Greenfield Massachusetts having success fighting a biomass plant.

[NNadir]

The biomass meme is yet another of the many so called "renewable energy" bits that was supposed to save the world, but is actually inadequate to do so.

In fact, humanity survived using biomass burning for fuel for millenia, and so odious was the burden of doing so that it switched to, um, coal, also odious, but in the minds of many who lived with biomass incineration and its consequences, not as odious.

Still today in many places, notably poor countries, people still rely on biomass burning, with serious health consequences as a result. The World Health Organization reports that about 2 million people die each year from burning biomass, with half being under the age of 5: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html

In general the world couldn't care less about these people: They'd rather burn gas and coal and sometimes oil to run servers to argue that Fukushima's radiation leaks might kill someone some day, with any such death being enormously sexy when compared with one million deaths each year among poor children from so called "renewable energy." (Air pollution from gas, coal and oil kills 1.3 million people per year.)

Deaths from air pollution related to biomass burning also occur widely - albeit not as dramatically - in the Western world, most often in winter: The scientific literature has a large number of articles on air pollution from wood burning fireplaces in Europe, the United States and elsewhere.

Some people are starting to get it. i recently visited Greenfield Massachusetts where I saw lots of lawn signs put out by people opposing an effort to install a biomass electricity plant - 47 MW - in that city.

One may learn something about the fight here: http://www.energyjustice.net/content/end-road-greenfield-ma-biomass-incinerator

By contrast, I note that the great climate scientist Jim Hansen has recently argued in one of the world's most prestigious environmental scientific journals - despite the spate of fear and ignorance surrounding the technology invented by some of the greatest minds of the 20th century - that nuclear energy, as opposed to biomass, saves lives: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

Um, "split wood, not atoms?"

Despite the success in Greenfield - a small event by any stretch - my prediction is that fear and ignorance will, in fact, win. This has often been the case in human history, and there is, with the planetary atmosphere collapsing at the fastest rate ever observed, no reason to expect things to be any different now.

Have a nice day.

[mopinko]

1. you are comparing a new, modern biomass plant

with burning wood in your hut?
come on now.

[OnlinePoker]

2. It depends on where the biomass comes from in my opinion.

There are plans to ship millions of tons of wood to Europe from the U.S. for burning in their biomass plants so they can label their power as "renewable". The fact this still pumps GHG back into the atmosphere both in the harvesting, chipping, transportation, and then burning seems to escape those touting large biomass plants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22630815

[wtmusic]

6. Just another "astroturf" swindle, and worse than coal.

"Biomass incineration is one of the most expensive, inefficient and polluting ways to make energy -- even dirtier than coal in some ways. Forests are destroyed, the climate is cooked, crop lands are wasted, resources are destroyed and low-income communities and communities of color suffer increased health problems from this unnecessary dirty energy source that poses as renewable energy.

Bioenergy is an umbrella term for "biomass" (incineration for electricity or heating) and "biofuels" (converting to liquids for burning as transportation or heating fuels). The biomass term has meant burning of: municipal solid waste (trash), tires, construction & demolition (C&D) wood waste, trees, crop and animal wastes (primarily poultry waste), energy crops, gas from digestion of sewage sludge or animal wastes, and landfill gas. Burning "green" biomass (trees or crops), while quite polluting, is often a foot in the door for even more toxic and profitable waste streams like trash and tires.

Biomass is dirtier than most fossil fuels, but is considered renewable, competing for subsidies with true renewables like wind and solar. As we move away from coal, biomass is increasingly being sought out as an alternative (even chipping our forests to ship to Europe for burning), thanks to misguided renewable energy and climate policies that fail to recognize that biomass is worse than coal for the climate."

http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass

[kristopher]

3. Nnads is a strong supporter of ALEC's agenda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630#post3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630#post5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630#post6

[jpak]

7. Yup!

[hunter]

4. There's a few "modern" biomass plants closed in California...

... largely because the owners burned crap the plants weren't designed for, ignored maintenance procedures, or bypassed air pollution control equipment.

This has been a consistent problem over the years.

[mopinko]

5. that is a valid comparison.

or at least more valid.
still should be compared to new trash burners.

[jpak]

8. Maine generates one-quarter of its electricity from wood biomass.

Where are the bodies?

[NNadir]

9. They're there, they're dead, but typically, they are ignored.

As noted, such dead are trivialized and ignored, sometimes even inspiring giggles from people with small brains and smaller moral universes.

Whether or not there are lightweights in Maine who don't get it, there are people who do:

http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/woodsmoke/woodcombustion.html

It's a serious pollution problem there, as it is around the world.

Have a nice evening.

[NNadir]

10. And in a place called "the scientific literature" it is noted...

...that despite lower rates of smoking, and improved radon abatement, Maine has one of the highest rates of lung cancer in the United States.

http://www.lungcancerjournal.info/article/S0169-5002(13)00301-2/abstract

It may be second hand smoke...

...wood smoke.

[jpak]

11. What a crock

Maine has the oldest population in the US.

Lots of smokers and ex-smokers.

Lots of paper mill and shipyard workers.

Lots of radon - but then again, radon is "safe" according to the pronucular bunch.

yup

[NNadir]

12. I have an idea: Why don't you write to the editors of the scientific journal...

...Lung Cancer and write "What a crock..." about the recent paper about the fact that the soot hellhole in Maine has one of the highest lung cancer rates in the United States, commenting thusly on their statement that reduced smoking rates in that smokestack of a State have not been followed by the type of lung cancer declines observed elsewhere.

I believe they'll be more impressed than I am.

While you're at it, why don't you write the World Health Organization to tell them that their claim that 2 million people per year, half children under the age of five die from diseases caused by wonderful "renewable" biomass burning.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html

The "renewable energy will save us" scam, which has a 50 year history of failing to address climate change or any other major environmental issue, has now joined their pals in the tobacco industry for denial, selective attention and obfuscation about their toxic practices, which is hardly surprising. The members of this cult amount to nothing more than chanting fools.

From where I sit, Maine is a giant ashtray, stinking of choking smoke, and in a way it's appropriate that its run by a reactionary redneck. It's unsurprising to find a citizen of that august northern most arm of Appalachia is proud of that smoke, and rises to defend it and in fact, extol it.

According to the great climate scientist, Jim Hansen, writing in one of the most widely read papers in Environmental Science and Technology, a highly regarded scientific journal, nuclear energy saves lives.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

Hansen's estimate is that 1.8 million lives have been saved by historical nuclear power, and it follows that anti-nuke fear and ignorance has cost lives by preventing the installation of nuclear power plants that might have saved millions more were it not for such fear and ignorance.

Of course, one can always write to Environmental Science and Technology a paper titled "What a crock!" but to be honest, being a peer reviewed scientific journal, somehow I personally doubt they'd publish it. They have a lower tolerance for pure denialist bull than I do, and my tolerance is low.

I'm sure there's lots of giggles to go with these unnecessary deaths caused by anti-nuke fear and ignorance, along with the fact that fear and ignorance are winning the day: 2013 will most likely be the first year to show a 3 ppm increase over the previous year, setting a new record.

So yes, our giggling fools have more giggles ahead, as fear and ignorance are well on their way to a dramatic, if unsurprising, victory.

Congratulations. You must be very proud.

Have a nice weekend.

[jpak]

13. I have an idea for you - post the peer reviewed scientific evidence

that Maine's biomass electric plants contribute to its lung cancer rate.

Can't do that?

Didn't think so...

As a kid, we traveled through NJ - passed all the smoking flaming refineries. And I thought "how can people live here - it's HELL".

When we have air quality problems in Maine, its due to bad air transported from the Eastern Seaboard and New Jersey..

Here's today's Maine air quality forecast....

http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/ozone/

Try again.

[NNadir]

14. Um...um...um...the paper sited made precisely that case, and there's no need for me to write it...

...least of all for the benefit of people who have no knowledge or respect for science.

If one searches "Google scholar" for "biomass, "lung cancer" one will find over 21,000 hits, not that there is one wood burning cultist who would get the point.

I have always favored the phase out of dangerous fossil fuels, and I regret that New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania are now having their rocks shattered for the benefit of dumbfucks in New England who shut their nuclear plants and switched to gas fueled electricity, coupling with expensive, unreliable and toxic so called "fig leafs" that cover for the gas industry.

I note that the most famous anti-nuke is rather proud of his relationship to the pig companies that produce dangerous fossil fuel pollution, killing, according to the World Health Organization, millions of people each year.

Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

Anti-nukes have very selective attention. I note that millions of these barely literate science hating reactionaries burned millions of metric tons of coal, oil and gas to run servers to complain that someone might die some day from Fukushima.

One shutters to understand how many deaths were caused by this line of dysfunctional uneducated dunderheads pouring over their bizarre obsessions.

New Jersey's citizens have included Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Andrew Wiles, Thomas Edison, John Witherspoon, Toni Morrison, John Wheeler...

In general we're unimpressed by yokels from the sticks who - how ironic is this - drive past Elizabeth and claim to understand New Jersey, particularly when the yokels drive around with soot coated lungs.

Generally these yokels aren't very well educated, and thus don't understand that New Jersey has the 9th highest life expectancy in the United States, which we may compare with the guys living in clear cut ash trays in Maine who rank 23rd. It's worth noting that New Jersey has 3 nuclear plants, Maine none, apparently because the people up there weren't bright enough to run it properly.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

I already linked a page from the State of Maine describing