Mike,
I agree with you, for the most part. I missed the "field trip"
to Pinetree, but heard about the trip from others that went. Supplying a
market for low grade timber and wood products is the direction we need to
go. These plants create an outlet for wood that wouldn't have a value
before, and therefore is also better for the wood lots of the area.
While I won't begin to say that I know of the amounts of timber
available and or whether plants will be competing for the wood products, I
do know that Russell Biomass won't be burning C&D. While it was part of the
original stream to be burned, it was quickly removed after public outcry.
The company has stated that they will put in writing that they will not burn
C&D and legally make it a part of the deed-assuring even if the plant is
sold down the road the new owners wouldn't be able to add the C&D to the
stream. I have also confirmed this with MA DEP, to assure it wasn't a
smoke screen. With regards to subsidizing these projects, I agree with you
again. If these plants are the money makers they're supposed to be, and if
there wasn't money to be made they wouldn't be doing it, they should be
financing the entire projects themselves and not using tax dollars in the
name improving the environment. That was one of the very avenues I explored
during my time with the Citizens for Renewable Energy. As for the issue
with the trucks, Russell was historically a mill town-and the plant would be
constructed upon the very site of a closed paper mill. There would be about
the same amount of truck traffic with Russell Biomass as there was with
Westfield paper only a decade ago. Add to that there are regular diesel
trains constantly traveling through the center of town.
I'm not for any large scale facility, whether it be wood, coal,
or anything else. I agree that several small plants would be a good thing,
but I don't see the plans for the projects already out there changing. I
also think it a wise move that as this is a new technology, relatively
speaking, that we should move forward cautiously so as tweaks can be made to
the system instead of wholesale changes because we missed things along the
way.
While I understand the mission of ENTS, I feel that we need to
look at the entire picture when looking at these biomass projects. With the
fast pace of increased demand this country presently pursues, there needs to
be something done. First, we should examine our consumption and look for
areas to cut back. Then we should look for energy plants that are the best
options that we have at this time. There are other aspects of biomass
plants vs. other energy plants than simply timber harvest-although I
understand that we can't simply clear cut all the available forests we have
simply because the trees will grow back. Discussing this topic on a forum
like ENTS is refreshing for me, as the discussion involves academia and
scientists, instead of the media hype I've experienced so far.
Phil
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Leonard
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 7:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
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 <http://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
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
