Biomass Blues

Posted on September 7, 2011 by Tara Holmes

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s stance on biomass has recently changed its tune from one of skepticism to one of acceptance as a state-wide “clean” energy policy. Why the sudden switch? State environmental groups, the same groups who helped lobby to get him into office, are wondering the same thing and are now turning against Patrick’s newfound position at large.

According to a recent article in the Boston Phoenix, the Patrick administration will release a document in the next few weeks that will contain the final regulations for the state’s biomass subsidies. According to environmental groups, the Administration is planning to reverse its original position as a nod towards a handful of developers who stand to make money off of biomass production.

These regulations will come at the expense of ordinary electricity-utility ratepayers who will be forced to pay extra to subsidize a practice that negatively impacts the environment and opens the way for clear-cutting of forests and increased carbon emission (carbon emissions from biomass are particularly concentrated).

Susan Reid, vice-president and director of the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) of Massachusetts stated that, “It is deeply troubling that the Patrick administration would jettison good policy and good science.” James McCaffrey, director of the Massachusetts Sierra Club stated: “We will be very disappointed and very upset” if the Administration doesn’t reverse course. “It is going to indicate that the industry had a real hand in weakening these regulations.”

In an effort to determine whether biomass was as dirty as projected, the Administration commissioned the so-called “Manomet Report.” The study cast serious doubt on whether woody biomass is clean at all. Based on the Manomet Report (pdf), the Administration issued a letter to draw up regulations allowing woody biomass to qualify for subsidies only if it met certain efficiency standards. These regulations are the very regulations environmental groups are waiting anxiously for this fall.

In addition to state-wide policy, biomass has created tension throughout municipalities and local townships. In Greenfield, for example, many homeowners have placed anti-biomass signs on their lawns as western Mass will face the brunt of production given the vast natural resources that exist in that region of the state.

While the struggle for a clean energy economy continues to envelop both Massachusetts and national politics, the debate over biomass remains clear: do state residents wish to see increased clear cutting across the state in return for dirty energy? In a world that is faced with the daunting impacts of climate change, perhaps we should instead focus our policy efforts on coupling energy efficiency efforts with renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal. Trees act as carbon sinks absorbing excess carbon out of the atmosphere; going forward, it would be wise policy to instead preserve as many carbon sinks as possible.

Mass Renewables Redux

Posted on July 21, 2010 by JPierce

This time last year we reported that a state law requiring heating oil to contain a paltry 2% biodiesel was finally being enforced. Alas, once again, implementation has been delayed.

Although Cape Wind gets most of the press, it is not the only contentious wind project in the Bay State. Last week the SJC ruled that a planned project in Western Mass. was legitimately permitted and could proceed.

Finally, the state has also announced that it will be reviewing emissions regulations for biomass-fueled power plants. Variously characterized as perplexing, raising the bar, and a win for biomass opponents

King Corn, 1st in Environmental Film Series

Posted on June 24, 2010 by JesseGorden

Several Boston/Cambridge groups have collectively organized an open-ended Environmental Film series, the kick-off of which was this past Tuesday, at Cambridge’s Main Library. The second film in the series, Kilowatt Ours, will be shown on July 29th in the same location: Bottom floor (L2), Cambridge Main Library, 449 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02138-4191 at 6:30pm. Another (yet to be selected) film will be shown on August 19th, so save this date!

The first documentary “King Corn” was shown at 6:30 and light refreshments were served afterward.

This film follows two young men who, after finding corn molecules in strands of their hair, trace their genealogical footsteps back to their Iowan homeland and learn that the land their ancestors once farmed is covered in corn. Not just corn, but a variety of corn that can’t even be eaten.

To fully understand today’s agriculture system, the two guys arrange to purchase and register one acre of land, on which they go through all of the expected farming measures to create maximum yield. While their 31,000 seeds are growing into full-sized high-yield cornstock, these gentlemen explore what happens to the starchy corn they are now growing once it leaves their farm. The corn is used several ways, none of them direct human consumption. Cows on beef farms are fed with it, some of it is exported or used for ethanol, and a vast amount of it goes into becoming a sweetener—high fructose corn syrup. They go on to find that the corn in their hair came not necessarily (and certainly not solely) from eating actual corn, but from everything else they were consuming, including products like beef, bread, soda, chicken, french fries, and spaghetti sauces. This is a timely film that takes a hard look at the farming industry in the US today, the use of our bread basket for something we can’t eat, the beef industry, and the ubiquity of corn syrup in today’s society, among other significant topics.

Some eye-opening facts mentioned in this film:

The type of corn grown all over Iowa today is bred to be starchy, and to tolerate close planting- resulting in almost 10,000 pounds of corn being produced on each acre, and none of it edible.
More than half of the corn crop goes into feed for animals, mainly cows (i.e. beef farms).
From the movie:
- The meat that we eat in this day and age is produced in a feed lot.
- It’s grain-fed meat, and we produce a characteristically obese animal, animals whose muscle tissue looks more like fat tissue than it does lean meat in wild animals.
- …if you look at a T-bone steak from a grain-fed cow, it may have as much as 9 grams of saturated fat; whereas a comparable steak from a grass-fed animal would have 1.3 grams of saturated fat.
Meat cows that are not butchered within two years on this diet will die from the acidosis the corn causes.
70% of the antiobiotics used in the U.S. are those given to livestock- a large portion of which are for beef to fight off the acidosis.
The corn a farmer produces cannot sustain him- he will always come out with a deficit when comparing produce value to the cost of production. The reason they stay afloat (if they do) is because of government subsidies.
The over-production of corn in the U.S. is looked on by some as a plus- an asset. The roots of this lie with the history of farming, and the portion of income it used to take to feed a family.
Corn syrup is in everything from kool-aid (as expected) to spaghetti sauces and breads (for “browning qualities”–less expected). [Challenge yourself to find items in your home that do NOT have corn syrup- you will be surprised- only two portions of our after-film refreshments did not have corn syrup!]

As you may have grasped, I highly recommend seeing this documentary, and sharing it with everyone you know. The film is not only highly informative in an easy to comprehend way, but it has got a strong vein of humor woven throughout the eye-opening footage. Here’s the trailer:

Burning breakfasts for bus fuel

Posted on June 18, 2010 by JPierce

Although the specifics may have since changed, this chart from Bio Hope, Bio Hype in the September 2007 issue of the Sierra Club’s magazine provides a nice overview of the major biofuel options.

What about moving Beyond the Corn Field: Balancing Fuel, Food and Biodiversity? After all, if there’s one thing that thing that our reliance on fossilized sunlight has taught us, it’s that that there should be room for every fuel that makes ecological (and economic) sense. Indeed, there are a number of exotic fuel feedstocks you are probably not yet familiar with. Indeed, on Earth Day the Navy tested a bio-blend jet fuel made from 50% German sesame seed oil. What of the much touted cellulosic ethanol? An alternative to the use of sugary food crops, or the relatively low-yield plant-based oils. In February University of Wisconsin researchers published a paper with details about a mechanism for efficiently converting an intermediate product that may be derived from sugar or cellulose into a high-grade liquid fuel.

Despite these and other advancements, more evidence is coming to light that biofuels are not without ecological costs including biodiversity as linked above, and soil degradation. In the end, it will be a balancing act, with conservation and efficiency offering the highest yield.

While not specifically about biofuels, the agri-business exposé King Corn is being shown at the Main Library next Tuesday evening; it has its detractors though.

Need to Know: It’s not impossible to ween ourselves off of coal & oil

Posted on June 12, 2010 by JPierce

PBS’ new weekly news magazine—Need to Know—has been covering some interesting stories. The fifth episode aired last week, and included the piece below on the Danish isle of Samso’s effective elimination of fossil fuels within the past decade. FYI: rapeseed is what most of the planet calls canola, and the Danish subsidies for wind appear to be less than those in the U.S. ¹.

They’ve also had some compelling coverage of the gulf spoil including Big Oil’s Chernobyl and A chance encounter on the Gulf Coast with a BP engineer

^{1. Wind is subsidized at 30% of capital cost in Denmark. Ignoring any state incentives, there is a 2.2¢/kWh federal tax-credit. At typical costs and an average operating capacity of 50%, this amounts to a subsidy of up to: 2.2¢/kWh × 10yr × 8,760 hr/yr × 50% × 2.5MW × 1,000 kW/MW ÷ 100¢/$ = $2.4 million / $3.5 million = 68% (not accounting for erosion by inflation)}

Remember the rainforest?

Posted on February 19, 2010 by JPierce

The poster child of human environmental destruction in the 90’s is still imperiled, even if the focus has shifted to global warming. Of course the two are intimately related, and besides the forests’ huge impacts on local watersheds—effectively creating their own rain—the forests’ trees and soils obviously have a major impact on the carbon cycle. Still, the onslaught upon the lungs of the world is not only unrelenting but expanding. Continue reading →

Tobacco powered trucks?

Posted on January 13, 2010 by JPierce

On their face, biofuels seem like a pretty good idea: carbon dioxide and sunlight in, carbon dioxide and energy out. Certainly some hobbyists manage to recover waste grease for use in diesel engines, but commercially the field has been dominated by the fermentation of sugars from food crops into ethanol. Unfortunately, due to the large petro-chemical inputs often employed it is unclear whether the result is a net gain. In addition, much attention has been given to the competing interests of fuel vs. food (vs. land conservation).

There is hope that research into the production of cellulosic ethanol, or alcohol from plant fibers, could soon tip the balance decidedly in favor of biofuels. One could use agricultural waste or fast-growing special cover crops however, this material should arguably be composted back into the fields… But what if you could make use of existing knowledge and agricultural land; instead of converting forest into sugarcane fields, or farming prairie? Perhaps even provide a competing market for an otherwise dubious product? This may be possible if research into genetically modified tobacco proves to be fruitful. These plants do not contain pesticide-producing or herbicide-resistance genes. Instead, scientists are working on ways to make the leaves of the plant express existing genes and produce more oil for use in fuel production.

BioFuels for your Home-Part II

Posted on July 17, 2009 by Anthony Butler

Last week, Warm Home Cool Planet received a phone call from Dr. Jesse Reich, CEO of Baystate BioFuels, whose company was recently profiled on NECN and on the pages of Warm Home Cool Planet. He provided us with some numbers on the use of BioFuels in the home that will be of interest to anyone who heats their home with oil and wants to reduce their use of non-renewable resources and the amount of CO₂ released into the atmosphere.

The average home uses approximately 730 gallons of heating oil each year-and each gallon of Number 2 home heating oil releases 22 lbs of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Pure Biodiesel reduces the CO₂ generated by approximately 85%. As mentioned previously, Massachusetts law now mandates each load of home heating oil contains 2% of biodiesel, which reduces the amount of CO₂ released into the environment by an average of 275 lbs per house this year, and an additional 135 lbs each year the Biofuel blend is raised by an additional percentage point.

Most home furnaces, however, can accomodate a 20% biofuel blend in the oil tank. Each home that uses this B:20 blend will reduce the CO₂ emitted by over 2750 lbs a year. Multiply that by the millions of homes in the New England area heated with oil and you’re talking about a truly significant reduction in greenhouse gases.

To get the B:20 Biofuel Blend for your home, contact your heating oil supplier. If you want to know more about BioFuels and their role in reducing greenhouse gases, click here.

Your heating oil now contains biofuel. It’s the law

Posted on July 3, 2009 by Anthony Butler

It’s a little known fact that this winter will be the first in which Massachusetts requires home heating oil to include at least 2% biofuels, rising 1 percentage point each year until it reaches 5% in 2012. In 2009, that creates a 24 million gallon demand, and Baystate Biofuels is here to fill it.

The company has taken over the disused tanks at an old Western Telecom building in North Andover and it plans to utilize solar power Osgood Landing had previously installed on the site, and Baystate Biofuels will tap into excess steam from a nearby waste-to-energy incinerator to heat the tanks to lower the viscosity of the pure biodiesel.

Warm Home Cool Planet is checking on whether Baystate will be delivering to Cambridge this winter. In the meantime, check out the video above. More on this soon.

7.2 Megawatts of Energy. We’ll drink to that.

Posted on January 21, 2009 by Anthony Butler

Scotch drinkers who care for the climate will soon relish their tipple in the knowledge it is providing clean renewable power in the home of whisky.

Helius Energy Plc said on Wednesday it and the Combination of Rothes Distillers Ltd would build the plant, which would use distillery by-products and wood chips to generate 7.2 megawatts of electricity, enough for about 9,000 homes, and heat.

“Not only will it generate renewable heat and power, but it secures additional markets for our distillery co-products,” said Frank Burns, general manager of the Combination of Rothes, which includes the Edrington Group–the producer of The Famous Grouse and Cutty Sark–Chivas Brothers, producer of Chivas Regal.

Warm Home Cool Planet

Sustainability begins at home

Category Archives: Biofuels