Image: California Energy Commission
Environmental groups yesterday pressed U.S. EPA to backtrack on its plans to exempt biomass from climate regulations for the next three years, arguing that such a step would prompt more fuel switching to biomass and spark an uptick in unregulated carbon emissions.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) opposed a proposed rule from EPA that would allow facilities burning woody waste, landfills and ethanol facilities to be exempt from carbon regulations for the next three years.
The proposal would "provide incentives to fuel switch" in order to avoid climate regulations, said Navis Bermudez, deputy legislative director for SELC. The exemption would leave these emitters unregulated, and could result in higher greenhouse gas emissions than using coal, she said at a public hearing on the rule, echoing the sentiments of several other environmental organizations that spoke.
At the heart of the matter is a controversy over carbon accounting and the length of time required to replenish carbon reservoirs.
Past federal regulations have accepted the premise that facilities fueled by woody waste are "carbon-neutral" -- merely speeding up the carbon cycle that would naturally occur as plants decompose.
But a study commissioned by Massachusetts last year and conducted by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences indicated that burning wood for energy generally results in greater emissions of greenhouse gases per unit of energy than using fossil fuel, based on the efficiency of tapping each resource.
The study rested on a number of caveats -- including geographic area, how forestlands are managed and if tree refuse or entire trees were utilized, but its results suggested that moving from coal plants to biomass could actually boost Massachusetts' carbon emissions in the next several decades (ClimateWire, July 12, 2010).
That finding has been a touchstone for environmentalists concerned that the carbon footprint of such plants is not being addressed.
EPA contends that providing a three-year deferral on the issue will allow it to perform scientific analysis considering to what extent -- if at all -- these emitters should be included in regulations.
Some in industry worry about uncertainty
The agency will examine the science around biogenic carbon dioxide emissions and develop a rulemaking on how these emissions should be accounted for in future permitting requirements, it said in the proposed rule. The agency is accepting comments on the issue through May 5.
Biomass advocates including the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) and the Biomass Power Association yesterday hailed EPA's decision to study the matter and reiterated that climate regulations that kicked into effect in January and affect large stationary sources should not apply to them.
Support for biomass as a renewable energy source would be undermined by considering it a carbon polluter, said Dave Tenny, president of NAFO.
Tenny, whose group originally asked EPA for the exemption, argued that it would be impossible to measure how woody waste would be used if it were not used in biomass facilities; thus any calculations could not fully settle questions of carbon accounting.
Meanwhile, Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, urged the agency to move faster than the proposed three-year timeline on its final decision to exclude biomass -- in order to provide market certainty for potential biomass investors, he said. "Delays will cause regulatory uncertainty and economic harm in areas of the nation that continue to suffer from high unemployment and anemic economic growth," he said in prepared remarks.
The hearing comes on the heels of an announcement last week from Dominion Virginia Power that it expects to convert three of its Virginia coal-fired plants to run on biomass.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add Comment"Some in industry worry about uncertainty"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't get much more fearful than that!
Spread that FUD...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCouple of thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes natural cycles centuries to sequester CO2. I can't see that whether the wood pulp is allowed to decay over years or burned up quickly will make much difference on the changes over the larger scale.
Humans deforested a lot of Europe prior to the introduction of fossil fuels with much less population and much less energy use per person than exists today. If we can use waste wood to supplement our energy supply, great, but it isn't going to be a big part of the solution or the problem one way or the other.
Using organic material allows you to use captured solar energy. This is the only method of inexpensively storing solar energy that can provide 24/7 power & heat generation. Wood can first be distilled to generate producer gas which was extensively used in many countries to power vehicles during World War 11. The resultant wood coke can be further burned to drive steam turbine generators. There are similar problems to using coal so far as pollutants are concerned but it is carbon neutral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiomass can be carbon-negative if it is pyrolysed rather than burnt or fermented. See www.EPRIDA.com for more details. Basically, any biomass, animal, vegetal or fossil can be pyrolysed to produce inert carbon and hydrogen. This is carbon negative. Otherwise the pyrolysis converter can be adapted to produce biofuels or fertilisers which are carbon neutral. The process is cheap, fast and can be adapted to any scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewability of energy resources and the reduction of carbon footprint are conflicting objectives of economics and environmental impact. Why do governments confuse them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy users that might be 'fuel switching' to avoid or take advantage of regulatory loopholes are not likely to reduce their economic advantage by refining their fuels to minimize carbon impact.
We're only expecting to increase the largest human population 30% by 2050. We might need to reduce per capita energy consumption as well as resource usage, since we can't control reproduction.
There was a time, only about a decade ago, that an article I read in this magazine launched me on my current career goal. This magazine used to be about substantial issues like Nobel winning molecular biology discoveries on telomere research, technologies that would help cure cancer and new physics theories postulating how our universe works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, it has devolved into a new agenda that seems bent on spreading fear of manmade changes to CO2 levels that are scientifically unfounded, endangered species and nuclear technology that has been in use for 60 years.
Bring back the old magazine of discovery, hope and the actual advancement of science.
I used to love a segment called The Amateur Scientist in particular. There is a 75 year history of this segment on CD. It is a pity today's readers do not have the privilege we had of reading a fine scientific magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific data should be the only criteria considered not political views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Merely speeding up the carbon cycle?" Wrong. This is speeding up PART of the cycle--the part that sends the carbon into the atmosphere. The part that returns the carbon to biomass is slowed down by this since the amount of nutrients in the soil is reduced. This is clearly not carbon neutral and can only be made to appear so by accounting jigger-pokery cherished by companies like Enron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no logical reason to exempt any industry from emission regulation. As others have pointed out, energy production from biomass could be carbon-negative, carbon-neutral or in fact, carbon-positive, and could also produce other pollutants such as particulates. Have some backbone, EPA!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Manomet study was seriously flawed in that its base assumption was that healthy growing trees would be used for fuel for biomass power plants. The economics require biomass power plants to use byproduct waste biomass for fuel. Trees are far too valuable, at three to ten times the value of byproduct waste biomass, to use for fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the byproduct waste is not used to generate power, it has no value and will be disposed of to deteriorate naturally. Natural deterioration of biomass generates some methane and other hazardous air polutents (HAPs). Methane has at least 20 times the greenhouse impact as the carbon dioxide that is formed from using the waste biomass to generate power. Therefore, waste biomass used for power generation is greenhouse gas negative.
The impacts of the use of biomass materials of all types have been studied in peer reviewed papers in North America and Europe for over thirty years. The most conservative consensus is that biomass power is greenhouse gas neutral. The preponderance of the data shows biomass power to be the only greenhouse gas negative renewable energy source.
I doubt that environmentalists are overly concerned about CO2 emissions from biomass generation. Just as they did with spotted owls, these groups are using smoke and mirrors to stop tree cutting. Instead of focusing on the environment, they have embraced an idiotic ideology of tree worship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost biomass used in electrical generation isn't wood. It is generally sewage and yard waste or "recycled" paper. Most of it decays within a couple of years. As has been pointed out many times, more atmospheric CO2 means better plant growth which means more food and greater biomass.
I was very encouraged to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href=" http://www.sbsgroup.com.sg"> Singapore Company Formation</a>