Bob,
Are you saying that my research is flawed and/or biased?
Phil
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Bob
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
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 saw my work gave it an A (like the great Forestmeister Joe
Zorzin) while a noted ecologist said it was the best she’d ever seen.
Landowners love the way their woodlot looks afterwards and I now have a waiting
list for landowners who want a biomass improvement cutting for their 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 billion 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 than 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 power plants, we should be building smaller ones with the size
capped at 20 MW to reduce the supply radii for each. This will greatly reduce
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 opposing 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 ways to create energy.
There is currently a project working on permitting 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 Planning Board. However, the opposition here grossly
misrepresented the facts and data and the media wasn’t interested in hearing
otherwise-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 or 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
state-burning coal-and yet there is nothing mentioned in the media at all.
It’s true that the biomass projects would create less energy
than currently being produced by other means (the Holyoke coal 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 increasing the amounts of mercury in our waterways.
Burning any fossil fuels is detriment to the environment. There is currently
opposition to both wind and biomass energy being produced, but in my view they
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 plant managers, and
toured a plant in New Hampshire. I know the opposition here was the cause of a
lot of the public confusion. I’m not saying I didn’t catch the company
proposing the plant misrepresenting the facts, but they did to a much lesser
degree. I would be more than 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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
