BIOMASS ENERGY: ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS AND EMERGING REGULATION
Mary S. Booth, PhD
Partnership for Policy Integrity
www.pfpi.net
KIUC Energy Conference, Lexington, KY
March 13, 2014
“BIOMASS ENERGY”
– Combustion of wood and other biological materials to
produce steam and generate heat and power; or
gasification of fuel to drive a turbine.
– Combustion at “direct-fired” plants or as co-firing with
coal
– “Biomass” = wood. Few facilities using agricultural
residues or energy crops
– Considered “renewable energy”: eligible for same
incentives and subsidies as wind and solar power.
– Has been considered “carbon neutral” – now changing
2
OUTLINE
• Biomass power plants emit more CO2 and key
“conventional” pollutants than fossil-fueled
plants
• New policies and regulatory decisions
recognize these impacts
3
WOOD-FUELED BIOPOWER
AND ITS EMISSIONS
4
McNeil Power Plant,
Burlington,Vermont
Photo: Chris Matera, Massachusetts Forest Watch
5
PROPOSED ECOPOWER PLANT, HAZARD
• ~58 MW gross; likely less than 52 MW net
(parasitic load)
• 745 MMBtu boiler
• Air cooled, low-efficiency
• Will harvest trees for fuel
• “Synthetic minor” source under Clean Air Act:
allowable particulate matter emissions 2x
greater than coal; no air quality modeling; no
short term emissions limits
6
ECOPOWER WEBSITE
7
BIOMASS POWER EMITS MORE CO2 PER MWH
THAN COAL OR GAS
Fuel CO2 per
heat content
Facility
(lb/mmbtu) efficiency
Fuel mmbtu
required to
generate 1 MWh
Lb CO2/MWh
Gas combined cycle
117.1
0.45
7.54
883
Gas steam turbine
117.1
0.33
10.40
1,218
Coal steam turbine
205.6
0.34
10.15
2,086
213
0.24
14.22
3,029
Biomass steam turbine
A biomass plant emits
~150% the CO2 of a coal plant
~250% the CO2 of a gas plant
~ 340% the CO2 of a combined cycle plant
lb CO2 emitted per MWh
Gas CC
Gas ST
Coal ST
Fuel CO2 per heat content data are from EIA. Efficiency for fossil
fuel facilities calculated using EIA heat rate data
(http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p4.html); biomass Biomass ST
efficiency value is common value for utility-scale facilities.
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
8
BIOPOWER AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ARE
GREATER THAN COAL OR GAS
1.80
COAL: Santee Cooper Pee Dee Generating Station, SC
Pounds per megawatt-hour
1.60
BIOMASS: Gainesville Renewable Energy, FL
1.40
GAS: Pioneer Valley Energy Center, MA
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides
Filterable PM10
Sulfur dioxide
Volatile organic
compounds
9
BIOMASS ENERGY IS OPPOSED BY HEALTH
ORGANIZATIONS
Massachusetts Medical Society resolution: (December, 2009)
• “biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the
public’s health by increasing air pollution”
American Lung Association Energy Policy: (June 11, 2011)
• The American Lung Association does not support biomass
combustion for electricity production, a category that includes
wood, wood products, agricultural residues or forest wastes, and
potentially highly toxic feedstocks, such as construction and
demolition waste.
• The American Lung Association strongly opposes the
combustion of wood and other biomass sources at schools
and institutions with vulnerable populations.
10
WHY HAS BIOMASS ENERGY BEEN TREATED AS
“CARBON NEUTRAL”?
– The “waste” argument: Materials burned are
waste and would decompose and emit CO2 anyway
– The “resequestration” argument: Ongoing or
future forest growth re-sequesters carbon that’s
released by burning.
• Bioenergy “offsetting”
Neither argument acknowledges time-lag
between burning biomass and offsetting
emissions.
11
SIMPLISTIC EXPLANATION
• “Carbon in biomass is part of the natural
carbon cycle” - versus fossil fuels.
• But again: timing matters
12
WHERE’S THE CARBON?
Less stack CO2
More stack CO2
Fossil fuel scenario
More forest
biomass
Biopower scenario
Less forest
biomass
Time
NET BIOPOWER NET CO2 EMISSIONS EXCEED
EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS FOR DECADES
Natural gas (stack
emissions only)
CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS
Trees that otherwise
continue growing
“Waste” wood that would
decompose anyway
Slash that would be
burned in the woods
10
20
30
40
50
YEARS
60
70
80
90
14
ECOPOWER WILL BURN WHOLE TREES
FOR FUEL
“Within a 55-mile radius of the Project, there are
more than 400,000 green tons of mill residuals and
over 67 million green tons of standing low-grade
wood with a growth rate of over 1 million green tons
annually.”
15
60-MILE FUEL-SOURCING RADIUS
16
BIOMASS HARVESTING THREATENS FORESTS AND
BIODIVERSITY
NEW REGULATORY AND
POLICY DEVELOPMENTS FOR
BIOENERGY
18
EPA’S “DEFERRAL” FOR COUNTING
BIOENERGY CO2 UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
DEEMED UNLAWFUL
• U.S. Court of Appeals: EPA should not
exclude bioenergy CO2 emissions from
counting toward Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) triggering threshold
19
FUTURE REGULATION OF BIOMASS CO2
UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT?
• Science Advisory Board: “Bioenergy is not a
priori carbon neutral”
• July, 2014: Bioenergy exemption ends
20
EPA’S POWER PLANT RULE FOR CO2
Suggests standards may be set for bioenergy CO2
eventually:
“the overall net atmospheric loading of CO2 resulting
from the use of a biogenic feedstock by a stationary
source will ultimately depend on the stationary source
process and the type of feedstock used, as well as the
conditions under which that feedstock is grown and
harvested.”
Again – bioenergy not automatically carbon
neutral
MASSACHUSETTS RULES ELIMINATE LARGESCALE BIOMASS POWER FROM RPS
Efficiency
 50% efficiency to qualify for ½ REC/MWh (60% for full REC)
GHG emissions accounting
 Framework accounts for carbon debt of whole tree harvesting
 Requires 50% reduction in GHGs over 20 yrs compared to
combined cycle natural gas facility
Harvesting standards
 Allowable removals depend on soil conditions
 Protects old growth, slopes, downed woody material
 Requires harvest plans
Other states have similar plans to restrict
biopower eligibility for RPS: MD, DC
VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD DENIES BIOMASS
PLANT “CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC GOOD” BASED ON
CO2 EMISSIONS
• “the Project would release as much as 448,714 tons
of CO2e per year, and that sequestration of those
greenhouse gases would not occur until future years,
possibly not for decades, and would not occur at all in
the case of forest-regeneration failures. This annual
level of greenhouse gas emissions is a significant
burden to be weighed in determining whether the
Project would promote the general good.”
• Plant will interfere with ability of state to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
23
INVESTOR COMPLAINT LETTER TO SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON BIOENERGY
“GREENWASHING”
• Signed by investors with over $100b in assets
• Calls out “carbon neutral” claims and other
misrepresentations by Dominion, Southern
Company, Covanta
• Shareholder resolution on ballot at Dominion,
calling for study of bioenergy climate and
investment risks
24
Mary S. Booth
mbooth@pfpi.net