Unfortunately the following article jumps all over the place, tries but fails to be “fair and balanced”, and approaches a modestly complex subject too simplistically. Part of the role of journalism is to educate readers and to give them intellectual tools for thought and does not give both sides of an argument equal weight when it is not so (i.e. fire suppression is many times a greater culprit for our unhealthy forests than an environmental opposition to logging).
For just one example, instead of writing the following sentence: They say once you start transporting biomass by truck, or train, or ship, you lose the benefits of biomass because the closer the power plants can be to the forests, the better off you are, it would be much better to explain WHY you would be better off by explaining the concept of Distributed Generation. And by the way, just who is the “They” who say this?
Just as there are worthwhile ways to turn foodstuffs into energy (biofuels made from “waste” cooking grease) there are worthwhile ways to turn woody biomass into energy (locally produced energy from “waste” wood left over from harvesting timber and from the manufacture of products from that timber). But growing a corn, a valuble foodstuff, specifically to make ethanol or cutting down trees to burn to make electricity simply does not make sense environmentally or economically. The ethanol industry has clearly proven that this approach to “clean” energy is folly.
# # #
Could Oregon’s Trees Make Us Energy Exporter?
By Ethan Lindsey – OPB News – June 22, 2009
The dictionary defines biomass as living matter in one area.
But the second definition for biomass is what could give Oregon a leading role in the next century.
“Plant materials and animal waste used a source of fuel.”
Using plant and tree materials for energy is good news for Oregon.
Half of the state is forest-land.
But like this national forest between Bend and Sisters, many of Oregon’s forests are unhealthy.
Between a century of fire suppression and decades of environmental opposition to logging – the tree stands here are too thick and too dry.
Phil Chang: “We have stands where there’s 300, 400, 500 small trees all competing with each other and stressing each other out.”
Phil Chang works on natural resources for the central Oregon Intergovernmental Council.
Phil Chang: “If you try to eliminate some of those extra trees, that byproduct of that thinning is biomass. Our current practice is to dispose of hundreds-of-thousands of tons of that biomass per year through pile burning. Chop all of that material into little pieces, pile it, and then stand around and burn it.”
Those piles of biomass used to be considered trash, just fuel for a bonfire.
But suddenly now, biomass represents real, albeit untapped, energy.
Phil Chang: “The irony of the situation is, you could be someone who lives in Sisters, who is looking out your windows at millions of BTUs of energy going up in smoke, in one of these piles, and then you turn around and behind you is your furnace, where you are burning heating oil imported from Saudi Arabia.”
Which is why many hope Oregon could become “the Saudi Arabia” of biomass.
But that’s easier said than done.
Remember, people were calling Iowa the “Saudi Arabia” of corn ethanol just a few years back.
Now, factories are shuttered, corn prices have shot up, and most scientists see major flaws in turning corn into gas.
In the state of Oregon, millions-of-dollars were invested in corn ethanol.
Three major industrial power plants were built.
Now, only one remains open.
Jay Holthus: “We call this the main process building.”
Jay Holthus is the plant manager for Pacific Ethanol in Boardman, west of Pendleton.
His plant looks like any oil refinery, except with extra agriculture silos – and lots of corn kernels lying around.
Jay Holthus: “From an ag operation, to a processing operation. The first step is the slurry tank. And that’s where granddad made his mash and had it over the fire.”
The plant’s corporate owner is in bankruptcy – and four of its five power plants across the Western U.S. are idled.
The Boardman facility is still operating; but could be shut down soon.
Holthus says the company has a $27 million matching federal grant to build a newer, better ethanol power plant next door.
The newer, better fuel is not a food source like corn – but agricultural waste, grass, or trees. It’s called cellulosic ethanol.
Jay Holthus: “I think we need to have renewable fuel resources. Is it ethanol? Maybe. Is it corn? Probably not. I think we had to learn how to make ethanol, then cellulosic ethanol, then who knows? I think our children may look and say, wow, how barbaric was that.”
With cellulosic ethanol on the rise, the growth market for biomass right now is electricity production.
Government tax credits and energy targets have sent power companies scrambling to build new plants.
Currently, Oregon has just a handful of biomass facilities that generate about 40 megawatts of power. That’s a sliver of the state’s energy use.
Overall, the government predicts biomass will generate almost 5 percent of the country’s power by 2030.
But biomass-produced electricity still costs about 3 times as much as conventional energy sources — more than 5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Phil Chang wonders why so much investment goes into turning biomass into gas or electricity instead of heat.
Phil Chang: “Part of the problem is that wood heating seems old school to people. Electricity and liquid transportation fuels get all the attention. I think it’s sexier. But again, it’s so ironic. If you look at the average American home, the largest single energy demand in that home is for heat.”
In the pie chart of U.S. energy use, 1/3 is electricity, 1/3 is auto fuel, and 1/3 is heating.
Half of Oregon’s homes are heated by electricity, which in turn is produced by coal or natural gas.
Biomass heat plants are already a proven technology, in saw-mills, industrial plants, and schools.
And unlike solar and wind power, biomass is a resource that’s always there.
But, like any energy technology, for biomass to hit the big time, it needs government support.
And that’s where environmental concerns may put up a roadblock.
The biggest climate change bill in U.S. history is working its way through Congress right now.
Scientists argue that planting trees can help combat climate change.
But it doesn’t label trees on national forests as renewable energy.
Greg Walden to former-Vice President Al Gore: Why exclude biomass from major energy bill? Watch on YouTube.
Last month, in a hearing with former Vice President Al Gore, Republican Congressman Greg Walden, from Hood River, held up a hardened puck made of wood.
Rep Greg Walden: “When that material comes out, why in the devil do we say it’s not renewable and can’t be turned into pucks like this to help reduce carbon from coal. This could be put into a coal plant in my district, if they could get enough of this made. Why do we preclude it in this bill?”
And environmentalists fear that if woody biomass is officially labeled “renewable,” timber companies will over-log national forests.
Walden says he continues to work with Democrats to make woody biomass from federal forests part of the country’s renewable energy goals.
That’s why advocates say Oregon should become ground zero for biomass energy production.
They say once you start transporting biomass by truck, or train, or ship, you lose the benefits of biomass because the closer the power plants can be to the forests, the better off you are.
——-
The following is an online comment on the above article. It’s worth reading as the comment author obviously has done her research even if it is slanted towards against large-scale biomass energy production and fails to provide sources for claims like “biomass burning emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal per megawatt”.
# # #
This article overlooks the fact that the American Clean Energy and Security Act, ACES, says that burning National Forests IS clean and green renewable energy! In fact, Congress caved in to Mr. Walden and the incinerator industry and has given them free access to our National Forests for biomass burning! Section 101(a)(18) of the bill contains a loophole big enough for the industry’s largest logging truck, skids and chippers: right there it says federal forests are open to biomass logging – the only thing that’s off limits is “federal land” that is also “high conservation priority land” – whatever that is. These so called forest protection provisions are weak and unenforceable. Worse yet, biomass burning emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal per megawatt. Government reports show that by 2020 biomass burning will emit 700,000,000 tons of CO2 per year. It emits toxic pollutants that causes asthma, and drains our rivers by using huge volumes of cooling water. But it’s still “clean and green” and we Americans will pay billions for forest incinerators to generate a few megawatts, all while telling the third world to save the rainforests! This does not make sense. Environmental groups like Sierra Club have sold out on this issue. In the meantime, people who really know what is going on on the ground, in communities around the country, are telling the “clean and green renewable biomass” industry the gig is up. You’re not carbon neutral, you are an incinerator by any other name, and its time to fess up to your crime of greenwashing the public. When your burning is causing global warming, its hard to see the truth in that “clean and green” claim. Check out: www.nobiomassburning.org and http://massenvironmentalenergy.org/.
From the hills of Massachusetts
— Posted by MegSheehan
