Biomass Downgrade Possible
The other day I wrote about biomass and emissions, not realizing that the prospects for this renewable energy source is getting a little more complicated in one New England state. At about the same time that my article appeared, Massachusetts was releasing a state-commissioned report that basically challenged some of the underpinnings of the resource.
In short, the report calls into question how "carbon-neutral" forest biomass actually is. The upshot is environmental benefits would occur quickly if sustainable biomass was used to replace oil heat, but biomass-fired electricity generation would increase carbon emissions relative to coal. The six-month study was led by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
Under the Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2008, Massachusetts is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy 80 percent by 2050.
The Massachusetts report came out about the same time the EPA is considering tougher emission rules for power plants, including those fired by biomass, concerning carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.
To get some perspective on where this is headed, I recently spoke to Bob Keough, assistant secretary for communications in the state's office of Energy & Environmental Affairs.
"The renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was first created with the restructuring law in 1997 and implemented in 2002," Keough said. "It first emphasized clean energy and energy independence but did not address carbon."
Then the Global Warming Act was passed, which led state officials to further examine the greenhouse gas implications of biomass generation.
"There have also been controversies with a couple proposed plants, which are calling into the question the benefits, if any, of having biomass," Keough added.
Then this report came out, feeding fuel to the fire, if you will. In the aftermath of the report, hearings will be held in July and August. That will be followed by a stakeholder process, proposed rulemaking and more comments. This process could be followed by possible action by the General Assembly. The entire process could take about six months.
The move could eventually lead to the state downgrading biomass resources. Currently, biomass is viewed as favorably as wind and solar resources for the RPS.
Permitting for biomass plants for RPS purposes was suspended from last December while the study was conducted.
In the meantime, what transpires in Massachusetts will be watched closely by the biomass industry nationwide.
The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about exchanging ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewables and sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka@energycentral.com, or phone, 860.633.0090.
Comments
Comment fails to specify forest focus of report
Thanks for filling us in on the biomass study. However, when I downloaded the report from Manomet I immediately noticed that the report focuses exclusively on biomass from wood - forest biomass.
It is important for this to be clarified, because otherwise your reporting on the study implies that the conclusions apply to all types of biomass when in fact they are specific to wood biomass.
Please modify/edit your blog posting to be clearer about the more specific implications of the Massachusetts study.
Biomass and the Massachusetts Study
Suggesting that "biomass-fired electricity generation would increase carbon emissions relative to coal" is a misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. The issue is a matter of perspective and presentation. Biomass sequestered carbon is in the atmos-biosphere, in that it cycles between biomass, soil and the atmosphere over geologic time providing a net sum of zero, while fossil carbon that is extracted from the geosphere and utilized for energy is a one-way positive to the atmos-biosphere. The crux of the issue is the concept that biomass is C-neutral, which focuses on the long-term perspective, while the Massachusetts report highlights the actual mechanics of that C-neutral process and breaks it down in to a yearly perspective. If the focus is on a single point in time, then yes, the day after an acre of trees is harvested and combusted to generate energy there will be more carbon in the atmosphere then if an equivalent amount of energy had been generated with coal. If you step back and look at the entire C-cycle then the fossil fuels is a continual C input into the atmosphere while the use of biomass will lead to a very low contribution over time (with current levels of technology, fossil fuels are used for site prep, planting, fertilizing, harvesting and processing of biomass plus the production and construction of equipment and infrastructure associated with conversion and transmission of energy).