Mass. Study: Wood Power Worse Polluter Than Coal

June 11, 2010 RSS Feed Print

By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press

BOSTON— A new study has found that wood-burning power plants using trees and other "biomass" from New England forests releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than coal over time.

The six-month study, commissioned by Massachusetts state environmental officials, found biomass-fired electricity would result in a 3 percent increase in carbon emissions compared to coal-fired electricity by 2050.

Coal is considered one of the chief culprits of greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, conducted by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, concludes that the net cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases from replacing coal-fired plants with biomass would be 3 percent greater by 2050 than from using coal to generate electricity.

Researchers arrived at the figure by comparing how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere through the burning of wood — what they termed "carbon debt" — with the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere from the regrowth of forests, or "carbon dividends."

The report found that harvesting trees for biomass facilities could have "significant localized impacts on the landscape, including aesthetic impacts of locally heavy harvesting as well as potential impacts on recreation and tourism."

The study has broad policy implications for states like Massachusetts. And environmental groups called the study "a wake up call."

"The sobering conclusion is that Massachusetts cannot produce very much new energy from forest resources while also protecting the health of our forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions," said Sue Reid, a staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation.

Biomass has long been part of the state's portfolio of renewable energy sources, along with solar, wind and geothermal energy. The Patrick administration has already invested $1 million to jump-start four proposed wood-burning plants in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield and Pittsfield, as it tries to reach the state-mandated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Massachusetts Environmental Secretary Ian Bowles said Thursday the state is now rethinking that policy, including taxpayer incentives for wood-burning plants.

"Now that we know that electricity from biomass harvested from New England forests is not 'carbon neutral' in a timeframe that makes sense given our legal mandate to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we need to re-evaluate our incentives for biomass," he said in a statement accompanying the report.

Biomass plant owners have long argued that it's unfair to lump wood-burning plants in with coal plants. They say that every megawatt of power produced by wood-burning plants replaces a megawatt from a coal plant. But unlike coal, they argue, trees left standing can absorb the carbon dioxide released when wood is burned.

And trees cut down for fuel can be replanted. If done in a sustainable way, they say, the annual growth in trees replanted or left standing will be enough to recapture the carbon being released.

Matthew Wolfe, an executive with Cambridge-based Madera Energy Inc., which is developing the Greenfield plant, said the report ignores the fact that much of the fuel used by biomass plants is waste wood.

"By eliminating biomass as an energy option, you are by default promoting further use of fossil fuels," he said.

The report makes a series of recommendations, including forcing biomass facilities to detail where they get their supply of wood and requiring them to purchase wood from forests with approved forest management plans.

The report also recommends additional environmental protections at locations where trees are being cut down for biomass plants, including "requiring enough coarse woody debris is left on the ground, particularly at nutrient poor sites, to ensure continued soil productivity, as well as sufficient standing dead wildlife trees remain to promote biodiversity."

Bowles commissioned the study after environmental activists warned biomass power plants could add to global warming. Activists are also pushing a Massachusetts ballot question to severely restrict the amount of carbon dioxide the power plants can emit.

Massachusetts is planning a series of hearings on the report beginning in July.

---

 Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.

Tags:
pollution,
carbon dioxide,
coal,
greenhouse gases,
air pollution,
energy,
environment

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As a 52 year Massachusetts resident, interested in all aspects of Materials Related Science, I become very cynical when I encounter a study made by a group whose (1) - existence has never made the local news, (2) - has the support of the Conservation Law Foundation,** (3)- cites a 3% differential as a basis for findings that obviously are vulnerable to much larger margins of error, and (4) - cites tourism and other intangibles to support its findings.

You can bet that this "study" failed to credit the adverse effects of rotting wood against those of burning wood, - its main goal was to invigorate the liberal voter base

**The Conservation Law Foundation has given every appearance of serving many masters other than the Environment. Its activism has spawned extremely costly construction projects serving the City of Boston (and its developers) while doing nothing to agitate for better conditions surrounding Boston

Grant Hansel of PA 9:55AM February 03, 2011

Instead of cutting down trees for bio-mass why are they not tapping into the renewable capabilities of industrial hemp. It's proven already that 1 acre of hemp is equal to 4 acres of trees. Not to mention the hemp would only take 5 months to grow plus it's completely renewable.

Erwin of FL 2:16PM December 09, 2010

Sun Ami,

If you honestly believe the planet is a better place without the interference of humans, do the rest of us a favor, take the lead, and discontinue contributing to the problem. Cease producing harmful emissions by performing a late term abortion on yourself by feeding yourself to a wolf. Complete the circle of life Hippie! I dare you!

I grew up in harmony with the environment. We raised our own food and lived on the land. Everything that we consumed, we helped to thrive, by nurturing it, and nature helped us to thrive, by feeding us. I grew up in a symbiotic cycle with the earth. I believe that mankind can be a non parasitic part of the environment, if they choose to.

Your "facts" are nonsense and based on the wonderful world of Disney. $20 says you are an over-paid suburbanite who can count your days spent in nature on one hand, and those days were spent dry humping tree stumps in worship of a mythical "mother earth". I would like to meet you and confirm my suspicions.

BYRON LEE SANCHEZ of ID 2:12AM November 01, 2010

National Science Foundation

NSF

Science of Spatial Learning

Center seeks to transform teaching practices.

Studying Carbon in Rivers

Researcher explores physical, chemical and biological interactions.

Challenge: Quantum Computers

CAREER awardee focuses on what they can and cannot do.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement