I think I want to read the decision and the facts of the case before I jump to conclusions. While biomass "recycles" carbon instead of releasing fossil carbon, biomass facilities also encourage clear-cutting, and clear-cutting generates significantly more CO2 from degradation of soil organic matter than from the biomass burned directly. This "carbon debt" means that it may take 75 years before a forest regrows and stores enough carbon to make up for what was lost by clear-cutting. The few studies available suggest that the energy and carbon balance for biomass may make sense for small local facilities, but the balance tips against large industrial-scale facilities. While it may seem counter-intuitive, the science does not automatically favor biofuels as a solution to global warming, and we need to let reality drive air pollution policy.
Jm Kotcon
Andrew Liebhold 07/16/13 11:13 AM >>>
This strikes me as a very poorly informed decision. Burning forest-derived biomass is potentially highly desirable from a carbon standpoint. The carbon contained in trees will be released into the atmosphere regardless of whether it does so by combustion or via decomposition, and is therefore a truly "carbon-neutral" source of energy. If it is utilized in place of burning fossil fuels, it can greatly reduce net carbon emissions.
Whoever these people are in the Clean Air Task Force, Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine, I think they would benefit from studying a little bit of ecosystem science. There efforts are clearly mis-placed which is unfortunate...
-Sandy Liebhold
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane wrote:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/
Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole Center for Biological Diversity , July 15, 2013
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air
Actlimits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities
that burn biomass, including tree-burning power plants. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.”
The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit
in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101),
found that the EPA had improperly exempted
all sources of biogenic CO2 from permitting programs intended to
protect
people and the environment from harmful pollution.
“Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous, polluting and
ought
to be limited to protect people and the environment,” said Kevin
Bundy, a
senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This important decision will reduce respiratory ailments, protect forests and help ensure a healthier, more livable climate.”
“Today’s ruling upholds [the] EPA’s authority to regulate pollution
that
drives climate change . The court’s decision is grounded in an understanding that the science
shows
that biomass fuels, including tree-burning, can make climate
disruption
worse,” said Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the
Conservation
Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine .
“The court clearly noted that the atmosphere can’t tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by
burning
trees,” said Weeks.
“The science is clear that not all biomass burning is good for the
planet
and today’s ruling rightly affirms science as the guide for how [the]
EPA
must now move forward on biomass energy production,” said Niel
Lawrence,
senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as
Americans
who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they lov> also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that
are
actually clean.”
“The court’s decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now
we
have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one
that
avoids clearcutting the region’s wildlife-rich forests for energy
while
intensifying climate change impacts,” said Frank Rambo, head of the
clean
energy and air program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance , Georgia ForestWatch , South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Wild Virginiain the case.
Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that
burn
fossil fuels—even coal—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” by subsequent plant growth.
Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their
CO2
emissions must also control any “significant” emissions of other
regulated
pollutants, so the court’s decision also means that communities near
these
plants will benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma
and
other health problems.
Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@osenergy.org http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
Hi Jim - Like everything, there are a lot of details that one has to get right about utilizing forest biomass as a source of energy. One of the critical ones is that energy input required for long-distance transportation of fuel can quickly have an adverse effect on the net carbon budget - this is why, as you point out, it is a much more effective approach implemented using many small, local facilities, than a few massive factories. The forest management side of it also is something that has to be done right. In addition to the issues that you raise about degradation of soil organic material, the use of invasive exotic species as a biomass can be so problematic, that in my opinion it should be completely avoided. Here in the northeastern US, we are blessed with a mixed deciduous forest that I believe is highly amenable to utilization for forest biomass, but unfortunately this has received very little attention. I think that it is unfortunate that too many people consider cutting trees to be somehow intrinsically immoral - it is a strange thing, that somehow perhaps most Americans consider agricultural land use and harvesting to be a responsible and sustainable activity, while any sort of forest utilization is viewed as inherently unsustainable and immoral. The reality is that informed forest utilization has a much smaller impact on wildlife, water and air quality than most forms of agriculture but most people don't seem to understand this...
If one needs an illustration of the potential for the use of forest biomass as an energy source, you should turn to Sweden. That country currently obtains over 30% of their total energy usage from forest biomass and they are on target on the road to eventually obtaining 50% of their energy from this source. This has all been done while minimizing non-desirable air emissions and avoiding soil and water degradation.
-Sandy
-Sandy
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:29 PM, James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu wrote:
I think I want to read the decision and the facts of the case before I jump to conclusions. While biomass "recycles" carbon instead of releasing fossil carbon, biomass facilities also encourage clear-cutting, and clear-cutting generates significantly more CO2 from degradation of soil organic matter than from the biomass burned directly. This "carbon debt" means that it may take 75 years before a forest regrows and stores enough carbon to make up for what was lost by clear-cutting. The few studies available suggest that the energy and carbon balance for biomass may make sense for small local facilities, but the balance tips against large industrial-scale facilities. While it may seem counter-intuitive, the science does not automatically favor biofuels as a solution to global warming, and we need to let reality drive air pollution policy.
Jm Kotcon
Andrew Liebhold 07/16/13 11:13 AM >>>
This strikes me as a very poorly informed decision. Burning forest-derived biomass is potentially highly desirable from a carbon standpoint. The carbon contained in trees will be released into the atmosphere regardless of whether it does so by combustion or via decomposition, and is therefore a truly "carbon-neutral" source of energy. If it is utilized in place of burning fossil fuels, it can greatly reduce net carbon emissions.
Whoever these people are in the Clean Air Task Force, Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine, I think they would benefit from studying a little bit of ecosystem science. There efforts are clearly mis-placed which is unfortunate...
-Sandy Liebhold
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane wrote:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/
Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole Center for Biological Diversity , July 15, 2013
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air
Actlimits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities
that burn biomass, including tree-burning power plants. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.”
The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit
in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101),
found that the EPA had improperly exempted
all sources of biogenic CO2 from permitting programs intended to
protect
people and the environment from harmful pollution.
“Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous, polluting and
ought
to be limited to protect people and the environment,” said Kevin
Bundy, a
senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This important decision will reduce respiratory ailments, protect forests and help ensure a healthier, more livable climate.”
“Today’s ruling upholds [the] EPA’s authority to regulate pollution
that
drives climate change . The court’s decision is grounded in an understanding that the science
shows
that biomass fuels, including tree-burning, can make climate
disruption
worse,” said Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the
Conservation
Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine .
“The court clearly noted that the atmosphere can’t tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by
burning
trees,” said Weeks.
“The science is clear that not all biomass burning is good for the
planet
and today’s ruling rightly affirms science as the guide for how [the]
EPA
must now move forward on biomass energy production,” said Niel
Lawrence,
senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as
Americans
who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they lov> also
ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are
actually clean.”
“The court’s decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now
we
have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one
that
avoids clearcutting the region’s wildlife-rich forests for energy
while
intensifying climate change impacts,” said Frank Rambo, head of the
clean
energy and air program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance , Georgia ForestWatch , South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and Wild Virginiain the case.
Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that
burn
fossil fuels—even coal—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” by subsequent plant growth.
Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their
CO2
emissions must also control any “significant” emissions of other
regulated
pollutants, so the court’s decision also means that communities near
these
plants will benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma
and
other health problems.
Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@osenergy.org http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
-
Andrew Liebhold -
James Kotcon