At the recent Massachusetts Climate Action Network Conference, I mentioned that readers had asked me to weigh in further on biomass. Lynn Benander, board chairman of Northeast Biodiesel, shared that during her experience moderating an online debate about biomass, she received angry messages in which different individuals accused her of being on either side.
One bad apple can be so rancid that it spoils every other in the barrel, as is the case with the proposed biomass facility in Russell, which was hotly discussed in Benander's debate.
The proposed Russell plant's shadow can darken any conversation about appropriate versus inappropriate biomass.
The very word biomass has some environmentalists turning a blind eye — there can be none appropriate. For those of you unaware of the term, biomass is a category of several substances that have the potential to be used as an energy supply, including but not limited to wood and grasses, treated human waste, animal manure and alcohol fuels.
Some believe power must be emission-free and that examining biomass is a waste of time and money. One person at the conference argued that consideration of biomass takes resources away from solar and wind.
Does study of another option really take money away from wind and solar?
I'm not certain that is true. Presumably, some capitalists that invest in biomass research wouldn't invest in other renewable types. Maybe some state agencies like those that oversee forests, might not be lending resources and time for state solar and wind studies.
Biomass can be many things and the concern by the local environmental group Healthlink and others is that unchecked, "Plants that start off burning 'clean wood chips' can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires."
The major concern is on air pollutants, including burning chemicals that invariably end up in biomass — pesticides, pharmaceutical residues and chemicals. Others question efficiency.
These are valid points that should be part of study to understand the pros and cons of biomass. Dialogue must remain open was my conclusion back in June when I first wrote about the issue, and it remains my point this week and next in examining better biomass choices.
One reason that better biomass warrants consideration is that while we are at the jumping off point for wind energy development in Massachusetts, we must respect that we have work to do for planning viable wind farms, both large and small. There will be lag time.
According to the American Wind Energy Association, the U.S. Department of Energy's goal of obtaining 6 percent of U.S. electricity from wind by 2020 is "consistent with the current rate of growth of wind energy nationwide." Also, ISO New England in its 2008 annual report indicated our grid's output portion sourced from renewables would comprise no more than 30 percent over the next several years.
We should consider that appropriate biomass might exist today, and it could provide an interim solution and a ready alternative to current burning of coal, natural gas, and oil, which of course have their very significant air-quality impacts.
Next week's Green Quick Fixes will break down various fuel source emission rates, impacts, and costs; examine a promising "appropriate" biomass installation; and address biomass technical and political issues.
¢¢¢
Andrea Fox, a Beverly resident, has been writing about environmental sustainability and eco-topics for nine years. She is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and a watershed protection advocate in Salem Sound Watershed. Visit her Web site at msgreenquickfixes.com
