Biomass Energy Generation Myths | Futurist Transhuman News Blog

GUEST VIEWPOINT: Myths cloud the truth about biomass energy generation

By Rodolfo Oliviera and Suzana Radivojevic
Appeared in print: Monday, Oct 26, 2009

News: Last Seven Days: Story
Claims made by Seneca Sawmill Co. that appeal to the public’s hope for clean energy promote public misinformation. A tremendous backlash to biomass is building in the Northeastern states where plants are already on line; will Oregonians learn the same lessons, but also too late? Let’s debunk some of the prominent myths of the biomass proponents:

Myth: Biomass energy generation is carbon neutral and helps solve global warming.

Fact: By Seneca’s own admission, this one facility will generate more than 210,000 tons of greenhouse gases yearly that trap pollution and infrared radiation.

A biomass co-generation plant converts carbon sequestered over a tree’s 50- to 60-year growing cycle to greenhouse gases. While existing greenhouse gas tracking and trading systems account only for emissions from fossil fuels, new tracking systems, which are already in development, will soon include emissions of biogenic carbon. A facility such as Seneca’s will be held accountable for its carbon emissions.

The plant will also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides, which are precursors to tropospheric ozone — the “bad” ozone that damages forests and crops and is a health threat to people who exercise outdoors or have breathing problems.

The Seneca plant will saturate our local climate with other trapped pollutants, including particulate matter in permanent suspension. This has the effect of creating a local micro-climate capable of creating thermal inversions and acid rain. Even if one accepts that biomass is carbon neutral, its emissions have a significant potential for changing the quality of life for the communities nearby.

Myth: Seneca’s plant is not a major source of air pollution when compared to cars and trucks.

Fact: Comparing power plants to vehicle emissions is misleading. Air pollution from a static, steady-state pollution source operating continuously is distinctly different compared with a multitude of personal, public and business vehicles and equipment. That is one among many reasons that industrial point source emitters such as biomass plants require air pollution permits under the Clean Air Act.

In contrast, vehicles are intermittent, nonpoint sources that are regulated and monitored under a different set of rules, some of which are not even operating in Lane County. Local pollution from cars and trucks would be considerably curtailed if the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency had a vehicle emissions testing program in place such as exists in Portland and Medford.

Myth: Seneca will reduce pollution by burning forest slash in a cleaner way.

Fact: A source of pollution that was dispersed in rural areas will be transported to a single facility within the city limits, burned 24 hours a day, and will release toxics known to cause lung and cardiovascular diseases upwind of homes, schools, hospitals, ball fields, playgrounds and parks.

Is open slash burning an unregulated source of pollution that needs to be significantly reduced? Yes, but slash and renewable wood products can be reused by businesses (i.e., Rexius Sustainable Solutions or Lane Forest Products) to produce more carbon-sequestering products such as compost and material for landscaping and agriculture. Local businesses that provide these wood products currently offer many dependable, family-wage local jobs.

Myth: Seneca is doing all it can to control air pollution.

Fact: The Seneca power plant will be among the top polluters in Lane County, even after the smoke passes through its pollution control equipment.

The company refused to install state-of-the-art emission control technology available for biomass boilers, which is significantly more efficient in reducing air pollutants than the one adopted by Seneca. This superior technology, called Regenerative Selective Catalytic Reduction, is already being used at seven other biomass plants in the United States and is considered the best available control technology in two states. RSCR reduces the two main pollutants of concern, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, by 75 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Cost estimates for RSCR suggest that Seneca substantially overstated the costs of using RSCR to LRAPA. For example, the annual RSCR operating costs are less than $500,000, instead of the $1.7 million stated by Seneca. The total cost per megawatt of generated energy would amount to between $5 and $6.5, not the $10 claimed by the company.

LRAPA should have required an independent performance and cost evaluation of available technologies that weighed the benefits of diminishing greenhouse gases and reducing public exposure to harmful air pollutants. As it now stands, community health is sacrificed for cheaper, inadequate pollution control.

Other communities have discovered that biomass incineration is not a sensible solution to either waste or energy problems. If pollution control and location issues are not addressed at the beginning of the permitting process, a biomass co-generation plant will turn out to be a disappointing way to manage valuable biomass.

Rodolfo Oliviera, a chemical engineer, and Suzana Radivojevic, a wood engineer, are consultants for the Oregon Toxics Alliance in Eugene.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/sevendays/21811114-35/story.csp

Thoughts, Comments, Questions...