Net Benefits of Biomass Power Under Scrutiny
Matthew Cavanaugh for The New York Times
Chris Matera of Massachusetts Forest Watch at a
state forest. He called biomass “a false solution” with “enormous
impacts.”
Published: June 18, 2010
GREENFIELD, Mass. — Matthew Wolfe, an energy developer with plans to
turn tree branches and other woody debris into electric power, sees
himself as a positive force in the effort to wean his state off of
planet-warming fossil fuels.
“It’s way better than
coal,” Mr. Wolfe said, “if you look at it over its life cycle.”
Not everyone agrees, as evidenced by lawn signs in this northwestern
Massachusetts town reading “Biomass? No Thanks.”
In fact, power generated by burning wood, plants and other organic
material, which makes up 50 percent of all renewable energy produced in
the United States, according to federal statistics, is facing increased
scrutiny and opposition.
That, critics say, is because it is not as climate-friendly as once
thought, and the pollution it causes in the short run may outweigh its
long-term benefits.
The opposition to biomass power threatens its viability as a
renewable energy source when the country is looking to diversify its
energy portfolio, urged on by
President Obama in an address to the nation Tuesday. It also
underscores the difficult and complex choices state and local
governments face in pursuing clean-energy goals.
Biomass proponents say it is a simple and proved renewable technology
based on natural cycles. They acknowledge that burning wood and other
organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere just as coal
does, but point out that trees and plants also absorb the gas. If done
carefully, and without overharvesting, they say, the damage to the
climate can be offset.
But opponents say achieving that sort of balance is almost
impossible, and carbon-absorbing forests will ultimately be destroyed to
feed a voracious biomass industry fueled inappropriately by clean-energy
subsidies. They also argue that, like any incinerating operation,
biomass plants generate all sorts of other pollution, including
particulate matter. State and federal regulators are now puzzling over
these arguments.
Last month, in outlining its plans to regulate greenhouse gases, the
Environmental Protection Agency declined to exempt emissions from
“biogenic” sources like biomass power plants. That dismayed the biomass
and forest products industries, which typically describe biomass as
“carbon neutral.”
The agency said more deliberation was needed.
Meanwhile, plans for several biomass plants around the country have
been dropped because of stiff community opposition.
In March, a $250 million biomass power project planned for Gretna,
Fla., was abandoned after residents complained that it threatened air
quality. Two planned plants in Indiana have faced similar grass-roots
opposition.
In April, an association of family physicians in North Carolina told
state regulators that biomass power plants there, like other plants and
factories that pollute the air, could “increase the risk of premature
death, asthma, chronic bronchitis and heart disease.”
In Massachusetts, fierce opposition to a handful of projects in the
western part of the state, including Mr. Wolfe’s, prompted officials to
order a moratorium on new permits last December, and to commission a
scientific review of the environmental credentials of biomass power.
That study,
released
last week, concluded that, at least in Massachusetts, power plants
using woody material as fuel would probably prove worse for the climate
than existing coal plants over the next several decades. Plants that
generate both heat and power, displacing not just coal but also oil and
gas, could yield dividends faster, the report said. But in every case,
the study found, much depends on what is burned, how it is burned, how
forests are managed and how the industry is regulated.
Ian A. Bowles, the secretary of the Massachusetts Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs, said that biomass power and sustainable
forest management were not mutually exclusive. But he also said that the
logical conclusion from the study was that biomass plants that generated
electricity alone probably should not be eligible for incentives for
renewable energy.
“That would represent a significant change in policy,” Mr. Bowles
said.
The biomass industry argues that studies like the one in
Massachusetts do not make a clear distinction between wood harvested
specifically for energy production and the more common, and desirable,
practice of burning wood and plant scraps left from agriculture and
logging operations.
The Biomass Power Association, a trade group based in Maine, said in
a statement last week that it was “not aware of any facilities that use
whole trees for energy.”
During a recent visit to an old gravel pit outside of town
where he hopes to build his 47-megawatt Pioneer Renewable Energy
project, Mr. Wolfe said the plant would be capable of generating
heat and power, and would use only woody residues as a feedstock.
“It’s really frustrating,” he said. “There’s a tremendous deficit of
trust that is really inhibiting things.”
Matthew Cavanaugh for The New
York Times
A biomass plant is proposed
for land in Russell, Mass. |
In the United States, biomass power plants
burn a variety of feedstocks, including rice
hulls in Louisiana and sugar cane residues,
called bagasse, in parts of Florida and Hawaii.
A vast majority, though, some 90 percent, use
woody residue as a feedstock, according to the
Biomass Power Association. About 75 percent of
biomass electricity comes from the paper and
pulp companies, which collect their residues and
burn them to generate power for themselves. |
But more than 80 operations in 20 states are grid-connected and
generate power for sale to local utilities and distribution to
residential and commercial customers, a $1 billion industry, according
to the association. The increasing availability of subsidies and tax
incentives has put dozens of new projects in the development pipeline.
The problem with all this biomass, critics argue, is that wood can
actually churn out more greenhouse gases than coal. New trees might well
cancel that out, but they do not grow overnight. That means the
low-carbon attributes of biomass are often realized too slowly to be
particularly useful for combating
climate change.
Supporters of the technology say those limitations can be overcome
with tight regulation of what materials are burned and how they are
harvested. “The key question is the rate of use,” said Ben Larson of the
Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group based in
Cambridge, Mass., that supports the sensible use of biomass power. “We
need to consider which sources are used, and how the land is taken care
of over the long haul.”
But critics maintain that “sustainable” biomass power is an oxymoron,
and that nowhere near enough residual material exists to feed a
large-scale industry. Plant owners, they say, will inevitably be forced
to seek out less beneficial fuels, including whole trees harvested from
tracts of land that never would have been logged otherwise. Those trees,
critics say, would do far more to absorb planet-warming gases if they
were simply let alone.
“The fact is, you might get six or seven megawatts of power from
residues in Massachusetts,” said Chris Matera, the founder of
Massachusetts Forest Watch. “They’re planning on building about 200
megawatts. So it’s a red herring. It’s not about burning waste wood.
This is about burning trees.”
Whether or not that is true, biomass power is also coming under
attack simply for the ordinary air pollution it produces. Web sites like
No Biomass Burn, based in the Pacific Northwest, liken biomass
emissions to cigarette smoke. Duff Badgley, the coordinator of the site,
says a proposed plant in Mason County, Washington, would “rain toxic
pollutants” on residents there. And the American Lung Association has
asked Congress to exclude subsidies for biomass from any new energy
bill, citing potentially “severe impacts” on health.
Nathaniel Greene, the director of renewable energy policy for the
Natural Resources Defense Council, said that while such concerns
were not unfounded, air pollution could be controlled. “It involves
technology that we’re really good at,” Mr. Greene said. For opponents
like Mr. Matera, the tradeoffs are not worth it.
“We’ve got huge problems,” Mr. Matera said. “And there’s no easy
answer. But biomass doesn’t do it. It’s a false solution that has
enormous impacts.”
Mr. Wolfe says that is shortsighted.
Wind power and
solar power are not ready to scale up technologically and
economically, he said, particularly in this corner of Massachusetts.
Biomass, by contrast, is proven and available, and while it is far from
perfect, he argued, it can play a small part in reducing reliance on
fossil fuels.
“Is it carbon-neutral? Is it low-carbon? There’s some variety of
opinion,” Mr. Wolfe said. “But that’s missing the forest for the trees.
The question I ask is, What’s the alternative?”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times
Company To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.nytimes.com
|