(Source: Mary Anderson, Courier-Tribune)

A 36 megawatt biomass incinerator that would have burned poultry feces is no longer being considered for Biscoe, North Carolina, to the relief of Montgomery and Moore County residents and grassroots community groups, such as Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), which opposed the project.

(Source: Laurie K. Blandford and Anthony Westbury, TC Palm)

A trash incinerator proposal for St. Lucie, Florida has fallen through following a unanimous decision by the St. Lucie County Commissioners to terminate the contract with Georgia-based Geoplasma, citing economic concerns. The 24 megawatt incinerator would’ve incinerated 600 [...]]]> - by Josh Schlossberg

(Source: Laurie K. Blandford and Anthony Westbury, TC Palm)

A trash incinerator proposal for St. Lucie, Florida has fallen through following a unanimous decision by the St. Lucie County Commissioners to terminate the contract with Georgia-based Geoplasma, citing economic concerns. The 24 megawatt incinerator would’ve incinerated 600 tons of trash per day using a technology called plasma arc, which turns garbage into a gas and slag, a solid waste byproduct.

“Fortunately, the health of St. Lucie County residents will not be jeopardized since the incinerator won’t be built,” said Dr. Ron Saff, an asthma specialist based in Tallahassee, who had opposed the facility along with other area medical professionals. Saff offers his thanks to “the local medical community…who took a bold stand in St. Lucie County against the incinerator. This certainly helped win the battle.”

The canceled facility would’ve emitted toxic air pollutants, including particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, and furans, as well as greenhouse gases. “In all incineration technologies, air pollution control devices are mainly devices that capture and concentrate the toxic pollutants; they don’t eliminate them,” according to Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) in its 2009 report, An Industry Blowing Smoke. “By capturing and concentrating the pollutants, pollutants are transferred to other environmental media such as fly ash, char, slag, and waste water.”

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has concerns with the “syngas” produced through the plasma arc trash incineration process. “While the high temperatures can destroy organics, some undesirable compounds, like dioxins and furans, can reform at temperature ranges between 450 and 850 degrees F if chlorine is present,” according to its Whitepaper on the Use of Plasma Arc Technology to Treat Municipal Solid Waste.

Trash incineration often burns waste materials that could otherwise be recycled or composted.  Ninety percent of materials consumed in U.S. incinerators and landfills could be recycled or composted, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. In 2010, Ocean City Maryland terminated its recycling program in favor of sending its trash and recyclables to the Covanta trash incinerator in Chester, Pennsylvania.

Energy Justice Network has created a map depicting the locations of operating, proposed and defeated trash incinerators in the U.S.

Apr. 27, 2012: The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources finally released its long awaited and much delayed biomass regulations, garnering both cautious praise and criticism from grassroots biomass opponents. The regulations have disqualified stand-alone biomass power facilities from receiving Renewable Energy Certificates—a ratepayer subsidy under the state’s [...]]]> - by Josh Schlossberg, The Biomass Monitor

Apr. 27, 2012: The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources finally released its long awaited and much delayed biomass regulations, garnering both cautious praise and criticism from grassroots biomass opponents. The regulations have disqualified stand-alone biomass power facilities from receiving Renewable Energy Certificates—a ratepayer subsidy under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard—though incentives are still available for combined heat and power facilities operating at 50% efficiency, that burn whole trees along with logging “residues.”

The regulations came as a response to a mounting wave of public opposition to biomass incinerator proposals across western Massachusetts and the state-funded “Manomet study,” which debunked biomass carbon neutrality claims. Anti-biomass resistance began in 2008 with the formation of citizen groups in Russell, Greenfield, and Springfield, expanding into a statewide campaign in 2009. Grassroots efforts included citizen pressure on elected officials, a public education and media campaign, a successful anti-biomass ballot measure in Greenfield, and a statewide petition drive to end all biomass subsidies.

The petition, organized by the Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign in 2009 and 2010, sought to remove subsidies for both stand-alone electric and combined heat and power biomass facilities, by qualifying for the 2010 Massachusetts ballot. Though the petition received the 120,000 signatures needed to make the ballot, the Campaign chose to allow the state government to enact its own regulations in good faith, and did not submit the signatures. While Massachusetts’ large environmental groups and some biomass opponents did not support the petition, the massive statewide grassroots effort is widely credited for applying the political pressure needed to ensure government action.

“Massachusetts has taken a big step forward in limiting ratepayer subsidies under the Renewable Portfolio Standard for industrial-scale wood burning biomass incinerators,” said Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign and the Biomass Accountability Project. “Much remains to be done, however, to ensure that the regulations are enforced and that we don’t face the proliferation of small scale incinerators that pose just as much of a threat to forests, health, and climate change.”

The final proposed Massachusetts regulations require that new biomass facilities operate at 60% efficiency to receive full credits under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and 50% efficiency to receive ½ credits. The regulations would also provide  ½ credits for facilities operating at 40% efficiency that qualify “as advancement of biomass conversion generation.” Biomass power plants operate at roughly 25% efficiency—in comparison, residential wood stoves operate at 60% or higher. Further, biomass facilities qualifying for Renewable Energy Credits must “yield at least a 50 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of useful energy” over a 20 year life cycle in comparison to a new natural gas facility.

Regulations still allow whole trees to be cut and burned in biomass facilities, while making the distinction between the removal of whole trees and high-nutrient tree tops and branches, referred to as logging “residues.” Varying amounts of this organic material will be required to be left onsite, depending on soil quality, with “bad” soils requiring all “residues” to be left and “good” soils only 25 percent. The maximum amount of leftover organic material that can be removed from any site would be “30% of the weight of the harvest products removed.”

Chris Matera, founder of Massachusetts Forest Watch, and a key player in the anti-biomass movement in Massachusetts and across New England, calls the new regulations “counterproductive and unenforceable.” Matera believes that “there should not be any subsidies for tree-fueled biomass energy, whether it is done efficiently, or inefficiently, because in both cases it will increase pollution, deforestation and carbon emissions.”

Matera is skeptical of the regulations’ claims of forest monitoring, and states that the “air pollution rate [for biomass] is worse than fossil fuels, and carbon accounting is ripe for manipulation.”

“These regulations are not praiseworthy,” said Jana Chicoine, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Russell, MA. Chicoine was among the first to oppose biomass in Massachusetts, fighting against a proposed biomass facility in her neighborhood and helping organize the statewide petition drive. “These regulations do nothing at all to change the basics—the essential factors that caused the Massachusetts Medical Society, the American Lung Association, and many river protection and environmental groups to oppose” biomass facilities in Massachusetts.

“We think burning trees for electricity is a bad idea,” said Janet Sinclair, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, instrumental in organizing Greenfield’s anti-biomass ballot measure and the statewide petition. “I find it to be terrible public policy to reward biomass with the public’s money at 50% efficiency. A wood stove does better than that.” Instead of biomass energy, Sinclair would rather see taxpayers’ money spent on energy efficiency measures.

The Massachusetts Department of Energy will open a thirty day comment period on the final proposed regulations from May 19 to June 18. Comments can be submitted to doer.biomass@state.ma.us.

(Source: Arwyn Rice and Paul Gottlieb, Peninsula Daily News)

Local politics are abuzz with biomass on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, where Port Angeles and Port Townsend residents face two biomass incinerator proposals from Nippon Paper Industries and Port Townsend Paper Corp.

Over the last several weeks, the [...]]]> - by Josh Schlossberg, The Biomass Monitor

(Source: Arwyn Rice and Paul Gottlieb, Peninsula Daily News)

Local politics are abuzz with biomass on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, where Port Angeles and Port Townsend residents face two biomass incinerator proposals from Nippon Paper Industries and Port Townsend Paper Corp.

Over the last several weeks, the former Mayor of Port Townsend warned residents of the health impacts from burning biomass, and the Port Angeles and Sequim City Councils—Sequim is fifteen miles downwind of the proposed Port Angeles incinerator—canceled a previously scheduled public forum to discuss biomass concerns.

Artist rendering of biomass proposal for Port Angeles, WA (Photo: Peninsula Daily News)

On March 16, former Port Townsend Mayor and retired pediatrician, Kees Kolff, voiced concerns with the health impacts of burning biomass to a group of 100 people. Kolff insisted that no new biomass facilities be built until the development of technology that would adequately filter the asthma-inducing particulate matter emitted from the smokestack.

On March 20, Port Angeles City Councilor Max Mania proposed that the Council open a public discussion on the health and environmental concerns raised by biomass opponents. On April 3, the Council chose not to pursue the biomass discussion and voted against co-hosting a public forum with the Sequim City Council, already scheduled for May 14.

On April 23, the Sequim City Council likewise agreed to cancel the forum, citing that Nippon Paper Industries had already received permits for the facility and that Sequim had no authority over the town of Port Angeles.

“The citizens of the area are largely ignorant of the effects of biomass burning,” said Maureen Wall, a biomass opponent living in Port Angeles. “My biggest concern is how to get questions, important questions, answered when there is only name calling, when citizens concerns are met with dismissive or personal attacks.”

“It looks like our city governments can’t cope when research on the impacts of burning biomass leapfrog ahead of rules, regulations and laws…especially where the influences of timber interests loom large,” said Diana Somerville, spokesperson for the seven groups that have filed suit against the Port Angeles incinerator and a member of the Healthy Air Coalition of Clallam County.

An online petition addressed to Port Angeles and Port Townsend city governments, as well as county and state governments, is being circulated by biomass opponents in hopes of enacting a “a moratorium on construction/operations of biomass incinerators/boilers.”

The Obama administration has given yet another thumbs up to bioenergy, announcing $35 million in funding for research on feedstock production, bio-products development and biofuels development analysis.

The Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), a joint program with Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, will oversee the grants. The BRDI [...]]]> - by Rachel Smolker

The Obama administration has given yet another thumbs up to bioenergy, announcing $35 million in funding for research on feedstock production, bio-products development and biofuels development analysis.

The Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), a joint program with Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Agriculture, will oversee the grants. The BRDI initiative was mandated by the Biomass Research and Development Act back in 2000, which put in place a Biomass Research and Development Board and Technical Advisory Committee. Obama’s enthusiasm for bio-everything is further indicated by a September 2011 announcement that the administration will develop a “National Bioeconomy Blueprint” to “harness biological research innovations to address challenges in health, food, energy and the environment.”

Meanwhile, Europe is taking similar steps. A European Commission announcement in February states: “The bioeconomy encompasses the sustainable production of renewable biological resources and their conversion and that of waste streams into food, feed, bio-based products such as bioplastics, biofuels and bioenergy. It includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper production, as well as parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries.”

March 16, 2012:  Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives to initiate a large-scale sell off of federally owned lands in the western United States. Colorado, Wyoming and Montana are among the ten states implicated under H.R. 1126, the “Disposal of Excess Federal Lands [...]]]> - by Julia Waite

March 16, 2012:  Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives to initiate a large-scale sell off of federally owned lands in the western United States. Colorado, Wyoming and Montana are among the ten states implicated under H.R. 1126, the “Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2011,” which calls upon the Secretary of the Interior to direct the sale of 3.3 million acres of land identified as suitable for “disposal” or “other purposes,” including Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, one-quarter of which are forested.

Logging on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Low Pass, Oregon

In a revenue-raising effort by the government, tracts will be sold to private investors on the competitive market. This relinquishment of federally owned land presents itself as a valuable opportunity for the timber and biomass industries. Lumber, furniture, and paper manufacturing industries all seek to benefit, but what is generating concern among some observers, as the bill enters the House Natural Resources Subcommittee, is that the sale presents a huge opportunity for the biomass industry.

A major limiting factor for biofuels in becoming an economically viable producer of electricity has been the availability of wood. “Obtaining a consistent supply of woody biomass from federal lands is one of the primary impediments to developing a biomass utilization sector,” according to biomass proponent Sustainable Northwest. The speculation that House and Senate versions of a policy that would amend the Waxman-Markey energy bill to allow biomass from federal lands to qualify as “renewable” feedstock for biofuels production similarly threatens to increase logging for biomass.

Biomass opponents challenge the rhetoric of benevolence by government that private stewardship is needed to manage the fire risks that “threaten” forests. In 2003, the so-called Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) was passed into law with a priority purpose to “reduce wildfire risks to communities.” Under the guise of fire protection, the government has essentially been priming its federally owned lands for exploitation by the biomass industry. The potential for industry profit is double because, in addition to purchasing the land rights to cut and burn biomass in the future, the trees felled during the “thinning” process can also be sold for fuel chipping.

Home ignitability, rather than forests fuels, is the principal cause of home losses during wild land/urban interface fires. Recent science demonstrates that large wildfires are more often a product of drought and low humidity, than fuel levels. If conditions are ripe, especially with high winds, thinning doesn’t necessarily stop big wildfires, and it might actually make things worse. Thinning a forest opens it up to sunlight, which dries the forest and also exposes it to winds, which can hasten the spread of flames during wildfires

So what is the effect of these regulations that would sell off federal lands? At best, it adds yet another layer of human interference with the natural cycle of decomposition and regeneration. At worst, it can be perceived as a concerted effort by government to further prime public lands for sale to the timber and biomass industries.

Yet another in a long and growing list of scientific studies debunking the sustainability of industrial-scale biomass energy was published in Global Change Biology in April. The global study, “Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral,” was conducted by Schulze, Korner, Law, [...]]]> - by Josh Schlossberg

Yet another in a long and growing list of scientific studies debunking the sustainability of industrial-scale biomass energy was published in Global Change Biology in April. The global study, “Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral,” was conducted by Schulze, Korner, Law, Haberl, and Luyssaert from Germany, Switzerland, Oregon, Austria, and France.

The study determines that a European Union mandate to provide 20% of Europe’s energy from biomass would commandeer the equivalent of “60–70% of the global increment in woody biomass.” The authors dismiss biomass industry claims of carbon neutrality by explaining that “this reasoning makes a ‘baseline error’ by neglecting the plant growth and consequent C [carbon]-sequestration that would occur in the absence of bioenergy production.” Instead, they argue that such an expansion of biomass energy wouldn’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions but instead would “result in a reduction of biomass pools that requires decades to centuries to be paid back by fossil fuel substitution, if paid back at all.”

Further, expansion of biomass energy would “export substantial amounts of nutrients, further depleting the soil nutrient stock,” especially when removing “nutrient-rich biomass residues (slash) and root stocks.” Required fertilization following soil depletion would further increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Findings predict an increase in burning whole trees for biomass energy, including from “previously unmanaged forests,” citing a rise in the price of wood chips in relation to saw logs—already reaching a staggering 60-70% of the price of saw logs in Germany. This trend of rising wood chip prices will “discourage forest owners from investments in long rotations, resulting in a shortage of quality timber.”

Study authors also state that policies encouraging “thinning” of western native forests for so-called “fire fuels reduction” are misguided, with the end result being the release of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than wildfire itself, which is a natural and essential component of western forest ecosystems.

As alternatives to burning more forests for industrial-scale energy, study authors recommend “increased energy efficiency” and “behaviour modification,” or lifestyle change.

April 4, 2012: Gainesville Citizens CARE has filed a lawsuit in Florida Circuit Court to annul a $3 billion Power Purchase Agreement contract negotiated by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and approved by the Gainesville City Council for a 100 megawatt biomass incinerator proposed by American Renewables.

The lawsuit asks [...]]]> - by Josh Schlossberg

April 4, 2012: Gainesville Citizens CARE has filed a lawsuit in Florida Circuit Court to annul a $3 billion Power Purchase Agreement contract negotiated by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and approved by the Gainesville City Council for a 100 megawatt biomass incinerator proposed by American Renewables.

Cartoon: Jake Fuller, Artizans.com

The lawsuit asks that “the contract negotiated behind closed doors in violation of the Sunshine Law be declared void and without legal effect,” according to a Gainesville Citizens CARE press release. The Sunshine Law is a 1967 Florida statute requiring government transparency.

Changes allegedly made in secret, without public disclosure, include an extension of the contract from 20 to 30 years, a cost increase of 25%, and the removal of a “back door out clause” that would’ve allowed “the contract to be cancelled after its last regulatory approval and before the commencement of construction.”    

Vermont is the “greenest” state in the U.S., according to “Most and Least Green States,”  a report by the organization 24/7 Wall St. So where do the Green Mountain State’s two biggest environmental groups, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), stand on burning forests [...]]]> - by Josh Schlossberg

Vermont is the “greenest” state in the U.S., according to “Most and Least Green States,”  a report by the organization 24/7 Wall St. So where do the Green Mountain State’s two biggest environmental groups, Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), stand on burning forests for energy?

Due to evolving—and sometimes contradictory—positions on the controversial issue over recent years, the answer’s not exactly clear cut.

Logging for Ryegate biomass power incinerator, E. Topsham, VT

Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) is urging the Vermont Legislature—on the verge of passing legislation for a Renewable Portfolio Standard—to disincentivize stand alone biomass power plants in favor of biomass heating or combined heat and power facilities. According to a 2012 policy statement, VPIRG “supports providing significant incentives to the most efficient uses of biomass (heating), and tiering incentives for other biomass uses based on their efficiency, with the most inefficient uses (large, electric-only or electric-led biomass plants) receiving no incentives.”

Contradicting this statement, however, is VPIRG’s 2009 publication, Repowering Vermont, written by James Moore. The report, still in circulation today, advocates for an expansion of almost 100 megawatts of biomass electricity in the state by 2032. The report also claims that an increase in logging for biomass energy will not harm Vermont’s forests, but instead benefit them, stating “the need to thin existing low-grade wood out of forests.” VPIRG does not provide scientific references to back up this assertion.

While VPIRG’s current policy statement insists that biomass energy projects that “increase global warming pollution over the mid to long term should be avoided,” their 2007 publication, Clean, Safe, and Affordable, depicts a chart showing levels of “global warming pollution” for biomass power plants to be zero. Data from biomass incinerator air permits reveals higher carbon dioxide smokestack emissions than from coal burning power plants.

**

Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) has been perhaps the most involved of Vermont’s established environmental groups on the issue of biomass energy. Supportive of an expansion of the more efficient forms of biomass energy in the state, the group has hosted a series of public forums to solicit citizen involvement on this contentious topic.

Jamey Fidel, Forest and Biodiversity Program Director for VNRC, was appointed by the State Legislature to the Biomass Energy Development Working Group, along with several members of the biomass and forest products industry. While the Working Group’s final report disappointed biomass opponents by setting the stage for a significant expansion of industrial-scale biomass energy in the state, the report also recommended “procurement standards” for the sourcing of wood, a concept Fidel championed throughout the three year long process. VNRC is also working on “model harvesting guidelines” to accompany the procurement standards, while encouraging “heightened review by the Agency of Natural Resources” for the potential ecological impacts of biomass logging.

As recently as April 2012, VNRC has urged the state government to “support biomass energy projects and policies that clearly demonstrate net greenhouse gas benefits because carbon neutrality cannot be assumed for all types of woody biomass energy.”  VNRC is also “intervening in PSB proceedings to address concerns related to large scale projects” in Vermont, such as biomass power proposals in Fair Haven and Springfield, according to Fidel.

In 2007, VNRC had a somewhat different view of the “carbon neutrality” of biomass energy. “Biomass offers us a carbon-free, renewable, and local energy source. That’s right in step with VNRC’s traditional values,” said Elizabeth Courtney, VNRC’s executive director in Diverging In The Woods: Facing Market Forces, Will Vermont Choose Sustainability? by Will Lindner, published in VNRC’s Vermont Environmental Report.

**

A number of State Legislators and much of the Vermont voting public appear to be ill-informed as to the impacts on the environment and public health from biomass incineration. Are the recent efforts of Vermont’s two biggest—and arguably, most influential—environmental groups to discourage the most inefficient uses of a limited and precious forest resource enough to slow down the biomass train they, in part, helped lay track for?

As if it weren’t enough that the U.S. is currently on track towards vastly increasing combustion of all forms of biomass, now we’re also supplying Europe’s even more massive appetite, especially for wood pellets. For example, Scotland’s Forth Energy proposes to burn around 3.5 million tons of pellets, mostly imported, in [...]]]> - by Rachel Smolker

As if it weren’t enough that the U.S. is currently on track towards vastly increasing combustion of all forms of biomass, now we’re also supplying Europe’s even more massive appetite, especially for wood pellets. For example, Scotland’s Forth Energy proposes to burn around 3.5 million tons of pellets, mostly imported, in three large biomass incinerators. The developers state their intent to obtain all those pellets largely from the timber industry’s “Sustainable Forestry Initiative” certified logging from North America.

Fire at Tilbury Biomass Power Incinerator, UK

Meanwhile, Drax, owner/operator of an enormous coal burning facility that provides 7% of electricity in UK, has announced plans to generate 20% of that power from co-fired wood pellets. That would be equivalent to about 800 megawatts of biomass electricity—even larger than RWE’s Tilbury station (750 MW). Tilbury is also making the transition to co-fire around 7 million tons per of imported pellets per year.

European facilities prefer port locations for easy access to shipping. Both RWE and Drax are working both sides of the Atlantic to ensure both demand and supply, investing in new pellet producing plants in the U.S., Canada and South America. With biomass being sold as “clean, green, carbon neutral, renewable energy,” the market in “climate conscious” Europe is likely to expand, and we will see far more of our forests pelletized and shipped overseas before we even have a chance to burn them here!