Ameresco lands $795M DOE biomass deal

[Fledermaus]

Ameresco Inc. has won a $795 million contract from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a biomass co-generation facility and two smaller biomass heat plants in South Carolina, the company announced Monday.

The Framingham, Mass., energy services company will finance, construct, operate and maintain the facilities for the energy department under what Ameresco says is the largest renewable energy contract in the country’s history. Ameresco will fuel the facilities with plant material left behind in timber harvesting.

“We are extremely pleased to have been chosen by the Department of Energy for this landmark renewable energy and efficiency project,” said George Sakellaris, president and CEO of Ameresco, in a prepared written statement. “When completed, the new biomass facilities will reduce energy and water consumption and cut air emissions dramatically. In the first-year alone the energy and operational cost savings alone will be in excess of $34 million and site’s greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by over 100,000 tons. Without question, the environmental benefits are going to be very significant for the Savannah River region and our nation.”

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/06/22/daily13.html

[druidity33]

1. well that fucking sucks...

Biomass is awful. Spews more carcinogens than coal plants. It's only renewable because you can "plant more trees to burn".

Ugh.

[Fledermaus]

2. perhaps you could provide a link to support your claim?

[druidity33]

4. try this one...

http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/

a little tidbit:

FACT: Use of biomass is not carbon neutral. It will dramatically increase
greenhouse gases.

The concept of carbon neutrality assumes that “biogenic” carbon dioxide released by burning can be
readily re-sequestered in new growth.
• However, carbon released by burning actually takes decades to re-sequester, a fact recognized
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which considers forest harvest and burning
to be a source of greenhouse gases.4

Carbon dioxide released by biomass burning is unregulated under the provisions of H.R. 2454.
• Not only are emissions from biomass exempted from greenhouse gas accounting, but biomass
plants receive renewable energy credits, competing directly with truly carbon neutral energy
sources like wind and solar.

Greenhouse gas emissions from biomass incinerators are significant. In Massachusetts, three
biomass energy plants currently planned will emit 2.2 million tons of CO2 a year, a 7.8% increase over
2007 CO2 emissions from the energy sector.
• Despite these large emissions, the 135 megawatts provided by the plants will increase energy
generation in Massachusetts by only 1.2%.5

It's a ruse. Don't Believe the Hype.

[Fotoware58]

6. Biomass emissions...

from catastrophic wildfires are also exempted from GHG accounting by the IPCC (wrongly so, IMHO). They consider carbon from forests to be part of a "closed system" and seperate from fossil fuels, in that regard. It HAS been proven that plants and trees cannot sustainably re-sequester GHG's that are emitted from catastrophic wildfires. Also, the fact that those GHG's are pushed high into the upper atmosphere has me worried that they will continue to accumulate, despite the IPCC's beliefs.

It is my opinion that it is much better to harvest and/or harness the tree's carbon and toxic smoke than to let free range fire do its dirty deeds.

[druidity33]

26. so...

we'd better burn them before they catch on fire?

:eyes:

[Fotoware58]

29. Bravo!

I see you are finally catching on to scientific logic and responsible forest stewardship!! It surely beats having all that toxic smoke, endangered species habitat, powerlines, archeological sites, campgrounds, wooden bridges and aqueducts, old growth, rare plants, salmon-spawning streams, carbon sinks and scenic vistas all going up in flames, eh? Glad you are starting to see the light, through the smokey GHG's, bud!

We'll soon be able to power all of our new electric-powered Prius cars and such, putting those coal plants to bed! YAY!!!

[druidity33]

32. well

since 80% of wildfires are caused by negligent human behaviour, maybe we should keep all the fucking idiots out of the woods. Yes. Wildfires are terrible. But there hasn't been a major one in Massachusetts in 70 or so years. Over 60% of our forest is in APR, which means it's already actively culled. We mostly have a great Fire Service in the State and Our woodlands are managed well. We do not suffer droughts like they do in the west and southwest and our diverse and many wetlands break up a lot of the large forests.

Your blanket brush and absurdity do nothing to further your argument.


Get a profile...

[Fotoware58]

36. Ummmm

"since 80% of wildfires are caused by negligent human behaviour"... Do you have a link to this most-ridiculous of claims??!? I see that you also do not even know how to spell behavior, besides being ignorant of weather, physics and forest ecology. Yes, dumb humans do cause fires, and even intelligent folks have accidents from time to time. We need forests which survive drought, bark beetles and wildfires..... and, yes, dumb humans!

"maybe we should keep all the fucking idiots out of the woods."... I'd vote for that, but how will naturists pro-create?? Yes, I see that your agenda includes making forests even MORE unnatural by removing humans from forests. Indians shaped the forests that Lewis and Clark saw on their journey westward. Humans MUST intervene to save our forests to mitigate and eliminate this ongoing forest disaster that future historians might call "Obama's Katrina".

"Yes. Wildfires are terrible." Glad you could make that astute observation, bud! So, you choose to do nothing about these bad wildfires? I'd rather choose to use science to deal with site-specific issues and techniques than to impose blanket policies that ignore conditions and our greatest forest ecosystem scientists. It's great that your state doesn't have the problems we have out west but, are you hearing your solution to this disasterous situation?!?

"Your blanket brush and absurdity do nothing to further your argument." Ain't that calling the kettle black?!?! Lighten up, dude! Thanks for playing my straight-man sidekick, showing us the differences in ideologies, giving us clear choices on what path to follow.

Yes, who will you believe, folks?!?! Dr. Jerry Franklin, Dr. Stephen Pyne and Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen, or commune-dwelling folk with names like Catterpillar, Moonbeam and Granite?? Hell, even some Earth Firsters have gone on record in favor of active forest management. Mitch Friedman comes to mind.

Sorry about the sarcasm....I've been watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report while writing this piece...heh heh

[druidity33]

44. ok

"since 80% of wildfires are caused by negligent human behaviour"

comes from:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopsterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Public+Safety+Agencies&L2=Massachusetts+Emergency+Management+Agency&sid=Eeops&b=terminalcontent&f=mema_feature_story_2009_feature_stories_2009_Wildfires&csid=Eeops

And, yes, behaviour can be spelled two ways. I prefer the OED variety, as in English Dictionary.


"maybe we should keep all the fucking idiots out of the woods."

you'll note i said "all the fucking idiots", not all humans as you so kindly summarized for me. Perhaps we should give a test for everyone that wants to reserve a campsite? Or maybe have only "licensed" park-goers during fire season.

"Yes. Wildfires are terrible."

I appreciate Science. But i do NOT believe it solves all problems. In fact, i appreciate it enough that i think they could think of better ways to deal with waste than burning it. I quite carefully explained about APR, and the health of our forests in MA. I also explained that i might be in favor of Biomass given different circumstances. The blanket brush i refer to means not all solutions work the same in all areas. If you weren't being such an ignoramus, you might try reading what i've written in this thread a little more carefully. I'm also not saying that Biomass could never be feasible. At present, however, and with the information i've been able to gather, i can say that i DO NOT think it is cost effective or feasible in most places. Maybe you don't know what a blanket/broad brush is?







I'm done with the ridicule in this thread folks. Feel free to congratulate yourselves for having "scared me off". Truth is, i feel now like i've wasted my time here. I'll go read my kid a story instead.

Thanks for nothing!

[Fotoware58]

45. Interesting

I actually learned something. While I found conflicting numbers differing from your source, the number I found was higher than I suspected. I'd bet that the Massachusetts source cited only fires there. The Rockies source I found was 63%, probably reflecting their more remote areas. I would, however, be willing to bet that the biggest and most destructive fires are started by lightning. My career started off with two years as a fire lookout, high above Lake Tahoe. We did have more lightning fires than human-caused fires for those two summers, despite the huge amounts of "fucking idiots" (a term that is highly relative).

Wildfires are also fairly preventable but, today's "preservationists" want remote lightning fires to burn without any suppression. This practice continues to somehow be embraced, despite the serious damage, costs and impacts, including GHG's that are at 6-8% of ALL American output. In fact, the fires in California's Trinity County last year accounted for the equivalent of 2 million average cars driving for the entire year! A telling statistic, indeed!

Currently, a lack of a biomass market in California is severely impacting the Forest Service's Fuels Reduction program. Massive piles of limbs, tree tops, small trees and culls are burned out there in the woods because they don't pay their way out of the woods. A subsidy could allow all that biomass to be utilized for generating power, capturing some of those pollutants, as well.

Simply put, you have been the one using the broad brush, blasting a South Carolina project without knowing the facts. I would definitely encourage you to continue the battle in your home state, as I have seen aerial and ground pictures of their ugly cuts. Do a Google search for Joe Zorzin and you'll see a wealth of local Massachusetts bad forestry stuff he fights against as an eco-forester. He's kind of obnoxious but, he sure knows what he is talking about in western Mass.

I've made my points with facts and real world experiences in my 20+ year forestry career across the forests of this country. I'm also a scenic landscape photographer. I KNOW what I am talking about and, when someone like you comes in and spreads his knee-jerk opinions to projects far, far away from his little corner of the country, I stand up and tell the truth. Since I am completely disconnected from the timber industry now, I feel that my facts and opinions are not at all tainted by my previous career. I truly care and worry about the future of our forests and, will blast the Forest Service, the eco-groups AND the timber mills when they threaten our precious forests. These forums should be about learning but, alas, they often become "spin zones".

[Fledermaus]

7. Its just a list of unsubstantiated claims.

I cant find one references to support any claim. Some one just listed bunch of personal opinions.

[druidity33]

9. wtf?

Every single one of those stats is backed up by a footnote to the Biomass plants own numbers or the numbers put forth by the EPA.

How is that not referenced?


Ever lived near a Biomass plant? Ever seen what the forests look like when they are "culled" to support these plants?


Again, FOR WHAT?

I would gladly accept a Biomass plant in our area if it actually did promote "Green/Renewable" energy. It doesn't.

[Fledermaus]

12. I find no reference on the web page you provided..

You say there are...well provide the link please. I don't feel like going on an easter egg hunt.

[druidity33]

15. sorry...

text and citing came from a PDF from another site.

It's here:
http://www.greenfieldbiomass.info/Discussion_Downloads.html

under Biomass Fact Sheet.

Also some industry reviews of Biomass as well.

[Fledermaus]

20. Gosh! Thanks, Lets take a good look.

Lets look at one of the supposed facts.

FACT: Use of biomass is not carbon neutral. It will dramatically increase greenhouse gases.

Well the foot note gives several sources for this none of them support the claim. What they do support is the use of proper carbon book keeping.

IPCC's guidance (2008, Annex A) defines carbon stock as “the
quantity of carbon in a pool.” Further, it defines carbon stock changes
as: “The carbon stock in a pool can change due to the difference
between additions of carbon and losses of carbon. When the losses are
larger than the additions, the carbon stock becomes smaller, and thus
the pool acts as a source to the atmosphere; when the losses are
smaller than the additions, the pools acts as a sink to the atmosphere.”

In other words, biomass produces more CO2 only if there is less growth than removal. Thats the fact of the mater.
Well, wood burning power plants have been in use for decades in states like Vermont. Is there more removal than growth in Vermont?

NO! Ther is more than three time more growth than removal!

http://www.bwphdws.com/woodfacts/default.htm

[druidity33]

22. woodfacts from a lumber mill?

I'd say if my facts are skewed, yours are perverted. The website you refer to is operated by a wood products company. Not a single one of their bulleted "facts" are sourced. And some of them are ridiculous. There aren't more forests now in the US than there were. The statistics involved on your link measures BOARD FEET, not forest area.

If i truly believed the Corporations running these plants were responsible enough to do it right, then i wouldn't oppose such a plant in my area. Maybe if it was a publicly/cooperatively owned utility? But there are other things to consider too. A 30 day supply for the plant is 7 acres of wood chips piled around 12' high. How many big trucks per day/hour will be going to and from the site to accommodate that? 30% of the fuel for the plant in Vermont comes from out of state. Maintaining "adequately priced fuel supplies" is their biggest problem. In past years they've supplemented with gas. To make these plants economical, they buy the CHEAPEST fuel they can. They have their own foresters. The culls are "reviewed" by the State, but there is no independent process. This isn't FSC approved wood. As for Greenhouse gases, Biomass plants let out more Nitrous Oxide than comparably sized coal plants.

And another thing. There is no electricity "shortage" here in Massachusetts. In some areas, the demand is down! More incentives for Micro hydro, regional solar and wind would be a better investment.


Unfortunately, on both sides of this issue, there are good reasons to be skeptical. What i know for certain is that 2 miles from my home a very LARGE portion of the State Forest has been very near Clearcut to support the "eventuality" of the newly approved but not yet built plant in my area. The vast majority of the forest near me is maintained as APR lots... not suitable for the type of culling that i've already seen.


Again. NOT WORTH IT.

[kristopher]

30. Would you like to review the draft Environmental Assessment?

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=76222351546264&setlang=en-US&w=8a09dc76,597de716

This is the google cache page, there is a link to download report at the top.

Basically it looks like there are three separate burning facilities; a 19MW turbine and two furnaces to boil water for steam heat in the facility (which is DOE's Savannah River Nuclear Processing Site). The snip below is just for the facility generating electricity.

Clean biomass would make up 70-100 percent of the fuel source for the cogeneration plant. Up to 400,000 tons a year of biomass, depending primarily on the moisture content of the wood, would be processed in the proposed plant. The clean biomass would consist of: • Forest Logging Residues : Material not typically harvested or removed from logging sites in commercial hardwood and softwood operations as well as material resulting from forest management operations such as precommercial thinning and removal of dead and dying trees and in reduction of hazardous wildland fire fuels; • Low-Value Forest Products : Typically small trees and top wood, and defective or deformed trees normally used for pulp and composite material manufacturing, but usually of such low value as to make their cost for transportation marginal; • Wood Waste Residues : Bark and woody materials that are generated in primary wood-using mills when roundwood products are converted to other products. Examples are slabs, edgings, trimmings, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, pulp screenings, bark residues and other wood waste;

Urban Wood Waste : The portion of the waste stream that can include discarded wood products, whole trees, pruned branches or stumps generated during street and park maintenance. The primary constituents of urban wood waste are used lumber, trim, shipping pallets, trees, branches, and other wood debris from construction and demolition clearing and grubbing activities. BDF would make up to 30 percent of the heat input source for the cogeneration plant. The BDF would consist of tire-derived fuel (TDF) coming from scrap tires brought to transfer stations and to landfills. The maximum permitted amount of BDF processed in the proposed facility would be approximately 1.1 million British thermal units (mbtu) /year or 43,000 tons of tires/year. Additionally, each biomass boiler would be capable of burning fuel oil in the event the biomass feed system fails. As fuel oil is used, the biomass consumption would decrease. Five percent of the fuel input for the proposed cogeneration plant could be fuel oil. This consumption would vary, as it would be a backup fuel only. The delivery trucks would enter SRS using a primary road to the plant entrance and a deceleration lane would be added for trucks to enter the biomass plant as part of this project. Once on site, the trucks would be unloaded using a truck dumper. The trucks would exit behind the plant where a new traffic light would be installed. The current graveled road would be paved to support the biomass truck deliveries. Peak truck traffic would be 7 to 8 trucks an hour 5 days a week, 8 hour operation. A fire suppression system would be part of the cogeneration fuel storage area.

[druidity33]

38. mmm... that sounds delicious.

"The BDF would consist of tire-derived fuel (TDF) coming from scrap tires brought to transfer stations and to landfills. The maximum permitted amount of BDF processed in the proposed facility would be approximately 1.1 million British thermal units (mbtu) /year or 43,000 tons of tires/year. Additionally, each biomass boiler would be capable of burning fuel oil in the event the biomass feed system fails."


oh, and this part is great too!


"Peak truck traffic would be 7 to 8 trucks an hour 5 days a week, 8 hour operation."


And that's just from your quote.


All for 17MW and two "heat generating facilities".

Is this the facility that will cost $800 million dollars?


Oh and this, btw, is from the Agency that says its ok to do mountaintop removal mining....

[kristopher]

39. You're barking at the wrong bird...

I tend to fall more on your side, but at the same time I want all of our waste streams harnessed when appropriate. The issue is really one of management, not technology. Waste wood products should be utilized, but we shouldn't cut down our forests for fuel. Desiring to absolutely ban biomass burning is not a tenable position since it makes great sense when done properly. Gearing it as "an industry" to burn biomass as a major component of our energy solution is also an untenable position since it would require more fuel than can be sustainably produced.

When biomass and biofuels are talked about as being able to meet our heavy hauling needs, the emphasis isn't on technologies such as that in the OP, rather it is focused on things like algae farming and bioengineering - things that are still in the laboratory or the field testing phase.

[Fledermaus]

35. Gosh! Ok, here are some facts provided by the U.S. Forest Service

This is the growth to removal for the area of the original post. Same story. More growth than removal
You cant claim biomass produces more CO2 when at the end of the year there is more forest than when you started.

The growth to removal ratio for these states and region.

http://www.appalachianhardwood.info/

[Fotoware58]

37. Forest Service annual growth

img src=

More stats showing the differences between harvesting, mortality and green forest growth.

[JohnWxy]

41. Fuel description from Env Assessmnt:

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=76222351546264&setlang=en-US&w=8a09dc76,597de716


Clean biomass would make up 70-100 percent of the fuel source for the cogeneration plant. Up to 400,000 tons a year of biomass, depending primarily on the moisture content of the wood, would be processed in the proposed plant. The clean biomass would consist of:

• Forest Logging Residues : Material not typically harvested or removed from logging sites in commercial hardwood and softwood operations as well as material resulting from forest management operations such as precommercial thinning and removal of dead and dying trees and in reduction of hazardous wildland fire fuels;

• Low-Value Forest Products : Typically small trees and top wood, and defective or deformed trees normally used for pulp and composite material manufacturing, but usually of such low value as to make their cost for transportation marginal;

• Wood Waste Residues : Bark and woody materials that are generated in primary wood-using mills when roundwood products are converted to other products. Examples are slabs, edgings, trimmings, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, pulp screenings, bark residues and other wood waste; DRAFT 6 DRAFT

• Urban Wood Waste : The portion of the waste stream that can include discarded wood products, whole trees, pruned branches or stumps generated during street and park maintenance. The primary constituents of urban wood waste are used lumber, trim, shipping pallets, trees, branches, and other wood debris from construction and demolition clearing and grubbing activities

[kristopher]

40. Aside from the fact that those numbers tell us nothing of the future

They also tell us little about what is actually happening now. Without knowing the specific resources being harvested and what those harvests contribute to biomass burning, you cannot connect those stats with the current discussion.

[Fotoware58]

42. On the contrary!

They speak volumes about the current state of the Forest Service! Additions to inventory have increased at tremendous rates, and that surely includes sub-merchantable biomass trees as well. Much of that increased inventory is in the form of plantation trees from the near-elimination of clearcutting in our National Forests. Biomass used to be violently bulldozed and piled after taking all those merchantable trees out, then burned in the cutting unit. Today, in our modern surgical style of thinnings, much of that biomass is currently cut and removed to the landing and burned, because there is not much of a market for biomass, especially here in California. Generally, the existing biomass plants here get their feedstock VERY cheaply, only having to pay for the transportation costs of agricultural wastes. Trees above 9-10" dbh are merchantable trees that boards can be made out of and old growth is strictly off-limits.

What we DO know about the future is that mega-firestorms WILL continue, as tree densities have reached a critical mass. Tree densities in some areas are 1000-fold above the pioneer days. This is documented fact, both in historical records and even pioneer sketches! The future also tells us that the Obama Administration will NOT change their policy of forest management. The solutions put forth by the best scientific minds in American forestry are just too progressive and politically-unpalatable to Obama's advisors and campaign contributors. Hey, it took almost 6 months to get a new Chief of the Forest Service. They haven't even selected a replacement for Mark Rey's old job, who oversees the Forest Service in the USDA. That just shows you how committed they are to adressing this current disaster that dwarfs Katrina, in size and scope. It remains to be seen if the death toll will eclipse that mess but, the disaster rolls on over a MUCH wider area than Katrina. More than 200 died in Australian fires because the government didn't react to huge fuel loadings. 12 people died last year in wildfires. How many will die this year? My own Uncle passed away from the Cedar Fire's smoke in suburban San Diego.

The truth is that you cannot control firestorms without controlling the fuels. All the high tech firefighting equipment in the world cannot stand in front of a 200 foot flame front. Entire towns are at risk and people's lives ARE in jeopardy. The graph is VERY significant in showing just how much extra fuels are now in our forests, compared to just a few decades ago. How much more is there since Lewis and Clark?!? We ARE already approaching the record pace this year of 10 million acres burned and firefighting costs have again skyrocketed. The resource losses are ten times more than the suppression costs!! Firestorms are NOT natural for American forests, especially in ponderosa pine and other temperate forests. Flammable lodgepole forests have expanded well beyond their historical range. Free range fire IS the enemy!!

America MUST stop embracing catastrophic wildfires!! Biomass can mitigate them, if used properly, like you said.

Where is the Precautionary Principle when you need it?!?!?

[kristopher]

46. Please get down off your high horse.

Your view on forestry management (whether right or wrong is irrelevant) is NOT the complete set of information needed to establish the viability of biomass as a *significant* source of energy for this nation. We got your message that there is lots of waste in the forests to harvest. However, the previous numbers do not establish the amount of this waste as a number we can reference; they do not give a perspective on the amount that would be needed to meet X percentage of our energy needs; nor do they clarify the trend overall towards growth in waste vs growth in harvest of waste in the regions listed. In short they tell us nothing that we need to know.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your knowledge and your willingness to share it, but every energy source is a trade off of costs and benefits. Far from being too few options we actually have a very large number of competing technologies all offering their own bundle of good/bad factors that have to be considered as we restructure our energy landscape. I take you at your word on the risks associated with failure to manage our forestry resources, but you leave a gap in the area of scaling the resource to the (energy) problem. Perhaps if you come across statistics on the percentage of waste available from total harvest to meet safety and lumber needs (both currently and under management practices you are advocating) you wouldn't mind posting them so they could be matched to the targets of GHG reduction and energy production.

[Fotoware58]

47. There's more to it

than simply dollars, cents and BTU's. Biomass and board feet are just nice bonuses from sensible and scientific forest management. I've never said that biomass is a cure-all for our energy woes. It is merely a cleaner supplement for our energy woes than many other forms of energy. The benefits of having a forest that survives drought, bark beetles and fires go far beyond the benefits to modern man. We have seen what "letting nature take its course" means in Australia, and more than 200 people gave their lives for that flawed concept. I have to be up on this high horse because of all the other people out there who want to put their own spin on the issues. Otherwise, I am labeled as a "shill for the timber industry" or "just another fucking Freddy", or, even a "tree murderer" or "forest raper". To everyone's credit here, not one has called me any of those, and I thank you.

We ARE still learning and we need to keep our minds open to what it is going to take to keep life on this planet worth living. Personally, I'm hoping for a weird future "trick of physics" that can save us by supplying ultra-cheap, clean boundless energy. Hey, a guy can dream!

[Fotoware58]

3. In actuality...

I've done extensive tree inventory work in the Sumter National Forest and there is certainly no lack of plantation trees there. Old cotton fields were replanted with loblolly pines and they definitely have grown pretty thick there. Riparian areas will probably not be touched. Private timberlands around there have a big surplus of plantation trees, as well. AND trees grow EXTREMELY fast there. I measured a tree and cored it to find that this 93 foot tall tree was only 29 years old, and had put on a whopping 3.5 inches of radial growth in the last ten years. There IS lots of restoration work that is needed down there and there is certainly no lack of tree diversity. I counted over 40 different species of hardwood trees in the area.

I don't think the Forest Service will go overboard on this. Private landowners would rather sell off their sawlogs but, they would be much better off thinning their plantations and letting the growth and value go to their overstory for future harvest. Like it or not, clearcutting WILL continue on private lands down there.

[druidity33]

5. Do you think they'll stop

using the Biomass plant when the availability of "scrub" trees is nil?

I concur that selective harvesting and culling "lumber" species in an effort to return to "native" style forests is good. But these plants are HUGE. They can consume a forest in a day. And for what? To put the TV on in a couple hundred homes?



NOT WORTH IT.

[Fotoware58]

8. Forest Service lands

They will never use merchantable sawlog trees as biomass. It IS interesting to see what they will do with all those old pine plantations. Loblolly pines were planted as a monoculture and meant to be harvested when they all become mature. The newest trend is towards re-establishing some areas with the more native longleaf pines, which are one of the most fire-adapted pines around. After the 5-year "grass-stage" they tend to make up for the lost time with even better growth than the loblolly pines. Even the sharpest ecologists will find it difficult to decide what the "native forest" SHOULD be on a particular piece of land down there. With chestnuts still being a question mark, what should be done to restore these forests?? I'm a bit out of my league on this one, with only 8 months of experience in those forests.

If they overbuild their biomass plants, then that is stupidity on their parts.

[druidity33]

11. THEY WILL OVERBUILD

these plants. There are 3 proposed in the state of MA already. They've begun culling in STATE PARK land near me... before the plant is even built. Not Forest Service land. STATE PARK.


Again, i have NO PROBLEM with selective culling. Maybe if every log was FSC certified i'd approve. The folk in my area are getting as close to clearcutting as they possibly can though. Is there any enforcement provision for these companies if they really fuck up the forests? They'll likely just have to pay a pittance fine if they get caught.

I'll say it again.

AND FOR WHAT?

[Fotoware58]

14. Gullible isn't in the dictionary!

If the ultra-liberal Massholes can be hoodwinked by the biomass industry, then , I guess, they deserve to lose their forests.

However, I totally believe you on this. The State Forestry folks have done something to push those crappy plans through, claiming the cuts to be "good for wildlife"!! I know an eco-forester there who butts heads with the state guys over this.

[druidity33]

16. oh, fine then...

but i gotta say, that's just an asshole comment. It's not like people here don't have other issues that weigh heavy on them everyday or anything. Just because something is flying under the radar, we deserve to get "hoodwinked" according to you. Here i am trying to inform the "ultra-liberal" folk here on DU about the dangers of Biomass... and even you guys don't get it/refuse to do the legwork about why it's BAD. I think YOU should lose YOUR forests since you seem to think this whole idea is just fine.

As for the ultra-liberal Massholes... you've never been to Western Mass i take it. Here we have rednecks and farmers. Some of the farmers are ok.

[Fotoware58]

17. Twas a joke, bud

Some of you folks wear the term as a badge of honor, knowing full well how opinionated they are. I learned that from other easterners. Sorry if I offended you but, you really should be monitoring your own government people. Sounds like a referendum might be in order!

Regarding biomass, it CAN be abused but, it can also be a huge part of forest restoration. To some in here, you're going to look like an extremist and no one will take you seriously. I've learned long ago that what may be good in northern Idaho may or may not be good in southern New Mexico. We need to use science to truthfully weigh the benefits and impacts to decide what is good and what is not.

Again, sorry if I offended you.

[druidity33]

18. i do take offense

And none of "my opinionated folks" wear that term as a "badge of honor". It's a term most often used around here by AM radio jocks and their listeners, you know the kind.

I'm also not sure i care "how i look" to people here. My intent in this thread is to disseminate information about the problems with Biomass. I think it would be near impossible to find a good use for Biomass on the scale they are proposing. As for its benefits to reforestation, it seems to me that the only real "benefit" to using Biomass is that you can dispose of "the waste" quicker.

Regional Biomass for Kudzu and other NON-FOREST biomass might be acceptable to me. But it would have to be on a much smaller scale. I'd rather see Biochar become more popular... and if maybe somehow they could create Energy, ACTUALLY reduce emissions and maybe have a usable Compost-like end product, then i would be ok with it. But it does none of that. And the indications thus far (at least in my area) is that the lax rules that will be imposed WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED by the industry. They're ALREADY lying to us just to get the shit approved... do you think it'll stop just because they've started the burn?


Oh and don't mistake seriousness for Extremism, people might not take you seriously...
nonetheless, your apology is accepted. I may be serious, but i'm also gracious.

[JohnWxy]

10. greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by over 100,000 tons

Great news!

"The $795 million project replaces a deteriorating, inefficient coal powerhouse and oil-fired boilers at a savings of approximately $34 million a year in energy and operation and maintenance costs and reduces air emissions, including 100,000 tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions."



Recommended.

[druidity33]

13. this from the builder of the plant

should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

Also keep in mind that this very positive "report" is in the Boston Business Journal a rag that would promote baby slaughter if it was good for Massachusetts.

Where does he get this number? Given that the EPA doesn't figure emissions from Renewable Energy sources, is he even accounting for the emissions that the new plant would spew?


Good to replace the Coal plant though. Just wish it would include regional initiatives. $800 million would buy solar panels for every person that Biomass plant would serve.

just sayin'...

[NickB79]

19. No mention of how many megawatts these plants will generate

I was wondering how much almost $1 billion gets you in the biomass field :shrug:

[kristopher]

21. They are basic thermal plants

They should be comparable to a coal plant in capacity factor and cost to build. I would bet that historically they are, on average, smaller than most coal plants since they usually depend on local feedstock from an industrial process (such as logging and milling).

While biomass has been a steady contributor to the energy supply, scaling it up is something that has to be done carefully. I don't think the technologies are quite there yet to deliver the product in the quantities we need. Not that *you* said this, but pointing to past examples of sustainable biomass plants as a model of how the future will unfold strikes me as extremely naive. It makes me think of the outcome achieved by the loophole allowing the paper companies to reap windfall profits from an unsuspecting congress.

U.S. renewable energy tax credit pays pulp and paper mills to do business as usual

American pulp and paper companies have begun increasing their use of fossil fuels in order to become eligible for a renewable-energy tax credit, while also reaping millions of dollars in tax rebates.

The renewable-energy tax credit in question was originally meant to encourage transport companies to blend fossil fuels with alternative fuels to power their vehicles. However, the provision was amended in 2005 to allow for non-transportation use of the credit, allowing companies using blended fuel for other purposes to apply for the tax credit.

When the global economy sharply declined in 2008, the battered pulp and paper industry discovered the obscure provision and the potential payoff it represented.

Pulp mills turn wood into pulp using a process that produces an energy-rich substance called ‘black liquor’. The toxic by-product used to be dumped into the environment until a process was devised in the 1930s which made use of the substance to power the pulp mills. As the so-called kraft process improved, modern paper mills became largely energy self-sufficient.

Recently, pulp and paper companies in the United States began adding small amounts of diesel to black liquor, in order to take advantage of the government’s tax credit. Although the process would seem to run counter to the purpose of the renewable-energy tax credit, a September 2008 interpretation of the tax code by the Internal Revenue Service paved the way for several companies to adopt the practice.

Among the first...

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/news/us-renewable-energy-tax-credit-pays-pulp-and-paper-mills-do-business-usual

[Fotoware58]

27. Really, though...

I'd LIKE to see biomass plants overbuild and compete for Federal biomass. As long as those profits are ALL put back into forest restoration. (Won't happen in MY life but, it's a worthy goal!) It's clear to me that the trends are for increased bio-energy coming off forests so, why not use this as a mechanism to pay for true forest restoration. Yes, I know that Al Gore thinks that current laws are inadequate to "protect forests" but, why didn't he change them when he had the chance?!? He pretends to know about forest ecology but, time and time again, more knowledgable people leave him stammering and looking clueless. Obama is clearly an urban creature but, he knows enough to keep his mouth shut on ecological issues. However, his clearly slanted advisors and campaign contributors will surely fill his mouth with their own narrow views of "peacefull and serene wilderness, for everyone, everywhere". The reality is very, VERY different!

[druidity33]

23. 50 MW... nt.

[kristopher]

24. Is that number from your experience or is it directly related to the OP?

The OP cites nearly $800 million as the cost, so do you mind if I ask where you got 50MW?

[druidity33]

25. Almost all Biomass plants

run between 30MW and 60MW. I can't remember where i recall reading that this one in particular is for 50MW, but i'm pretty sure that's accurate. The $800 million also includes 2 smaller "heat generation" plants.

:shrug:

[NickB79]

28. 50 MW for $800 million?!?!

That can't be right, can it? It would make the costs of building a new nuclear reactor look like pocket change.

[kristopher]

31. It's actually worse... It is a 19MW facility

The price may have something to do with the fact that it is meant to power DOE's Savannah River Nuclear Processing Site. There are also two additional furnaces that will boil water for steam heat at the facility. Link to the Draft EA at post #30.

[bananas]

33. Two things

Not familiar with this project, but I found two things:
1) It looks like this replaces a 20MW coal plant
2) The $795M seems to include total operating costs over the plant life.

1: Savannah River Site (SRS) Citizens Advisory Board, June 12, 2007 (two years ago)

Larry Snyder, DOE-SR, provided an overview of energy efficiency initiatives at Savannah River Site (SRS).
He began by stating that the largest of these initiatives is the replacement of three aging fossil fueled steam
plants with new, state-of-the-art biomass facilities utilizing waste products from within SRS. These projects
include innovative alternative third party financing. This presentation covers ongoing energy efficiency
initiatives at Savannah River Site, including the replacement of the A-, D-, and K-Area Powerhouses. The
existing A-Area Powerhouse was built in 1953 and currently provides steam to the Savannah River National
Laboratory, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, a few administrative support buildings remaining in A-
Area, and the Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) Project. It contains two 60 Kpph (thousand pounds per
hour) coal fired boilers and costs approximately $4.7 million annually to operate. The existing D-Area
Powerhouse was built in 1953 and currently provides steam to nuclear and industrial activities in F-, H-, and
S-Areas. It is a co-generation facility and makes approximately one half (20 MW) of the Site electrical
demand. It contains four 330 Kpph coal fired boilers and steam production costs approximately $13.0
million annually. The existing K-Area Powerhouse was built in 1992 and currently provides steam to K-
and L-Areas for heating during the four month winter season only. It contains one each 30 Kpph and 60
Kpph oil fired boiler and costs approximately $1.3 million annually to operate.

google cache of pdf
original pdf

2: Ameresco press release, 6/17/2009

Ameresco will finance, design, construct, operate, maintain and fuel the new biomass facilities for the DOE. Under the contract, the DOE will not have to provide any up-front money to fund the energy efficiency and renewable energy project. Ameresco will be reimbursed from the guaranteed energy and operational cost savings generated by the project over the span of the contract.

http://www.ameresco.com/release.asp?ID=188

[kristopher]

34. I thought it might be something like that since it is a federal reservation.

But as far as the fuel goes, it sounds like they are planning on rather eclectic sourcing of their electric fuels.

[NickB79]

43. Wait, they're using a biomass power plant to run a nuclear processing facility?

Talk about irony!

[Fledermaus]

48. No, Ameresco will be paid 800 Million from the energy and operational cost savings generated

Ameresco will finance, design, construct, operate,maintain and fuel the new biomass facilities for the DOE. Under the contract, the DOE will not have to provide any up-front money to fund the energy efficiencyand renewabel energy project.

The project will be primarily fueled with forestry residues that are currently left in the forest to rot when the timber is harvested.

"When completed, the new biomass facilities will reduce energy and water consumption and cut air emmissions dramatically. In the first year alone the energy and operational cost savings alone will be in excess of $34 million.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=115&topic_id=199593&mesg_id=199675