JUL 22

Although the adoption of biomass power is on the rise in Europe, the same case is not true in the United States where renewable power generating facilities are increasingly coming under attack. Plans for a proposed biomass plant in northern Michigan were recently shelved due to public opposition, and the utility board has decided to reconsider a natural gas plant instead. Proposed facilities in other states are also facing opposition.

Biomass has been eagerly pursued by utility companies with a renewable power mandate because they are a quick and inexpensive way to meet renewable energy portfolio targets. Biomass is a local fuel that is well suited to agricultural areas. Although opponents suggest that biomass facilities will contribute to ongoing deforestation, biomass fueled plants tend to focus on using waste materials, including agricultural field waste and branches and leaves generated from logging, rather than competing for valuable lumber or other crop material. In the best cases, waste material that otherwise represents a problem that needs to be disposed of serves as the feedstock for the power plant. The dual efficiency of eliminating a waste problem and providing power generation at the same time is a positive synergy that these plants offer.

In the case of the Traverse City (MI) Light & Power utility, there is both a state mandate of 10 percent generation from renewable sources by 2015 as well as the utility's own goal of generating 30 percent of its electrical power from renewable sources by 2020. With the shelving of the biomass plant plan, it is unlikely that the utility will meet either of their goals.

Biomass is no more a silver bullet for energy generation than any other technology. Each system has its own benefits and drawbacks, and biomass is no different. The wind energy industry faced this for many years, and still encounters irrational opposition, although its acceptance is continuing to grow. Biomass energy is likely facing a similar point in its development.

Links: NY Times and Traverse City Record Eagle

Image via: Wikimedia Commons

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

"irrational opposition"?, Low-rated comment [Show]

...
written by PaulT, July 23, 2010

Remove subsidies from oil and coal, then tell me about the economics.
I live near several wind turbines. From more than 1090 metres you can't hear them over the normal wind noise.
Read the post "pursued by energy companies because they're inexpensive"
And last, live next to a coal fired power plant and then tell me wind isn't clean.

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by Mitch, July 23, 2010

Hi,

In the best cases, waste material that otherwise represents a problem that needs to be disposed of serves as the feedstock for the power plant. The dual efficiency of eliminating a waste problem and providing power generation at the same time is a positive synergy that these plants offer.

Three words, "agricultural strip mining".

Best Wishes,

Mitch

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Rationality ?
written by gianni, July 23, 2010

Fred -- you're assuming the only criteria is first order economics. If you treat the system as a whole then the 'cheap' option ends up being more expensive, its just that you pay for it in chunks. What is needed is 'joined-up thinking', and clean-up costs, water treatment costs, and extinction an rapidly make the cheap option look really, really expensive.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

We're moving forward
written by Richard Hood, July 24, 2010

Our company is moving forward with biomass to fuel pellet projects overseas as well as in the United States. Our company's mission is to add value to waste. Thus, our biomass feedstock is most often waste. The feedstock used is totally dependent on the biomass found within the region where we build our pellet plants. In Louisianna, the major biomass could be alligator grass. In Florida, we might build a plant where water Hyacinth is the major biomass. And, in any major city the biomass will be the "urban forest" which would otherwise wind up in a landfill. Our air emissions are less than coal. The ash produced is less than coal. And, importantly, the btu/pound is very similar to coal with no changes required in material handling. Contact me should you want additional information as we are actively looking for sites to build. We will put people to work providing a locally produced fuel which produces less green house gases than coal.

• 
• +2
• 
• 

@Richard Hoold
written by Mike, July 26, 2010

I sounds like your company is headquartered in some imaginary place in your mind.

• 
• -3
• 
• 

Be careful interpreting "waste"
written by Dave, July 27, 2010

Waste doesn't mean unused when it comes to forestry. Forests are subject to soil depletion the same as a corn field. Loggers reduce branches to smaller sizes and leave them behind to replenish the soil. It would be foolish to think that lumber and pulp can be continuosly removed along with so-called waste branches and tops with serious consequinces a few years down the road.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment