Net Benefits of Biomass Power Under Scrutiny

[Ed Barrow]

GREENFIELD, Mass. — Matthew Wolfe, an energy developer with plans to turn tree branches and other woody debris into electric power, sees himself as a positive force in the effort to wean his state off of planet-warming fossil fuels.

“It’s way better than coal,” Mr. Wolfe said, “if you look at it over its life cycle.”

Not everyone agrees, as evidenced by lawn signs in this northwestern Massachusetts town reading “Biomass? No Thanks.”

In fact, power generated by burning wood, plants and other organic material, which makes up 50 percent of all renewable energy produced in the United States, according to federal statistics, is facing increased scrutiny and opposition. That, critics say, is because it is not as climate-friendly as once thought, and the pollution it causes in the short run may outweigh its long-term benefits.

...

Biomass proponents say it is a simple and proved renewable technology based on natural cycles. They acknowledge that burning wood and other organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere just as coal does, but point out that trees and plants also absorb the gas. If done carefully, and without overharvesting, they say, the damage to the climate can be offset.

But opponents say achieving that sort of balance is almost impossible, and carbon-absorbing forests will ultimately be destroyed to feed a voracious biomass industry fueled inappropriately by clean-energy subsidies. They also argue that, like any incinerating operation, biomass plants generate all sorts of other pollution, including particulate matter. State and federal regulators are now puzzling over these arguments.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/science/earth/19biomass.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

[rucky]

1. Sometimes I think these NIMBY groups are funded by the coal lobby. n/t

[kristopher]

2. The *are* at the least encouraged and fed information by the fossil fuel industries.

I'm personally certain that they also pay PR firms to create astroturf online organizations to facilitate that information dissemination.

[Nihil]

5. Some are just ignorant but most are true to their name.

Having had a discussion with some of the people who are opposed
to the proposal of a biomass generator near us, most of them
simply didn't understand the benefits but every one of the anti's
ended up with the "But we don't want it *here* anyway" response.

In other words, even after the benefits of the proposal have
been explained to the point where they could not provide any
reasoned or factual rebuttal, they still had the irrational
"It still doesn't have to be *here*" attitude that gave them
the name NIMBY.

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

8. Some of them are, and many more are fed by propaganda from coal industry PR firms.

Curious, isn't it, that you find NIMBY groups against wind power, nuclear, and biomass, but not against that new coal plant they're putting up a couple miles away?

[Nihil]

11. There's a reason for that ...

> Curious, isn't it, that you find NIMBY groups against wind power, nuclear,
> and biomass, but not against that new coal plant they're putting up a
> couple miles away?

The NIMBY groups against wind power & biomass are opponents and so are to
be pilloried at every opportunity.

The NIMBY participants that join in anti-coal-plant protests (and anti-nuclear
FWIW) are just welcomed as allies in the fight against coal without questioning
their reasons - definitely without using the derogative "NIMBY" to suggest
that there was something less than honourable about their motives ...

:evilgrin:

[msongs]

3. coal = biomass. better not to burn ANYTHING and go for solar/wind/tide nt

[FBI_Un_Sub]

4. Right on!

1. David Pimentel -- the self proclaimed destroyer of EtOH -- had much of his academic research funded by Shell.
   
2. Lester Lave -- who argued that if you double the mileage from 20 mpg to 40 mpg, the motorist will just take more "Sunday drives in the country" and still use as much gasoline, had his work funded by General Motors.
   
3. BP is fundng biofuels research at Berkeley. This should be interesting.
   

[poopfuel]

6. Hey, FBI- biomass ain't biofuels but

That's very interesting about Pimentel and Shell
Where'd you find that out? Source? Just curious.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

7. Source

Source was a couple of downloaded scientific papers referenced by a "members only" author search on an American Chemical Society web site.

Yes - I am a doc level chemical engineer and a Senior Member of the American Chemical Society (I resigned from the American Institute of Chemical Engineers because I disagreed with some of their political stands).

[kristopher]

10. In other words you don't have a source...

And you are just engaging in attempted character assassination...

If you have "a couple of downloaded scientific papers" then post the information; others here ALSO have access to journals.

[TheWraith]

9. That's not really an accurate comparison.

Coal contains carbon that's been locked away from the atmosphere for millions of years. When it's burned, that carbon is released into the current cycle. Biomass runs on carbon that plants just pulled out of the air today, so it's not really adding to the current levels.