Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1 Biomass CO2 emissions worse than coal 
    Biomass CO2 emissions worse than coal
    Login to post comments Printer-friendly version

    Friday, June 11, 2010

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

    The report, commissioned by Massachusetts state environmental officials and 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.

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

    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 findings of the six-month study support arguments by biomass opponents who claim that plants proposed for Greenfield and elsewhere around western Massachusetts would produce more carbon dioxide than those burning fossil fuels.

    "This comports with my own research," said Mary Booth of Pelham, co-founder of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance. "Over any time frame that we care about for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, biomass emits dramatically more CO2 than any fossil fuel. It would literally take decades to get back the carbon you lost when you burned those trees, and then you're still not where you would be had you just let the forest grow, because as it grows, the forest sequesters a lot of the carbon that's emitted by fossil fuels."

    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.

    Gazette Net
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Just to clarify, they have not yet begun to burn whole trees. What is meant by biomass currrently is limbs and tops left over from the activity of logging. But in the end, if enough biomass plants are built and energy prices are high enough, it will become econimcally justified to burn whole trees.
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #3  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Pittsburgh PA
    Global warming alarmists =/= smrt.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts