[mossy mom]

http://masoncountydailynews.net/news/1401-simpson-considering-cogenerating-biomass-facility-on-shelton-waterfront Going to build one just like the one in Tacoma. The aroma of Tacoma is coming to ONP and ONF! Biomass Plants Are Not The Solution By Chris Matera Special to the Worcester Business Journal 01/04/10 We need to get serious about global warming and energy generation, but wood burning biomass plants are a false solution, which will worsen our problems, not help to solve them. While the word “biomass” conjures up pleasant images, the promotion of this old caveman incinerator technology as “green” is a colossal “greenwash” by the timber and trash industries attempting to cash in on lucrative public clean energy subsidies. One can become quite cynical to learn that our “green” energy subsidies are promoting the cutting of forests and burning them in dirty biomass plants instead of promoting the truly clean energy solutions such as solar, geothermal, appropriately scaled and located wind and hydro, and most importantly conservation and efficiency. A Biomass Reality Check Contrary to industry claims, biomass energy does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it increases them. Biomass energy produces 50 percent more carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of energy than coal. That is not a typo, and is based on numbers from the proponents' own reports. Since burning wood is so inefficient, burning living trees is actually worse than burning coal. Biomass burning releases about 3,300 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, while coal releases 2,100 pounds. Gas-fired plants release even less, about 1,300 pounds. Not only is burning trees worse than coal for carbon dioxide emissions, but it produces similar levels of other pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide and particulates. The McNeil biomass plant near Burlington, Vt., touted by biomass proponents, is the number one pollution source in the entire state, emitting 79 classified pollutants, according to planethazard.com. Massachusetts’ current proposals would build 190 megawatts of biomass energy that would require burning 2.5 million tons of wood each year. This is massive considering that the average total timber harvest in Massachusetts is about 500,000 tons. This means that at a historical logging intensity of 19 tons per acre, 100,000 acres of forest would need to be logged every year in Massachusetts for biomass alone. At this rate, all Western and Central Massachusetts forests could be logged in 16 years. Even our state public forests and parks are targeted for a 1,082 percent increase over historical logging levels to fuel the power plants. Burning all this forest would only increase Massachusetts power generating capacity 1 percent, yet al- ternative, economic conservation and efficiency measures, which cost a third of new energy, could reduce our energy use by 30 percent. At this time of ecological and economic crisis, there is no reasonable argument for forcing taxpayers to subsidize new pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, forest devastation, and carbon-based fuels for minimal amounts of power. These policies will worsen air pollution, increase greenhouse gas emissions, deplete forests and drain our public coffers, the exact opposite of what we need to be doing right now.

[skookum olympus]

Um... that aroma? Paper plants, not incinerators. And the fuel? I was under the impression it was waste wood - the limbs, dust, and chips from making lumber. Why would they cut down trees to burn? I find this option to be greener than building another dam to fuel OUR regional power needs.

[mossy mom]

[treeswarper]

You probably don't know it, but if there are any sawmills around there, you've been living by a biomass energy plant for years. Sawmills have been burning their waste or sawdust for some time to supplement their electricity. Even the small mills--a very small alder mill in Onalaska for instance. Their kiln is powered by burning their sawdust and the cedar sawdust from the cedar mill next door. Stop by and they might give you a tour. It is Alexander's Mill. The highway goes right by it. If you don't make the corner, you'll run into it. I believe our bigger, local mills also utilize their sawdust. No tires, no plastics, they burn sawdust and chips. I don't notice Onalaska being any smokier than any other place. In fact, having small plants might help air quality. We ruralites might be paid for our yearly collection of forest debris, and be encouraged to deliver it to a plant, instead of just burning it on our property. Yes, we still are allowed to burn our slash in some counties. Here's a quick article explaining how it works. http://www.hrt.msu.edu/Energy/Notebook/pdf/Sec4/Wood_Biomass_for_Energy_by_USDA.pdf

[HunterConservationist]

[Slugman]

Mossy Mom didn't write your quote, she was quoting an article. So you should ask the writer of the article why. But since the article writer says he took the info from the reports of the proponents of the bio-mass generator, you should ask them.

[Ski]

Lessons Learned from Existing Biomass Power Plants So apparently they're burning shredded tires at a couple facilities, and the Tacoma plant is burning old asphalt shingles, but I'm still looking for the plant where they're burning old sewage sludge. So, MM, how about some documentation other than the above-cited post?

[Schroder]

I've built many of these and they all burn wastewater sludge. Or I should say they try to burn as much as they can depending on how dry they can get the sludge.

[Allison]

Burning poop? Ugh.

[Schroder]

[rossb]

If they just burn wood, then they are carbon neutral (not counting the energy needed to transport the wood). The article is misleading. The carbon in coal, or even natural gas, is not renewable (or, to be more precise, takes a huge amount of time to renew). The carbon in wood, on the other hand, is gathered from the air (it's what trees do). Of course, if they start burning other stuff (like synthetic tires) then all bets are off. Sounds like that problem could be solved rather easily with the appropriate regulation. Even with proper regulation (a wood burning plant that only burns wood) it certainly isn't "the solution" or even part of a big solution. You just can't get that much energy from wood. Plus, it might require a lot of shipping (which requires a lot of energy) and contributes a lot of particulate pollution (the article got that right). This type of energy generation makes a lot of sense for a lumber mill. As part of general energy production: not so much. The best solution is to greatly increase efficiency and replace coal, natural gas and oil with wind, solar, geothermal and probably nuclear energy (hopefully using new generation Thorium reactors or something similar). With the exception of the nuclear stuff, it's not that complicated (from a technical standpoint). From a political standpoint, it is extremely complicated (and rather discouraging).

[Dale]

http://www.seattlesteam.com/index.htm Seattle Steam is a privately-owned utility that provides reliable and sustainable heat to approximately 200 buildings in Seattle's Central Business District and First Hill neighborhoods. Seattle Steam's mission is to deliver a reliable, cost-effective and efficient source of heat that benefits its customers, the environment and the Seattle community. <snip>

[RodF]

[HunterConservationist]

[RodF]

off-topic: (HC, as you yourself say, there are facts, and there are assertions. I hope someday you might sort them out. Meanwhile, the facts are more than sufficiently certain to justify action.)