Our View: Future of wood-fired plants key energy issue
A study that says biomass plants are worse than oil is not the last word on this subject.
The latest studies on biomass raise troubling questions, for Maine workers at wood-fired power plants and for national energy policy.
Studies in Massachusetts and nationally conclude that biomass -- the burning of wood and other organic matter for electricity and heat -- can make climate change worse and devastate forests. They warn that renewable energy policies at the state and federal levels ignore these risks and will worsen the threat.
Biomass defenders argue that those analyses are flawed. The critics assume widespread deforestation, rather than the practice of using wood waste left over from logging and manufacturing, limbs left from forest thinning and the use of "energy crops" such as switchgrass planted on marginal lands.
These issues are of critical importance to states and regions where timber is a prime resource, as in Maine, the Southeast and the Northwest. While our state appropriately pursues wind energy, we cannot responsibly ignore what other resources can provide to the energy grid and to the job market.
Our senators, both Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, have defended biomass and fought to include it in legislation for renewable energy, including stimulus funds and tax credits. Those provide essential assistance, as in Massachusetts, where state incentives have fueled a market for the energy produced by Maine power plants.
The larger argument about biomass and its impacts is necessary, and should be embraced. Too often these discussions get polarized, with all conflict and no cooperation. It seems to us that thorough analysis, like the study out of Massachusetts and another by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based organization, should help guide policymakers, the public and business alike. The biomass industry needs to engage with sound studies and a goal of consensus.
The Environmental Working Group found that biomass increases the carbon dioxide emissions, which accelerate climate change, while encouraging the clearing of forests, which are one of nature's best tools to reverse climate change by capturing carbon dioxide. They called biomass a "global warming double whammy."
That isn't the final word. But it does mean that unbiased science needs to inform both government decision-making and business plans, too, to find an environmentally wise path.
If that means restrictions that require the use of wood waste and thinning -- as is the predominant practice in Maine, according to the Portland-based Biomass Power Association -- then so be it. Sound business and sound environment must coexist.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
19 COMMENTS
louisH2Ovill said...
What nonsense to state that our state appropriately pursues wind energy! We overregulate and restrict ONshore wind poswer and actively invest bond money in the fantasy of OFFshore wind energy, which will never be viable or competitive. OFFshore wind energy is the hopeless scheme that required the state to invest because private investors were too astute to waste their money on a lost cause. And of course, the alternative energy most appropriate for Maine is tidal energy the dream of which goes back to FDR, who was so familiar with the the tides of Passamaquoddy Bay and the Bay of Fundy because of his summer home on Campobello. Let the science decide and let the market dictate on biomass and all other energy alternatives!
June 21, 2010 at 4:14 AM Report abuse
louisH2Ovill said...
There is obviously no point in promoting biomass energy if it caused more greenhouse gas emissions and makes the situation worse. It is just like the ethanol nonsense promoted by the MidWest politicians--driven by politics, fueled by taxpayer dollars, and counter-productive to the end on the basis of which it is promoted! Let the science and common sense prevail! Hmm, now wouldn't that be a radical change!
June 21, 2010 at 4:18 AM Report abuse
TheCaptain said...
Ah, you don't see the forest for the trees: IF we super-insulated our buildings, we could heat our homes with wood, oil, even residential windpower or solar, because a super-insulated house requires very little fuel. But those that want to sell fuel, (whether oil, coal, nuclear, offshore wind, or wood) want consumers to use a lot of their product. They are not interested in insulation, which provided sonsumers with the best return on investment. The discussion needs to be about how to super-insulate as many homes as fast as possible. -William S. Linnell, Spokesperson, Cheaper, Safer Power
June 21, 2010 at 8:09 AM Report abuse
Arthur said...
Louis, if Offshore wind is hopeless, then onshore wind is useless. The tiny benefit that we get in exchange for the massive impact is just bad policy. Plus, let's not forget...whether biomass or wind, we're talking about ELECTRICITY here -- not oil. Until someone figures out a way to heat homes and move vehicles with electricity, why bother with ANY new electricity source??
June 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM Report abuse
louisH2Ovill said...
How thick are you, Arthur? Lots of people in the US and Canada heat with electricity--so what is there to figure out? People in Quebec just across the border use elecity for heating--but they have HydroQuebec and affordable electricity. And we should be switching to natural das instead of oil to heat our homes. And Arthur, are you totally unaware that the cost of OFFshore wind power is about three times to cost of ONshore--it is simply no comparison except for those who want to fool us into equating the two!We just don't need oil at all!
June 21, 2010 at 11:07 AM Report abuse
sapereaude1 said...
Funny. My woodlot has tons of biomass that will rot and generate Carbon dioxide because there's no economic incentive to chip it or saw it. It's renewable, and the technology exists to scrub the carbon out of the smokestacks of a biomass generator. If there were a nearby biomass generator, I could sell that dog-hair spruce-fir junk that is currently rotting on the stump, and it would regrow every twenty years or so. Ignorant would-be do-gooders effect as much damage to Maine as anti-environmental right-wingers.
June 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM Report abuse
MBN said...
Well said, sapereaude1. Wood is a renewable resource. Using it in a state that has an abundance just makes common sense. It creates jobs and has a low impact on greenhouse gasses. Wind, on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense. We will clear cut a thousand miles of woods for monster power lines that we don't need, eliminating many acres of carbon absorbing trees. And double our electric bills as well as our taxes that will go directly to a corrupt few that have their hands in the pockets of the Energy Department. And BTW, I am an educated would-be do-gooder.... Wind ONLY makes sense if it is used right where it is produced, no new power lines needed.
June 21, 2010 at 2:11 PM Report abuse
Arthur said...
Louis- I am not at all thick, so why are you arguing with me? I have long said that we do not need new electricity, but if we do decide to convert to a plugged-in society, we are nuts to quadruple our usage while tripling our rates. To get the same meager trickle of electricity that 1000 mountain turbines bring (with excessive transmission) we could build one tiny NG plant and not have to worry about the wind blowing. Or get busy with Hydro Quebec. Under today's market scenario, Maine oil needs to hit $6 a gallon before electric heat can compete.
June 21, 2010 at 3:31 PM Report abuse
louisH2Ovill said...
Arthur, sorry I misunderstood you and glad we agree on the need to switch to natural gas.
June 21, 2010 at 3:37 PM Report abuse
KarenPease said...
It is wonderful to see Maine citizens having an open dialogue about the issue of power generation. It gives me hope that we aren't too late... that we can save our mountains and our way of life before industrial wind developers destroy the very thing so many people come to this state to enjoy. Maine already exports power, and I believe it is unconsciounable for our mountains to be forever altered due to another region's need for electricity. We should concentrate on NG, and on a biomass plan which will enrich our local economy. The technology is available for clean BM. Let's use what we have already in place before squandering what cannot be replaced. Keep spreading the word, and I encourage the PPH to assign a reporter to write an unbiased piece on the science and economics of industrial wind. You have the opportunity to do your readers a great service. A good place to start: www.highlandmts.org. Karen Pease, Lexington Twp.; http://karenbesseypease.blogspot.com/
June 21, 2010 at 5:33 PM Report abuse
GURRY70 said...
A shout out to TheCaptain...you are more than welcome to "super insulate this house. When all is said and done to reach the "super" goal and to properly do the job....Your check for $100,000 will be appreciated....Bank certified only...Thanks. ;)
June 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM Report abuse
Blueyes1119 said...
Biomass is a great way to achieve three goals: First, it is a good way to produce substantial MW of baseload electricity. Second, it is a good way to clean up our unhealthy forest and contribute to a sustainable, healthy forest. Also, marginal farmlands could easily become plantations for the hybrid poplars that only take 8-10 years to grow into good size trees, to use as feedstock and carbon sequestration. Third, it would provide hundreds of jobs in our rural areas that are starved for jobs. Instead of growing this ral resource based, renewable energy source, our state has been foolishly pursuing wind projects. Wind projects blast away ridges and clearcut thousands of acres for a pittance of unpredictable, unreliable power. Here's a rub: Biomass is subsidized at 89 cents per MWH; wind at $23.37 per MWH. (Energy Information Administration, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007). There's a definite bias for one industry over another!
June 21, 2010 at 10:25 PM Report abuse
Chris said...
Most biomass plants in our state use scrap wood or waste left over from papermaking and that will continue to receive federal energy credits. The problem discussed in the article is cutting down trees in order to burn as biomass, which studies have found doesn't make environmental sense. That’s what should lose federal energy credits.
June 21, 2010 at 10:34 PM Report abuse
Chris said...
PS: For example a study in Mass. found that "power plants using woody material as fuel would probably prove WORSE FOR THE CLIMATE THAN EXISTING COAL PLANTS over the next several decades." See for example this article published recently in the New York Times, "Net Benefits of Biomass Power Under Scrutiny": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/science/earth/19biomass.html
June 21, 2010 at 10:44 PM Report abuse
Blueyes1119 said...
How about a comparison between wind and biomass? I did an analysis of the proposed Rollins project in Lincoln Lakes and the Covanta biomass plant in West Enfield, next to Lincoln. The Rollins project, if built, will be 60 MW but being in a very poor wind potential region, it will be lucky to achieve 25% efficiency, so actual output will be 15 MW. Covanta produces 25 MW. Rollins is unpredictable, unreliable surges into the grid. Covanta is a reliable baseload plant, humming away 24/7. First Wind will employ 6-8 after construction. Covanta employs 21, not including loggers and others as an employment multiplier. Covanta cost $35 million to build and takes up less than 50 acres tucked away on Rt. 2. Rollins will cost $150 million to build and permanently clearcut more than 1,000 acres of ridges above 13 lakes. There is such a clear advantage to Covanta in this comparison. It is folly to pursue wind development when biomass is so much more appropriate for rural Maine!
June 21, 2010 at 10:49 PM Report abuse
MBN said...
I'd be interested in knowing who performed the research in Massachusetts.
June 22, 2010 at 9:02 AM Report abuse
MBN said...
blueyes, did I hear right that the turbine at University of Maine Presque Isle for a year is only producing at 11.9% efficiency? You are being very generous to the wind energy suggesting 25%, especially given that the industry is very closed lipped regarding the true output on the existing turbines here in Maine. You are absolutely right about the plight of our mountains. And lets not forget that Baldacci doesn't even allow hydro power to be included in Maine's definition of renewable energy.
June 22, 2010 at 9:10 AM Report abuse
common_cents said...
Biomass plants in W. MASS use GREEN WASTE normally taken to a land fill exclusivly! Surprised that no woodlands are being cut for biomass plants; or surprised that so much green waste is taken to landfills now? Get your town's land fill stats. for past ten years and you'll see just how much is taken then; let alone the hundreds of tons of wood chips pilled up! Maine has an enormous potential to dramatically increase our forest cover; removing tens of thousands of tons of CO2 and other pollutants from the air, and sequestering thousands of tons of carbon in the land. Even fires are worthwhile producers of bio-char. If CHINA can plant a million trees with the help of the president of TIMBERLAND shoes; so can Maine...IF IT HAS THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP!...guess whose city was once known as 'TREE CITY'?
June 22, 2010 at 10:16 AM Report abuse
MaineHiker said...
The ecosystem in the Mexican gulf is being murdered do to greed driven reckless risk taking allowed to take place. Now oil has seeped into the ocean floor and disrupted the food chain. We knew better. The food chains in the ecosystems of Maine mountain wilderness are at risk of being murdered do to greed driven recklessness; and this is not even a risk. It is a demonstrable certainty and can already be seen in the effects on the ecosystem on Sisk Mountain resulting from the TransCanada project. This corruption needs a full investigation and the planners should do real time.
June 24, 2010 at 7:51 PM Report abuse