Biomass Power: Renewable or Rotten?

Recently, upon bending down to grab the daily newspaper off my front stoop, I noticed a front page feature on the ins and outs and pros and cons of biomass power. Interest piqued, I ruffled open the black ink-laden, nigh-defunct-but-oh-so-nostalgically scented pages to read what The Oregonian – the leading newspaper of America’s greenest city two years running — had to say about controversial biomass power.

The article centered around a new biomass plant set to go up near the city of Eugene. The project in question, being built by Seneca Sustainable Energy (a division of Seneca Corporation, a logging firm), will convert about 700 tons of logging waste per day into enough “renewable” electricity to power 13,000 homes.

How can that be a bad idea? Converting waste into usable energy? Especially renewable energy. But is biomass — the conversion of plant matter (in this case, wood scraps) into energy or fuel — really renewable? Detractors are cropping up in Oregon and in several other states. While I myself have a cursory understanding of biomass, it’s always been a fringe topic for me in the spectrum of renewables: a gamma ray to my visible light, if you will. So I decided to form an opinion of my own on this increasingly controversial energy source.

On Fuels

One thing first. The controversy behind biofuels — biodiesel, corn ethanol, etc — is fairly well-known thanks to the collective “oops” that spread around the enviro-sector when we realized we’re putting almost (or more, depending on who you talk to) as much fossil fuel energy into producing corn ethanol (used as an oxygenate in your gasoline right now) than we’re getting out of it. That’s without mentioning inflation in the price of corn and a slew of other alleged environmental and economic mishaps.

But that is not here or now. What I’m interested in today is the production of power — of bio electricity for the American home.

How Biomass Power Plants Work

Biomass power plants — in some cases, biorefineries — work much like a fossil fuel power plant. A plant-based product, such as wood scraps, trees, switchgrass, corn stover, hemp, sugarcane, corn, yard clippings or even garbage, is combusted to heat water into steam. That steam spins an electric turbine and electricity is created.

The Pros

The idea that biomass power is renewable stems from the notion that feedstock grown for power can be replanted and thus replaced or renewed. Using slash from logging operations or waste from saw or paper mills is seen as another benefit of biomass, creating energy with waste that would otherwise be burnt to no avail. Biomass is seen, especially by state and federal governments, as a carbon-neutral power source. They admit that the combustion of carbon-heavy wood releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But those emissions are offset by the carbon absorption of new trees and other plants, so long as the feedstock is properly grown and managed.

Furthermore, forest-thinning projects create desperately needed rural jobs and ultimately healthier, disease- and insect-resistant forests, not to mention the improved fire safety. Thinning forests to prevent wildfires, then burning the thinned material for biomass power, supposedly saves carbon as well, assuming that the carbon released during plant combustion is less than that released during a forest fire.

The Cons

All of that sounds pretty good to me, especially the part about using industrial garbage more or less to create power. Who can argue against it when all that scrap would have been burned anyway? It is legal, at least in Oregon, for logging companies to burn their slash piles in order to decrease the likelihood of forest fires. So it makes sense to get them to bring it to a plant where at least the resulting smoke and heat can do some good before floating off into the atmosphere.

But here’s the biggest detraction against biomass power: time. What is driving a growing number of environmentalists bonkers about biomass is that the combustion of biomaterials releases a bunch of carbon dioxide all at once, while it takes years, decades or longer for that carbon to be absorbed by new plants.

According to a report (via The Oregonian) on the Seneca biomass plant for the Eugene Water & Electric Board, the utility buying the power, the plant will release more carbon dioxide and particulates than a comparable coal plant, and more sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (smog) than a natural gas plant.

Another point, raised by Oregon State professor Mark Harmon, questions whether thinning forests to prevent fires actually removes more carbon from the forest than would have been emitted by a fire. He notes that assertions made about biomass regarding its carbon payback in new trees and fire prevention are too simple, and while theoretically true, can be misleading.

A more localized problem raised by activists in Eugene, but a longstanding issue with commercial and industrial sites around the country, is air quality for nearby residents. The Seneca plant, which is planned to go online by the end of this year, resides in a poor section of the town where rates of asthma are already high. Those activists claimed last year that the Seneca plant would be one of the county’s biggest industrial polluters. But those activists lost their fight.

For its part, Seneca Corp has spent double the originally planned amount on pollution controls: from $5.5 million to $11 million. According to Seneca’s consultants, when other sources of particulates are factored in, including cars, home fires and road dust, the biomass plant will account for less than one percent of all particulates released in the county.

Still the battle rages on with opponents fighting the uphill battle, as biomass seems to have the wholehearted support of federal and state legislators, and their hands are in the public coffers.

What are We Subsidizing?

One Massachusetts activist, William Sammons, is currently lobbying Congress to stop the federal tax credits for biomass, which counts as a renewable resource and is therefore up for the same 30 percent tax break as wind, solar, geothermal and others. Sammons calculated that biomass subsidies will reach $20 billion per year if they go unstopped. And for what, he says, but a 10 percent increase in US carbon emissions by 2020. Also, given that biomass is officially considered carbon-neutral, any resulting carbon emissions won’t even be tallied by the government.

Yet subsidies keep on piling up. In forest-heavy Oregon, where biomass is seen as a major source of renewable power, the legislature just passed a bill allowing older biomass plants to qualify for state tax credits. As an example, according to The Oregonian, the Seneca plant is set to receive $10 million (of $50 million total costs) from the state over eight years. Another state subsidy is in development that would give a $10-per-ton-credit to suppliers of biomass fuel to biomass power plants — presumably an incentive to get logging companies, mills and others to eat at least part of the cost of transporting waste for burning.

Federally, biomass qualifies for both the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and renewable Production Tax Credit (PTC), although closed-loop and combined heat and power (CHP) plants, which co-generate both electricity and thermal energy, are eligible for higher incentives.

Is Biomass Renewable?

The argument over biomass is really an argument about short- versus long-term benefits and what the implications are of taking short-term losses for long-term gains. In my opinion, biomass power, when harnessed to the best of our ability, is carbon-neutral or better…in the long run. Taking the carbon from one tree, burning it and releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere does not strike me as adding any carbon to the mix. In the same sense as the Law of Conservation of Energy, it is merely moving it around. And when we maximize the efficiency of biomass plants, including cogeneration technologies and biorefineries, I believe we can do better by actually subtracting carbon from the mix, at least for the life of a plant-based byproduct.

But the real conundrum, as I mentioned above, is the time factor. The world seems overwhelmed by scientists and researchers saying that we must curb our carbon emissions this much by that time or we’re doomed to see dramatic and catastrophic repercussions. So while biomass plants may be carbon-neutral over a period of time, can we really afford the short-term spike in emissions? How long is a long time? How long do we have? These are questions I don’t have the answers to.

But as scary as climate catastrophe is, I’ll still weigh in on the side of biomass power. I just can’t find any good argument for leaving slash piles, wood waste, garbage, agricultural waste and other landfill- or fire-bound materials out of a plant that could harness them for energy, while trading carbon for carbon. I will say that we must find a way to make reclaimed wood and wood waste more marketable. Currently, it is cheaper and easier to harvest virgin wood — through thinning or otherwise — than to take on used waste. It is a problem that must be addressed before we “thin” our forests down to nothing.

Furthermore, like every other renewable resource, technology for biomass power is improving. Soon, I believe we will have more biorefineries. They are very similar to today’s oil refineries, in which the crude oil is refined in steps to create a number of products. Petroleum-based plastics, fuels and other products all come out of the same refinery. We can soon have the same products coming on a similar scale from plant-based sources. Sources that are much gentler on the environment.

I won’t say that biomass is perfect. Nor would I stand obstinately by my present opinion in the face of quality evidence to the contrary. But I do see biomass as a technology worth continuing, worth pursuing and worthwhile in general. As for my tax dollars, well I’d much rather see it go to burning wood waste than corrupt banks or foreign wars.

More Information: The Oregonian, Wikipedia, & Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

Photo Credit: Japan Focus, DOE, & ActionInstitute

Posted on April 1st in Solar Politics by Dan.