Biomass and fossil fuels are both widely used for heating, but their efficiency, environmental impact, and sustainability differ significantly. Let’s break down the key comparison:

🔹 1. Heating Efficiency Comparison

Fuel Type	Heating Efficiency (%)	Typical Application
Biomass Pellets	70–90% (modern systems)	Boilers, stoves, power plants
Coal	60–75%	Power generation, industrial
Natural Gas	85–95%	Domestic heating, industry
Fuel Oil	80–90%	Boilers, furnaces

👉 Conclusion: Modern biomass systems (like pellet boilers) are comparable to fossil fuels in efficiency, especially when using high-quality pellets like Napier Grass, wood, or agricultural residues.

🔹 2. Environmental Impact

Biomass: Carbon-neutral (if sourced sustainably), lower sulfur emissions, and renewable.
Fossil Fuels: High CO₂ emissions, contribute to global warming, non-renewable.

🔹 3. Cost & Availability

Biomass: Often cheaper, especially in agricultural regions. Local sourcing reduces transport costs.
Fossil Fuels: Subject to market volatility and geopolitical issues. Long-term costlier.

🔹 4. Ash and Emissions

Metric	Biomass	Fossil Fuels
CO₂ Emissions	Low (carbon cycle)	High
Ash Content	1–8%	10–20% (coal)
SOx/NOx Emissions	Minimal (if dry)	High

🔹 5. Conclusion: Which Is Better?

✅ Biomass is highly efficient, eco-friendly, and cost-effective, especially when using optimized pellet systems.
❌ Fossil fuels, while efficient, are unsustainable and environmentally damaging in the long run.