"Wood-fired power plants are no environmental cure-all
IT ALWAYS seemed bizarre to think that cutting down trees and burning them for fuel could be a good way to reduce carbon emissions. And yet both the Kyoto climate change treaty and a key bill in the US House look favorably on generation not just from biofuels such as ethanol but also from so-called biomass, including wood. Fortunately, scientists are beginning to consider biomass with a more skeptical eye. Late last month, Massachusetts launched a study on whether biomass power-generation plants are sustainable - the crucial question in the debate on four plants proposed for the western part of the state.
These plants could burn wood left over from landscaping, milling operations, and forest-thinning projects. But these unobjectionable sources might not be enough to feed the plants; their operation, critics worry, would require major cuts in private and public woods, reducing the forests’ ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The state’s study, which will be reviewed by an independent advisory panel, should ensure that the state does not give a boost to biomass plants that harm both the atmosphere and the state’s forests.
Biomass and biofuels have won privileged status in global warming agreements in part because the carbon dioxide they absorb from the atmosphere would return to it no matter what - either through burning or through natural decomposition over time. But only recently has it begun to sink in that, far from lowering emissions, leveling a forest full of carbon-absorbing trees adds to emissions - whether the trees are burned in a power plant or simply removed to clear land for biofuel crops like corn or soybeans.
In the future, utilities will be required to obtain an increasing percentage of their power from renewable sources. The Massachusetts study will inform new state regulations on whether and how biomass and biofuels facilities will qualify to meet that rule. Thanks to good marketing and good lobbying by agribusiness and forestry interests, biomass and biofuels are prominent in many discussions about green energy.
But Massachusetts should make sure that supposedly renewable energy sources don’t make a global climate problem worse.
"
The following comment was produced in response to the Boston.com post above, and clearly shows an unbiased view of where biomass is heading.
ReplyDelete"As a consulting forester helping landowners across the state protect and improve their forest land, I can tell you that having a market for biomass is absolutely critical to improve woodlots that have been degraded due to past DCR-approved liquidation cuttings and the damage done by last December's devastating ice storm. For more info on state approved liquidation cuttings see: http://northquabbinforestry.com/pages/liquidation.html
With a good market for biomass, I am not only restoring the productivity and species composition of these forests while increasing property values, I am providing jobs for loggers and energy for our economy. It's a win-win-win situation. Without this market, I cannot sell improvement cuttings which are so desperately needed for our forests.
Having said that, the huge 50 MW biomass plants planned for the towns of Russell and Greenfield are much too big. Right now the only biomass power plant we have is the very clean burning 17 MW Pinetree Power plant in Fitchburg. It would be wiser to build the industry up slowly preferably building Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP) which are far more efficient than power alone plants.
The real questions the Globe should ask is why DCR does not enforce our current Forest Cutting Law whose purpose is to promote good forestry but they routinely approve highly destructive liquidation cuttings. The other important question is why DCR and EOEEA are delaying reforming our Forest Cutting Law by writing biomass harvesting regulations in secret. Only the Massachusetts Forestry Committee can propose changes in our Forest Cutting Laws but that Committee has not been reappointed. We have been waiting three years for the proposed changes in our Forest Cutting Laws to go to public hearings but these secret meetings are delaying it. Why is the Globe in denial about these issues?
The editorial expesses concern about our forests but has never, ever had an article on the widespread epidemic of liquidation cuttings. This plague has greatly reduced the value of up to 2 million acres of private forest land. But we can stop this by reforming our forestry laws and then continuing with the massive job of restoration forestry. But we need a viable biomass market to do this. We have the potential to create thousands of new jobs in the forestry sector but we lack the intelligence and leadership in our state agencies for this to happen."
Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester
www.northquabbinforestry.com
11/28/2009 4:04 AM EST
Mike Leonard, delves into the issue of liquidation harvesting being a huge issue in Mass. which can also be translated to northern NH. at the following link.
ReplyDeletehttp://northquabbinforestry.com/pages/liquidation.html