Embedded Files
The Biomass Trifecta
It is unfortunate that governments continue the travesty of classifying woody biomass for energy as a “renewable” source and incentivize it as such. “Renewable Energy” is defined by the U.N. as energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed. Forests, which take decades or centuries to grow, are logged and burned in days and therefore cannot be considered a renewable source of energy. Worse, it impacts us on three major levels:
1) It decimates our forests often beyond possibility to regenerate
Logging keeps our forests artificially young, thereby curtailing their carbon sequestration capacity, in addition to devastating ecosystems, and displacing or killing wildlife. This is affecting the health of our planet and worsens the climate and the mass-extinction crisis. “Renewable Energy” is defined by the U.N. as energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed. Forests, which take decades or centuries to grow, are logged and burned in mere hours and therefore cannot be considered a renewable source of energy. In addition, industrial scale logging involves clear-cuts (often under the cynical misnomer of “regeneration harvests”) which eliminates the natural forest dynamic, and makes these operations far more damaging than wildfires (forests will recover from natural fire which they are adapted to.) The replacement of these vital forest ecosystems with fast-growing monocrop tree plantations which are then logged and burned again, does little -if anything- for our climate and biodiversity.
2) It is less efficient and dirtier than coal
Combustion of woody biomass (biomass derived from trees, a.k.a. wood) releases the CO2 stored – sometimes over centuries- back into the atmosphere, worsens climate change, and eliminates vital sequestration capacity. Today, the biomass industry is aiming to expand across the country which will further accelerate the current climate emergency, biodiversity collapse, and dramatically impact public health. Wood-burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced as calculated by the Partnership for Policy Integrity. On the other hand, a wood pellet burning plant in Britain was just reported to emit four times more carbon than the remaining coal-burning plant. When we include all lifecycle emissions around wood pellet burning plants, we also end up with higher emissions than from fossil fuels. In other words, woody biomass for energy is dirtier than fossil fuels and less efficient.
3) It harms our health, especially underserved communities, and the environment
Burning wood has a very negative impact on public health: the smoke can linger in the atmosphere for weeks and travel thousands of miles - as we saw with the Canada wildfires last year, which triggered hazardous air warnings for their far-reaching health impacts on our lungs, cardiovascular, and immune systems. In addition to CO2, burning wood emits benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, organic gasses (including aldehyde gasses and other respiratory irritants), nitrogen oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dioxin.
Pellet production plants also release toxic PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) during wood preparation, which are known carcinogens. In a recent lawsuit, the Environmental Integrity Project lists hundreds of tons of illegal VOC pollution and dozens of tons of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) per year emitted by pellet manufacturing plants - all of which violate the Clean Air Act.
Biomass has a big impact on public health, especially among underserved and overburdened communities as pellet factories are placed in 'opportunity zones' or areas that have already suffered negative environmental impacts. In addition, forests located around low and middle income communities often are the first to be destroyed, limiting access to shade, moisture, clean water, clean air, clean soils, recreation options, and exacerbating the cumulative impact of climate change on our most vulnerable communities.
The United States is the world's largest producer of pellets: in 2022 alone, the US exported over 8.9 million metric tons of wood pellets, which is more than the next two countries, Vietnam and Canada, combined, Big biomass corporations such as DRAX and Enviva are clearcutting forests across the U.S. and mostly manufacturing pellets for export. You, the unwitting rate-payer, are paying for the incentives through your utility rates while weak elected officials look the other way.
*Sources and additional information are embedded.
Woody Biomass for Energy is NOT CLEAN
The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) unofficial* numbers put wood closest to coal in its emissions. The combustion Wood emits 206.74 pounds CO2 per Million Btu or 93.77 kg CO2 per million Btu. The worst emission accelerating climate change is CO2.
*The numbers are *unofficial* because the EIA is not officially supposed to count emissions of 'woody biomass' since it has been designated a clean source of energy. This is how our elected officials and industry are profiting from polluting our planet and logging our forests.
In fact, according to the Partnership for Policy Integrity, biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced.
In addition to the CO2 emissions from burning the wood, there are emissions from:
Logging: Emissions associated with logging are comparable or higher than that of a wildfire.
Transportation (mainly trucks) of trees to a pellet factory AND of pellets across the globe.
Manufacturing: In a recent lawsuit, the Environmental Integrity Project lists hundreds of tons of illegal VOC pollution and dozens of tons of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) per year emitted by pellet manufacturing plants, all of which violate the Clean Air Act.
In addition to CO2, burning wood emits benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, organic gases (including aldehyde gases and other respiratory irritants), nitrogen oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and dioxin.
We know we need to STOP BURNING STUFF and that includes wood in any form.
The cost of this madness, is paid for by you! The consumer. As the consumer automatically subsidizes 'clean energy' in their utility rate payments, we're inviting and accelerating the industry's destruction of our forests.
Center for Biological Diversity:
“The idea that incinerating trees is good for the environment and public health is utterly absurd. Woody biomass energy is also extremely expensive, and through these ratepayer subsidies, the costs get passed on to consumers.”
Click on any of the organizations below to see their full statement against woody biomass:
Letter to President Biden signed by 150 + scientists:
"Governments must end subsidies and other incentives that today exist for burning wood . (...) Trees are more valuable alive than dead for climate and biodiversity."
BIOMASS AND FOREST ISSUES
Native Forests are presently the largest source of fuel for projects defined as biomass. In keeping with our FOREST POLICY, we oppose all biomass energy generation processes including fuel production which contribute to the destruction of existing forests, including national or native forests as well as remaining old-growth or roadless areas.
Sierra Magazine Article
WHEREAS, these industries,
mostly foreign based, appear to have a pattern of targeting economic deprived states
with lax environmental oversight, then skirting provisions of the Clean Air Act by grossly underestimating the amount of dangerous toxins they will be emitting, thereby avoiding more stringent EPA oversight and investing in installation of the required Best Available Control Technology;...
Partnership for Policy Integrity:
Biomass burning power plants emit 150% the CO2 of coal, and 300 – 400% the CO2 of natural gas, per unit energy produced.
SEC Case study on Enviva: If nothing is done to stop the proliferation of wood-fired power plants, we may look back in 15 years and wonder what the impact on climate might have been if forests had been restored, instead of liquidated for energy. Collectively, there is a very brief time horizon to get this right. Investors have an important role to play in ending over-exploitation of forests for biomass fuel.
Chatham House: US sourced biomass in the UK.
Common myths about woody biomass
"Industry only uses "waste wood'" ~ Unfortunately, industry clear cuts entire forests and uses mature trees.
"Industry replaces logged forests with new ones" ~ Newly afforested plantations are 'tree farms', not self-balancing mature forest ecosystems that benefit air, water, soils, and wildlife. And, they'll take decades to grow.
"Afforested areas/ forested lands are the same as forests"~ afforested lands are 'working forests' or 'forests in conservation.' This means the forest will regularly be 'managed' with techniques such as thinning and logging.
"Young trees are more effective at drawing pollution from the air"~ the bigger the surface area of a tree, the more effective at draw down and sinking carbon into the soils. Therefore mature and old growth forests are key!
"We need to thin the forest to avoid wildfires" ~ Recent data shows that thinning of forests has made some fires hotter & faster; a natural fire will leave a heterogenous pattern and may consume less than 5% of mature trees. Finding the best balance for each geography and forest type is key.
"All forests need to be managed"~ integral ecosystems will self-balance even if it there are more frequent fires and storms with climate change. Forest management is key in already disturbed forested lands such as tree farms, wildland-urban-interface (WUI), and new tree plantings.
Woody Biomass for Energy is NOT RENEWABLE
The latest messaging by the industry states that a growing demand for woody biomass for energy will ensure that we plant more trees and faster, thereby increasing forest cover. New afforestation is not comparable to a forest- it's a tree plantation or a tree farm. And if all we'll be doing is log those trees in 40-80 years, and burn them, we're missing the point. Scientists call this a disaster: we need mature trees and integral forest ecosystems for forest resiliency during climate change, for biodiversity, and draw down.
1) We are planting 1 trillion trees worldwide with the hope to fend off the worst effects of climate change - not to bolster a polluting industry, which emits all the CO2 stored in a tree over decades or centuries, and more, back into the atmosphere.
2) Planting seedlings does not replace decades-old trees or centuries-old forests. It will take these seedlings decades to grow into the most effective tools for draw down and centuries to become integral self-balancing ecosystems. The best we can do right now, as recommended by the IPCC, is to preserve our old growth and mature forests intact. Any work we do on these forests should be to expand them to maximize draw down and connect them so that wildlife stands a chance.
3) Tree farms are not forests - a monocrop culture that is sprayed, managed, and eventually logged, simply destroys our soils. When these trees are burned, any stored pollutions is re-released.
4) Logging disturbs the soil carbon and mycorrhizal networks releasing 'soil-c' (soil stored carbon) which can be up to 70% of all stored carbon in a forest.
Page updated
Report abuse