The debate over burning trees for electricity is heating up again as a wood-fueled power plant moves closer to construction in Fair Haven. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation issued an air quality permit last week to Massachusetts-based Beaver Wood Energy to construct a biomass generation plant and accompanying wood pellet manufacturing facility in a part of Vermont that already suffers from the highest asthma rates in the nation.
Vermont is experiencing something of a biomass boom. Thirteen percent of the state’s K-12 schools already heat with wood. Developers are eyeing a once-shuttered industrial site in North Springfield for the location for a new plant that would generate both heat and electricity.
The Fair Haven permit approval comes just a few weeks after the Biomass Energy Development Working Group released its final report to the Legislature, detailing 47 recommendations for encouraging the growth of Vermont’s biomass industry while also maintaining forest health. Among the report’s recommendations: encourage wood pellet production; incentivize the biomass industry with tax credits, low-interest loans, or renewable energy credits; and establish wood procurement standards.
The question isn’t if biomass use should be expanded, according to the report, but “how?” Gov. Peter Shumlin’s Comprehensive Energy Plan states that although the state’s forest resources require careful management to remain sustainable “it is clear that Vermont is poised to expand its use of biomass significantly in the coming decades.”
But tensions are smoldering over biomass in general and the Fair Haven plant in particular. Supporters sell the plant as a clean and renewable power source that would create 50 full-time jobs and generate badly-needed tax revenue for Fair Haven. Josh Schlossberg, who is based in East Montpelier and writes a monthly national newsletter addressing concerns about biomass, says resistance is brewing behind the scenes in Fair Haven, but declined to reveal opponents’ strategies for blocking the proposed plant.
Meanwhile, critics such as Chris Matera of Massachusetts Forest Watch say Vermont is guilty of “big time hypocrisy” for green-lighting a big carbon emitter the same week it joined a multi-state lawsuit against the federal Environmental Protection Agency over soot pollution.
Photo: McNeil Generating Station in Burlington, Vermont’s largest biomass power plant, courtesy of Chris Matera.
“Just because it’s local doesn’t mean it’s good,” says Matera, who says supporters of biomass don’t take into account pollution, carbon emissions or deforestation when they tout biomass facilities as beneficial. “I don’t think it’s any different than people in West Virginia saying coal is local.”
Among the biggest concerns raised by biomass opponents is the plant’s possible affect on air quality in the region. Even the newest methods of burning biomass release some small particulates into the air. Which raises the question: Just how dangerous are biomass plants for air quality and human health?
The answer depends on who you ask. It’s hard to make generalizations about biomass because figures change dramatically depending on what kind of fuel and technology is being used. When Middlebury College brought a $12 million gasification plant online in early 2009, the college installed a filtration system rated to remove 99.7 percent of particulates.
According to the institution’s website, most of the “smoke” that comes out of the facility’s stack is, in fact, water vapor. Assistant Director of Facilities Mike Moser confirms that the system is working, and the plant currently emits 0.019 pounds of particulate per million BTUs of fuel heat put into the plant — 20 percent of the maximum 0.091 pounds of particulate allowed under the DEC’s air permit for the facility.
Biomass developers point out that plant emissions have to meet federal air quality standards to operate. But even there, opponents aren’t satisfied: The standards don’t necessarily match up to public well being, Matera says, and that’s backed up by a recent study out of Boston that even air pollution considered within healthy levels by the regulations could increase the chance of strokes.
“Air quality standards are not environmental or health related,” says Matera. “They’re a political beast. [Companies] know that those numbers are not numbers that protect public health.”
Vermont already struggles with higher-than-average rates of asthma. A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study ranks Rutland as having the highest per capita rate of adult asthma among all studied metropolitan or “micropolitan” areas. Rhonda Williams, who is the tobacco chief with the Vermont Department of Health, says the state routinely comes out on or near the top in the CDC study for asthma rates, and that New England in general struggles with higher lifetime prevalence of asthma. Some of that is due to prevailing wind patterns that bring in particulates from coal-burning plants in the midwest. Some is due to agricultural dust, or problems with mold. Burning wood with old equipment or at an inefficient temperature also contributes.
When it comes to parsing the biomass debate, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a good 2010 primer on “How Biomass Works” that cuts some distinctions. The UCS says that biomass, like all other kinds of energy production, has its environmental impacts and risks. The group calls for the forestry industry to establish a set of best practices to guide tree harvesting for biomass, and notes that a handful of states have already done so. UCS also points to third-party certification standards and professionally drafted forest management plans as useful tools.
In terms of emissions, the UCS says biomass typically releases far less mercury, sulphur and nitrogen oxide than conventional coal plants. As for particulate matter, technology makes all the difference: Facilities with stoker boilers emit significant amounts of particulates and carbon monoxide — more than most kinds of coal and natural gas plants. Newer technology (like gasification systems) cut particulate matter emissions down significantly.
In Fair Haven, the plant’s developers say by way of press release that their DEC permit is evidence of the advanced technology they’re bringing to bear for the project. The DEC permit is the first issued to a combined electric generating and pellet manufacturing facility anywhere in the U.S. It’s also the first permit issued in Vermont to an electricity generating plant of its size in 20 years.
The plant’s developers have submitted an application to the Public Service Board for a certificate of public good, the last key permit the facility needs. The project will also need to settle forest health standards and reach an “interconnection” agreement for connecting to the electrical grid. Spokesman Kevin Ellis says the project’s developers are also eagerly watching to see how much renewable energy Vermont lawmakers will require Vermont utilities to acquire in the future.
This article appears in Feb 15-21, 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Burning Vermont’s Forests for Electricity?http://www.nobiomassburning.or… Dear Fellow Vermonter:It’s past time for Vermont to move away from fossil fuels and nuclear power, towards clean, renewable energy. But not all renewable energy is created equal.First on the list must be reducing energy use through increased efficiency and conservation. Next, consider supporting only renewable energy projects without polluting smokestacks, such as appropriately sited and community-scale solar energy, small wind, and micro-hydro projects.Right now, Vermont is in the process of assessing the future of biomass energy for heat and/or electricity. Wood heating, while not exactly “clean & green,” can still be 60-75% efficient, while burning biomass for electricity is only 20-25% efficient—effectively wasting 3 out of 4 trees burned. The Biomass Energy Development Working Group, appointed by the Vermont Legislature, assumes there is only between 900,000 green tons a year available in the state for the expansion of biomass—heating and/or electricity. Vermont’s two existing biomass power incinerators already consume 650,000 tons a year. Two new biomass power incinerator proposals for the state (Fair Haven & Springfield) would consume another 870,000 tons, totaling 1.52 million tons per year.If you are concerned about public health, climate change, forests, watersheds, genuinely clean, community-scale renewable energy, the price of firewood, or where your hard earned tax dollars are going, please take a moment to send this email action alert to Governor Peter Shumlin, Secretary of Natural Resources Deb Markowitz, the Senate and House Committees on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Public Service Board, to let them know your concerns about biomass power.TO TAKE ACTION CLICK HERE: http://www.nobiomassburning.or… for your time and energy (pun intended)!Josh Schlossberg, East Montpelier, VT (Biomass Accountability Project)Rachel Smolker, Hinesburg, VT (Biofuelwatch)
AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS: Mt. Tom Coal Plant (MA) vs. Fair Haven Biomass Power Incinerator (VT)
http://www.nobiomassburning.or… Fair Haven biomass power (the “cleanest” in the nation) would emit more asthma-causing particulate matter, carcinogenic volatile organic compounds, and climate-busting carbon dioxide than a coal plant!
Odd that schools no longer let school buses idle next to the schools yet heat the buildings with wood.
Make no mistake, burning wood is not green in any sense other then trees once had leaves. Trees are still carbon based that ultimately results in CO2 and H20 after combustion. It takes fossil fuels to cut, skid out, haul to the end user, process into pellets etc.
Now, a good wood fire is awful nice in the winter, but it’s not a commercial source of electricity AND IT ISN’T GREEN!
No nukes!
No biomass!
No coal-fired plants!
No oil-fired plants!
No gas-fired plants!
No damming up our rivers and streams for hydropower!
No wind turbines in Vermont!
No solar farms anywhere where anybody can see them from their house!
Folks, you can reduce electricity use by conservation, but you can’t GENERATE electricity by conservation. Somebody, somewhere, somehow must be producing some amount of always-on, 24/7/365, baseload electricity to feed the grid’s demand. We’re all using electricity right now by posting on this blog.
NIMBYISM IS SELFISH AND ANTI-SOCIAL.
@jcarter1:disqus Anti-idling rules are popular because idling causes emission but no benefits and so stopping those emissions come at low cost.
It is true that cutting, transporting, and processing biomass is generally done with fossil fuels and causes emissions. Those processes for fossil fuels, nuclear, and parts for wind turbines and solar panels are also done with fossil fuels and cause emissions. What makes biomass different in this regard is that it is low density, so needs a lot of input per amount of power and that those tasks can be done locally, creating jobs, whereas that is not true for any other energy source. As for the combustion of the biomass fuel itself, yes of course CO2 and other emissions are produced, just like burning anything else. Ever fire produces CO2 and steam primarily (expect burning hydrogen, but you don’t see that everyday.) The difference here is that the C02 in biomass came from the atmosphere in the last few decades and is just following the carbon cycle, unlike CO2 from coal, which has been locked underground and would remain there, out of atmosphere if we didn’t dig it up. Equating the two is misleading. Further, biomass that is not used for energy, or food, or furniture, or paper, or anything else, would eventually rot in the woods and produce CO2 and methane, which is worse for the climate in the short term. Rotting however, does replenish nutrients in the soil, so we need to be careful not to take out too much material and be thoughtful with the ash.
I am honestly shocked at the opposition to biomass. The opponents better have super-insulated passive houses, and better not drive cars, lest they likely be causing more per capita impact than they protest 😉 We need a mix of renewable energy sources and biomass and hydro are the only two that can be stored and used when we need it. Storing hydro is short term and impacts the environment, whereas biomass can be stored for years without much effect other than providing a home for insects and rodents. @facebook-100000142752454:disqusis right about efficiency and conservation first, but unless we revolutionize our lives (which I think we should, I just doubt it) his list of power sources is not going to cut it, especially not for those energy hog cars everyone has. (47% of VT emissions are from transportation, 4% are from electricity.)
Biomass can be far more efficient if tied in with a district heating system, which uses waste heat to warm buildings. But the same could be said about any other combustion driven power plant.
So what is your solution to generate power in VT? And what concrete steps have you taken to advocate for this particular form of development and overcome opposition to it?
It’s very frustrating to hear the constant chorus of groups that are “anti-” a particular form of generation. What I want to know is what are you for taking into account that all our generation can’t be variable sources like wind and solar.
The only thing “green” about tree-fueled biomass energy is the millions of dollars going from taxpayer subsidies into out of state developer bank accounts, and the people who think burning huge quantities of Vermont’s golden goose forests for tiny amounts of energy (which emits more carbon and air pollution than a coal plant) is going to “help” the environment.
For more details, see:
A general biomess fact sheet:
http://www.maforests.org/BioCh…
Information about biomess in Vermont:
http://www.maforests.org/Vermo…
More info on biomess air pollution:
http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollut…
More info on Vermont biomess situation:
http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content…
An Op-ed:
http://vtdigger.org/2011/10/11…
More links and info, although mixed with forest issues:
http://www.maforests.org/Links…
Nothing is ever good enough.
There is a small cadre of extremely vocal and active biomass energy naysayers who continually make claims such as: worse than coal, huge carbon emitter, dangerous to our health, destroying our forests, and more. Biomass is not perfect, but it is one of the urgently needed options we have to replace fossil fuels for electric power and heat. Generalizations such as “worse than coal”, which have generally emanated from a single, spectacularly flawed study thoroughly discredited by the scientific community multiple times subsequent to its publication, just are are not valid reasons to deny all biomass use. The reality of each case is only discernible via intensive data collection and analysis for that case and when properly done by professional environmental accountants, such work is a good basis to help determined the bottom line. Another part of big picture for approvals is that we do have numerous regulatory safeguards in place such as the Clean Air Act and the local Public Service Board processes and state environmental statutes. These too are imperfect but work well to protect us, not withstanding any politicized yelping that these standards are without merit.
Even beyond the obvious benefits to Vermont landowners and foresters, there are fine reasons to employ the Vermont biomass resource for renewable energy production, including but not limited to: 1) pound for pound biogenic carbon dioxide emissions (those from biomass) are qualitatively different from and significantly more benign than fossil fuel emissions; 2) the right biomass – purpose grown or low value forest wastes or sustainably harvested stands – together with the right technology has been shown for similar cases to have a full life cycle footprint for greenhouse gas emissions, mercury, and other impacts which is a major improvement compared to coal and natural gas, the only similar base-load electric generating alternatives (staying away from the nuclear power option that is).
Biomass is a terrific, if imperfect, Vermont resource and well planned biomass power plants and biomass thermal (stoves and boilers) solutions allow us to start to turn away from the environmentally disastrous big energy alternatives from the fossil fuel industry which are the source of the global warming. Vermont can do its part, with biomass and other solutions, or it can allow naysayers about climate change or about biomass to wildly rant and asks us to continue down a path which many are now acknowledging as a cultural act which is “colossally immoral and unethical” (see thinkprogress.org of Feb 21, 2012). Lets work together for local, well-planned and vetted, biomass-based renewable energy solutions which push back the fossil fuel driven climate change monster and bolster the Vermont economy, while not ignoring the on-going need to assess new health impact data and update our protective rules when new information arises.
Hi Ross:
Take a look at what we’re doing with Transition Vermont.
http://transitionvermont.ning….
We advocate for community-scale renewable energy (solar, small wind, micro-hydro), conservation, efficiency, and–most importantly–changing our lifestyles to levels of consumption the planet can support.
Plus, forests are doing some of the most important work for us already regarding climate change by absorbing and storing Carbon Dioxide. Forest protection IS a solution in and of itself.