Facts

#1… Wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants, and 330% more than new natural gas power plants.

WOOD FUELED BIOMASS vs. FOSSIL FUEL POWER PLANTS



#2… Incinerating biomass in power plants creates more particulate matter (PM) than coal burning. Particulate matter is associated with asthma, heart disease, and cancer — as well as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) — two ingredients of the ground-level ozone that causes asthma in children and exacerbates pulmonary and cardiac disease problems.

#3… Five proposed biomass incinerators in Massachusetts would consume the equivalent of 50 football fields of trees every day.

#4… Massachusetts already gets 49% of its renewable energy from polluting biomass incinerators.

#5… Truly clean, zero waste renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, tidal, and small hydro-electric are the future of Massachusetts energy production. There are also many simple efficiency and conservation measures that can be easily implemented, costing ratepayers and taxpayers far less than new power plant production.

Biomass is Not “Carbon Neutral”

The biomass-is-carbon-neutral story line put forward in the early 1990’s has been superseded by more recent science that recognizes that mature, intact forests sequester carbon more effectively than cut-over areas. When a tree’s carbon is released into the atmosphere in a single pulse, (the Greenfield burner plans to burn a ton of damp, green wood chips each minute) it contributes to climate change much more than woodland timber rotting slowly over decades.

“Biomass is not carbon neutral and will dramatically increase production of greenhouse gases. The “carbon neutrality” concept states that burning biomass results in net emissions of carbon dioxide close to zero, because biomass grows back and “locks up” into organic carbon the carbon dioxide released by burning.

However, since the average age of trees in forests of Western Massachusetts is 75 – 100 years, it will take a similar amount of time to regrow trees that are burned for biomass and resequester their carbon. Scientists agree that society must reduce our carbon emissions immediately – we don’t have 75 years. The best available science shows that forests lock up atmospheric carbon dioxide best when they are undisturbed by forestry operations.”


— From MA Environmental Energy Alliance: Biomass Effects on Forest Cutting and the Myth on Carbon Neutrality

In fact, mature temperate forests, like Massachusetts’ may be the some of the world’s most efficient at locking in carbon:

“In tropical forests, dead plant material is rapidly decomposed and carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere through respiration. By contrast, moist temperate forests are warm enough to encourage good growth rates, dead plant material decays much more slowly and carbon-rich dead biomass lasts much longer…the findings reinforce the role of forests in storing carbon and in mitigating climate change…..the research especially underscores the importance of protecting carbon-dense forests in developed countries.

…another common misunderstanding is that younger growing forests sequester more carbon than mature forests.….while growing forests have a greater rate of carbon uptake, it’s more important to look at the total amount of carbon stored in a forest. Since carbon is emitted much more rapidly than it is sequestered …the best way to sequester carbon [in] forests is to protect existing old forests.”


— From a report on “Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests” by Heather Keith, Brendan G. Mackey, and David B. Lindenmayer → PNAS: Online abstract of the study

ABC Science: Australian forests lock up most carbon, 6/16/2009

Impact on Forest

Industrial wood burning in Greenfield will release large amounts of carbon now locked in our forested landscape into the atmosphere. It will encourage the clear cutting of both state and private lands.

The wood fiber trade is already highly developed. See what a trade journal has to say about biomass burners:
RISI’s Wood Biomass Market Report dispels ‘overabundant waste wood’ myth

Here’s a link to a report on how biomass will affect Western Mass forests:
Massachusetts Forests at the Crossroads: Forests, Parks, Landscapes, Environment, Quality of Life, Communities and Economy Threatened by Industrial Scale Logging & Biomass Power (PDF)

Perspective

Put It Into Perspective! Here’s an aerial view of the 50 MW McNeil Power Station… similar in size to the proposed Greenfield & Russell plants. Do you really want them as your neighbor?

Biomass vs. Coal

Head to Head Pollution Comparison – lbs per MWhr

POLLUTANT

MOUNT TOM COAL

PIONEER BIOMASS

CO2

1,800

2,583-3,168

NOx

1.5

0.87

SO2

0.8

0.36

PM 2.5

0.09

0.27

PM 10

0.20

0.27

VOC

0.03

0.14


Mount Tom Coal in Holyoke

Power produced = 146 mw
http://www.firstlightpower.com/generation/mttom.asp

2002 Annual electrical generation = 915,318/MWhr
2002 Annual CO2 emissions = 961,342 metric tons x 1.1 = 1,057,476 tons
CO2 emissions = 1,057,476 tons x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 2,310 lbs/ MWhr
- http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/POLLUTANTS/PowerPlant_AirEmission_en.pdf

1998 Annual Emissions: MA State Profile of Exposure to Coal-Fired Power Plants

Estimated rate using 2002 annual generation of 915,318/ MWhrs:
NOx = 2,296 tons x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 5 lbs/ MWhr
SO2 = 7,373 tons x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 16 lbs/ MWhr
PM 2.5 = 43 x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 0.09 lbs/ MWhr
PM 10 = 95 x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 0.20 lbs/ MWhr
VOC’s = 14 x 2000 lbs / 915,318 MWhr = 0.03 lbs/ MWhr

New emissions controls are supposed to effect a 95% SOx reduction:
- masslive.com: Emissions cut set for power plant

SO2 = 16 lbs/ MWhr x .05 = 0.8 lbs per MWhr

Other new Requirements by 2008 are:
NOx emitted = 1.5 lbs/ MWhr
SO2 emitted = 3.0 lbs/ MWhr
CO2 for existing power plants = 1,800 lbs / MWhr
- www.nga.org/cda/files/022802GGHAMEL.PPT
- http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/laws/729final.doc

Thus approximate final Mt Tom data:
CO2 = 1,800 lbs per MWhr
NOx = 1.5 lbs per MWhr
SO2 = 0.8 lbs per MWhr
PM 2.5 = 0.09 lbs per MWhr
PM 10 = 0.20 lbs per MWhr
VOC’s = 0.03 lbs per MWhr

(Proposed) Pioneer Biomass in Greenfield

http://www.pioneerrenewableenergy.com/?page_id=279

Power produced = 47 mw
Expected Annual electrical generation = 378,782 MWhr per year
Expected CO2 emissions according to ENF = 489,300 tons
(Note: this number appears erroneous. The similar Russell plant claims it would release over 600,000 tons which is more in line with expectations based on calculations.)

According to the proponents understated CO2 numbers:
CO2 emissions = 489,300 tons x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 2,583 lbs/ MWhr

According to expected carbon releases:
CO2 emissions = 600,000 tons x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 3,168 lbs/ MWhr
(Note: Average CO2 for new power plants is about 760 lbs/MWhr)
- www.nga.org/cda/files/022802GGHAMEL.PPT

Other Pollutants:
(ENF Table 2-2 Boiler Stack Emissions)
NOx = 164 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.87 lbs/ MWhr
SO2 = 68 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.36 lbs/ MWhr
PM 2.5 = 52 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.27 lbs/ MWhr
PM 10 = 52 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.27 lbs/ MWhr
VOC’s = 27 tons per year x 2000 lbs / 378,782 MWhr = 0.14 lbs/ MWhr

Thus final Pioneer data:
CO2 = 2,583-3,168 lbs per MWhr
NOx = 0.87 lbs per MWhr
SO2 = 0.36 lbs per MWhr
PM 2.5 = 0.27 lbs per MWhr
PM 10 = 0.27 lbs per MWhr
VOC’s = 0.14 lbs per MWhr

Burning Biomass: Why?

Biomass burning pollutes and makes global warming worse. Give voters the chance to decide if it is worthy of support as a form of “green energy.”

Click below to watch a Video of fires at Oregon’s Biomass One plant. The massive damp chip piles at biomass plants heat up on their own and are prone to spontaneous combustion.

Fire at Biomass One
Fire at Biomass One, July 2009 – KEZI.com


We Don’t Need It – We have enough power to satisfy demand, according to recent data. Recent reports indicate that additional power is not needed.

We Don’t Want It – All the negative impacts – including but not limited to deforestation, water consumption, deteriorated water quality, air pollution, as well as increased carbon dioxide emissions just when we don’t need them – aren’t worth it and are unacceptable.

We Can’t Afford It – Aside from being asked to absorb all the negative environmental impacts, rate-payers would be asked to pay at least three times as much as they need to for biomass energy. According to a 2007 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources document (Massachusetts Saving Electricity: A Summary of the Performance of Electric Efficiency Programs Funded by Ratepayers Between 2003 and 2005), conservation is the cheapest form of energy, costing only 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, and furthermore, untapped opportunities for conservation are substantial. And conservation has positive rather than negative environmental impacts, including reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Why on earth would we want to go with energy from biomass that costs at least three times as much as alternatives and has severe negative impacts to boot?

— Ellen Moyer, PhD, PE

A Letter to the Amherst Bulletin:

Let’s get real in this debate about biomass. At the scale proposed, it is not about weeding a forest garden nor burning low quality wood to help our forest landowners retain land. It is about incinerating our rapidly mounting waste.

Via a provision in the Green Communities Act, there is a state commission meeting right now to determine whether to reclassify construction and demolition debris as renewable energy. If reclassified, burning CDD will be eligible for renewable energy credits, and our electricity rates will continue to climb to fund the burning of this “biomass,” which won’t be regulated as strictly as other incinerators are. There is a huge demand for CDD disposal since Massachusetts bans it in landfills, and New Hampshire has outrightly banned its burning. So this Springfield “biomass” site will be a magnet for regional waste burning. This plant was rushed through the approval process and is now only one city and one state permit away from construction.

The Springfield biomass plant admits it will burn at least 75 percent construction and demolition waste. Construction and demolition debris contains mercury, arsenic and lead. Let’s compare to Mt. Tom, for example. The Springfield biomass plant will generate only 38 megawatts of energy compared to Mt. Tom, generating 146 mgw. Springfield will emit 6,500 pounds of lead per year compared to Mt. Tom’s 43. Springfield will emit 27 pounds of mercury a year compared to Mt. Tom, capped at 3 next year. And Springfield is also expected to emit 33 pounds of arsenic per year, plus a whole host of heavy metals, dioxins and other hazardous substances. Did I forget to mention that biomass emits one and a half times as much carbon dioxide as coal? How is this considered the better alternative?

Let’s take a look at the only large biomass plant not attached to a facility we have in the state – the 17 mgw Pinetree facility which is located in the Westminster area. This plant was the “model” biomass plant supposed to burn just forest wood, yet at a plant almost three times smaller than the one proposed for Greenfield, “enviro fuel cubes” are being incinerated. Conservation Law Foundation dissected these cubes and found plastics, hospital waste and even a golf ball.

The five biomass power plants in Maine that were only supposed to burn wood went on to burn construction and demolition debris. So if there are already serious questions about the sustainability of this practice in our smaller state, why should we hope to be any different?

Our region continually receives an “F” for ozone pollution and a “D” for particulate levels by the American Lung Association. Dave Howland of the Department of Environmental Protection estimates that out-of-state sources deposit 1,800 to 3,700 pounds of mercury in Massachusetts each year. The Springfield municipal incinerator, the second largest lead emitter in the Northeast, according to Natural Resources Defense Council, already adds more than 8,000 pounds of lead to our air every year. Enough is enough already.

It is important to realize that biomass plants are not some new, green technology for creating power. They are simply incinerators, neither green nor efficient, proposed because they are profit-making enterprises. The three combined would not even contribute 1 percent to the state’s energy supply, and at what an expense.

— Lee Ann Warner

Impact on Air

If built, the PRE biomass burner will emit 1,000,000,000 (one billion) pounds per year of CO2, as well as other greenhouse gases.

The idea that carbon produced by “renewable” sources, such as our forested landscape, is somehow O.K. to burn and send into the atmosphere, is based on now-discredited models and calculations from the 1990′s.

Unfortunately, alternative energy incentives and credits put in place using that old way of looking at burning “surface carbon”, make biomass a lucrative investment for speculators. Coupled with the fact that biomass burning is technically easy, (incinerator technology is nothing new), and perhaps some sense that biomass won’t be considered green for long once the public is educated, there is a real push to get biomass projects going fast, regardless of safety or public opinion.

Particulate matter emissions associated with asthma, heart disease, and cancer are projected to be highest three to four miles from the plant, exceeding state warning levels. Schools in the fallout zone would include elementary schools in Greenfield, Montague, and Bernardston, as well as Stoneleigh Burnham, Greenfield High, Greenfield Middle, and others. The project will also emit 164 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, which form ground-level ozone in the summer that is dangerous to children, the elderly, and asthmatics.

Did you know…

  • that in both New Hampshire and Maine, wood-chip burning biomass plants later started burning construction debris?

  • that the Pioneer wood-burning plant will produce more particulates, volatile organic compounds and carbon per megawatt hour than the Mount Tom coal-burning plant down by 91?

Coal vs. Biomass

Here is a workup of pollution releases of Mount Tom versus the proposed Greenfield biomass plant. The Pioneer biomass numbers are from their Environmental Notification Form.

As you can see, the Greenfield biomass plant would be worse than Mt Tom in terms of emissions per megawatt hour (MWhr) of energy produced for CO2, Particulates (PM) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s)

For NOx and SO2, Mt Tom would be worse, but not by much. If you compared with a natural gas plant, the Greenfield plant would probably be worse on all counts. In any case, Mount Tom is not being replaced by the proposed Greenfield plant, which would, if built, just add to pollution in the valley.

Pounds of pollutants per megawatt hour:

POLLUTANT

MOUNT TOM COAL

PIONEER BIOMASS

CO2

1,800

2,583-3,168

NOx

1.5

0.87

SO2

0.8

0.36

PM 2.5

0.09

0.27

PM 10

0.20

0.27

VOC

0.03

0.14


Pioneer Renewable Energy’s plan that states they intend to burn used pallets. Copper-based fungicides are the most common chemicals used to control mold growth on pallets. When burned, copper is a catalyst in dioxin formation. Dioxins are some of the most lethal substances known to science.

The Special Permit, if granted, should include a requirement that any biomass or other type of incinerator must have Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) for dioxins.

If emissions are as clean as Mr. Wolfe claims, requiring that plant operators monitor and disclose their emissions should not be a problem. High dioxin emissions can be generated and released particularly during start-up periods.

Impact on Water

Water-Related Air Quality Impacts from the Proposed Pioneer Renewable Energy Power Plant (PRE)

The PRE power plant will be the largest industrial water user in Greenfield. This is because it will run at approximately 23% energy efficiency, with about 77% of the energy from the burning of fuel being lost as waste heat . At a time of heightened awareness of the need for energy conservation, this intentional inefficiency is appalling, unacceptable, and should be illegal.

The vast quantities of “waste heat” generated from burning a ton-a-minute of wood will be disposed of by a process called “wet cooling” which will essentially boil off and evaporate water into the local ground-level air. The facility will need about 700,000 gallons of water every day, and close to a million gallons of water will be used daily during the hot summer months. Most of the water being vaporized into our air will come from installing a new pipeline and pumping partially-treated sewage wastewater through the town from Greenfield’s Water Pollution Control Plant down by the golf course on Deerfield Street.

Greenfield’s sewage treatment process is considered to provide “partial treatment” because it only removes gross contaminants (called secondary biological treatment) and is not designed to, nor able to remove most toxic chemicals, especially overthe- counter drugs, personal care products, and synthetic pollutants like pesticides. Many of the pharmaceuticals used at Franklin Medical Center (anti-microbials, antibiotics, chemotherapy drugs, heart medications, artificial sweeteners, etc.) and most of the other compounds on an EPA list of over 87,000 suspected Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) can pass right through the sewage treatment process. In fact, the town is not even required to monitor for these dangerous pollutants. EDCs have been shown by extensive scientific research to cause biological abnormalities in aquatic life, such as birth defects, chromosomal damage, reproductive abnormalities, inter-sex development (females with sperm, males with eggs), and a host of other un-natural and unpleasant anomalies.

Instead of discharging this contaminated sewage effluent to the Deerfield River, where it is likely having an adverse impact on aquatic life, the Town of Greenfield has given approval to the developer to pump this toxic stew 5 1/2 miles north through the center of town to be boiled away in his super-inefficient power plant. Close to 3/4 of a million gallons of contaminated sewage water will be entering the ground-level air of Greenfield every day. Anything and everything dumped down a drain or flushed down a toilet will potentially be aerosolized for the population to inhale. No studies were done to determine how much of the toxic chemicals in the sewage water will be deposited on the citizens who breathe the air. No testing was done for EDCs to calculate how much exposure the local population will be subjected to. Modern pharmaceuticals are developed and designed to have important biological effects at extremely low doses. Many Endocrine Disrupters have documented biological effects at concentrations as low as a few parts-pertrillion. None of the thousands of suspect compounds have been studied to determine what damage they cause in various combinations, so-called synergistic effects. To use the population of Greenfield, Turners Falls, Gill and surrounding towns as Guinea Pigs for this “chemical exposure experiment” is unethical and unconscionable.

It is important to understand that this contaminant plume will not be dispersed through the 250 foot high incinerator smoke stack, but will instead be spewed out essentially at ground level. The applicant has stated, in public and on the record (MEPA hearing, 4/8/09, Greenfield), that only “100% pure water vapor” will be discharged from the cooling towers, even though they will be using reclaimed sewage effluent for wet cooling. From the applicant’s 2482/ENF/Appendix B, page B-41 (Air Quality): “A cooling tower system as described above will dissipate heat by evaporating water and discharging the water vapor into the atmosphere. This water vapor is 100 percent pure water.” This statement is either intentionally misleading or is an outright lie.

In order to meet state water re-use standards, the partially-treated sewage water will have to receive additional treatment at the incinerator to reduce the “food value” (called biochemical oxygen demand or BOD) of the leftover sewage particles (referred to as total suspended solids or TSS). However, this additional treatment process is not designed to, and will not remove the synthetic chemicals, drugs, personal care product residues, pharmaceuticals, and other EDCs in the sewage water. Additional chemicals will then be added to the cooling water such as slimecontrol chemicals, chlorine disinfectants, corrosion inhibitors, and process control chemicals. Extensive monitoring of existing cooling towers at other power plants have shown that they can cause bacteria and other micro-organisms, dissolved minerals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), chlorination by-products, chemical residues used for water treatment, slime control chemicals, corrosion inhibitor residues, volatile process control lubricants, and many other toxic materials to be discharged to the local ground-level air. A certain percentage of this discharge is composed of small droplets called “drift” that can contain concentrated toxin levels (chemical fog) which will either be inhaled or deposited in a fall-out zone close to the facility. None of this was disclosed to the public by the applicant during the permitting process.

The following quotes about pharmaceuticals and personal care products are from testimony by MassDEP Commissioner Laurie Burt before the Joint Committee on Public Health, Tuesday, May 13, 2008 [http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/stypes/burtppcp.pdf]. Commissioner Burt’s testimony focused on the threat that Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products, Endocrine Disrupting Compounds, and other Persistent Organic Pollutants pose when they are present in water supplies, but many of her comments are directly applicable to PRE’s proposal to evaporate and volatilize contaminated sewage effluent into the ground-level air of Greenfield, Turners Falls, Gill and surrounding towns.

“…the potential effects from acute and continuous low-dose chronic exposure to these compounds in humans have not been well studied and therefore warrant caution.”

“…there are no state or federal drinking, ground or surface water regulations regarding pharmaceuticals and personal care products and no requirements to test for these compounds.”

“… we need a better understanding of the sources, fate and transport of these compounds to better target reduction strategies and treatment strategies, as well as get a better understanding of the potential exposures to humans and our ecosystems.”

“In summary, pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment are a national issue demanding a national response.”

In light of the above comments from the DEP Commissioner, the cavalier attitude shown by the Greenfield ZBA and the DPW Director concerning the constant inhalation of EDCs and other toxic compounds that are likely to be in the contaminated sewage water is most reprehensible.

In addition to using contaminated sewage water, the PRE facility proposal calls for using an on-site drilled well for supplying higher-quality water needs and also tapping into Greenfield’s municipal water system. During summer months, when temperature and humidity levels make the wet-cooling process less efficient thus requiring more water, it is also coincidentally when the lowest sewage flows occur in town, resulting in a projected shortfall of contaminated sewage water for cooling. This gap in water need will be filled by using up to 400,000 gallons per day of water from the municipal public water supply system (town drinking water). How will this impact the municipal water supply? How much of Greenfield’s drinking water will actually be used?

The plant will also be discharging over 120,000 gallons per day of highly concentrated industrial wastewater to the Greenfield sewer system. This industrial waste will be composed of so-called “blow down” water left over from the wetcooling process as well as ash-quenching liquid and other process waste. During the summer months, when sewage flows are lowest and water needs are highest,100 % of the towns sewage flow will be continuously recycled through the incinerator. Each pass through the cooling system will concentrate the minerals and other materials dissolved in the water. Other industrial cooling systems, similar to the PRE incinerator, have produced wastewater so concentrated that it has resulted in the upset of the biological systems at the sewage treatment plants, requiring that the industrial waste must by-pass the biological process and be discharged directly into the river without any treatment. If this happens as a result of the PRE incinerator’s toxic discharges, and there is no sewage flow available to recycle, then 100% of the water needs for wet-cooling will have to be supplied by the municipal drinking water system. That means over 900,000 gallons of water per day, or about half of what the City of Greenfield can produce will be consumed by the incinerator.

The PRE power plant proposal was improperly reviewed by totally unqualified individuals. The above issues were never addressed during the public participation process. It is unlikely that anyone on the ZBA had even the most basic understanding of the complex scientific questions that were raised. The details of water usage by the plant were not disclosed during permitting but only referred to as being under negotiation. Thus, the approval process by the town was severely flawed. It is truly questionable whether the water needs of the proposed plant are supportable. It is obvious that many questions remain unanswered and unaddressed. It is likewise clear that the people of Greenfield, Turners Falls, Gill and surrounding towns will be subjected to a constant barrage of contamination from the PRE facility.