A variety of historic, scientific and regulatory assumptions that are now proven false have resulted in unwarranted favorable treatment for biomass incinerators that generate electricity. These incinerators have qualified as “renewable energy generating sources” on the false assumption that their greenhouse gas emissions are “carbon neutral.” Simply put, burning wood is not carbon neutral because trees cannot grow back fast enough to absorb all the greenhouse gases emitted from burning them in a reasonable time frame. The EPA has acknowledged that the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral may no longer be valid. The agency’s May 14, 2010 final rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” denied the industry’s request for an exemption from the rule.2 A recent letter signed by 90 of the nation’s top
scientists was delivered to key policymakers on May 25th, and demanded an end to “cooking the books” on biomass, and proper and full accounting of emissions.
Letter to the Senate Finance Committee opposing tax credit extenders for biomass burning signed by seventy-one organizations around the country
http://www.nobiomassburning.org/docs/Tax_Letter_FINAL.pdf
Opposition in Massachusetts has spurred a ballot question to remove biomass from the state Renewable Portfolio Standard.
www.stopspewingcarbon.org ( see Pages 420-423 )
90 scientists urge congress not to ‘cook the books in CO2 accounting for biofuels and other bioenergy sources. PR News. May 25 2010
94741714.html
Not only does biomass burning threaten the public health and the environment, it eviscerates purported emissions reductions under the Act.
more; http://www.nobiomassburning.org/docs/kgl.pdf
11 comments:
I also read somewhere that in 3 years these incentives run out and that there's a big rush by this industry to build as many plants as they can to take advantage of these incentives and tax breaks while the money is there. Many states have already put the brakes on to these projects because now there is more data and opposition by many health care officials and doctors all over the country and the world. These plants emit dangerous emissions and the price in health costs associated with being in close proximity to these plants has skyrocketed. Keep these investors out of our town, we don't need or want this here despite what a few who'll benefit are saying. Thank you Informer, keep the info coming it may help persuade others if they can see the light too.
The incentives for biomass production should not be eliminated. A viable and growing market for biomass is the best thing that could happen in the forestry sector. We can improve our forests, provide for clean energy, and create jobs that will never be exported to China. It's a win-win-win proposition!
Why can't we just harness the one natural resource that is FREE? WIND!
Instead of poluting and raping our land - put up windmills. No more trying to figure out where to bury the harmful chemicals from nuclear plants or the polutant air from wood burning.
Go lobby your state representatives Mr. Leonard, seems they and quite a few very knowledgeable scientists and doctors in your area disagree with your comments. The only ones who win are foresters like you who get paid very good money to destroy natural resources for a profit and the BIOMESS plants and their investors who reap millions in tax dollar incentives to build this anything but green and useful business in small towns across America who either can't afford to fight them or who have been swayed by their dishonest portrayal of how beneficial they'll be to the community only to find out later they've been had. Thanks to the Informer I have been reading countless stories of just how harmful and wasteful these operations are. So stop the BS, we're not as dumb as you and your buddies here in Winchester think we are. We're learning things much different than they have been portrayed.
Rock and a hard place. That's the position that most of the middle ground people are feeling about the proposed energy plant. The town needs a tax base to pay for all of those kids being transported to Keene for an education, because we can't afford our own high school. Perhaps the state will see the err in their ways in not reimbursing us for the lost taxes from taken Pisgah properties. Let's face it, NIMBYS are creating an expensive envionment around here. I agree with "harvesting the wind" and put in some wind megawatts. Winchester needs to produce something besides welfare generations.
This is not about NIMBYS or not wanting new business, this is about at what cost do we put on our health and the health of our children for a few dollars of tax breaks and a few new jobs. The only people to benefit from this will be loggers who will now have the incentive to clear cut every tree within 100's of miles, saw mills who will be paid double what they were getting from other industries for their saw dust and scrap and the plant investors and owners who will receive millions in tax payer dollars in subsidies and tax exemption dollars. The power generated will be so minuscule that it will not make a difference on the grid IF BOUGHT and the consequences of cutting down our forests will be devastating to the ecology and health of all. Open your eyes, burning trees and releasing tons of carbon and other carcinogenic particles into the atmosphere isn't good for anyone. Pouring millions of gallons of affluent from our sewage plant onto the chips as a coolant and allowing the run-off to pool on the property in detention ponds or leach back into the river isn't healthy and having tons of ash, loaded with arsenic and lead blowing around in the air or also running off into the Asheulot River will be devastating. It's easy to fall for the self promoting being written here by a couple of people who stand to make a truck load of money; but at what costs to the rest of us. How much diesel fuel will be burned by all of these trucks going in and out of town day after day, year after year? You seem to forget we are in a valley here surrounded by mountains, all of these toxic chemicals being released by the plant and mixed with the diesel fumes from the traffic will hang like a cloud over our town for days on end, think about that for a moment. Do you really think that this is clean power? There is so much negative information available on the health risks and other detrimental factors in regards to these plants, do your research and be informed. Thank the informer and others who are looking out for everyone's health and stop being gullible and self centered.
How about some more facts? Loggers only strip forests if the land owners allow them to. Responsible land holders need to keep the forests sustainable for future income. Only developers benefit from bad practices and high taxes in places like Winchester. Over taxation and bedroom communities like ours contribute to the stripping of the taxpayers. Look around Cheshire county and see which towns have the lowest tax rates. They didn't buy into low income housing projects to over populate their schools. I'm more worried about Vermont Yankee aging than a new wood fired plant.
Well, I tried posting to this yesterday, but I see that it never made it in - so I'll try again.
Carbon neutrality is an interesting discussion and will require a lot of time to do it right. The short bottom line, however, is that a number of variables have to be considered. Those include, the distance traveled by the trucks to deliver the fuel, the efficiency of the plant, and what type of power the plant is creating.
A low efficiency plant producing only electricity, while requireing fuel from some distance is certainly less carbon neutral than others. The Manomet study done for the State of Massachusetts calculated that in such a case, the carbon "payback" period is in the range of 50-60 years. Even there, however, there is a payback and it will eventually be carbon neutral.
A high efficiency combined heat and power plant with wood from a shorter distance is very much carbon neutral.
That is why the new Renewable Energy Credit rules for MA, will only be granting RECs for biomass plants if they are combined heat and power, with efficiency of 60% or higher.
EPA action may be in the works and we await their new guidance under the tailoring premise. When it comes, I'm sure that we'll have more discussions on this topic.
To Not in Favor - I'd really like to see/hear the reference you cite regarding incentives. The only incentives we utilize are renewable energy credits, which are enacted in each state. At the present time, none of those have expiration dates. There is also a federal production tax credit, but that has been in place for over a decade.
So, no, ther is no rush to build for incentives. Any perceived rush is an effort to reduce our dependency on usage of massive amounts of coal and oil for power production. Fuels which truly are not carbon neutral and never will be.
As to you comment that health costs skyrocket in close proximity to these plants - - would you please provide me the reference for that? I've done a fair amount of research on this and have never seen any study that supports that statement. Biomass power plants have been operating in New Hampshire and all over the country for many decades without problems.
In fact, there is a biomass power plant in downtown Concord that sits in a residential neighborhood, on the state campus, across the street from a school and just down the road from a hospital. It's been there, operating for over 100 years without any identified health issues.
To "Have read the facts" - - you have the same misconception as "Anonymous" earlier. The effluent will not be poured on the chips. That would be counter productive. Nor will it be allowed to collect in pools. It will be used in the cooling tower to cool water, much as a radiator on a car cools water for the engine.
Beyond that, I will again remind people that this is clean effluent water which is currently being discharged into the Ashuelot River.
The ash will not be allowed to blow around, or leak. It is a usable commodity that will be trucked out and used as fertilizer and as a soil amendment in farmers fields. Just as many residents, I'm sure, use the ashes from their wood stoves in their yards or flower beds.
Happy to help clear up more misconceptions.
Bill
The only misconception here Bill, is your spin on this whole matter. Fact: Burning coal, gas and wood produce toxic carbons which are released into the atmosphere.
Fact: Burning wood releases more CO2 and toxins than any other fuel source, nearly ton for ton.
Fact: wood smoke is hazardous to your health; more so than cigarette smoke.
Fact: Health officials and scientists from all over the world have spoken out against using wood as an energy producing source because of the health risks and the fact that the carbon and other gasses released contribute mightily to global warming and climate change.
Fact: Saying this is a renewable power supply is a myth when in fact it will take 50-60 years for the forests to grow back providing the top soil isn't stripped away by erosion from wind and water.
Fact: Cutting down trees that absorb CO2 and releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere is counter productive and is not a clean energy source.
Fact: stating affluent from a sewage plant is clean water is an absolute falsehood. It contains many toxic particles and pharmaceuticals which ongoing studies now show a serious threat to aquatic life and even humans who are exposed to this.
Fact: PSNH will only have to purchase the power your plant produces IF they need it to sustain the grid.
Fact: What little electricity comes out of this plant won't offset the ecological devastation to our area of the state or the health issues to the population in Winchester and surrounding towns.
Fact: The few jobs this will create will be offset by those who lose their jobs in other markets as the cost of wood and wood by-products rise and people who heat their homes with wood find they can no longer afford the wood to do so or the wood products they may need to sustain and maintain their homes.
Fact: Many people have taken the time to comment and post facts that they have read on the internet or in the newspapers or other publications and yet you continue to ask for facts or sources and continue to provide none to back up your statements that this is a clean beneficial energy source and will be a real asset to our community.
You're like any typical businessman with something to gain at others expense and come here to a poor cash strapped town to make a few rich at any costs. We don't want something in our town that will cause be detrimental to life, be it human or animal or the planet.
In reference to the biomass plant in downtown Concord; are you referring to Concord Steam, Mr Gabler?
Concord Steam also burns waste oil, is so outdated and unsafe that OSHA recently charged them with 73 safety violations and fined them $104,200.
Their piping is wrapped in asbestos and has been encapsulated to protect workers from exposure and the owners refuse to upgrade for it would be too costly.
excerpt from report;
According to the OSHA inspection triggered by worker injury resulted in finding boiler doors that were cracked, bulging and unable to be closed, raising the risk of fire and explosion if combustible materials in the plant, like piles of wood dust, ignited, as happened during the inspection.
OSHA also cited the plant for other chemical, mechanical, electrical, and combustion hazards which could lead not only to asbestos-related diseases, but to cuts, burns, falls, electrocution, suffocation, and crushing injuries of the limbs and torso. The citations include (safety) exits that were blocked or unmarked; failure to survey for asbestos, advise workers of its presence, clean it up or train workers in safe asbestos practices; an untrained and unequipped fire management team; the lack of alarms or an emergency action plan; untested and uninspected fire extinguishers; inadequacy of the plant's confined space, respirator and lockout/tagout programs (which enable workers to disable and mark inoperable or dangerous systems); inexperienced fork lift operators; unguarded machinery; and a failure to mark hazardous chemicals and maintain a chemical hazard safety protocol.
The citations include one willful violation with a fine of $22,000 based on asbestos accumulations, 65 serious citations with a fine of $79,800, and seven less-than-serious citations with $2,400 in fines for substandard injury and illness recording and reporting.
real safe place Bill.
Thank You poster for bringing up Concord Steam............. the serious violator just sited. ( You can still read the articles in the Union Leader) Guess what folks??? Clean Power and Concord Steam are basically one and the same people . Peter Bloomfield is President of one and Vice President of the other. You will also find them here and there under other names online. So listen to the flowery promises for Winchester and then read about a plant they actually manage. Is this what you want here????? See Mr. Gabler, we are not that stupid. Many of us have you number
Post a Comment