Anywhere But Here

From the August 2010 Forest2Fuel newsletter.

Despite climate change, the need for energy security and the Gulf oil disaster, residents living near proposed biomass facilities have made it abundantly clear that they do not want these power plants anywhere near their homes. Their actions and comments scream, “Not in my backyard!” But if not in someone’s backyard, then where? Why is there such a vocal opposition to plants that provide local jobs, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and allow for an eventual if not immediate reduction in several air pollutants and green house gases?

In some areas, the threat of one of these plants has created local grassroots movements such as the residents of Milltown, Ind. who are concerned about air and water pollution and increased truck traffic from the proposed Liberty Green Renewables plant. Passionate well-organized groups like StopSpewingCarbon of Massachusetts are determined to end state incentives for any biomass energy projects primarily because of air pollution. These opinions, if tuned into legislative action, would essentially deny power producers who need to meet renewable energy standards one of the few renewable energy methods that can operate 24/7.

The strongest voices raised in opposition point to several aspects of biomass power facilities that they believe make energy from biomass less than green. These aspects either deal with pollution or logistical concerns.

After several studies on biomass power were recently released, the ‘clean energy’ tag on biomass power has become tarnished in the public’s eye. Many are also concerned about the levels of other pollutants, such as fine particulates (soot), created by burning biomass. Margaret Sheehan with the Biomass Accountability Project in Mass. said, for instance, that for emissions of fine particulates “there is no safe known limit.” Virtually all studies have shown, however, that emissions other than carbon generally favor biomass plants. The Division of Air Quality for North Carolina, for instance, compared emissions from two existing 50-MW plants—one biomass and the other coal.

The American Lung Association of New England issued the statement, “ We cannot afford to trade our health to meet our energy needs.” However, we have been doing just that. By extracting and burning carbon reservoirs that took millennia to store underground, we have tipped the balance too quickly for nature to compensate without consequences to both our health and the environment.

The other arena of concerns stems from the logistics of running a biomass facility. Many locals worry about the increased traffic of large trucks hauling the biomass to the facility and the odor and noise associated with the biomass burning process. The traffic should be of minimal concern since most proposed facilities are in industrial parks which are well suited for truck traffic or in semi-rural areas where logging slash is more readily available and logging trucks would already be common. Any odor coming from a biomass burning power facility should smell no worse than a sawmill or a bonfire at a high school homecoming celebration, and the noise levels can be reduced by implementing new technologies. The residents living near the Schiller Station power plant in Eliot, ME learned that there can be noise issues associates with these plants. However, after expressing their disapproval in several meetings in 2009 with the city government and plant owners, the community recently praised the utility, Public Service of New Hampshire, for listening to them and fixing the problem beyond what was necessary.

Another point of contention involves the type of biomass used at the facility and the management of forested lands providing part or all of the biomass supply. While the concern is warranted, it is in the best interest of the facility to encourage forestland owners to continue growing trees on their land for a continuous raw material supply. The type of biomass used is important as well. Power facilities will not be able to afford to run plants on large diameter trees because of the high cost per ton. For that reason, small diameter trees, logging slash, sawmill residue and forest thinnings will be the forest biomass used for the foreseeable future.

While the legitimate concerns of members of the communities considering biomass power plants need to be heard and resolved, it eventually comes down to the fact that we as a nation love our modern conveniences, and these conveniences are powered predominantly by non-renewable, carbon-releasing sources of energy. Here are our options.

• We can return to a pre-industrial lifestyle. While some have made the personal decision to live off the grid, wholesale adoption of our great, great grandparents means of subsistence is unlikely.
• We can continue burning coal and oil for the decades that will elapse before advanced energy sources are commercially viable. This is unwise in the short term and impossible in the long term as fossil fuel supplies are depleted.
• We can start by taking small steps now toward our goal of using only renewable, ‘carbon-neutral’ energy sources through currently available technology such as biomass power. Of all our options, this seems the most rational.

To register and read more about the Forest2Fuel e-Newsletter, click here.