With several biomass power generation plants proposed for the state, the Massachusetts Dept. of Energy Resources commissioned a study last year to research the energy and environmental implications of increased biomass utilization for heat and power in Massachusetts. The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences responded with a report that reaffirmed the environmental benefits of using wood-based bioenergy for both heat and power.
Yet because the study also accurately stated that biomass burning releases more CO2 than oil, coal or natural gas per unit of energy, anti-biomass groups and sadly many mainstream news outlets have latched on to that one small fact in the report to loudly proclaim: “Biomass—It’s Worse Than Coal!”
Of course, the report says no such thing. What it does say is that despite higher CO2 emissions per unit of energy than fossil fuels, biomass raw materials have the unique ability to regrow and recapture CO2 from the atmosphere, making it “Much Better Than Coal!” But you’d never know that from reading the headlines.
From Left: Dan Shell, Western Editor; David Abbott, Associate Editor; David (DK) Knight, Co-Publisher/Editor-in-Chief; Jennifer McCary, Senior Associate Editor; Rich Donnell, Editor
As usual with these kinds of things, the devil is in the details. The Manomet report says that burning biomass results in an initial “carbon debt” from CO2 releases, but over time, as the replanted forest continues to grow, a “carbon dividend” is created that can actually lower greenhouse gases once the initial carbon debt is repaid over time through forest growth—something fossil fuels can never do. Many variables, such as timber harvest age, length of time before reharvest, whether biomass is utilized for power generation or combined heat and power, can affect the debt-and-dividend formula. It’s simply not as simple as “Better or Worse Than Coal.”
At Wood Bioenergy, we’ve seen this act before through our coverage of forestry and logging issues in our other publications. There are well-funded and vocal groups out there that are opposed to timber harvesting in any application and against energy production in almost any form. And there are plenty of media outlets that love a controversial headline much more than a detailed explanation of the issues.
Over the past 20 years, the spotted owl and clear-cutting issues have been successfully used to reduce the nation’s federal timber harvest program by more than 80%. The biomass and renewable energy issue has been a tougher nut to crack, what with widespread public support for developing domestic renewable energy sources and the lack of a fuzzy, dewy-eyed surrogate to drum up emotional support.
The media frenzy surrounding the Manomet report led the organization to issue its own press release saying the biomass carbon neutrality issue is much more complex than portrayed. In a follow-up interview with The New York Times, Manomet officials say the recent headlines “serve to misinform rather than inform the public.”
In the rush to develop renewable energy resources and supplies, there are many competing and entrenched interests that would love to see the biomass baby tossed out with the bath water. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.