Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

MA Proposes GHG Restrictions on Biomass Power

By Robert Crowe, Contributor
May 11, 2011   |   11 Comments
Massachusetts differs from some Southeast states on RECs for biomass.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
11 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 11
May 11, 2011
As we discuss biomass energy markets, we need to keep in mind the impact on private forests that supply the materials. Biomass energy markets are an important new market to keep private forests economically and ecologically sustainable - two things necessary to keeping forests as forests. In the U.S., 57% of forests are privately owned, so markets and a stable regulatory environment are vital to keep reaping the public benefits private forests provide.

We have information on the MA regulations (http://renewablebiomass.org/2011/05/massachusetts-says-no-to-renewable-biomass/) and the Manomet study (http://nafoalliance.org/featured/manomet-study-affirms-carbon-benefits-of-renewable-forest-biomass/) to help inform the discussion.

Dan Whiting
National Alliance of Forest Owners
Comment
2 of 11
May 12, 2011
The National Alliance of Forest Owners needs to bear in mind the intrinsic ecological value of their forests with regard to wildlife, soil health and carbon sequestering in light of the present climate crisis. It's one thing to sell weak culled trees and trimmings for small local biomass facilities, but quite another to clear-cut tracts of woodlands for industrial biomass incinerators. The vast majority of present biomass schemes seem to involve the latter which can hardly qualify as "renewable" given the vast time scale needed to re-sequester the lost carbon.
Comment
3 of 11
May 12, 2011
http://www.risiinfo.com/technologyarchives/risi-wood-biomass-market-report-woodfiber-supply.html
Comment
4 of 11
May 13, 2011
Manomet obviously has an agenda and Governor Patrick has swallowed it. There are numerous aesthetic and wildlife reasons to be cautious in wood use, but to put their GHG consequences in came category as coal is just dumb. The carbon in trees was captured from the atmosphere. When the wood is burned it is re-released. It is a sustainable, short-loop process with no relevance to long-term GHG levels. The key is to allow the forest to grow back to continue the process. Coal burning is a sudden release of carbon nicely sequestered millions of years ago, putting that activity in a very different category.

Don't confuse biomass power with the unsustainable destruction of forests for development of for a Walmart supercenter. Those activities are the problem.
Comment
5 of 11
May 13, 2011
While there can be informative discussion about forest management, waste utilization, etc. the important line in this story is use of CHP. The forest products industry has used wood fueled CHP for their operations for decades. The first rule in a new energy paradigm is always efficiency. A steam turbine is about 33% efficient. Use wood, use coal, use thermal natural gas, it makes no difference. Use of a gasifier to convert solid biomass so it can be used in a dual cycle turbine (a gas turbine with the hot gasses then being used to produce steam for a steam turbine) will probably be somewhat more efficient (although some energy will be lost in the gasifier). A CHP (combined heat/power) can be about 90% efficient. We should reject ALL thermal only power generation as out of date. Industrial heat needs are relatively low (10 - 40 MW of electrical generation matched to heat needs). Biomass is a distributed resource. CHP asks for a distributed electrical generation paradigm. Some wood fueled electrical plants are 250MW conforming to the old centralized generation paradigm. Distributed generation with CHP should be our focus.

I must also agree with comment #7 and disagree with Nate Greene. The difference between a one year carbon cycle vs. a fifty year cycle is negligible compared to fossil fuels. Soil carbon sequestration needs not be disturbed in good forestry management.
Comment
6 of 11
May 13, 2011
Here's a thought,
You can take the millions of tons of Urban forest (landscape trimmings, recycled green wood waste) and put it back in the landfills where it will contribute to one the highest producers of GHG or you can continue to reduce that amount and burn it to reduce the emissions. Either way Joe suburbanite needs his landscaping trimmed and the Cities and Counties across America need their right of ways cleaned up. In California this is the major portion of all biomass that is burned.
Comment
7 of 11
May 13, 2011
Remember all of you legislators : Wood does NOT have heavy metals that are released when burnt like coal does, no sulfur dioxide, etc.etc.
Comment
8 of 11
May 13, 2011
There are to many worrisome comments about clear-cutting our forests ; NOT GUNNA HAPPEN ! We have huge agra-business & lumber waste that goes unused already. We can sort or trash better and use millions of tons of "compostable"waste (like the Europeans and a few progressive America communities already do) the rice industry in California alone makes about 900 tons of waste per year that could be fuel.We throw away about all the bioMass we need.AND ANOTHER THING, when we merely "throw at away",it goes into a dump, rots,and makes methane and other GHG problems. We can and should generate fuel from our wastes.
Comment
9 of 11
May 13, 2011
This is a hugely untapped resource.
Comment
10 of 11
May 16, 2011
Nearly everyone is missing the point. GHG emissions are important because it largely represents the transfer of fossil carbon (e.g. coal, oil) into the atmosphere. There is no easy way to transfer this carbon from the atmosphere back into the soil (yes, I know the argument about planting more trees, but CDM examples to date have dubious contributions in this respect). This is the reason that burning fossil fuel in not sustainable, giving rise to the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. When biomass is used for energy, it is ABOVE-GROUND carbon that is being burnt. Burning wood means that one is burning carbon from the atmosphere that has been trapped in wood via photosynthesis. For that reason, even if wood burning results in 3% more GHG emissions, it represents carbon that has already been trapped as wood. In a sustainable agri-forestry setup where trees are planted every year, there is still a a possibility of a sustainable cycling of carbon between plantation and atmosphere. Just focusing on the immediate figure of 3% more GHG emissions from burning biofuels represents a total lack of a wider perspective on GHG emissions and global warming and global change in general.
No image available
Comment
11 of 11
Anonymous
June 7, 2011
I have read some comments,i would like to add to the knowledge of my fellow Bio-energy lovers & believers that we have been able to develop the complete sustainable technology for bio mass generation.There are no wastages,no pollution at all,minimum labor & expenses to operate,By products help in co-generation, rejuvenation of the forest by putting the bio-char back into the forest,Bio oil which is another by product of the system,fetches extra money thus reducing the running cost further,coal generated by the gasifier fetches extra money,Bio ash can be used as crop duster for protecting the crop from insects & sucking pests,last but the least heat energy from(around) the gasifier Or the direct burning the wood gas for cooking or heating acts as a toping on the ice.An owner of this system/unit can take it in forests, on eco tours,deserts,high mountains,farms,small factories or motels etc.... & the unit is mobile can have from 5kw onwards mobile or stationed depending on the choice of customer, in case of confirmation or order contact heavenlyfarms@hotmail.com Sustainable Energy is at you disposal. Prices are app $1000/kw ex factory, excessesories are extra (bio mass consumption of the gasifier unit is app.7kg to .9kg/kw depending on the fuel quality)
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Robert Crowe

View Robert Crowe's Profile
About:

Robert Crowe is a technical writer and reporter based in San Antonio, Texas. He has written for Bloomberg, the Houston Chronicle, Boston Herald, StreetAuthor... more »

Advertise With Us

Total Energy USA Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition Mannvit Talesun Solar SCHOTT Solar PV, Inc. Renewable Energy World Europe ONTILITY Solar Training
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters