AndyH said:
Got some numbers, woodgeek? I'm very interested in the assumptions and data behind your belief. Thanks man! (BTW - there's a large difference between your "FF consumption" 'line in the sand' and the subject of the report...
Let's see:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD01832/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/3-rainforests-in-peril-deforestation/c-human-use-of-biological-productivity-the-diversion-of-net-primary-productivity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tells us that the net productive potential NPP of the entire earths terrestrial biosphere (photosynthesis) is ~60 Gt C/yr. A couple other sources give similar estimates.
We currently take a lot of that NPP for food/animal feed/energy/building materials, estimates that we are using 31% of the Earths terrestrial NPP now, call it 20 Gt C/yr, in addition to FF. It also suggest we already use 50% of current forest NPP, for building materials and energy. BTW, burning biomass currently yields 10% of human energy use, more than solar, wind, or hydro.
Coal consumption looks to be something like 8 Gt/y globally.
A lot of biomass needs drying energy input to burn as efficiently as coal, so it would prob take about 10 Gt /yr C of biomass, (about 20 Gt of dried biomass) to replace Coal. This would require us to add a load on the biosphere roughly 50% greater than we currently do already. This sounds pretty infeasible.
Since coal is ~30% of current global energy, replacing all FF would require 3x the number we just came up with (given the fact that biomass can be pyrolyzed in principle to form liquid and gaseous fuels). Replacing FF at current rates of consumption would require processing an additional 60 Gt of dried biomass per year, 30 Gt C/yr, and the human share of terrestrial NPP going from 20 Gt C/yr (30%) to 50 GT C/yr (85%).
In other words, there would be no nature left, nor room to grow more to satisfy future demands.
RE the US pellets going to EU: it might make financial sense (due primarily to incentives there, not market energy prices), but poor engineering sense. Biomass has low mass energy density....if it will be burned for energy, let's do it close to home.