New Mexico Biomass Blog

An interesting hypothesis by a New Mexico scientist (reported today in the ABQJournal):

New Mexico Tech scientist Oliver Wingenter believes he has found a way to head off dangerous climate change. Experiments during the last five years have convinced him and his colleagues that they’ve found a way to increase cloud cover over Earth’s oceans, offsetting some global warming…. The idea is simple. Plankton growing in the ocean emits a gas called dimethyl sulfide, or DMS. DMS, once it gets up into the atmosphere, helps spur cloud formation. Fertilizing the ocean so more plankton grow could lead to more DMS, Wingenter and a pair of colleagues argue in a paper published last month in the scientific journal Atmospheric Environment. That could lead to cloud formation, cooling the planet and offsetting some of the global warming caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases, they wrote.

John Weckerle of Edgewood tells it like it is. Western Water and Power signed on to the 18 principles of forest restoration, of which the Forest Guardians were party, but which the Forest Guardians since reneged without explanation.

AS THE DATE for the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) hearing on the proposed Estancia biomass plant air permit approaches, it is interesting to observe the flood of hyperbole and inaccuracy that continues to typify the debate on this issue. A typical example can be seen in some of the discussion in the recent Albuquerque Journal guest editorial by Bryan Bird of Forest Guardians. Echoing similar pieces both by Mr. Bird and other opponents of the project, the editorial paints a grim— and almost completely inaccurate— picture of biomass plants in general and this project in particular.

 

Mr. Bird’s depiction of the project appears based on one fatally flawed premise: that the associated thinning activities would be conducted without appropriate guidelines, limitations and oversight. Mr. Bird knows better. The New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles were developed in response to concerns associated with biomass-related thinning projects.

 

According to the U.S. Forest Service Web site, “The New Mexico Biomass Evaluation Task Force announced the publication of 18 principles for the design and implementation of forest restoration projects that would produce small-diameter wood used to fuel biomass power plants and other wood utilizing facilities.” Among the 13 participating entities were the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the N.M. State Forestry Office and the N.M. State Land Office— agencies which, collectively, would be expected to oversee the thinning efforts. Other participants included PNM, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Forest Guild, the Center for Biological Diversity, Restoration Solutions and— perhaps most significantly— Forest Guardians, represented by Mr. Bird.

 

The resulting principles, according to multiple sources including the Forest Guardians Web site, “represent the ‘zone of agreement’ where controversy, delays, appeals and litigation are significantly reduced.” Since Forest Guardians was part of the development of these principles, which WWPP has publicly adopted, there should be little concern that associated thinning projects would be conducted irresponsibly, that forests would be clear-cut, that old-growth trees would be harvested or that forests would be “mined” beyond the point of sustainability.

 

Arguments that WWPP has not completed a plan for thinning ring hollow given the fact that formal requirements for commercial use of piñon and juniper have not yet been promulgated, a situation not mentioned by project opponents. It would seem to make little sense to complete a plan before the regulations are in place.

 

It is hard to believe that Forest Guardians is naíve enough to believe that “the answers will point directly to solar and wind as the only viable, long-term solutions currently available,” as stated in Mr. Bird’s recent editorial. Solar and wind interests realize that, while these may be the most renewable energy sources, problems exist with respect to their ability to provide uninterrupted power. That is the reason that the renewable energy portfolio must include other sources that can produce power at night, or when the wind is not blowing.

 

Another potential exaggeration involves the plant’s water use. The plant will purchase water from existing water rights owners in the area. Given the plant’s location, these would likely be agricultural interests. Since the water would be “diverted” from agricultural to consumptive use, the allowable pumping associated with the given water rights would likely be reduced by roughly half of the amount allowed for agricultural use. The approximately 450 acre-feet per year for which WWPP has applied may also be offset by recycling processes associated with the adjacent greenhouse, with as much as 50 percent reduction in evaporated water should the greenhouse operation expand, according to WWPP.

 

Air emissions from the plant are projected to be well within the regulatory limits promulgated to protect the public health. Project opponents make much ado over the fact that emissions are measured in tons per year, but this is common practice, and the quantities here are not “huge” when compared with many other operations (energy and otherwise) operating legally throughout the U.S. Other claims that the plant will cause acid rain, that it will emit more pollutants than forest fires, and that biomass plants are nearly as polluting as coal plants are similarly without merit.

 

It should be noted that, while the opponents of this plant have not hesitated to raise the specter of air quality degradation, they have yet to provide any real-world examples to back up their position that the plant will harm air quality in the Estancia Valley.

 

It is disappointing to see that the opponents of this project seem so willing to resort to exaggeration, incomplete information, misquoting of legitimate studies, personal attacks, and in some cases apparently outright embellishment to mount their opposition. Forest Guardians’ opposition is especially disappointing, given the fact that this project is intended to work within the guidelines they helped to create. Regardless, the upcoming EIB meeting is intended to resolve one issue and one issue only: whether or not the air permit for the project should be issued.

 

It can only be hoped that it will not be allowed to turn into yet another referendum on the benefits or detriments of forest thinning projects or projected water use, issues that are appropriately resolved in other contexts. Perhaps we may also hope that future discourse can be conducted without the inaccuracies, aspersions and personal rancor we have seen in discussions to date.

 

JOHN WECKERLE, Edgewood

 It’s time for our weekly installment of biomass guitar. Whatever you think of biomass, whatever you think of Western Water and Power, whatever you think of the alternative energy revolution, buy this chap’s CD… for he is good. Have a great weekend to all our readers!

Much of the debate over Western Water and Power’s proposed biomass facility to be built just south of Estancia has centered around the plant’s emissions, and how they may impact the air quality in and around Estancia and throughout the Estancia Valley. Opponents have publicized numbers that have been  occasionally accurate and often not, but in virtually every case grossly out of context, in hopes of alarming the public and government officials alike. Sure, any level of pollution expressed in ‘tons’ may sound like a lot, and may sound dangerous, but what the opponents apparently don’t want you to hear about is the tons of pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants – the most likely alternative to biomass energy generation – by wild fires and even by our own vehicles and the furnaces that heat our homes. It’s when we start to compare the biomass project’s emissions with those kinds of sources that we begin to see that the opponents’ arguments don’t hold up. The bottom line is that biomass energy compares very favorably when measured against the emissions sources that are all around us, all the time.  Biomass energy is far better from an emissions standpoint than fossil fuel-based energy sources and biomass energy can help mitigate horrific pollution from wildfires. This article is for those concerned enough to really dig into some of the detail that backs up those statements. If that’s you, read on.

The Forest Encyclopedia Network:

Biomass is the most important renewable energy source used in the world today…. Other renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and tide comprise a very small fraction, corresponding to less than 0.1% of the world total energy supply; while biomass corresponds to 10.6% of the world total energy supply and 79.4% of the total renewable energy supply.

Now, don’t get us wrong. We are huge supporters of solar, wind and tide sources of energy. But we support a holistic energy agenda. And so here we are simply pointing out to those who say we should “scrap” biomass that, on the contrary, it is an essential component of any comprehensive alternative energy program for our community, state and country.

By welcoming biomass, Torrance County has the opportunity to lead New Mexico in the alternative energy revolution.  

The Forest Guardians call “for more use of prescribed fire closer to home.” Two things need to be noted about that position with regard to their anti-biomass agenda.

First, such fires emit far more pollution than biomass facilities; therefore, it’s hard to believe they are sincere when they talk about pollution. Their own agenda is among the worst air-quality positions around. In contrast, to read more about biomass emissions, click here.

Second, prescribed wildfires can have harrowing ramifications, far more dangerous than anything the Estancia biomass project could ever do. Recall this BBC article about the 2000 Los Alamos wildfire: 

The blaze began after officials from the National Park Service embarked on what was supposed to be a controlled burn to remove undergrowth. The superintendent of Bandelier National Monument…has taken responsibility for the blaze and been placed on leave. [He] is reported to have said that the conditions were just right for a controlled burn.

The Park Service had planned to burn 900 acres to clear brush and reduce the potential for a catastrophic fire.

 Some 700 firefighters and National Guard units were battling the blaze, aided by helicopters and aircraft dumping retardant material on pockets of fire….

Aerial television footage has shown burning homes and forest. Thick clouds of smoke are rising into the sky and are being blown hundreds of kilometres. Los Alamos Fire Department spokesman Jim Danneskiold said high winds had made the fire worse.

Another forest fire broke out on 10 May, 50km south of Albuquerque, but firefighters have brought the blaze under control after it destroyed 5,700 acres.

Our point in this post is not to debate the merits or demerits of prescribed fires, but to draw attention to the inconsistency of those now attacking biomass energy.  

Martin Hibbs, Mayor of Estancia, spelled out several reasons why biomass would be good for our community:

The biomass power plant gives south Torrance County a chance to stand on its own and grow. By thwarting this project, we rob the people of Torrance County of a better future possibly. I do not support this theft, and here is why.

 

1. The biomass power plant empowers the people of southern Torrance County to invest in their future by taking full advantage of the opportunities that the plant provides. Consider the following:

 

Area farmers, who own the water rights, choose to offer water for their crops. This is their right— it’s their water rights. They should also have the right to choose to become investors in new technology— renewable energy— right here in the Estancia Valley. This is an opportunity for a business with alternative uses for their water rights;

 

The biomass plant will create and sustain employment in Torrance County. Economic development such as this assures that many of our area citizens will not have to drive to Albuquerque for work, and it also means that many of our young people can continue to live here, because there is work. Working in your hometown area means a better quality of life (shorter commute, more time for family and friends, more discretionary income as less money is spent on commuting); decreased auto emission pollution and improved energy conservation because there aren’t as many cars commuting on Interstate 40 daily; and more opportunity to support local businesses, restaurants and retailers because more area citizens are in the Valley every day. This is a win-win for Torrance County.

 

2. The Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB), which provide certain tax benefits to businesses locating to an area, offer opportunity to Torrance County, not penalty. Remember that Rio Rancho High School was built with monies from the IRBs that enticed Intel to move to that city. The IRBs for the biomass power plant have the potential to improve roads and more in Torrance County.

 

3. There is enough fuel for the biomass power plant— three times as much as is necessary for the proposed life of the facility (between 20 and 25 years). This fact has been confirmed by studies and independent satellite imagery. Also, PNM has entered into energy contracts with Western Water and Power Production for the power generated; I am sure that PNM did its homework before signing that contract. Also the majority of the fuel for the boiler will be juniper wood. This thirsty, prolific allergen is encroaching on our rangelands. To protect the rangelands and their ecosystems, Western Water and Power Production will be hired by private landowners and state agencies to process these trees as fuel.

 

4. The proposed biomass power plant will operate below the national and state clean air standards. This compliance was made evident at the hearings held by the New Mexico Department of Environment Air Quality Bureau in March and April this year. So where is the problem?

 

Further, the biomass power plant will work to reduce the existing level of air pollution, which results from the open burning of rangeland brush, particulate emissions from potential wildfires and the emissions from the greenhouse natural gas boilers that are adjacent to the plant’s proposed site. When the power plant comes on line, its waste heat will be used to heat the greenhouses, further demonstrating the plant’s contribution to energy conservation.

Colorado Biomass Information Clearinghouse makes the argument. Biomass development does the following:

• Reduces air pollution
• Reduces animal, food processing and municipal wastes
• Reduces use of landfills
• Reduces risk of wildfires
• Improves watershed quality
• Creates and sustains jobs for rural communities

Something nice for your day….

It didn’t have to be this way. The Forest Guardians could have joined the alternative energy revolution. But, sadly, they didn’t. And, so, now look at what the Rio Grande Foundation is writing:

Can the Environmentalists be Satisfied?

A few weeks ago I blogged on the topic of the proposed Desert Rock energy plant, a proposed coal-burning facility on Navajo land near Farmington that Governor Richardson now opposes.

Okay, so the environmentalists oppose a coal plant. Nothing new there, right? How about biomass? Environmentalists LOVE biomass, right? And Richardson has made “renewable” energy a top priority of his administration. Unfortunately, now, with a company in the midst of running the bureaucratic gauntlet necessary to construct a biomass plant in New Mexico, Richardson’s Environmental Secretary Ron Curry has taken the side of radical environmentalists who oppose using dead trees for fuel.

Certainly, biomass is not the “silver bullet” that will solve all of our energy needs — unfortunately for the enviros, those are still coal, oil, gas, and maybe nuclear — but it seems pretty unlikely that one plant will strip all of New Mexico’s forest’s bare. If Richardson is serious about renewable energy (not to mention attracting business to New Mexico) he might want to change course on this one.

From the Biomass Energy Resource Center:

In Western states, federal agencies are working together to address prospects for projects, including biomass energy, that can use waste wood to reduce the danger of forest fires. By burning hazardous waste material – various small-diameter species that must be culled in very large volumes from Western forests – biomass systems can both help prevent fires and, often, promote the health of commercial timber stands.

“Biomass sources are quite varied, including agricultural food and feed crops, crop waste and residues, wood wastes and residues, dedicated energy crops and trees, aquatic plants, animal wastes, and municipal wastes.” — Colorodo Renewable Energy Society 

Hat tip: Natural Resources Canada.

Why are the Forest Guardians so opposed to biomass energy?

The answer is simple three step logic: The Forest Guardians advocate for allowing wildfires to thin the forest; but biomass power facilities help reduce the risk of such fires; therefore, the Forest Guardians are now doing everything in their power to stop biomass development.

But don’t take our word for what the Forest Guardians advocate. Read their own website where they are unabashed about what they propose instead of biomass:

Forest Guardians proposed an alternative vision, promoted in Born of Fire, which calls on the government to allow fire to reassert its natural role in backcountry forests and for more use of prescribed fire closer to home.

As for us, we’d rather take our chances with a biomass project.

On Thursday, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) issued an order requiring public utilities to purchase a minimum of ten percent of renewable energy from biomass. In doing so, the Commission rejected arguments made by the Forest Guardians and some vocal opponents of the Estancia biomass project, who sought to exclude biomass from the state’s renewable energy mix. After hearing their arguments, the Commission sided with biomass supporters, including Estancia Mayor Martin Hibbs (D), Torrance County Commissioner Jim Frost (R), as well as local residents. The PRC concluded:

Biomass brings positive attributes, such as the ability to serve as a baseload resource, and it is appropriate for utilities to have some biomass in their renewable energy portfolios.  The biomass target of 10% of the RPS set out in the proposed rule represents a modest amount of biomass-generated electricity that can be acquired in New Mexico without threatening our reasonable cost thresholds and without forcing the exploitation of questionable fuel supplies.   This target should be adopted in the final rule.

Forest Guardians’ Bryan Bird wrote a rather revealing op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal yesterday: Biomass Poses “Treacherous” Path. In it, he says solar and wind are “the only viable, long-term solutions [to clean alternative energy] currently available.”

With that statement, he clarifies the fundamental difference between us. We take a holistic approach to alternative energy development; he does not. Our position is pragmatic, based on a careful assessment of the various trade-offs of each of the alternative energy options; his position is utopian, based on the unproven assertion that we can entirely rely on solar and wind. Unlike Bird, who only sees biomass limitations, we see advantages of biomass compared to solar and wind: 

To many people, the most familiar forms of renewable energy are the wind and the sun. But biomass (plant material and animal waste) supplies almost 15 times as much energy in the United States as wind and solar power combined— and has the potential to supply much more.

Bottom line, we don’t think we should “scrap” this renewable energy. We think developing all our alternative energy options is the prudent choice. It will go a long way toward lessening our dependence on coal, oil and gas; it will offer our country as a whole a greater sense of independence; and it will reduce our contribution to global warming.

David Cohen brings out an interesting contrast between the Forest Guardians and the Union of Concerned Scientists in this op-ed: The Truth about Biomass Energy . Well worth reading, as it doesn’t shy at all away from recent accusations against biomass.  

David S. Cohen at the ABQJournal yesterday: “Biomass A Clean Source of Energy“

Biomass also helps the environment by aiding in forest fire management by removing organic waste and undergrowth which exacerbates perilous wildfires. Oddly, this last fact has stoked the ire of Santa Fe’s Forest Guardians, a group that is far outside the mainstream of environmentalists. Apparently, they’re motivated by opposition to prudent wildfire management. The Forest Guardian Web site advocates that the government “allow fire to re-assert its natural role in backcountry forests and for more use of prescribed fire closer to home.” One wonders what the residents of Los Alamos and Lake Tahoe, as well as the forest fighters who risk life and limb, think of the radical proposition of “fire closer to home.”

 

“We do not consider biomass plants clean or renewable energy,” recently asserted a Forest Guardian spokeswoman, either uninformed or unwilling to acknowledge that wildfires are far more polluting than any biomass facility.

 

Another erroneous claim is that biomass “clear cuts” the forest. Not true. Biomass projects can and do run on more than just forest thinnings, from rotted trees to animal waste. Furthermore, existing laws and regulations prevent clear cutting. Plus, contractual and statutory limitations delineate what may be utilized in biomass facilities. In the case of the Estancia project, all fuel contracts with landowners— whether private or governmental— require that the facility and the landowner develop a plan in accordance with environmentally acceptable methods.

 

Whether the misinformation campaign will thwart green energy development in New Mexico is still up in the air.

 Vanessa Vaile, proprietor of Mountainair Arts Blog:

I’ve been posting [biomass] resource links regularly. You can do your own search too – I recommend that for everyone. The best and most balanced sites and discussions seem to be from CA & European sources. It’s not a black & white issue. The more we know, the better an informed decision we can make.

This is one of the most level-headed words about biomass that we’ve heard in a long time. It’s a call for each of us to do our own research and think for ourselves. We agree. At New Mexico Biomass Blog, we don’t advocate that you must share our views. We present the pro-biomass position so that you can weigh it for yourself, and thereby reach your own informed opinion.

Biomass includes everything listed in the above picture, including animal waste and agricultural waste.

Yet oddly some groups in New Mexico don’t think biomass is a renewable energy source.

“We do not consider biomass plants…renewable energy,” says Nicole Rosmarino, conservation director with the Forest Guardians. “The New Mexico Renewable Energy Act of 2004 should be amended to remove biomass from the list,” says Dan Embree, a Forest Guardian activist.

These statements demonstrate how misinformed the Forest Guardians are about biomass. They don’t appear to know what “biomass” means, nor do they seem to understand the scientific concept of “renewable.” The statements also show that the Forest Guardians signed the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles in bad faith, a set of principles designed to promote biomass energy production in New Mexico, projects exactly like the one proposed near Estancia.

By contrast, consider the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization out of MIT, with 200,000 scientists and citizens as supporters:

There are a wide variety of biomass energy resources, including tree and grass crops and forestry, agricultural, and urban wastes. It is the oldest source of renewable energy known to humans, used since our ancestors learned the secret of fire.  

Biomass is a renewable energy source because the energy it contains comes from the sun. Through the process of photosynthesis, chlorophyll in plants captures the sun’s energy by converting carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground into carbohydrates, complex compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. When these carbohydrates are burned, they turn back into carbon dioxide and water and release the sun’s energy they contain. In this way, biomass functions as a sort of natural battery for storing solar energy. As long as biomass is produced sustainably—with only as much used as is grown—the battery will last indefinitely.

To be sure, the Forest Guardians will reply that the Estancia biomass project isn’t sustainable, but such a reply rests on the mistaken, and indeed environmentally dangerous, assumption that we ought to sustain invasive species, which voraciously drink up water, kill off native species and add fuel to wildfires. The majority of New Mexicans, as well as the majority of environmentalists, do not want that. They want to conserve and sustain healthy forests. They don’t want what the Mountain View Telegraph reports:

An infestation of insects is killing large numbers of trees on the Sandia Ranger District. The culprits this time are the Western balsam bark beetle, fir engraver beetle and Douglas-fir tussock moth. Coming on the heels of the bark beetle infestation that destroyed thousands of trees in the Sandias in recent years, this latest blight means you can’t walk very far in the forest without seeing snags….

Most chillingly, Morgan says, “Don’t be surprised if we have a large, catastrophic wildfire in the East Mountains.” Morgan says if there is low moisture next year— which would mean the living trees are dried out— and fallen snags on the forest floor, “you’re talking explosive conditions, and if we get a fire in there (the Sandias) we will not be able to put it out.”

The conditions on the Sandia Ranger District have taken decades to reach this point, and things are not likely to get much better any time soon. Morgan and a team of experts are looking at potential forest thinning projects to protect homes near the woods, but the area they could realistically clear is a drop in the bucket.

Again, all this is something which the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) understands but which the Forest Guardians don’t seem to want to admit: the environmental damage of invasive species, something biomass will help deal with in New Mexico:

Non-native plants and animals can severely damage the environment, endanger native species, and place a significant financial burden on affected communities. UCS activists played an important role in setting the stage for funding to eradicate and manage these dangerous invaders by making more than 2,100 phone calls urging their senators to push for additional funding.

Consider this quote published in the Independent (page 5), in which NM Environment Secretary Ron Curry apparently stated he can deny Estancia Biomass for any reason that he chooses regardless of the law:

Forest Guardians’ Bird acknowledged that the environment department can only enforce the laws we have, although he said environment secretary Ron Curry told residents at a meeting in Mountainair he had the authority to deny a permit for any reason, regardless of whether the biomass plant owner satisfied existing laws.

Regardless of existing laws. Did he really say that? Has any journalist confirmed what Bird claims? Does our state really invest such above-the-law authority in appointed officials?   

The biomass facility in Estancia would be state-of-the-art—like the facilities you find in Europe and other parts of America—and less like what you see in this video. Nevertheless, you can see here how revolutionary and beneficial biomass can be, and what forward and creative thinking about alternative energy can do for a community. Good for India!

From today’s ABQJournal:

The Public Regulation Commission on Tuesday approved a new rule that will require utilities to use set percentages of sun, wind and other alternative energy sources to generate electricity….New Mexico utilities currently are required to obtain 5 percent of their energy sales from renewable sources, called a “renewable energy portfolio.” State Senate Bill 418, approved this year, requires that that percentage increase to 20 percent by 2020, and that electric co-ops develop renewable energy portfolios for the first time, at 10 percent by 2020. Utilities have been able to choose the types of energy, but the types were “weighted.” Solar counted as a 3-to-1 credit; biomass, geothermal energy or other types, such as fuel cells, counted as a 2-to-1 credit; and wind or hydro power counted as a 1-to-1 credit. The new rule abolishes the weighted system and requires larger utilities to use a set mix of alternative sources. That mix is a minimum 20 percent from solar, minimum 20 percent from wind, minimum 10 percent from biomass-generated or geothermal-generated energy, and minimum 1.5 percent, increasing to 3 percent by 2015, from “distributed generation,” or power generated into the grid by customers. Utilities, which can obtain the balance of the portfolio from any alternative energy source, have until Jan. 1, 2011, to implement the new percentages. Co-ops can use weighted credits until Jan. 1, 2011, and do not need to follow specific percentages of sources.The commission also set an exception to the set percentage rule should the price of a specific alternative energy exceed a cost threshold of 1 percent of a company’s retail sales in New Mexico, increasing to 2 percent by 2011.

The Estancia Biomass project gained further support this week.

In sworn testimony filed by the New Mexico Environment Department, the manager of permit programs within the air quality bureau, Richard Goodyear, stated that the US Environmental Protection Agency issued an opinion that “provides additional support” to the Estancia Biomass project.

According to the EPA opinion, the Estancia Biomass proposal satisfies national and state environmental protection laws and is not subject to PSD regulations, which would only be required for fossil fuel boilers that burn at greater than 250 MMBtu per hour input. Because the biomass plant will only use a maximum of 175 MMBtu per hour of natural gas when started up, it is not a fossil fuel boiler, as mistakenly contended by Environment Secretary Ron Curry when he denied an air quality construction permit to the biomass facility.

“We’re happy that the EPA has vindicated our position that the Estancia Biomass plant should not be categorized as a fossil fuel plant, as we have always maintained,” said Jack Maddox, vice president of Western Water and Power. “We are hopeful that the EPA’s position brings our state one step closer to developing clean alternative energy.”

From Richard Goodyear’s Testimony:

“Lawrence Alires’ testimony [on behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department] that PSD did not apply to the Estancia facility was based on two EPA memos that allowed up to 10% usage of fossil fuel during startup before the NSPS, Subpart D would apply. Because of Western’s stated intent to burn wood and agricultural waste and not fossil fuel to produce electricity and because of the corresponding limit in the draft permit, we believed it was reasonable that the PSD requirement did not apply.”

Repeat: “we believed it was reasonable that the PSD requirement did not apply.” Goodyear’s testimony then cites the EPA’s latest comment:

“EPA’s August 2, 2007 response to our request for assistance provides additional support for this argument. If the Board uses EPA’s response to guide its decision, then PSD would not apply if certain changes were made to the permit.”

PSD would not apply. The testimony continues: 

“Specifically, EPA allowed that if fossil fuel is used at any time in quantities of less than 250 MMBTU/hr, PSD would not be required. As part of its appeal to the Board, Western provided an affidavit by its consultant, Ralph Williams, an exhibit (A-7) that specified that rated capacity of the four natural gas burners. The capacity is 175 MMBTU/hr, so with the appropriate permit conditions this facility would never exceed the PSD threshold of 250 MMBTU/hr.”

This facility would never exceed the PSD threshold of 250 MMBTU/hr.

Is biomass energy some kind of untested and dangerous new technology? Nope. Many advanced and successful countries, particularly the environmentally friendly countries of Scandinavia, rely heavily on biomass power plants. 

The Forest Encyclopedia Network, written by scientists and Forest Service professionals, explains that  “many industrialized countries are also major users of biomass. In Sweden and Finland, for example, biomass accounts for approximately one-fourth of the energy used.”

Repeat: One-fourth of the energy used is from biomass. In arguably the most environmentally aware communities in the world—-the countries of Scandinavia.  

Says the Forest Encyclopedia Network: “In these countries, biomass is being used to feed modern and efficient systems, providing essential energy services.”

Modern and efficient systems, providing essential energy services from biomass. 

So why not in New Mexico? Why are we so far behind Europe and other parts of America?

Energy Central Network, which has around 40,000 subscribers in the renewable energy industry, published an AP article yesterday about the difficulty faced in bringing biomass energy development to New Mexico. Here is the key quote:

Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration included the plant on a list  of projects showing progress in developing alternative energy projects, and Public Service Company of New Mexico signed a 20-year contract to buy power from the 35-megawatt plant. Western Water and Power had a contract with the State Land Office to use wood from 43,000 acres of state land for fuel the plant would burn to generate electricity.

Western Power officials said the plant would use natural gas only to start its boiler, once a year, for eight hours or less. A natural gas-fired trigger is used at other biomass plants, according to Andy Aden of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Western Power owners David Cohen and Jack Maddox filed an appeal of [state Environment Secretary] Curry’s action [against the biomass project] with the Environmental Improvement Board. A hearing is scheduled Aug. 20.

This information from the ABQJournal should be distributed far and wide.

…transcripts of the hearings show that before Curry’s final order [denying the air quality permit to the biomass project], a department air permitting specialist said he didn’t believe the department could legally deny the permit. [emphasis added].

Lawrence Alires, an advanced environmental scientist and air permitting specialist with the Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau, was being questioned  by department attorney Eric Ames.

“In your opinion,” Ames asked, “does the department have any legal basis for denying the air quality permit?”

“No,” Alires replied.

He was also asked if the department had determined whether a permit could be issued.

“Yes,” Alires answered. “The department has determined that the permit can be issued because the facility, when operated according to permit conditions, will comply with all applicable requirements, including ambient air quality standards.”

How can you not deduce from this that Environment Secretary Ron Curry’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” when his own department’s air permitting specialist is on record saying that Curry had no legal or environmental basis to deny the permit?  

You can read them here, here and here.

Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer, Polly Summar, reports on a new psychological theory: Eco-Anxiety.

Has the fate of the whales got you down? The dwindling polar bear population? Or just global warming in general? If you’re feeling anxious about the loss of animal habitats and the state of the environment, you just might have “eco-anxiety.” The symptoms? Irritability, depression, a feeling of not knowing life’s purpose, chronic fatigue, digestion problems, skin problems, uncontrollable bouts of crying, panic attacks or “buzzing,” described as the feeling that one’s cells are twitching. It may sound like New Age hocus-pocus, but Santa Fe therapist Melissa Pickett insists it’s not….

 

“[Eco-psychology] is a form of psychotherapy that works with the natural environment to help people restore their sense of health and well-being,” she said. After her talk on eco-anxiety in March, she was contacted by a reporter for the Columbia News Service at Columbia University in New York City. The story was picked up internationally, and Pickett has since been interviewed by CNBC, El Mundo newspaper in Spain and even by a TV producer in London working on a series about couples with marital problems.

 

“Where one person would want the lights off (to save energy) and the other one wouldn’t,” Pickett said. “The producer said it was becoming an issue in the UK.”

Sounds like another reason to support biomass to us…

The Albuquerque Journal today published some disappointing news (subscription required). The article doesn’t give many details about why the ethanol company chose to go elsewhere, but we wonder if maybe the recent anti-biomass misinformation campaign by the Forest Guardians and the Environment Secretary is starting to scare away alternative energy investment in our state. If so, this is a terrible turn of events for supporters of renewable energy.

A Seattle company has dropped its plans to build an ethanol factory in rural Chaves County. E85 Inc. decided against building the $150 million-to-$200 million factory northeast of Dexter after doing a feasibility study, said Mark Dassel, company senior vice president. “It was not an appropriate site for our plant,” he said Friday….

 

E85 had announced Jan. 15 that it would build the 100 million gallon-per-year factory and would hire 45 to 50 people full time. The company had planned to have the factory running by the middle of next year. The factory would have used corn fuel stock— with most of the corn coming from the Midwest— to make motor fuel for New Mexico and adjoining states.

Anti-biomass writer Dan Embree, among his many fallacious claims, says: “The Air Quality Bureau considered the quality of the air only within the boundaries of the [biomass] plant itself. The occurrence of acid rain on fields or the breathing of pollutants by residents a mile away were not within their authority, officials said.”

Huh? Acid rain? The United States Energy Information Administration says the exact opposite:  “Burning biomass fuels does not produce pollutants like sulfur, that can cause acid rain.”

Moreover, the uncontested evidence at the air permit hearing regarding the biomass plant also proved the opposite of Embree’s misinformed article. Not only are the emissions from the Estancia biomass plant far below the national and state clean air standards, which are set to protect human health and crops with a substantial margin of safety, the uncontested evidence at the hearing also established that the project will in fact clean-up the current level of air pollution caused by the open burning of rangeland brush, the dangerous particulate emissions from potential wildfires, and the emissions from the adjacent greenhouse natural gas boilers.

But don’t take our word for it. The Independent quoted a state Environment Department legal notice in which the air quality of the project was confirmed: “The review of the permit application…indicates that ambient impacts from the facility’s emission sources in combination with other sources are less than the applicable federal and state ambient air quality standards.” The New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) also validates the air quality credentials of biomass power plants:

Like other forms of renewable energy, such as wind or solar, biomass resources produce less emissions than their fossil fuel counterparts. Biomass contains less sulfur than coal, and consequently produces less SO2. Emissions of NOx are usually lower as well (results vary with the technology being utilized)….Using biomass derived from forest thinning activities prevents this material from being burned in the open air with no pollution controls (known as pile burning). Similarly, agricultural residues can be used to produce power instead of being burned. Biomass utilization may prevent the harmful effects that forest fires on the atmosphere by preventing their occurrence. Mercury, toxic materials and particulate matter are released in forest fires. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, and other gases are also emitted. Moreover, the loss of vegetation means that carbon dioxide can no longer be sequestered.

SYRACUSE, New York (AP) — The Rosamond Gifford Zoo in Syracuse, New York, is looking to become the first zoo in the nation to be powered by its own animal waste — particularly the prodigious piles produced by its pachyderms. The zoo — world prominent for its Asian elephant breeding program — is studying how feasible it would be to switch to animal waste as an alternative energy source to reduce its $400,000 annual heating and electricity bill. The zoo’s six elephants produce more than 1,000 pounds of dung per day, said Zoo Director Anne Baker. “Zoos are about conservation and stemming the loss of animals and habitat,” Baker said. “But conservation also is about how people use natural resources. This is an opportunity to give visitors the whole picture.” The zoo sends most of its animal waste to a local farm, where it is composted. The zoo spends about $10,000 a year on animal-waste disposal, but Baker noted it also requires the use of additional fossil fuels for transportation.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip: California Energy Commission.

“In 2002, fossil fuels, which are finite and nonrenewable, supplied 86% of the energy consumed in the United States. Even more alarming is that the United States imports over half (62%) of its petroleum and its dependence is increasing. Since the U.S economy is so closely tied with petroleum products and oil imports, small changes in oil prices or disruptions in oil supplies can have an enormous impact on our economy – from trade deficits, to industrial investment, to employment levels. As a domestic, renewable energy source, biomass offers an alternative to conventional energy sources and provides national energy security, economic growth, and environmental benefits.” — so says the United States Department of Energy.

Want the low-down on biomass? Penn State is proving to be at the forefront of biomass research. On their informative website, you can find email addresses to scientists and researchers, if you have any questions about this exciting alternative energy source. Says the website:

Large-scale production of bioenergy will require development of new crops and appropriate production and harvest, and storage strategies. Penn State has extensive research programs in annual and perennial biomass including agricultural and forest resources, feedstock management technologies, basic plant biotechnology, and biomass characterization.

Researchers involved in biomass production research are listed below by subtopic. Links to their department webpage (if available), department affiliation, and e-mail address are provided.

Annual Crop production
(Corn, Corn Stover, Soybean, Canola, Rapeseed, etc.)

Robert Gallagher, Crop and Soil Sciences rsg14@psu.edu

Jim Hilton, Agricultural and Biological Engineering jwh2@psu.edu

Roger Koide, Horticulture rxk13@psu.edu

Greg Roth, Crop and Soil Sciences gwr@psu.edu

Perennial Grasses (Switchgrass, etc.)

Paul Adler, USDA-ARS paul.adler@ars.usda.gov

Marvin Hall, Crop and Soil Sciences mhh2@psu.edu

Heather Karsten, Crop and Soil Sciences hdk3@psu.edu

Roger Koide, Horticulture rxk13@psu.edu

Matt Sanderson, USDA-ARS matt.sanderson@ars.usda.gov

Forestry and Wood Resources

John Carlson, School of Forest Resources jec16@psu.edu

Roger Koide, Horticulture rxk13@psu.edu

Chuck Ray, School of Forest Resources cdr14@psu.edu

Harvest technology, densification, transportation and logistics

Jim Hilton, Agricultural and Biological Engineering jwh2@psu.edu 

Biomass storage and pretreatment

Daniel Cosgrove, Biology dcosgrove@psu.edu

Tom Richard, Agricultural and Biological Engineering tlr20@psu.edu

Ming Tien, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology mxt3@psu.edu

Gabriella Varga, Dairy and Animal Science GVarga@psu.edu

Plant biotechnology

Don Bryant, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology dab14@psu.edu

Daniel Cosgrove, Biology dcosgrove@psu.edu

Mark Guiltinan, Horticulture mjg9@psu.edu

Don Thompson, Food Science dbt1@psu.edu 

Characterization of biomass feedstocks

Doug Archibald, Crop and Soil Sciences dda10@psu.edu 

Sharon Falcone Miller, Energy Institute sfm1@psu.edu 

Joel Morrison, Energy Institute jlm9@psu.edu

 Okay, these guys probably aren’t the best emissaries for biomass. But their video—presumably for some college class—is somewhat amusing.

Hat tip: Alternative Energy Lifestyles who kindly offer for the Vermont public a highly informative and short description of biomass. Well worth reading.  

This video is about an eco-friendly resort in Britain that runs on a biomass boiler.

In the video below, the Governor also says that he’d visit a community that has a new idea for an alternative energy source. Well, he need not look far. The Estancia biomass project is exactly that. Plus, it’s entirely consistent with his presidential message.

Again. Why is Environment Secretary Ron Curry not on board with the Governor’s presidential campaign message?  

“The 11th hour,” a new documentary, hosted by Leonardo DiCaprio, looks thought provoking. It says at the film’s website:

With the help of over fifty of the world’s most prominent thinkers and activists, including reformer Mikhail Gorbachev, physicist Stephen Hawking, and Nobel Prize winner Wangari Maathai, “The 11th Hour” documents the grave problems facing the planet’s life systems. Global warming, deforestation, mass species extinction, and depletion of the oceans’ habitats are all addressed. Below you can read about our experts, find links to their websites and read exclusive blogs.

We’ve added a new page to this blog, where we post videos and photos of wildfires. We have created this page—Forest Fire Watch—for two reasons. One reason is to underline the fact that, as the NM Energy and Natural Resources Department points out, biomass facilities help reduce the risk of these destructive, polluting and frightening fires. The other reason is to counteract the meanspirited anti-biomass campaign of the so-called “Forest Guardians,” a group whom we think are more properly called the “Forest Fire Guardians,” since what they want instead of biomass energy production is for the government to allow wildfires to “re-assert” themselves. We think you should see for yourself the pernicious effects of what they are advocating. It is certainly far more polluting and dangerous than any biomass power plant.  

High winds fanned the flames hundreds of feet in the air; thousands of people were evacuated; homes and private property were destroyed; and the pollution created was horrendous. Look at the other photos from the BBC NEWS.

A satellite photo of the Los Alamos forest fire which burned tens of thousands of acres in and around nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, on May 11, 2000.

This image is going in our Forest Fire Hall of Shame.

Hat tip: Voices from the Earth

The Mountain View Telegraph recently published this ridiculous anti-biomass article by Dan Embree. Nearly every single argument he adduces is riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations and personal attacks, but we’ll only focus in this post on his thesis statement, which is, namely, that all biomass energy should be rejected as a renewable energy source:

The New Mexico  Renewable Energy Act of 2004 should be amended to remove biomass from the list of clean, renewable energy sources—a list that properly includes solar, wind and geothermal. 

Well, maybe for Mr. Embree that’s as far as the list extends. But the Forest Encyclopedia Network, written by scientists and Forest Service professionals, tells a completely different story: “Biomass is the most important renewable energy source used in the world today.”

The Encyclopedia goes on to point out that “many industrialized countries are also major users of biomass. In Sweden and Finland, for example, biomass accounts for approximately one-fourth of the energy used. In Brazil, 27% of the energy comes from biomass, almost half being sugarcane based. In these countries, biomass is being used to feed modern and efficient systems, providing essential energy services.”

Meanwhile, in other parts of the United States hundreds of successful biomass plants are operating, while the Encyclopedia tells us:

European Union countries have had outstanding performance in their national biomass programs, for example, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Denmark, all of which started from very low levels in the early 1990s. Also, countries previously outside the EU, such as the Czech Republic and Hungary, have been investing in bioenergy (IEA 2003). Meanwhile, traditional bioenergy users such as Sweden, Finland, and Austria continue to expand their bioenergy generation.

Clearly, whatever Mr. Embree thinks of biomass, the western world as a whole has a very different conception of biomass power, particularly the environmentally advanced countries of Scandinavia. Let’s hope New Mexico and Torrance County follows the rest of the developed world—and not Mr. Embree. 

A few months ago, the Albuquerque Tribune noted Governor Richardson’s enthusiasm for biomass. From the article:

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Gov. Bill Richardson traipsed up a mountain of wood chips at a wood-burning power plant and called for increased investment in alternate energy sources.

The former energy secretary said Public Service Company of New Hampshire’s Schiller plant could be a model for future investments and could help reduce reliance on fossil fuels….

“It shows if we’re ingenious, we can have renewable fuel and renewable energy as the main source for the future,” Richardson said Sunday, wood chips still clinging to his navy blazer. “Even if it means government subsidies, I would be supportive of that.”

During his hour-long tour, Richardson cut off his tour guides with more questions: What is stopping others from converting their coal-burning plants into wood-burning? What is the environmental impact of the vapors blowing from the stacks on the river bank? Are they making money?

Good question. What is stopping us? Ask Environment Secretary Ron Curry.

The New Mexico Energy and Natural Resources Department does a great job describing the many benefits of biomass energy. Biomass facilities, such as the one proposed for Torrance County, reduce the risk of wildfires, improve watershed quality, expand job opportunity for local communities, reduce the use of landfills, and reduce water contamination from animal waste as well as food processing and municipal wastes, all the while producing heat and electricity.  

Worried about biomass air pollution? Don’t be. The NM Energy and Natural Resources Department points out–contrary to the Forest Guardians’ anti-biomass propaganda–biomass facilities actually reduce air pollution. Here’s what the state agency has to say.

In a letter co-signed with our own Governor Richardson, also a vocal supporter of biomass, Arnold Schwarzenegger writes:

Today, the West has an important economic and environmental opportunity: the promotion of alternative energy development and energy efficiency that will help stabilize fluctuating energy prices, create lasting jobs, promote public health and protect our environment….Relatively untapped, and hugely promising, are other [energy] possibilities [beside oil, gas, coal and hydro]: solar, wind, zero-emission coal, biomass, and energy conservation.

You can read the rest of Schwarzenegger’s and Richardson’s joint letter by clicking here.  

Too bad our Environment Secretary, Ron Curry, doesn’t share these views.

…supports biomass. Check out this video hosted by Lou Gossett, Jr.  It has a kinda “infomercial” feel about it, but it still makes some good points.