This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Friday, 15 March 2013 00:00By Gordon Clark
and Mary Booth, Truthout | News Analysis
The biomass power plant that is part of the Florida Crystals sugar refinery near Okeelanta, Florida. (Photo: Alex Quesada / The New York Times)
Promoted as clean and climate friendly, and driven by lucrative renewable energy subsidies and tax credits, biomass energy - burning wood and other biological materials to produce heat and power - is on the rise around the United States, with hundreds of new facilities large and small proposed in the past 10 years. However, recent scientific and policy developments recognizing that biomass energy has significant greenhouse gas emissions have blown a major hole in arguments for treating biomass as a favored renewable energy source and could fundamentally reshape its future in the United States. Until this past decade, the nation's aging biomass fleet was composed largely of industrial boilers, often located at sawmills and paper mills, which burned manufacturing waste or waste wood to produce industrial heat and power. Some of these facilities also exported electricity to the grid. In recent years, however, there has been a surge of over 200 proposals for new biomass power plants in the United States. Eligible for lucrative renewable energy subsidies and tax credits, most of these proposed plants are standalone electricity-generating units, uncoupled from a manufacturing facility, that plan to produce "renewable" power for the grid. Critically, most of them plan to burn wood - wood that is directly sourced from logging operations - rather than waste from paper mills and other wood-processing facilities. Citizens in the communities where these new biomass facilities are proposed often find the plans alarming. A moderate-sized biomass power plant in the 30-40 megawatt (MW) range (they can exceed
or so the theory goes . than fossil fuel plants. as coal-fired power plants ." Perhaps because of growing public concern over the state of our forests. However. In either case. with a 200. They accepted the two main arguments usually advanced for biopower's supposedly benign effect on the climate: first.and biomass is therefore as "carbon neutral" and "green" in many policymakers' minds as wind or solar. Most existing and proposed biomass plants burn wood. this argument collapses the moment one reads the permit for one of these plants. and carcinogens like formaldehyde and benzene. and an unending stream of tractor-trailers delivering wood fuel. a wood chip pile 60 feet tall that can cover several acres. that biomass fuels such as switchgrass and trees can be grown and harvested in such a way that each new crop would absorb or "resequester" equivalent carbon as was released by the burning of the previous crop. and lots of it – far more. there is supposedly no net increase in carbon dioxide emissions . . there are virtually no biomass facilities using switchgrass or other energy crops as fuel. the exact opposite is assumed. biomass power plants are notoriously inefficient and actually emit 40-50% more carbon dioxide per megawatt hour than coal plants. and in some cases even more. volatile organic compounds. (2) How did something that emits so much conventional pollution. that the carbon released from burning waste materials such as sawmill trimmings and logging residues (tree tops and branches) is no greater than the carbon released if those materials are left to decompose.tons of particulate matter. Switchgrass crops may indeed be regrown swiftly after harvest. Cooling towers blow off hundreds of thousands of gallons of water a day as waste steam. but while it takes mere moments to cut and burn a tree. these biomass power plants emit just as much pollution. it takes decades to regrow a new one in its place. this has been the fault of policymakers who were eager to advance the cause of renewable energy and failed to critically examine biomass power. it turns out. nitrogen oxides. energy companies and the biomass industry have hastened to portray the newly emerging fleet of biomass plants as using mostly logging residues and other waste wood for fuel. (1) They also emit carbon dioxide. hydrochloric acid. due to prohibitive costs and logistics. and burning wood magically becomes "carbon neutral. carbon monoxide. The problem with the burning-is-thesame-as-decomposition argument is that burning takes minutes. water that is often taken from nearby rivers. yet it goes curiously unnoted in the promotion of wood fuels indeed. the primary global warming gas. This fact is widely recognized when we bemoan the role forest loss plays in driving global warming.) The problem with the "just wait and it will regrow" argument is even more blatant. and more than 300% the carbon dioxide of gas plants. and more greenhouse gases than coal. Burning fuels with low energy density and high water content. but in fact.to 300-foot smokestack. (Moreover. come to be incentivized as "green" energy? To some extent. attempting to keep greenhouse gas impacts more squarely in the "it would decompose anyway" zone. There is a major and obvious flaw in each of these propositions. decomposition of logging residues helps build long-lived soil carbon stocks for healthy forests.100 MW) is a huge installation. while decomposition takes years. Also to many local residents' surprise. and second.
" The findings of both this study and the Manomet study carry extra weight given that each had a co-author from the Biomass Energy Resource Center. Industry claims notwithstanding. of trees each year . This central finding was reinforced by a similar study conducted in the Southeast. is that when it comes to biomass power's relative contribution to global warming.about 12. which examined biomass fuel sourced from fast-growing pine plantations and concluded. The primary finding was thatwhen biomass plants burn a combination of logging residues and whole trees. and thus should not be subsidized as renewable energy to meet the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals. exceed emissions from an equivalent-sized coal-fired plant for more than 45 years.500 green tons per megawatt per year. the treatment of biomass as "carbon neutral" couldn't be further from the truth.than through utility-scale biomass energy plants that burn millions of trees per year. Recognizing that electricity-only biomass plants are only about 24% efficient. a group dedicated to promoting small-scale biomass energy installations. the net emissions of carbon dioxide. Massachusetts dramatically reduced its subsidies to biomass power. The results have not been good for the industry. The state's Department of Energy Resources' new policy is the first in the nation to acknowledge that utility-scale biomass plants emit massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Given its extensive forest cover and centuries-old tradition of burning wood. forestthreatening power plants were written a number of years ago. Such prodigious demand far outstrips available logging residues in most regions. less even . New England has been a hotbed of biomass energy development .Utility-scale biomass energy plants consume huge amounts of wood . for instance. if not millions. New Hampshire. In response to the Manomet Study. states the facility will burn 113 tons of "whole logs" an hour . The scientific reality revealed by these two studies.as well as citizen opposition to it .even when taking forest regrowth into account. meaning that each new facility requires cutting hundreds of thousands. and exceed emissions from an equivalent gas-fired plant for more than 90 years .the opposite of what we want .trees that would otherwise continue growing and sequestering carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Governor Deval Patrick's administration commissioned the well-regarded Manomet Center to study the carbon impacts of biomass energy. the primary global warming gas. there is no quicker way to move carbon into the atmosphere . To make sure the state could meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals set in its 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act. "the expanded biomass scenario creates a carbon debt that takes 35-50 years to recover. and in the interim. The good news for the planet is that the renewable energy policies rewarding such polluting. as local activists have fought individual plants. and a number of others that have emerged in the past two years.nearly a million tons a year. The air permit for the 75 MW Laidlaw biomass plant in Berlin. the science of carbon accounting for biomass has taken big leaps forward. or the equivalent of clear-cutting more than an acre of forest every hour.so it's not surprising that Massachusetts became the first state to do some actual scientific analysis of the issue. finalizing the regulations in August 2012.
Action by the states could also soon be coupled with federal action. "Under the final DOER regulations. along with municipal wood fuel. The clearinghouse data show overlap in the permitted emission rates for coal. It remains to be seen whether EPA will resist the heavy politicization of this issue and write science-based rules that make biomass power plants responsible for the carbon they emit. and 60% efficient to receive a full credit. was abruptly cancelled less than two months after the new rules were announced. "We are unable to modify the plant design as permitted. a 50-megawatt wood-burning power plant under development since 2005. (1) Pollution emission rates are expressed as pounds of pollution per million Btu of boiler capacity (lb/MMbtu)." The new Massachusetts regulations could provide a template for other states that are serious about reducing emissions from the power sector. The range of rates at the five lowest-emitting coal facilities and the five lowest-emitting biomass facilities in the clearinghouse with boilers 100 MMbtu/hr and greater are as follows: Filterable PM10 Coal: 0. for policymakers . with the exception of sulfur dioxide.including President Obama.01 to 0. can only be met by smaller facilities that utilize waste heat for thermal energy in addition to generating electricity. but depends on a number of factors .gov/RBLC/) contains data on emissions limits for the lowest-emitting facilities. who espoused a newly awakened concern over climate change during his second inaugural speech and recent State of the Union . the project is not technically and economically viable because of the required 50-percent efficiency.epa. High efficiency is one commonsense standard that most people can agree on for renewable energy. with a section in the plant's air permit stating that it would burn 250. Massachusetts.12 lb/MMBtu. and simply requiring that plants meet a stringent efficiency standard in order to qualify for renewable energy credits would do much to reduce the stampede of biomass power development now underway. which is usually emitted at a higher rate by coal plants (although biomass plants burning construction debris that contains gypsum wallboard residues can have relatively high sulfur emission rates).to acknowledge that a renewable energy policy that accelerates forest cutting and CO2 emissions is worse than no policy at all." said Russell Biomass partner John Bos. At the Environmental Protection Agency. This standard for the RECs. The new Massachusetts regulations had an almost immediate impact on the industry.025 lb/ MMBtu . The Russell project was Exhibit A for the type of tree-burners designed to produce electricity for the grid.000-350. a panel commissioned by the agency to examine the greenhouse gas impacts of biomass energy has concluded that biomass energy cannot a priori be considered carbon neutral. however.including whether forests are used as fuel.000 tons of whole tree fuel per year. stump grindings. which are worth millions of dollars to a utility-scale plant.and biomass-burning facilities for each pollutant. EPA’s “clearinghouse” for air permits (at http://cfpub. The Russell Biomass project in Russell. The moment is ripe. the new regulations require biomass power plants to be at least 50% efficient before receiving half a renewable energy credit (REC) per megawatt hour.0125 to 0.than the 33% efficiency of old line coal-fired plants. and pallet grindings. coupled with the new forest biomass fuel supply limitations. Biomass: 0.
Energy is required to drive off that moisture before useful heat can be generated for the boiler.029 lb CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). . Besides its relatively low energy content.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s06.eia. The combined effect of these factors is that a biomass plant emits about 3. hydrochloric acid. which further degrades facility efficiency.epa. May not be reprinted without permission. (2) Biomass has a lower energy content per unit carbon than fossil fuels.02 to 0. emitting around 213 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu heat content.067 to 0.http://www. biomass tends to have high moisture content.07 lb/ MMBtu.2).15 lb/ MMBtu Carbon monoxide (CO) Coal: 0.33 lb/ MMBtu Emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) including heavy metals.065 to 0. in contrast to coal (~206 lb CO2/MMBtu) and natural gas (~117 lb CO2/MMBtu. Biomass: 0.135 lb/ MMBtu.html). whereas a coal plant is around 34% efficient and a gas plant using combined cycle technology can be around 45% efficient (http://www.086 lb CO2/MWh). versus a typical coal plant (2. or a combined cycle natural gas plant (883 lb CO2/MWh). Truthout. about 45 percent by weight for green wood chips.Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Coal: 0.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03. efficiency calculated from data in Table 8. with totals that range from 10 to more than 40 tons of HAPs per facility. Biomass: 0.pdf).gov/electricity/annual/pdf/epa.1 to 0.pdf. and organic contaminants including benzene and formaldehyde are estimated using EPA emissions factors for biomass combustion (http://www. Copyright. Our review of multiple biomass permit applications reveals that peak efficiency of biomass power plants is around 24%.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.