Wood fueled
biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions
than fossil fuels
Massachusetts Forest Watch released a report
today (
www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf
) stating that contrary to the belief that wood
fueled biomass burning would help lower carbon
dioxide emissions, it would instead dramatically
increase them.
According to the group, wood fueled biomass
burning is typically touted as a carbon neutral fuel
by biomass proponents, but the key assumption about
carbon neutrality is unsubstantiated and impossible
when using existing forests as fuel.
In the report, wood fueled biomass power
plants are shown to be worse than all fossil fuel
power plants, including coal, for carbon dioxide
emissions per unit of energy produced. Calculations
provided show wood fueled biomass power plants emit
about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal
plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants
and 330% more than new power plants.
Forest Watch spokesperson Chris Matera said,
“It really is crazy. Hundreds
of millions of dollars in public so-called “green”
energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood
biomass burning of forests instead of going to
genuinely clean energy sources such as solar,
geothermal, appropriate wind and hydro and
importantly conservation and efficiency. At
a time when budgets are being slashed, we are
throwing away scarce taxpayer money on a caveman
technology that will worsen our problems, not help
solve them.”
Last Wednesday, a hearing was held in Boston by
the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities
and Energy on House Bill 4458 that would create into
law the citizen’s referendum that recently collected
over 78,000 certified signatures, which is enough to
put the measure on the ballot in November. The
ballot measure would put a limit on carbon dioxide
emissions in order for renewable energy sources to
be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies and other
benefits and would effectively ban taxpayer
subsidies from being directed toward wood fueled
biomass plants since their carbon dioxide emissions
are so high.
"We find that people are willing to support
truly clean energy but do not want to pay extra on
their electricity bills and tax bills to build these
dirty biomass incinerators," said Jana Chicoine of
the Concerned Citizens of Russell, "Everyone knows
that the proposed biomass incinerators would add
to air pollution and make carbon emissions worse,
yet the Patrick administration is still forcing us
to pay for it. It's
a tragic situation, but we have a chance to fix
it in the legislature over the next couple of
weeks."
Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing
Carbon ballot question committee commenting about
the hearing added, “last week the Massachusetts legislature
received un-rebutted testimony from medical
professionals that particulate emissions from wood
burning biomass plants increase human mortality. A
broad coalition of medical and citizen groups are
urging our elected officials to support House Bill
4458 to address this public health threat. Action
is needed now," she added.
Wood Fuelled Biomass Burning
By: Chris Matera
CORE MESSAGE: Wood fuelled biomass energy
is worse than fossil fuels for carbon dioxide emissions and similar for
air pollutants. It threatens forests, rivers, and air quality and will
worsen global warming impacts. Wood fuelled biomass burning is a false
solution to our energy and environmental problems that diverts attention
and resources from truly clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal,
appropriately located and scaled wind and hydro, and most importantly
conservation and efficiency.
EXPANDED MESSAGE:
Contrary to industry claims, wood burning
biomass energy does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it increases
them. Wood burning biomass power plants emit about 50% more carbon per
unit of energy than coal. Additionally, wood burning biomass power
plants produce similar or higher levels of other air pollutants such as
CO, NOx, VOCs, and particulates as coal plants. Biomass power plants are
extremely inefficient and operate at about 25% efficiency. This means
enormous amounts of wood are required to produce tiny amounts of energy
and in effect, 75% of the forest cut for biomass fuel goes up in smoke.
Instead, achievable and economic conservation and efficiency measures,
which cost a third of new energy, could reduce our energy use by 30%.
Furthermore, already stressed rivers are often targeted to provide large
amounts water to cool the plants.
In addition to the threat from large wood
fuelled biomass power plants, a multitude of smaller wood fuelled
heating plants are being proposed. While a smaller plant may have less
local impacts, it does not take many "small" plants to create a big
problem. More wood burning in small biomass plants is still a step
backwards, and the cumulative carbon dioxide, air pollution and forest
impacts of many small plants can easily supersede those of a few large
plants.
Instead of moving backwards with more
polluting and carbon emitting wood fuelled biomass burning, we need to
move forward with genuinely clean energy sources such as solar,
geothermal, appropriately located and scaled wind and hydro, and
importantly and least expensively, conservation and efficiency.
KEY FACTS:
Hundreds of millions of dollars in
public "green" energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood
biomass burning instead of going to genuinely clean energy
sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriately located and
scaled wind and hydro and conservation and efficiency.
Wood fuelled biomass energy emits more
carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal and other fossil
fuels.
Wood fuelled biomass burning is dirty
and emits air pollutants at levels similar to coal and other
fossil fuels.
Enormous amounts of forest would need
to be cut and burned to produce tiny amounts of power. Instead,
achievable conservation and efficiency measures could reduce
energy use 30%. Conservation measures cost about 1/3rd
the cost of new production.
Public forests as well as private
lands are targeted for large increases in logging to supply this
wood. Clear cutting would increase.
Thousands of truck trips would be
generated mostly on narrow rural roads, and millions of gallons
of diesel would be burned each year to cut, chip and deliver the
wood.
Wood fuelled biomass burning is not
clean and not green, emits more carbon dioxide than coal, and
should ineligible for receiving or benefitting from any "green",
"clean" and "renewable" taxpayer subsidies and preferential
legislation.
REGARDING BIOMASS BURNING AND CARBON
1. Timothy Searching Report, October, 2010 from
Princeton "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error"
http://www.maforests.org/SCIENCE.pdf
Critical point that Biomass burning of existing
forests is not carbon neutral and biomass carbon emissions have been
accidentally left out of the carbon accounting process leading to
incentives to wipe out forests that will greatly increase carbon in the
atmosphere.
"Harvesting existing forests for electricity adds net
carbon to the air. That remains true even if limited harvest rates leave
the carbon stocks of re-growing forests unchanged, because those stocks
would otherwise increase and contribute to the terrestrial carbon sink"
2. Keeton, et al, No Logging Provides Highest
Forest Carbon Storage, Keeton: January 2010
www.maforests.org/Keeton.pdf
3. Dr Eric Johnson, "Goodbye to carbon neutral:
Getting biomass footprints right" July 2008
www.maforests.org/Carbon.pdf
4. Chris Matera, P.E. Biomass Power Plant
Emissions Carbon Calc
www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf
5. Dr. Mary Booth, Biomass Briefing:
www.maforests.org/DrBooth.pdf
REGARDING BIOMASS BURNING AND HEALTH EFFECTS
Mass Medical Society Opposes Biomass:
www.maforests.org/MassMed.pdf
Mass Medical Society Opposes Biomass, Part 2:
www.maforests.org/Doctors2.pdf
Hampshire District Medical Society:
www.maforests.org/HDMS.pdf
Physicians For Social Responsibility:
www.maforests.org/PSR.pdf
Dr. William Sammons:
www.maforests.org/Sammons.pdf
|