Bio-Mass Rules Go To Far?

by Morris Housen
CEO & President
Erving Paper Mills

Erving Paper Mills operates 24 hours a day, 355 days per year and has done so continuously since 1905.
We employ 120 people in Central Massachusetts and we buy almost all of our purchased goods and
services from other Massachusetts / New England companies. As a 120 tons per day manufacturer of
recycled napkin, toweling and tissue paper, our operations are energy intensive. In fact, each year we
use almost 50 million kilowatts of electricity (enough to power 4,500 average homes) and about 2.9
million gallons of oil (enough to heat 4,000 average homes).

Erving Paper Mills is committed to environmental stewardship. Every day, we recycle 9 truckloads of
wastepaper that would otherwise go to a Massachusetts landfill. We constantly manage our system
of pumps and motors to ensure that they are optimized for energy efficiency and we recycle the water
used in our production process in order to minimize our ecological footprint.

The time has come for all of us, including Erving Paper Mills, to transition away from fossil fuels and
towards local renewable fuel sources. To this end, in late 2008, our plant commissioned an exhaustive
study to look at energy alternatives. The study found that a biomass-powered combined heat and
power (CHP) system would meet our needs perfectly. Biomass delivers a solution that is both the most
economically viable solution and, unlike solar and wind power, leverages the only renewable source of
energy that can provide a continuous stream of power within a reasonable amount of real estate. We
would need 46 acres of solar panels or 15 industrial-sized wind turbines and a steady 30 – 55 mph wind
to meet our electricity needs alone.

What is biomass? Biomass is organic material, primarily waste wood and brush that is generated during
proper forest management and unusable as timber, which can be used to power an industrial facility
such as ours. The shift is analogous to switching from heating one’s house with oil to heating one’s
house with a wood-burning stove. Yet, we would not just heat our factory, but actually power our
entire process with waste wood. In Central New England, we are surrounded by a natural, abundant,
sustainable and renewable supply of waste wood, clearly a compelling energy source for us.

Two months ago, in September, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) released

draft rules on the qualification of biomass as it relates to the state’s renewable energy portfolio. The
original purpose of these rules was to properly incentivize the more efficient and appropriate use of
biomass and other alternate fuel sources. Unfortunately, due to political meandering, the effect of the
rules as currently drafted will prevent us and others like us from moving away from fossil fuels. Even
though, biomass (32% efficient) is more efficient than wind (25%) or solar (17%) power, its use is being
singled out and unfairly targeted by legislators. Efficiency benchmarks are being established that will
restrict biomass installations in the Commonwealth.

We strongly urge Massachusetts lawmakers to amend the draft rules. We suggest that the
Commonwealth implement an efficiency standard that is achievable for alternative energy sources
like biomass and provide a full renewable energy credit for CHP facilities. We also suggest that
thermal RECS be introduced that will specifically incentivize CHP plants Without attending to these
changes, the ability of Erving Paper Mills and Massachusetts companies like ours to transition away
from fossil fuels will be severely hampered. Our companies will be less competitive, economic value
to the Commonwealth will be lost and an opportunity to reduce our carbon footprint will have been
squandered.

In addition, we support science-based forest sustainability standards and believe that the proposed 15%
limit on what can be counted as biomass is arbitrary and does not allow for site-specific conditions to
be taken into account. We believe that a better approach would be the recommendations made by the
Forest Guild in the Manomet Study.

Erving Paper Mills is fully committed to deepening our investment in the local community and to
providing environmental stewardship by transitioning away from fossil fuels towards a renewable,
locally-sourced alternative that will not only lower our future emissions but also make us more
competitive. This is exactly the type of energy strategy that the DOER and the Patrick Administration
should want to encourage. Unfortunately, the rules, as currently proposed, would not allow us to make
this transition. A significant change is needed so that the final rules will take our situation and that of
companies in a similar situation into account.

Sincerely,
Erving Paper Mills, Inc.
Morris Housen
CEO & President

Related articles

• New Boiler Turns Prunings Into Power (cleantechies.com)
• Beaumont Enterprise: Electric co-op applies for construction loan for bio mass power plant (beaumontenterprise.com)
• Bio-Oil Could Replace Petroleum in Asphalt (gas2.org)
• Algae to Biodiesels fuels Public Companies, Governments (brighthub.com)
• Clean Energy Week 2010 Spotlights Massachusetts as Hotbed of Clean Energy Innovation (prnewswire.com)
• New Rules May Stifle Biomass Growth Industry Says (environmentalleader.com)
• Risø Energy Report 9: CO2-free energy can meet the world's energy needs in 2050 (eurekalert.org)
• Bye Bye Bogus Biomass: FirstEnergy Sends Woodchip Plant to the Woodchipper (switchboard.nrdc.org)

Sometimes Small Is Better re Bio Mass

Could Small-Scale Forestry Biomass Serve as an Economic Driver for the Region?

By Genevieve Fraser



While the debate rages over large-scale utility use of forestry biomass in Massachusetts, scant attention has been paid to the economic benefits of small scale biomass use as an economic driver. A centerpiece for this effort could be the creation of a no-waste, integrated wood products industrial park once envisioned by the now defunct Forest and Wood Products Institute based at Mount Wachusett Community College in Gardner, MA.



The “model” industrial park could contain a sawmill processing underutilized species and small logs. The waste would serve to power cogeneration turning biomass into electricity and thermal (heat) use. The centre could also include value-added functions such as flooring, furniture, cabinetry, boxes, pallets and an “incubator” such as a wood pellet manufacturer. However, with or without the sawmill component, any industrial park would be well served by the installation of a small scale cogeneration biomass plant.

Though the “model” industrial park has yet to materialize, the college did convert their heating system to biomass and have saved approximately $300,000 per year. The Athol-Royalston Regional High School also converted to a wood chip biomass system and saves about $20,000 annually. Hospitals are considered ideal candidates for biomass cogeneration due to their thermal (heating, cooling, cooking, sterilization) and electrical loads which operate 24/7 throughout the year. After reviewing the advantages, Cooley Dickinson Hospital installed a 230 kW Advanced Biomass Combined Heat and Power generation system at its Northampton Hospital site.

The US Environmental Protection Agency claims that biomass does not contribute to greenhouse gases because it recycles carbon already in the natural carbon cycle. No new CO2 is added to the atmosphere as long as the forests from which the wood came are sustainably managed. In addition, forest biomass contains only trace amounts of sulfur oxides as opposed to significant amounts contained in fuel oil and acid rain producing coal.

Currently, three electricity generation plants totaling 165 MW have been proposed for the state based on an abundant stock of low-quality wood in Massachusetts forests. Aside from traffic, air quality and water use issues, concerns have been raised that large scale or industrial forestry would tip the balance away from sustainability. But small scale biomass facilities could revitalize the region and serve as a powerful incentive for business and industry to locate in an area that can provide inexpensive, sustainable fuel.

At the June 2009 joint meeting of the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) and the Advisory Group of Stakeholders (AGS) for the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Forest Futures Visioning Process, the point was made that “the concept of ‘buy local’ has worked to strengthen the farming sector in the Commonwealth and could work for the forestry sector as well.”



“The Commonwealth still has several dozen mills that can process wood locally. DCR hopes that the Technical Steering Committee will consider in developing its recommendations strategies that could help re-vitalize local mills, help the climate (by reducing transportation carbon inputs) and replace plastic, concrete, steel, etc in buildings, bridges etc., thereby reducing the Commonwealth’s collective carbon emissions.”



NOTE:

Genevieve Fraser is an Independent candidate for state representative for the 2nd Franklin District. She is the recipient of a Massachusetts Environmental Commendation for her work as the organizer of the Acid Rain Awareness Weeks in 1984-85 and has worked as an Environmental Technical Writer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nathanael Greene: Scientists to Congress & Obama: count the carbon in biomass (huffingtonpost.com)
• P.E.I. moving to biomass heating (cbc.ca)
• Proposed Shelton biomass plant stirs opposition (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Biomass conundrum: Where to get cheap wood waste? (thenewstribune.com)
• Environmentalists challenge N.S. biomass plan (cbc.ca)
• LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Biomass Plant Endangers our Environment (kitsapsun.com)

Action Alert on Bio-Mass re Town council

Image via Wikipedia

It looks as if the Economic Development Committee held a hearing last night where it may have been proposed that the term "biomass" be added back into the stretch code. This term was recently taken out by the Planning Board and it would seem that once again, the town is trying to sneak something under the radar. There is going to be a vote tomorrow night by the town council regarding this addition and we need as many Greenfield residents to call their town councilors tonight and urge them to vote no to adding "biomass" back into the stretch code.

Please ask your town councilors that if there are so many unanswered questions that many residents have on the biomass issue, doesn't it make sense to slow the process down until there are more answers? The language can be added later if deemed appropriate.

Here are their phone numbers:

Peter Wood: Precinct 1, 773-3043
Thomas C. McLellan:Precinct 2, 774-4612
Brickett M. Allis - Vice President: Precinct 3, 773-8875
Mark M. Maloney - Treasurer: Precinct 4, 773-8618
David Singer: Precinct 5, 773-8300
Danielle Letourneau: Precinct 6, 772-1555x113
Jeanne Canteen: Precinct 7, 774-66005
Christopher L. Joseph: Precinct 8, 773-0296
Mary-Catherine Sullivan: Precinct 9, 774-4290
Timothy F. Farrell: At Large, 774-3159
Daniel J. Guin: At Large, 772-8680
Alfred J. Siano: At Large, 773-3485
Tracey Sutphin: At Large, 773-0187

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. at GCTV. You are urged to attend. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Mass Biomass Study a Sham?

--------------------
Subject: CRUCIAL MEETING 12-17-09,HOLYOKE 6:30 PM

DON'T LET THE SHAM STUDY GO DOWN WITHOUT BEING HEARD!

Thursday 12/17/09, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 245 Whiting Road in Holyoke. 
    From Route 91 North:
Take the Ingleside Mall Exit 15. Take a right off the exit heading towards the mall. Turn left at the first set of lights (gas station on the left). Take second driveway into Holiday Inn parking lot.
    From Route 91 South:
Take the Ingleside Mall Exit 15. Take a left off the exit heading towards the mall. Turn left at the first set of lights (gas station on the left). Take second driveway into Holiday Inn parking lot.

TALKING POINTS (from Chris Matera of Mass Forest Watch))
 

The “sustainability” study is unfortunately just a political move to lull the public into thinking the State is doing something to slow down biomass proposals.  Its scope and players are openly biased in favor of, and have vested interests in, wood fueled biomass burning.  Also, if the State was sincere, it would stop permitting the wood burning biomass plants and would choose an objective body.


1.  The study has been framed as “how much” to “sustainably” burn rather than examining the wisdom of increased cutting and burning forests. 


2.  We already know that increasing logging and burning will negatively affect the forest, air quality, and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, so we do not need to spend $100,000 taxpayer dollars studying this matter.


3.  The State is still handing out permits while the “sustainability” study is in process


4.  The study is being performed by folks with a vested interests in biomass burning and logging and questionable objectivity, see some of this background info below:

  

A.  All three consultants to the Manomet study, The Pinchot Institute ( http://www.facebook.com/l/79c65;www.pinchot.org/bioenergy) , the Forest Guild ( http://www.facebook.com/l/79c65;www.forestguild.org/biomass.html) and the Biomass Energy Resource Center  ( http://www.facebook.com/l/79c65;www.biomasscenter.org/services/technical-services/biomass-resource-supply-services.html ) and are proponents of wood burning biomass energy plants.   


B.  Roger Milliken Jr. who chairs the advisory board of the Manomet Forest Conservation Program is the CEO of a commercial timber company with 100,000 acres of Maine timberlands ( http://www.facebook.com/l/79c65;www.manta.com/company/mm2wlxs ) and is the former chairman of the Maine Forest Products Council, the principle lobbying group for the timber industry in Maine . 


C.  Manomet's president, John Hagan, has written about the need for environmentalists to stop trying to "save the environment" and instead focus on "sustaining human well-being."  http://www.facebook.com/l/79c65;www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=11009


D.  Tom Walker, who is the co-leader for the Manomet biomass study, and who has played a central role in drafting up the “forest futures vision” plan for the future management of our public forests, was a participant in the following pro-biomass “roundtable” on December 4

http://www.facebook.com/l/79c65;www.masscec.com/index.cfm?cdid=10809&pid=10253


Our first panel, Sustainable Forestry/Biomass and Energy in New England, explores how we can sustainably manage our forests while ramping up woody biomass production  and harvesting for electricity generation, wood heat, and potentially even liquid fuels.  With RGGI, state renewable portfolio standards, and eleven northeast states now considering a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for both transportation and heating fuels,  now is the time to determine the role our forests will play in satisfying important energy and environmental goals.

 

David Cash , Assistant Secretary at MA EOEEA, will kick off the conversation.  A representative of NESCAUM will then explain the contemplated LCFS concept and discuss the modeling work done to date on woody biomass.  Tom Walker, a natural resource economist, will describe the study that his consulting team will be conducting for the Commonwealth on this topic .  Jasen Stock of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, will discuss how New Hampshire manages its forests while aggressively pursuing wood energy projects.   Finally, a representative from Maine's Forest Service has been invited to discuss how the state of Maine is approaching these issues.

Some Serious Biomass Concerns

What happened in Maine can also happen here.

Although Mayor Martin deserves credit for setting up a fact-finding board for the proposed biomass plant in town, I hope it isn’t staffed by industry types who will sell their product under the guise of truth. Experience is an equally valuable commodity and Martin would have been well served had he attended a lecture which documented what happened to several towns in Northern Maine that went the biomass route and might serve as both an example and a warning. This information was brought to a small meeting in Greenfield several weeks ago in the person of Hillary Lister, a well-informed Down East activist whose parents live in our town. What made Lister’s presentation so memorable was her calm, un-dramatic demeanor which only intensified some of the uglier facts behind the biomass industry and how vigilant we Franklin County citizens need to be. Her audience was made up of concerned adults. There were no howling cries about saving Mother Earth, no Cassandra like doom-saying or self-indulgent clownishness. Just the facts, Ma’am, soberly presented. Not surprising seeing that the biomass plant in her hometown, Athens, Maine, also came with rosy promises but actual misfortune.

Biomass has been falsely presented in two forms. One is that it is a green form of renewable energy. The other is that it will benefit the town by adding corporate tax revenue to our depleted coffers which will then lower property taxes and save the average homeowner a bundle of money. While the second point has some apparent truth to it, there is much that is unsaid that will counteract any supposed benefits we might expect.

The concept behind biomass being green is that plants only burn clean unadulterated wood chips or forest debris. Supposedly, this is what is written into the town’s contract with Madera Energy. However, according to Lister, it is common for these large energy companies to sell themselves to others once they amass a substantial profit whereby the new owner “amends” the contract and the rules. At which point, up to half their burning materials can (and often do) consist of construction and demolition debris (or CCD), not to mention other questionable items like tires and carpets. All of these materials, which can contain lead, arsenic, PVCs and various carcinogenic toxins, are not only included in the smoke plume which will descend on downwind residents, but will also form a bulk of the mountains of ash that the incinerator will inevitably produce. In April 2007, a biomass plant in Bradley, Maine covered parts of the town with a blanket of black soot that, when tested, yielded high levels of lead as well as killing two pet dogs. Lister related an unsettling observation of the stack emissions hanging low over her town on misty, overcast days, adding to the smog and painting the sky a sickly bright orange on cloudy nights.

And where does all that ash go? To begin with, it will fill some of the up to 120 trucks that will rumble through town daily at the rate of one every twelve minutes. Besides increasing road reconstruction costs (which will come out of the Greenfield taxpayers’ pockets), these trucks are known to overturn, spilling their toxic debris on some unlucky resident’s lawn. Even without the capsizing, Lister related their experience of having the ash dumped in local landfills (where they can leech into neighboring water supplies) and given to farmers as compost without telling them what toxins that compost contained.

It should come as no surprise that asthma rates have been known to skyrocket in the vicinity of bio-mass plants and that the American Lung Association has come out condemning them. Not to mention our own Greenfield Board of Health. Therefore, if you like to breath clean air, you should be worried about this.

Of course, the biomass industry has conducted their own safety test but their method is to move the testing area further and further away from the plant where the dioxin levels are the highest. These rigged findings are then offered in the official study.

As far as benefitting the town and its homeowners, Lister addressed these points with some common sense advice. While it’s true that Greenfield homeowners will reap an initial reduction in their property taxes. But as the health and environmental hazards generated by Madera become more evident, outsiders will be reluctant to buy a home in Greenfield, especially if they are anywhere within a few miles of the plant. That reluctance will devalue the worth of everyone’s home in town and therefore counteract any tax benefit. Maine homeowners in towns where these plants have been located have all had a difficult time selling their homes, even before the decline of the housing market. And when housing values decline, the towns suffers reduced revenue which completes the vicious cycle. Not good for Greenfield homeowners, businesses or the town itself.

There’s that old adage, which says if something is too good to be true, it probably isn’t. Biomass, a huge industry poised to take advantage of some serious Federal energy policy funds, doesn’t tell the entire truth, according to Lister, and has yielded deficiencies in her own town that make its value dubious at best. While I know that the lure of easy money is a strong temptation for those who manage Greenfield, they better make sure they aren’t entering into a devil’s bargain that will eventually ruin our town and our county along with it.

Daniel A. Brown has lived in Franklin County for 40 years and is a frequent op-ed contributor to the Greenfield Recorder newspaper as well as a guest on the "Local Bias" show on GCTV. He is a professional landscape painter (www.danielbrownart.com), photographer and writer as well the de facto historian of the Renaissance Community.