Mitigation of global warming requires an understanding of where energy is produced and consumed, the magnitude of carbon dioxide generation, and proper understanding of the Carbon Cycle. The latter leads to the distinction between and need for both CO2 and biomass CARBON sequestration. Short reviews are provided for prior technologies proposed for reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels or substituting renewable energy, focusing on their limitations. None offer a complete solution. Of these, CO2 sequestration is poised to have the largest impact. We know how to do it. It will just cost money, and scale-up is a huge challenge. Few projects have been brought forward to semi-commercial scale. Transportation accounts for only about 30% of U.S. overall energy demand. Biofuels penetration remains small, and thus, they contribute a trivial amount of overall CO2 reduction, even though 40% of U.S. corn and 30% of soybeans are devoted to their production. Bioethanol is traced through its Carbon Cycle and shown to be both energy inefficient, and an inefficient use of biomass carbon. Both biofuels and CO2 sequestration reduce FUTURE CO2 emissions from continued use of fossil fuels. They will not remove CO2 ALREADY in the atmosphere. The only way to do that is to break the Carbon Cycle by growing biomass from atmospheric CO2 and sequestering biomass CARBON. Theoretically, sequestration of only a fraction of the world’s tree leaves, which are renewed every year, can get the world to Net Zero CO2 without disturbing the underlying forests.
Modeling Future Energy Demand and CO2 Emissions of Passenger Cars in Indonesia at the Provincial Level