Wood for energy The pros and cons of biomass plants

Would burning wood on a large scale to produce electricity be a boon or a bane? It depends on who you talk to.

[Mike Mulligan]

So where is anyone talking about human dignity...what is a fair income and benefits for a person in the who is working on producing and distributing woods chips.

OH, I understand what is going on, everyone feels threatened when you talk about income, they think their bosses would think they are angling for a higher pay.

Asking or pushing for income today is equivalent to the 1950’s red scare and Joe McCarty...the communist are a higher class of people than anyone saying the bottom line problem of our county is the bottom 60% of population has a severely inadequate income.

[Take another pill]

These people are idiots. People already cannot afford energy and now they want to put a huge tax on it to make it even more unaffordable. Where will all of this money go? Let me guess. Some other hair brained scheme to decrease the standared of living in the US and increase the tax burden even more.

How about factoring in the cost of human life in supporting bio-mass plants. Harvesting trees is one of the most dangerous jobs that there is. What about the impact on our roads for trucking all of the wood. Vermonts roads are already in terrible shape because with the costs of all of their social programs, Vermont cannot afford to maintain their infastructure.

[Gretna LA]

Entergy wrote:

These people are idiots. People already cannot afford energy and now they want to put a huge tax on it to make it even more unaffordable. Where will all of this money go? Let me guess. Some other hair brained scheme to decrease the standared of living in the US and increase the tax burden even more.
How about factoring in the cost of human life in supporting bio-mass plants. Harvesting trees is one of the most dangerous jobs that there is. What about the impact on our roads for trucking all of the wood. Vermonts roads are already in terrible shape because with the costs of all of their social programs, Vermont cannot afford to maintain their infastructure.

Yeah, wake up people! These lunatics are proposing energy sources that would COMPETE with VY! Their secret agenda is to put up biomass plants and wind turbines and solar installations and hydro dams, and ending up with purchasing power from suspicious foreign Canadian sources!!!!!!!! And before you know it, Vermonters would forget all about relicensing VY, and we would lose our jobs, the only jobs in Vermont! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!

[flat lander]

Just another ship of fools docking in brat o port to spew some of "their" logic. Yes this is the same group with a different mask on to trick or taxes you. They cut their own budget on board to save trees so no rescue row boats allowed and their solar panel on the mask caught the sail on fire. The eternal flame is flickering in the dusk with dark approaching ever so soon. In today's economy and expenses it best be practical or it won't fly and for building while most are fed up with nonsense and what is important priority and needed in just not your eyes but will the tax payer finally get some say and relief. MAYBE

[New day]

Wow, the poetry of the comments here. How can I measure up to this standard?

Yes, burning trees isn't carbon neutral unless the forests are also continuing to grow. So you need to calculate the sustainable harvest. If you achieve a steady-state harvest, taking only as much as will be replaced by growth that year, it's carbon neutral. New England forests are currently growing far faster than they're being harvested.

It isn't a question of how long it takes to grow an individual tree - as the gentleman from Mass. is suggesting. It's how long it takes the total forest to add as much new carbon mass as was in the tree removed. That takes months, not even years, if the harvest is right-sized.

Which means there's plenty of wood for Brattleboro. Electrical generation, however, is far better done with wind, solar, hydro and nuclear.

And remember, if you're not in favor of more generation for next year's electric cars, you're assuring we'll be in more wars for oil.

[Tamarac]

Gretna LA wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, wake up people! These lunatics are proposing energy sources that would COMPETE with VY! Their secret agenda is to put up biomass plants and wind turbines and solar installations and hydro dams, and ending up with purchasing power from suspicious foreign Canadian sources!!!!!!!! And before you know it, Vermonters would forget all about relicensing VY, and we would lose our jobs, the only jobs in Vermont! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!

Stop being foolish. Biomass is no threat to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. It could be however one more step towards energy independence from foreign countries. We have but a mere 20 years to come up with the domestic replacment energy sources currently provided by VY.

[Tamarac]

New day wrote:

Wow, the poetry of the comments here. How can I measure up to this standard?
Yes, burning trees isn't carbon neutral unless the forests are also continuing to grow. So you need to calculate the sustainable harvest. If you achieve a steady-state harvest, taking only as much as will be replaced by growth that year, it's carbon neutral. New England forests are currently growing far faster than they're being harvested.
It isn't a question of how long it takes to grow an individual tree - as the gentleman from Mass. is suggesting. It's how long it takes the total forest to add as much new carbon mass as was in the tree removed. That takes months, not even years, if the harvest is right-sized.
Which means there's plenty of wood for Brattleboro. Electrical generation, however, is far better done with wind, solar, hydro and nuclear.
And remember, if you're not in favor of more generation for next year's electric cars, you're assuring we'll be in more wars for oil.

Though I am not against biomass, I do have this question that has yet to be answered on any of these sites. Trees "collect" carbon from the environment. The natural cycle would be for the trees to live 100years and then slowly decay on the forest floor thus releasing their carbon over time. When we harvest and burn these carbon collecting trees, we obviously release that carbon at faster rates than natural decay. Is it possible that given too many of these biomass plants, we will overwhelm the living plants ability to collect equal amounts to what is released? I mean isn't that what global warming is all about? Our cars and such are already overwhelming current forest density/capacity. It takes 20 years to grow a white pine to maturity and 50 for most hardwood.

[New Clear Waste]

Tamarac wrote:

<quoted text> Though I am not against biomass, I do have this question that has yet to be answered on any of these sites. Trees "collect" carbon from the environment. The natural cycle would be for the trees to live 100years and then slowly decay on the forest floor thus releasing their carbon over time. When we harvest and burn these carbon collecting trees, we obviously release that carbon at faster rates than natural decay. Is it possible that given too many of these biomass plants, we will overwhelm the living plants ability to collect equal amounts to what is released? I mean isn't that what global warming is all about? Our cars and such are already overwhelming current forest density/capacity. It takes 20 years to grow a white pine to maturity and 50 for most hardwood.

First of all, as New Day said, you need to think of the forest, not individual trees, as the productive unit. A mature forest will emit just as much carbon as it sequesters, since biomass increases up to the carrying capacity of the land and then growth has to slow to the rate of death and decay. The amount of carbon stored in the forest is thus stable.

In a managed forest, both the carbon emissions and the carbon sequestration are artificially increased. Cutting and burning speeds up this kind of emissions while reducing emissions from rotting dead trees, and removal of excessive numbers and low-quality or dying trees stimulates growth in remaining and young trees. So you still have a net neutral carbon equation, with a certain amount of carbon immobilized in standing timber and forest litter.

You're right, biomass is not the global solution, as too many plants would exceed the sustainable productive capacity of the forests. But for an area like Vermont, where the existing timber industry produces a lot of wood waste already, it can be a good option.

[Tamarac]

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, as New Day said, you need to think of the forest, not individual trees, as the productive unit. A mature forest will emit just as much carbon as it sequesters, since biomass increases up to the carrying capacity of the land and then growth has to slow to the rate of death and decay. The amount of carbon stored in the forest is thus stable.
In a managed forest, both the carbon emissions and the carbon sequestration are artificially increased. Cutting and burning speeds up this kind of emissions while reducing emissions from rotting dead trees, and removal of excessive numbers and low-quality or dying trees stimulates growth in remaining and young trees. So you still have a net neutral carbon equation, with a certain amount of carbon immobilized in standing timber and forest litter.
You're right, biomass is not the global solution, as too many plants would exceed the sustainable productive capacity of the forests. But for an area like Vermont, where the existing timber industry produces a lot of wood waste already, it can be a good option.

Not sure I understand your entire point. Would you agree that we are already exceeding the capacity of our current forests to absorb all sources of carbon being currently produced both naturally and by activities of humans (otherewise known as Global Warming)? Would you agree that this is a strong indicator that we are currently using failed forestry practices? Would you agree that in a best case scenario, we would preserve our carbon sponges and reduce practices that release carbon to such an extent so as to achieve carbon balance? Would you agree that Vermont's boarders are political borders created by man and do not pertain to the laws of nature? If you told me that you were going to trade KW for KW reduce coal for BioMass, then I would believe we are moving in carbon reducing direction but not yet headed for a solution. If you told me we were KW for KW reducing Nuclear for Biomass than I would state that we are increasing our carbon footprint. But I don't think that the fix lies in any one or two sources. Vermont's energy portfolio already includes the countrie's largest BioMass plant and a Nuclear plant. but then again we are reverting back to politics instead of nature.

[ProNuke]

This appraoch may reduce our dependence on foreign oil, though not by a whole lot, but it probably exacerbates global warming. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is essentially carbon-free and makes a much greater contribution to freeing us from dependence on oil from these countries who don't particularly like us. When nuclear is routinely included in proposed solutions for our energy future, I will believe the so-called environmentalists.

[Come on]

Tamarac wrote:

<quoted text>Not sure I understand your entire point. Would you agree that we are already exceeding the capacity of our current forests to absorb all sources of carbon being currently produced both naturally and by activities of humans (otherewise known as Global Warming)? Would you agree that this is a strong indicator that we are currently using failed forestry practices? Would you agree that in a best case scenario, we would preserve our carbon sponges and reduce practices that release carbon to such an extent so as to achieve carbon balance? Would you agree that Vermont's boarders are political borders created by man and do not pertain to the laws of nature? If you told me that you were going to trade KW for KW reduce coal for BioMass, then I would believe we are moving in carbon reducing direction but not yet headed for a solution. If you told me we were KW for KW reducing Nuclear for Biomass than I would state that we are increasing our carbon footprint. But I don't think that the fix lies in any one or two sources. Vermont's energy portfolio already includes the countrie's largest BioMass plant and a Nuclear plant. but then again we are reverting back to politics instead of nature.

Dont' expect a reply; Susan moves on to the next argument once she's been proven wrong.

[Mike Mulligan]

Hey brother nuke?

[Ridge 25]

Are any of you concerned about the river water these large scale biomass plants suck up in order to cool down? It will affect the free flow of the rivers and affect their temperature when a much smaller amount is returned to the river warmer. Large biomass plants have so many negative environmental impacts, for such a small amount of electricity, how can we believe it is worth it?

[EcoLaw Massachusetts]

Please, Professor Edmonds, do your homework. Perhaps you missed the article in Science about the "critical climate accounting error" associated with biomass burning.

Aside from the fact that biomass burning is neither clean nor green, the reason it's such a "hot" business these days is because it gets a free ride for the tons of CO2 it puts up the smokestack. This CO2 is exempt from cap and trade programs, and exempt from EPA regulation. So, even though biomass burning emits 1.5 to 3.2 times as much CO2 as a coal power plant, a biomass plant gets to save about $16 million (for the average 50 MW plant) by not having to buy offsets for its CO2, like the coal plant does.

Biomass burning is a false solution to the climate crisis - in fact, its not a solution its a problem.

www.climatesos.org
www.nobiomassburning.org

[Tamarac]

Ridge 25 wrote:

Are any of you concerned about the river water these large scale biomass plants suck up in order to cool down? It will affect the free flow of the rivers and affect their temperature when a much smaller amount is returned to the river warmer. Large biomass plants have so many negative environmental impacts, for such a small amount of electricity, how can we believe it is worth it?

Not so much as we ( Canadian opporated)have hydro dams currently in place already doing so.

[Tamarac]

EcoLaw Massachusetts wrote:

Please, Professor Edmonds, do your homework. Perhaps you missed the article in Science about the "critical climate accounting error" associated with biomass burning.
Aside from the fact that biomass burning is neither clean nor green, the reason it's such a "hot" business these days is because it gets a free ride for the tons of CO2 it puts up the smokestack. This CO2 is exempt from cap and trade programs, and exempt from EPA regulation. So, even though biomass burning emits 1.5 to 3.2 times as much CO2 as a coal power plant, a biomass plant gets to save about $16 million (for the average 50 MW plant) by not having to buy offsets for its CO2, like the coal plant does.
Biomass burning is a false solution to the climate crisis - in fact, its not a solution its a problem.
www.climatesos.org
www.nobiomassburning.org

Are Biomass plants required to install emissions control? Are byproducts measured at the stack? Is the ash tested prior to disposal? How is the ash disposed of?

[The Enviro Show]

The science is in on whole-tree biomass incineration being "carbon neutral". It's not. See: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S2...

Industrial-scale biomass incineration is a thing whose time has come.....and passed. Only small-scale operations using fast-growing grasses and some woodland slash are feasible. We hope the energy developer corporados will put aside their Big Biomass kool-aide and come into the light.

[Tamarac]

The Enviro Show wrote:

The science is in on whole-tree biomass incineration being "carbon neutral". It's not. See: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S2...
Industrial-scale biomass incineration is a thing whose time has come.....and passed. Only small-scale operations using fast-growing grasses and some woodland slash are feasible. We hope the energy developer corporados will put aside their Big Biomass kool-aide and come into the light.

The difficulty with small scale operations has always been the need for increased infrastructure. Each of those small operations require their own roads, power lines, buildings, yards......not to mention public hearings, permits, environmental impact reports.....as opposed to a single large producing biomass plant would require.

[Mike Mulligan]

ProNuke wrote:

This appraoch may reduce our dependence on foreign oil, though not by a whole lot, but it probably exacerbates global warming. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is essentially carbon-free and makes a much greater contribution to freeing us from dependence on oil from these countries who don't particularly like us. When nuclear is routinely included in proposed solutions for our energy future, I will believe the so-called environmentalists.

Believe me, we are going to be in a living nightmare, if the energy suppliers go co-opting instead of competing. It the energy producers become so powerful and the they create shortages of energy....if the energy producers going behind our backs and set their price and percentage of market share. So if they go accommodation....the coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and biofuels segments will rule our world.

That is the horror show, a titanic of political influence....when they say we need all sources of energy...when there is no more winners and losers. Then the bureaucrats will rule our days.

[Mike Mulligan]

You know where we are heading don’t you, the expensive price of solar is going to set the price for coal electricty . As the end of the day, we are going to be using coal half and much, the price of coal electricity is going to twice as expensive and the coal companies and the electric utilities are going to make four times as much profits.

Can our incomes support this insanity?