Mike
Thanks. I trust your assessment of the pros and cons of biomass
plants. You and Joe are far more likely to give an honest assesment of
the way materials will be supplied to the plants.
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:59 AM, "Mike Leonard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil and Lee Ann,
>
>
>
> I’m one of the few foresters in the state of MA who uses mechanized
> timber harvesting crews to supervise biomass improvement cuttings on
> private forest land.
>
> All of the chipwood they produce goes to the clean burning 17MW
> Pinetree Power plant in Fitchburg. Having a market for low grade
> timber is absolutely essential to improve the productivity and
> species composition of private woodlots especially those that have
> been subjected to devastating and destructive DCR approved
> liquidation cuttings (aka high-grading). Because the operators will
> take everything from a 1 inch crummy red maple up to a 30 inch big
> bully white pine, this market has given me the most freedom to mark
> than I have ever had and has allowed me to practice the best
> silviculture possible. A few weeks ago I recently gave a tour of
> some of my clients’ woodlots to show what a great job these biomass
> improvement cuttings can do (See attachment). Other foresters who sa
> w my work gave it an A (like the great Forestmeister Joe Zorzin) whi
> le a noted ecologist said it was the best she’d ever seen. Landowner
> s love the way their woodlot looks afterwards and I now have a waiti
> ng list for landowners who want a biomass improvement cutting for th
> eir woodlots.
>
>
>
> However, the proposed gargantuan 50 MW biomass plants in Russell and
> Greenfield will need to draw wood from a radius of up to 70 miles
> which means their radii will overlap each other. This might push the
> price of chipwood up which would be a good thing but will there be
> enough supply? If not, will these big plants resort to burning all
> sorts of construction debris and other material which will give off
> toxic poisons like dioxin? In addition, I don’t trust Hull who
> won’t pay enough for chipwood (he says he’ll pay $20/ton when we
> need at least $30/ton) and Hull is poised to earn a profit of 1 bill
> ion dollars over a 20 year period!
>
> Why are we taxpayers subsidizing him anyway??? The poor town of
> Russell will be flooded with diesel trucks in their valley which
> could keep the pollution there for a while during summer inversions.
> So bigger is not always better.
>
>
>
> As I said, the operators I use sell their chipwood to the very clean
> burning 17 MW Pinetree Power plant in Fitchburg. These operators don
> ’t like to travel too much farther than 30 miles from their base or
> from that plant because of operating costs (especially diesel fuel).
> When diesel was $5/gallon, they didn’t want to travel much more tha
> n 15-20 miles away. Fuel prices will be going way up again when the
> economy recovers so rather than building these huge 50 MW biomass po
> wer plants, we should be building smaller ones with the size capped
> at 20 MW to reduce the supply radii for each. This will greatly redu
> ce trucking distances and all that diesel pollution from the diesel
> trucks that EOEA has not accounted for.
>
>
>
> There are some people who think Massachusetts can build a biomass
> capacity of 500 MW. I disagree. I think there is for perhaps 100 MW (5 20 MW
> plants including Pinetree). Limiting total capacity and individual
> plant size to these amounts for now will allow the industry to be
> built up slowly so we can fix forest policy FIRST to insure that all
> chipwood comes from well managed woodlots rather than from big
> clearcuts or liquidation cuttings.
>
> It should also be noted that burning wood to generate electricity is
> far less efficient than using wood for heat to displace oil (25%
> versus 75%), so we should be thinking about using more wood for heat
> to displace oil rather than to generate electricity. Although right
> now I don’t care where the chipwood goes as long as I can still sell
> improvement cuttings.
>
>
>
> Lee Ann, I’ll try and write a brief for the Greenfield Recorder oppo
> sing the plant there by the end of the week.
>
>
>
> Mike Leonard, Consulting Forester
>
> www.northquabbinforestry.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Timbewolves
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 10:45 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
>
>
>
> Lee Ann,
>
>
>
> While this group is Pro trees and I’m not educated
> about the Greenfield project, in my humble opinion there are worse w
> ays to create energy. There is currently a project working on permi
> tting in my town (Russell Biomass) of which I am educated about. I
> Chaired a grassroots citizens group tasked with educating the public
> with regards to both sides of the coin, and was a member of the Pla
> nning Board. However, the opposition here grossly misrepresented th
> e facts and data and the media wasn’t interested in hearing otherwis
> e-as confrontation sells.
>
>
>
> Russell Biomass has undergone a MEPA review, and
> extensive investigation by numerous Federal and State agencies.
> Along with the Federal and State inquiries, the town of Russell
> hired an independent company to investigate-and the committee
> responsible for choosing the company and areas to research were
> represented by all interested parties, including the opposition.
> The report came back with a few things to look at but pretty much
> backing what the experts had been telling us. While burning biomass
> will create air particulates-and of the small size that is harmful
> to the respiratory tract-burning coal isn’t any better for the air o
> r environment. It really gets me that sections of the public become
> up in arms about burning biomass for the impacts to the environment
> , but nobody mentions the coal plants. During research for a paper
> I was working on for my degree in Environmental Science I discovered
> that Holyoke, MA possesses the third dirtiest power plant in the st
> ate-burning coal-and yet there is nothing mentioned in the media at
> all.
>
>
>
> It’s true that the biomass projects would create les
> s energy than currently being produced by other means (the Holyoke c
> oal plant is 350kw and the biomass project in Russell is 50kw), but
> we need to start somewhere. Nuclear plants run the risk of fall out
> and also create hazardous materials at the same time. Coal is incr
> easing the amounts of mercury in our waterways. Burning any fossil
> fuels is detriment to the environment. There is currently oppositio
> n to both wind and biomass energy being produced, but in my view the
> y are the lesser of the two evils-so to speak.
>
>
>
> I’ve conducted much research on the topic of biomass
> plants, have spoken with Federal and State agencies, interviewed pla
> nt managers, and toured a plant in New Hampshire. I know the opposi
> tion here was the cause of a lot of the public confusion. I’m not s
> aying I didn’t catch the company proposing the plant misrepresenting
> the facts, but they did to a much lesser degree. I would be more t
> han game to discuss this with you further, if you desire.
>
>
>
> Phil LaBranche
>
>
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Lee Ann Warner
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ENTS] help defeat biomass plants
>
>
>
> Hello All, Sorry if you've seen this already. I tried sending last
> night but potentially lost the message. Bob Leverett told me that
> there might be some interest here at ENTS to learn more about the
> five biomass plants proposed for western Massachusetts and to help
> defeat one currently before the Greenfield Zoning Board of Appeals.
> These five plants will impact our already dismally rated air quality
> and they could decimate our forests. There simply is not enough
> "sustainably cut wood." Three of these plants would provide less
> than 1% of MA energy needs and pour hundreds of thousands of tons
> per year of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into our already
> saturated atmosphere. Yet, these plants are going through without
> MEPA review with the help of our tax dollars because this is
> considered a renewable energy and carbon neutral. Please take a
> look at the info at http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org for more
> info on this issue. If you would like to help defeat the Greenfield
> plant, I invite you to take a look at http://www.greenfieldbiomass.info
> for more information on how you can help locally. Letters to the
> editor of the Greenfield Recorder before the June 15 ZBA meeting
> would also be most helpful in educating a confused Greenfield
> citizens about the downsides of biomass because It seems that most
> elected officials and the editor of the Greenfield Recorder are for
> this plant. Letters to state and federal representatives would be
> helpful too. If you have any questions, please feel free to get
> back to me. Thanks for your review, Lee Ann Warner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> <Field Tour.doc>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
