waycross, GA calls themselves the largest biomass facility in the world.

While most old wood burning fireplaces are just decoration, a wood burning fireplace with a high-efficiency fireplace insert to heat your home and can be an effective way of using wood biomass. The most efficient wood burning heater is called a Masonry Heater, but this appliance is mostly used in countries with colder climates like Russia and Finland due to the high installation price.

According to the EIA, “In 2020, 8.9% of all U.S households (about 11 million) used wood for energy (mostly for space heating). About 2.2 million households used wood as the main space-heating fuel.” Some appliances are built to burn wood pellets for efficiency over other forms of wood biomass. For colder climates, “Pellet fuel appliances are almost always less expensive to operate than electric resistance heating, oil, and propane-fueled appliances.”

Additionally, transportation of wood biomass produces less emissions than transportation of natural gas , particularly by sea. The high emissions regarding natural gas are due to: 1. in order to transport natural gas out of the country, you must first liquify the gas, a process that uses more natural gas. 2. flaring during the liquifying process and 3. Boil-off rates in LNG tankers to control temperature.

Proponents argue that wood biomass is an efficient form of forest management as well as a source for rural jobs that otherwise would not exist. Alaska is promoted as an example of where wood biomass works because of cost efficiency, accessibility, forest management, and wildfire prevention. Additionally, a study in Japan used a model that simulated weather conditions from 1981-2000 in the cold region and concluded that, in a typical Nagano City residence, pellet boilers emitted less CO₂ than electricity (heat pump air conditioner), city gas (liquid natural gas boiler), LP gas (liquid propane gas boiler), or oil (kerosene stove).

According to researchers at NC State University, bamboo , depending on the type, can be used in gasification as well as biochemical conversion, a “technique whereby the biomass undergoes degradation using microbial enzymes” using fermentation or anerobic digestion. Malaysia is said to have the right climate for sustainably using bamboo, but depends on their Department of Forestry to maintain that status and continue to use their bamboo forests as carbon sinks as well.

Wood biomass as an energy source still pollutes. While biomass is 5% of the total energy consumption in the US, a 2023 study out of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that “Emissions from biomass-based facilities are on average up to 2.8 times higher than their non-biomass counterparts per unit energy” when analyzing wood pellet emissions.

Additionally, a Harvard study found “that burning natural gas, biomass, and wood now have more negative health impacts than burning coal in many states, and is a trend that may continue.” The study concludes that:

“Taken together, biomass and wood have the fastest-growing share of early deaths in the major energy-consuming sectors. In 2008 early deaths attributed to burning biomass and wood accounted for around 14-17% of average total deaths from stationary sources but by 2017, biomass and wood increased to 39-47% of total averaged early deaths.”

Living close to a biomass production facility like a pellet mill may impact your health and quality of life according to a Pellet Mill Community Impact Survey conducted by environmental groups. Additionally, activists in the EU are asking parliament to reject the renewable energy classification of  wood biomass due to the harms.

Wood biomass produces “carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon monoxide, total organic compounds, ozone, and particulate matters” when used for energy. One study in IOP Science notes “swapping one air pollution-emitting fuel source for another is not a pathway to a healthy energy system.”

Though pellet burning produces fewer harmful emissions  than wood waste, burning wood biomass emits pollution such as PM_2.5  which has been proven to have negative impacts on respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological health and is most notable in industrial applications. Additionally, if wood is burned faster than production can maintain, deforestation could occur creating an unsustainable system or a troubling ecosystem collapse.

A UNC study breaks down CO₂ emissions of different energy sources like this:

“Irrespective of net emissions across the life cycle, at the stack, assuming 100% oxidation of fuel carbon content, wood and wood residues release approximately as much CO₂ per unit of energy generated (93.80 kg CO₂/MMBTU) as coal (93.28–103.69 kg CO₂/MMBTU), and significantly more than is released by natural gas (53.06 kg CO₂/MMBTU), though other biomass-derived fuels such as landfill gas/biogas may release less CO₂ per unit of energy (52.07 kg CO₂/MMBTU).”

Returning to bamboo, the fast-growing plant can be a good product for wood biomass as long as it can grow faster than it is used, and the right crop is able to be grown. Deforestation and increased carbon emissions are possible if the environment is not appropriate for sustainable use.

Finally, the argument that emissions from wood biomass are carbon neutral because the mass will decompose anyway is rebutted by Partnership for Policy Integrity’s argument that the equation only works if you ignore time. It takes months or years for the natural process of decomposition to occur, spreading out emissions over a reasonable timeframe. This is not the case for  biomass processing.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) according to the US Department of Energy, is “a complex mixture of food waste, glass, metals, yard trimmings, woody waste materials, non-recyclable paper and plastic, construction and demolition waste, rags, and sludge from wastewater treatment.” There are several ways to convert trash to energy “known as waste to energy (WtE) routes.” The United States currently uses two forms of waste-to-energy routes including anaerobic digestion (biogas generation), and incineration. A 2019 study by the Airforce Institute of Technology notes, “There are 86 WTE facilities that mostly use Mass-Burn and Refuse-Derived Fuel technologies.” The geography of these technologies reflects predominance in areas of high population with little land availability for landfills, such as New York. Below are the pros and cons of the WTE technologies. Some may be better for the environment than traditional landfills, but many have not been adopted due to initial startup cost. Roll backs in Biden green energy policies have meant that transition to waste to energy systems are too costly and most likely will not begin without state or local subsidies.

Sweden is noted for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from landfills due to their solid waste biomass infrastructure. An Earth.org article reports that in Sweden, “50% of household waste was turned into energy” on top of the additional “nearly 800,000 tons of waste from the UK, Norway, Italy, and Ireland.” The circular-economics that prompted Sweden to burn their trash is cited as a potential benefit, especially to developing nations, by engineers in a 2024 study in the publication Heliyon. The researchers argue that it is cost effective to focus on the circular economy of thermonuclear transformation, or trash transformed into energy through applying heat, if the infrastructure allows for “25 % of renewable energy demand by 2040” which would reduce “waste residues, byproducts, gas emissions, [and] energy leakage”. The paper includes several processes in thermochemical transformation “such as incineration, pyrolysis, co-pyrolysis, liquefaction, hydrothermal carbonization, gasification, combustion for transformation of municipal solid waste.” The advantages and disadvantages these researchers found can be explored in the table below.

Pyrolysis is the process of heating waste in an environment that does not contain oxygen, or more specifically a “thermochemical decomposition process conducted under oxygen-deficient conditions and typically at temperatures ranging between 300°C and 650°C.” Although the temperatures are very hot, pyrolysis is said to be the most efficient with the least environmental effects for plastics recycling. Concerning biomass, this process is also referred to as plastics to gas and thermolysis.

Note: Plastic to Fuel: This should go without saying, but do not burn your own plastic for fuel. The process of heating and then distilling plastic into oil should not be done in your own backyard. Reports of production of fuel in home plastic burning contraptions note the danger and illegality of this practice as “large amounts of dioxins and polychlorodiphenyls (PCBs)” are released when plastic is burned.

Where it works: Countries interested in the profit potential of pyrolysis are beginning to adopt this process. Poland is currently considering pyrolysis for municipal waste issues. While more analysis needs to be completed on this process, researchers note the potential for circular economic benefits where the biochar that results from pyrolysis can be used in building materials.

Where it doesn’t work: Many, including Science for GA, have written about the potential harm of plastic to fuel. Those near pyrolysis processing facilities are going to face health hazards and potential soil contamination. Emissions from “MSW pyrolysis pygas could be contaminated with undesirable gases such as HCl, H2S, SO2, and NH3” and strict regulation and monitoring is costly.

While plastic is a harmful pollutant causing harm to soil, animals, and even our own cellular health, the reduction of plastic production is a much healthier way to deal with plastic pollution than the production of fuel.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is used for energy in the US mainly via burning  to “produce steam in a boiler, and the steam is used to power an electric generator turbine.” In the US, of 100 lbs. of trash, 85 lbs. could be burned for energy. This includes the biproduct of water treatment plants. There are three types of Incineration processes used in the US: Mass Burn, Modular, and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).

These 2020 show 2018 data of where our trash ends up, types of garbage used for electricity in the US.(Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/waste-to-energy.php) and how much MSW is burned in various countries.

Gasification is the process of converting landfill content to gas by heating it to very high temperatures. The feedstock is not burned, but rather, a chemical reaction is achieved via high pressures and temperatures.

Gasification is a growing sector in waste to energy to reduce landfill volume and currently “the US has 33 gasification plants running mostly on carbon-based fuels such as coal, petroleum, and gas, with smaller amount of biomass/waste feedstock.” Vermont, Ohio, New Jersey, California, Idaho and Alaska have some form of gasification utility. “Gasification breaks MSW into a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide by-products, collectively known as syngas (synthetic gas or producer gas)”. Gasification is a complicated and expensive process.

Where it works – Japan is the largest proponent of waste to energy gasification power whose carbon footprint reduction success was noted by Viet Nam. Japanese engineers were contracted to build a waste to energy power plant in the province of Bac Ninh of Viet Nam that opened in 2024 which treats “600 tons of waste each day, generating 13.5 MW of power”. Additionally, as noted above, the US currently utilizes gasification in some small municipalities

Where it doesn’t work: Gasification is costly and the processing, from pretreatment to the biproducts, is challenging. Many municipalities do not have the budget for this process which, if not performed properly with the strictest of oversight, has the potential to emit “Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)” requiring expensive capture technology and maintenance.

Where it works – The US has landfills in every state and the capture of the methane gas for energy is reported to be more economical than incineration. Since it is difficult to create new landfills because of restrictions on land availability, local governments are looking for solutions. In San Diego, Fortistar Methane Group LLC tapped into the methane gas to create 51,224 MWh of power.

Where it doesn’t work: Methane is worse for the environment than CO2. Regardless of liners, landfill toxins seep into the soil and water.

Anerobic Digestions is the biochemical conversion process that uses enzymes or microorganisms for digestion of biomass to create energy.

Where it works: Some researchers, like those published in the 2024 edition of Biotechnology Notes believe “The biogas from AD has several benefits over other renewable energy solutions. It can be produced on demand, stored easily, transported with existing gas pipelines, and utilized in the same ways as that of natural gas.” Because “the process is more efficient for wet and decomposable wastes like food waste, wood, agricultural residues, and sewage sludge,” 247 of the 2,100 US biogas facilities are located on farms while 1,815 are located department of water resources reclamation plants. Municipalities with high populations are better candidates for biogas conversion at water treatment plant while the more agricultural south GA would be better suited for farm biogas facilities.

Companies in GA:

Georgia BioEnergy

Georgia Organic Recycling

Where it doesn’t work: “Biogas, which is produced during AD, contains a range of undesirable and potentially hazardous substances, including hydrogen sulphide (H₂S), silicon (Si), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and ammonia (NH₃).^104b H₂S and NH₃ are highly corrosive and harmful gases that can cause damage to metal components and combined heat and power units.” Costly pre-treatment, emission scrubbers and post-treatment are a hurtle for those looking into this process.

To compare energy generation methods, we can look at the cost per kilowatt hour (energy companies charge customers by the kWh of energy they use).

We can also look at the ‘conversion efficiency’ – how much of the fuel is converted into electricity vs how much is wasted and lost in the processing.

• Wind/solar “efficiency” is device conversion efficiency (kinetic→electric, light→electric).
• Coal/biomass “efficiency” is usually thermal cycle efficiency (fuel heat→electric).

In the past few years – a controversy has erupted in Georgia over a specific type of bioenergy: harvesting trees, converting them to wood pellets, and then selling those pellets as fuel for biomass energy plants. Europe incentivizes the use of wood pellets as a renewable resource for heating and electricity generation.

Unfortunately, there are two hits on health and the environment from wood pellets energy generation. Conversion of timber to wood pellets for energy is detrimental to local health and environmentally unsustainable. Then, burning wood and wood pellets can emit as much or even more pollution than burning fossil fuels, such as coal.  Particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and other hazardous air pollutants emitted from biomass power plants are known to cause adverse health effects to humans.

One study has found:

“Emissions from biomass-based facilities are on average up to 2.8 times higher than their non-biomass counterparts per unit energy. We estimate that 2.3 million people live within 2 km of a biomass facility and who could be subject to adverse health impacts from their emissions. Overall, we find that the bioenergy sector contributes to about 3–17% of total emissions from all energy, i.e., electric and non-electric generating facilities in the U.S.”

EIA .Biomass Explained. Referenced November, 4 2025. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/

USDA. Building A Resilient Biomass Supply. March 2024. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/biomass-supply-chain-report.pdf

EIA. Biomass Explained; Wood and Wood Waste. Referenced November, 4 2025. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/wood-and-wood-waste.php

EIA. Biomass explained: Waste-to-energy (Municipal Solid Waste). EIA. Referenced November, 4 2025. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/waste-to-energy.php

US Dept of Energy. Wood and Pellet Heating. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/wood-and-pellet-heating

Shahzer Imran, Murid Hussain, Parveen Akhter, Farrukh Jamil, Sara Musaddiq, Somaiyeh Allahyari, Young-Kwon Park . Municipal solid waste valorization to biofuel production: Comparative evaluation, policies, challenges, and practices . Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers Volume 177, December 2025, 106099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2025.106099

Sterman, J., Moomaw, W., Rooney-Varga, J. N., & Siegel, L. (2022). Does wood bioenergy help or harm the climate? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 78(3), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2022.2062933

Tumpa R. Sarker, Mst. Lucky Khatun, Dilshad Z. Ethen, Md. Rostom Ali, Md. Shariful Islam, Sagor Chowdhury, Kazi Shakibur Rahman, Nafis Sadique Sayem, Rahman Samsur Akm. Recent evolution in thermochemical transformation of municipal solid wastes to alternate fuels. Heliyon. Volume 10, Issue 17, 15 September 2024, e37105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37105

Zulkipli Nor Akhlisah, Hwai Chyuan Ong, Hwei Voon Lee, Yie Hua Tan, Environmental impacts of biomass energy: A life cycle assessment perspective for circular economy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,Volume 226, Part C, 2026,116363,ISSN 1364-0321,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.116363. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032125010366)

C. Mukherjee, J. Denney, E.G. Mbonimpa,*, J. Slagley, R. Bhowmik. Department of Systems Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, USA Polaron Analytics, 4031 Colonel Glenn Highway, Beavercreek, OH, 45431, USA. (Available online 6 November 2019). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (2020) 109512. 1364-0321/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.A review on municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. https://www.afit.edu/BIOS/publications/232019MbonimpaSlagleyWastetoenergyMukherjeeetal.pdf