Phil,
That's good to hear that Hull will never burn any C & D debris.
Hull's plant is not the most efficient. A big concern is that he won't
cover the chipwood piles which means they will be burning wet wood
(because it has been exposed to the elements) which takes more energy.
It also is not cogen.
For those who are concerned about CO2 emissions, biomass plants can
never be carbon neutral (despite the "convention" adopted by the EU,
etc.) unless you had enough acreage with a permanent conservation
easement that was growing as much wood every year that you were burning.
The big biomass supporters aren't helping their cause any by promoting
this myth.
I know this is only marginally related to the mission of ENTs but if you
care about protecting forest land this issue is rapidly becoming very
important as most states now have incentives to build biomass plants.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Timbewolves
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: help defeat biomass plants
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]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
