قضايا الطاقة وتقنياتها

Thanks for posting this interesting question. Please accept my humble answer in English as I don’t have access to Arabic keyboard at the moment

I understand the logic behind your question; and I hope I manage to provide you with a convincing answer. For starters, we have to agree that biomass, even if it considered as being renewable, it still contributes to global warming. The important thing to remember here is that biomass absorbs carbon when it is growing, but then returns that carbon to the atmosphere when it’s burned (this is called carbon cycle). The argument behind promoting biomass is as follows: if we carefully manage this carbon cycle (i.e. grow and burn biomass on a sustainable basis); we could have a ‘closed carbon cycle’ in which no net increase in CO2 taking place

It is important to remember that fossil fuels contain carbon too. Compared with the biomass option however, the carbon contained within fossil fuels has been out of the ‘carbon cycle’ for a very very long time. Hence, it’s argued that the combustion of fossil fuel – unlike biomass – disturbs the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. In other words, the difference between biomass and fossil fuels lies in bearing in mind the ‘timescale’ factor

I really hope that this quick explanation clarifies the rationale behind the use of biomass. I don’t personally see biomass as a particularly attractive option to pursue. That said, there are many places in the world where it makes a lot of economic and environmental sense