The attached charts show
(i) how poorly temperate agrofuels (liquid biofuels from crops or forestry, excluding algae) compare with wood used directly to replace coal as a land-use for mitigation. In simple terms the latter was found to be 5x-10x more effective. "WTW biomass options slide" taken from Concawe Well-to-Wheels study (2007)
(ii) how biomass (and some hydro dams) are a very poor land-use for energy compared with wind, solar or geothermal - orders of magnitude poorer. "Energy Footprints" taken from Pimentel et al. (2002)
Caution: these tables should not be used for hard-and-fast estimates of each energy pathway's performance as there are several complicating issues.
Other key relevant graphs and charts:
BBC News: The living planet: facts and figures. Comparative per capita ecological footprints, ecological debts of different countries, and link to Global Footprint Network for more data and brief introduction to methodology (2006)
New Scientist: Forget biofuels - burn oil and plant forests instead. Introduction to findings of Righelato and Spracklen's study with journal citation (2007). Reforestation was found to be 2x-9x more effective for mitigation than planting biofuels. See also blogs by Renton Righelato at Scitizen and World Land Trust. Beware of misquotation of this study's findings, variously by The Guardian, King Review and Greenpeace.
