It appears we still do and there is a difference between biomass and modern solid bio-energy. Someone as smart as you first, should have seen that its not called biomass but modern solid bioenergy and second, its called modern for a reason. I spent about an hour today researching what that means in regard to Denmark today and I was going to shoot you some nice scientific papers on them but then I realized that it wouldn't matter. Ive told you multiple times I am for nuclear power, we need it now and we are going to need more in the future. I dont know how I could be more clearer than that and you, like a little kid just keep on calling me anti-nuke. So like a kid who presented with evidence that they are acting irrationally would just stick their fingers in their ears you would do the same to the papers presented. the funny thing about plants is you can grow them. If you use sugarcane to make a modern biofuel you can indeed plant more. That would be renewable and if you do it in the correct way it is also sustainable. We have been doing it for tens of thousands of years as you said. Actually, I would say that plants fit the definition of renewable which have been on this earth for about 700 million years. Does it have it own problems? Of course it does just as nuclear has its own problems. You just refuse to see any of the problems nuclear has for some reason, almost as if you are obsessed. I just want to point out your vaunted use of critical thinking with your last two sentences. For the record, the entire world lived pretty much on biomass for tens of thousands of years. There is not one "I'm not an anti-nuke" anti-nuke in my experience who has ever considered why that is no longer so. Since its without a doubt obvious we still live on Biomass as your handy chart shows us I don't really consider those statements to meet any criteria for "critical thinking" at all. More like the rantings of a little kid in my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read