The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Russell Biomass Plant Cancelled: The Start of an Industry Trend?

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
October 29, 2012  |  24 Comments

Print

On the heels of the recent biomass regulations imposed by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the 50-MW Russell Biomass plant, which has been in the works since 2005, has been terminated.

“We are disappointed, we believed there was a benefit from the project, but we simply cannot meet the requirements of new state regulations on such projects,” said Peter Bos, Russell Biomass, LLC project developer, in an article published last Friday.

DOER finalized restrictions in August that require all woody biomass plants to generate power at a minimum 50 percent efficiency in order to receive one half of a renewable energy credit (REC), and 60 percent efficiency to receive one full REC, up from the previous 25 percent efficiency standard. The restrictions also include regular Forest Impact Assessments, which are used ensure preservation by determining the biomass industry’s influence on the environment, and power plants much achieve a 50 percent reduction in lifecycle emissions over 20 years.

The Russell project had been in a holding pattern since 2009, when Massachusetts imposed a moratorium on biomass development while it determined regulations. In that time, the State received results from the controversial 2010 Manomet Center for Conversion Sciences study that determined burning biomass creates more carbon debt and releases more CO2 than some fossil fuels. Some industry analysts have since heavily opposed and debated the results of the study. 

Although the restrictions allow plants a one-half REC at 40 percent efficiency if they are proven to be instrumental in the advancement of biomass technology, Bos says that it is simply unrealistic. “We tried to look at different options, but they are just not there,” Bos told The Republican.

In a letter to the Board of Selectmen, Russell Biomass partner William Hull noted that although the project has already received most of its permitting, the new regulations rendered the project to be technically unfeasible and uneconomical, and it would be unable to meet the 50 percent efficiency mandate.

Many in the industry fear that the Massachusetts regulations will become a national standard and drastically affect the industry, with the Russell plant becoming just one of many casualties. If these standards were applied nationally, noted Biomass Power Association CEO Bob Cleaves, almost 50 percent of the biomass power plants in operation would be considered non-renewable. But Massachusetts state representatives are standing their ground on the decision.

“The company made a business decision to not move forward with this project,” said Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr. during an announcement. “Regulations do not prevent biomass, but the state will not subsidize biomass if it is not efficient.”

Lead image: Cancelled board via Shutterstock

24 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 9, 2012
Frank, it's always encouraging when argumentation shows desperation!

I've known the VT, NJ, PA & other NE "woods" far longer than you.

You want to cut trees for power -- go ahead. Demonstrate your ignorance of both physics and ecology.
;]
Frank Heller
Frank Heller
November 9, 2012
Obviously, you neither live in the woods nor have been in close contact with the Northern Forest Alliance or the Penobscot Nation tribal leaders or a member of one of several land trusts I belong to. Go piddle in the Delaware and frack the N. Poconos where I spent a number of summers at Camp Minsi; but leave forest policy to people who know a hell of a lot more about the problems facing them than you ever will. Maybe you'll learn how to use Google earth and see how much of a 'lawn' the vast paper company lands look like--I planted over 500 trees last year and you?; I've hiked and canoed and even flown over it for over 30 yrs and you have cousins in Vermont who sell off a few choice hardwood trees....WOW..did you hug them before they were murdered, err, cut down for pellets since Burl. and Brattle hipsters prefer bamboo, imported of course!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 9, 2012
Gotta love the web's neutrality in promulgating fluff: Maine forests look like "lawns" from the air, "what they have been for nearly 200 years," -- Really?

Would the Penobscots agree? What about the Lenapes in my home state? "200 years"? Is that when forests began in N. America?

And the fire scare: "a forest fire which will be fueled by all the dead wood" that destroys al Maine trees? Really? Ever try to go out in the woods in the NE and start a fire? Ever seen how long "dead wood" lasts? Know where it goes, Frank?

Yes, burning any bio material for power is foolish on both engineering and pollution measures. It may get a few some $, if they successfully fool some officials into thinking burning trees for generation is sane.

It isn't.


How dumb do you think folks here are, Frank? My cousins in VT certainly sell a few choice hardwood trees once in a qwhile. But,
The absurdity that
Frank Heller
Frank Heller
November 9, 2012
When you're flying over Maine's vast forest lands, they look just like a huge lawn....and that's exactly what they have been for nearly 200 years, with perhaps cutoffs and replanting every 40 years depending on the species. Cultivating forests isn't any different than any other type of farming.....do we murder rows of corn or cut heads off of wheat stalks with steel machines?---enough with the hysteria. One of the emerging problems is the rapid conversion of private lands into trust estates where there is little incentive for sustainable forestry and every one to let it 'go wild'. In that respect Maine is waiting not for the next big hurricane; but a forest fire which will be fueled by all the dead wood on these trust lands. Logging is a dying industry and once gone will be expensive to restore. No loggers to haul wood out of the forests; disease, fire, invasive species and rot take over. Family owned forest lands, not public owned lands have been nourished and cultivated for generations; and like the Amish, each generation leaves them in better condition for the next.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 2, 2012
Ahh, we reach the snark in Laurent! "what your doctorate is about? It sure does not seem to be in science or technology or you would not say the things you have."

Which university degree(s) do you want, Laurent?
;]
Are Electrical Engineering, Plasma Physics, Statistics... enough for your standards?

Yes, you know the Carnot cycle -- good. Now you know no combustion engines are long-term power solutions, except for aircraft. But wood burning for steam to run a generator is about as bad as one can get.

The point is, the 1kW/sq meter of sunlight for a few hours on existing structures gives us ample solar PV/hot-water that the only use for wood burning is rural home heating. Other systems, including EVs, storage, hydro & nuclear meet all our needs. And, the chipmunks will be happy too.
Laurenz Schmidt
Laurenz Schmidt
November 2, 2012
@DrAlexC

Sorry my attempt at sarcasm went over your head. If I may ask what your doctorate is about? It sure does not seem to be in science or technology or you would not say the things you have. Any thermodynamic cycle, whether Carnot or Rankine is only partially efficient, no matter what fuel you use. What matters is that fossil fuels are fully additive to GHGs whereas biomass emissions are fully recycled short term. So for all practical purposes biomass is emission free of the course of a year. In a sustainably managed forest as much growth occurs per year as is harvested. Efficency matters, but only as an economic factor, in some cases the cost of biomass would be too high and then we should not do it. Your comment about "sulfur bonds" - yes, sulfur is in plants, and in coal, oil and in gas, and is always bound in molecular compounds, so what is the point? What is typically not in biomass is mercury, thorium, radon, zinc, lead and other stuff fossil fuels had plenty of time to pick up while they were buried. And you can stuff you condescending tone about whether I can count - can you?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 2, 2012
Yes Joe, all logging is "destructive" -- think why.

And parks come into being from places that: " hopefully well, but much/most of it is NOT logged ", right?

Regardless, despite my relatives' 250 Vermont acres and our small NJ forest, using a tree or a few for home heating, salem etc. is not a problem, and isn't "logging".

The naive belief that power can be derived environmentally from forests is just unscientific. Nature understands thermodynamics, even if the 'green' plant burners don't.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
November 2, 2012
DrAlexC said, "And, we see Joe wants to cut trees because they "will be logged" some day. Hmmmm, get those loggers into our parks, pronto!"

Who is talking about parks????? The vast majority of forest land is NOT parks- it's "commercial forest" which sooner or later DOES get logged, hopefully well, but much/most of it is NOT logged nicely- I want it ALL to be done correctly- there is a difference, but some people just equate ALL logging as destruction which is idiotic. Instead of fighting against ALL logging, fight for GOOD logging. All energy production has problems- an 18 acre "solar farm" was built next to my 'hood- it turned a green forest into a desert- they stripped off all the soil down to gravel, then covered that 18 acres with metal and glass. What's so keen about that? Anyone who hates all burning of anything- I hope you live in a hut with no electricity and I hope you get around on a horse because if you use any sort of energy, then you're a hypocrite. There is a good way and a wrong way to do just about everything- a right way and wrong way to do solar, wind, biomass and even nuclear.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 2, 2012
And, we see Joe wants to cut trees because they "will be logged" some day. Hmmmm, get those loggers into our parks, pronto!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 2, 2012
Laurenz: "so GHG, climate impact, mercury in air not really important, right?"

Don't get your meaning. Burning any forest/land/sea product for energy is absurdly inefficient, wasteful of resources, adds GHGs, and pollution -- remember the biology of plants and things like Sulfur bonds?

Yes, believe it or not, coal & oil came from plants at the rate of about 0.003kWHr/lb of original plant material. When we burn plants now, we waste >1/3 their energy content in thermodynamics, and we waste >90% of the 1kW/sq meter of sunlight that fell on them.

If you can multiply, you can determine: a) Ma Nature didn't invent photosynthesis to make us power, and b) burning plant life releases more pollutants than burning gas, and causes more land degradation than growing food to eat.

I've never understood the 'green' fetish of burning grass, trees, yadda, yadda for power -- advocating it amounts to advertizing profound ignorance of science & reality. We don't need to burn anything, except for special systems, like aircraft.

We haven't had time for this claptrap for decades -- not since JFK planned to eliminate combustion power by 2000.
Kirk Cobb
Kirk Cobb
November 2, 2012
Agree with most of what you say, except that we should not ship pellets overseas. If there is demand there, but not here I say ship it. Atmospheric CO2 is not limited by national boundaries either, so wherever in the world we replace fossil fuels with renewable sources it helps.
Kirk here - thanks for your comments above - The only problem with shipping wood pellets to Europe is that, if reducing "carbon footprint" is the goal, the ships carry ~ 50,000 tons of wood but also use ~ 150 gallons of petroleum fuel per mile; so a 5,000 mile trans-Atlantic trip uses ~ 750,000 gallons of petroleum; then the ship may have to return to Savannah, Georgia empty. When all added up, the wood is used to displace coal but the net "carbon footprint" reduction, if that is the goal, is cut about in half; if the overall goal is to use wood as fuel to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide, then it is always best to use the wood for fuel as close as possible to where it was harvested.
Laurenz Schmidt
Laurenz Schmidt
November 2, 2012
@ DrAlexC

Sorry, long on opinion, short on facts. "Unless someone can make $" - so GHG, climate impact, mercury in air not really important, right? As long as someone can make money - don't I like that!

@ russ finley

Can you point at where you got the info that Europe is cscaling back biomass? I have not gotten that impression lately.

@ Kirk

Agree with most of what you say, except that we should not ship pellets overseas. If there is demand there, but not here I say ship it. Atmospheric CO2 is not limited by national boundaries either, so wherever in the world we replace fossil fuels with renewable sources it helps.


We need to look at biomass in context. If we account for efficiency including extraction, transportation, processing we need to do the same thing for coal, oil and gas - and then compare GHG impact. Looks a little different then. Forests CAN be managed AND retain diversity, just take a look at some of the more densely populated European countries, they have done it successfully for quite a while. I agree that some better use for biomass would be residential or institutional heating as it would allow the utilization of low level heat in condensing boilers. Wood trimmings that otherwise would go to waste could be used in power plants after torrefaction. That would allow to blend with coal in any ratio without affecting the burner and the feeder mechaNISMS ADVERSELY. We should get used to the fact that the optimum energy mix is a blend of all available sources combined with conservation to get the best outcome. Discouraging biomass is short sighted and plays to the fossile fuel industry, and NO I have no fianicial interest in biomass or fossils.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
November 2, 2012
Russ said,"Tree farms are not forests, they are not ecologically diverse." Well, Russ, it's not as if NOT harvesting wood for energy will mean those forests will NOT be logged- because they will. And all too often the forests are logged poorly- what's known as high grading where they cut the best and leave the rest. At least under good forest mgt., some of the low value species and diseased/damaged trees can be harvested for energy- which will raise the future value of the forest AND when done intelligently, this may increase diversity- so, if wood is harvested for energy, it must be done under a mgt. program and directed by foresters. That is part of the new Massachusetts biomass regs- though the engineering standards for the biomass facilities is higher than can be attained at this time, at least the forestry end of it is fine. What will happen here in Mass. is that eventually we'll see cogen and thermal biomass applications and this may be the wave of the future, for our nation and others too.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 2, 2012
Kirk, saying: "As long as we don't harvest the trees faster than they can be regrown, this method of harvesting renewable energy can continue indefinitely"

misses two realities: a) driving equipment in to "harvest" not only disturbs forest land, it generates GHGs and depletes soil, etc. and b) burning anything for power is exceedingly wasteful, if only for thermodynamic reality.

There's no "sustainabkle" forestry for power. It's an oxymoron.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
November 1, 2012
Europe is planning to drastically scale back its plans to use biomass for fuel because of these issues.

Tree farms are not forests, they are not ecologically diverse. Our forests are under enough pressure without adding fuel to the fire so to speak.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
November 1, 2012
Kirk said, "But, we should not be shipping these wood pellets over the Atlantic; we should be using them here in the US to generate electrical power."

I'd only add to that that idealy, a facility should be cogeneration for heat and elecricty and/or just thermal since this is a more efficient use of wood. It's not smart to allow the heat to go up the chimney. The Manomet Report went into great detail about the relative efficiency of these options. Be sure to check out the study for biomass in the Southeast at: http://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/publications/biomass-carbon-study-FINAL.pdf
Kirk Cobb
Kirk Cobb
November 1, 2012
Trees are a renewable resource. They collect solar energy via photosynthesis. The wood can be harvested and used as lumber or fuel. As long as we don't harvest the trees faster than they can be regrown, this method of harvesting renewable energy can continue indefinitely. It is called 'Sustainable Forestry'. There is a difference between 'fossil' carbon and 'biogenic' carbon. Burning fossil carbon contributes to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming; burning 'biogenic' carbon contributes NO NET CO2 to the atm. We are now harvesting and shipping millions of tons of wood pellets each year from the southeast US (Georgia, Carolinas, Alabama, etc)thru the port at Savannah,Georgia to Europe and the UK; they are making a commitment to renewable zero-carbon energy production. But, we should not be shipping these wood pellets over the Atlantic; we should be using them here in the US to generate electrical power. Whoever is suggesting that burning biomass for fuel is generating NET positive CO2, are ignorant of the Carbon Cycle of Earth. Did these people ever take (and pass!) a thermodynamics course in college? If the USA is ever planning to take global warming seriously, we need to start supporting biomass fuels for electrical power generation. This USDOE is working on a 1-Billion Ton/Year biomass program. Every state in the nation needs to get behind this program and support biomass energy projects. Could it be that the oil and gas and coal lobby is spreading the lies about CO2 generation from biomass versus fossil sources? Are politicians getting paid off to spread the lies? We need technically competent people to make renewable energy policy decisions in this country, not lobbyists and ignorant politicians. Biomass contributes NO NET CO2 to the atmosphere when used as fuel to generate electricity. But burning coal, oil, and gas does. Let's get the thermodynamics and carbon mass balance clearly understood before we make stupid policy decision!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
November 1, 2012
Good. Biomass is a fool's errand, unless one can make $ burning stuff that shouldn't be burned.
Russ Finley
Russ Finley
October 31, 2012
The forests are under enough pressure for lumber and paper. Using them for fuel as well is a terrible idea.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
October 31, 2012
Also, I've spoken with a few authors of the Manomet Report and they say that the report was misunderstood by the state and the enviro groups. Since then, a similar report has been written for the Southeast with some of the same authors (http://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/publications/biomass-carbon-study-FINAL.pdf)- and they have improved the methodology but the state of Mass. doesn't bother to look at that. The state of Mass. killed off biomass because the governor is terrified of the enviro groups who consider Manomet Report to have come straight from the Gods. They love it because it gives them a way of fighting ALL logging and forest mgt. which is their real goal, despite the fact that they like wood too and drive cars, heat their homes and fly in carbon spewing jets. The Manomet Report was a first approximation model of an extremely complex subject- including climate, forest mgt., carbon, etc. How could anyone think it's the final word?
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
October 31, 2012
Woody biomass may NOT be carbon neutral in the short term but it certainly is in the long term and that's what should count the most. The Manomet Report and the state focused entirely on carbon emissions in the short term which is myoptic. If wood isn't used for energy, it will be used for pulp, firewood and other purposes all of which are certainly not more carbon neutral. A market for woody biomass allows for superior forest mgt.- and that's a great way to cope with many forest diseases because diseased and damaged trees can be harvested leaving the healthiest specimens to propagate the future forest. The state's policy of focusing entirely on short term carbon emissions is absurd. Meanwhile forests are being cleared for development; others cleared for agriculture; others are high graded- all of which have greater negative consequences than using wood from good forest mgt. for energy. Having this market will help many landowners keep their land as forest.
Joe Zorzin, MA Lic. Forester with 39 years experience
Laurenz Schmidt
Laurenz Schmidt
October 30, 2012
I am disappointed by the decision that seems to be based on flawed reasoning (Manomet study). It seems to be an attempt to drown the reader in lots of detail information while leaving important variables unconsidered. Biomass energy production IS short term carbon-neutral, using ANY fossil fuels is not!

What happens to the biomass of an existing forest if it is NOT harvested for lumber, pulp or energy production?

It eventually gets consumed in a forest fire, or it rots, ergo releases the stored carbon without energy benefit. The biomass carbon would only be sequestered if the wood would get buried for long time or if the forested area keeps on growing. To get the environmental benefit of bio mass energy production consequent replanting of the harvested biomass is required. Efficiency only plays a role as a cost factor and by itself would be a natural limit for the economic use of biomass. The MA DOER efficiency requirements seem to be put in place as artificial barriers. ANY energy production from biomass is carbon neutral as the contained carbon would wind up in the air anyway, with or without energy benefit. Managed forests support wildlife and help prevent erosion, just like natural wild forests. However, they don't generate profits for big oil, gas and coal; by competing with them they in fact put price pressure on these forms of energy. Is it possible the oil/gas/coal guys just don't want competition for their products to come on shore? Check out this link to find some answers to the questions below

http://www.farmfieldforest.org/2011_05_01_archive.html

Who tried to 'direct' the Manomet study to the delivered findings? Who encouraged the politicians to base their decisions on it? Fair questions to ask - and follow the trail of money.
george van bommel
george van bommel
October 30, 2012
There ARE advances in biomass to energy systems, which can up the biomass power plant power efficiency. Biomass pre-process, like torrefaction, can make a bio-coal, which has about the same combustion efficiencies and HHV as bituminous coal.
Such Torrefaction (kind of roasting) system can be easily "parachuted-in" a traditional wood pellets plant, which now supplies the biomass power plant.
ANONYMOUS
October 30, 2012
We are producing,bio mass mobile generators,app consumption of wood pallets or any other bio mass is 1kw=1kg bio mass. On a large scale the consumption shall come down to .780kg/kw. There is no wastage,no pollution,the units are made mobile. One time filling of bio mass is done for the required amount of running. Bi products are charcoal, char,ash,bio oil & heat energy. The main cleaning of gas is done by the bio mass only thus reducing the maintenance & operational cost. This unit is able to use any type of bio mass reduced to the uniform size to fit into bio mass burner. There is no better system available to match its operational practicality & simplicity.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Meg Cichon

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 8
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 3
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet
  • 1
    Renewable Energy Investments Shift to Developing Nations

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Rotork plc
  • Green Power Conferences
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Natural Power
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information