Did They Really Say That? See for Yourself.

Posted by Nils Bruzelius in Biofuels, climate change on June 23, 2010 | 14 responses

By Mary S. Booth, Ph.D, and Alex Formuzis, EWG Vice President for Media Relations

Life would be so much easier for biomass industry executives if they didn’t have to worry about their own words.

It was hardly a surprise when the head of the Biomass Power Association, Bob Cleaves, went on the attack last week (June 16) in response to Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) report that projects a massive increase in forest cutting to provide fuel for biomass-fueled power plants being built around the country.

Contrary to the report, Cleaves emphasized that [the Biomass Power Association] and its members do not advocate harvesting trees for energy production, and the vast majority of biomass facilities utilize wood waste material and industry byproducts to produce clean energy… [The Biomass Power Association] said they are not aware of any facilities that use whole trees for energy.

Power-GenWorldWide (biomass trade publication), June 17, 2010

But Mr. Cleaves’ comments had us scratching our heads. You’d think he would know what his member companies use for fuel. After all, several biomass power plants that the Biomass Power Association represents declare openly on their websites that they use wood chips from whole trees.

Mr. Cleaves also sought to create the impression that the use of whole-tree fuel is prohibited at biomass-burning facilities that receive federal tax breaks, but there is no such language in the IRS code.

To set the record straight, EWG compiled these statements, from the biomass industry itself, showing that whole-tree harvesting is a primary source of fuel and will continue to be, despite what Mr. Cleaves claims:

EXHIBIT A: Evidence that whole tree chips are a common fuel for existing power plants, including members of the Biomass Power Association

1. Massachusetts: “The Fitchburg Power Station is a 17 MW waste wood- and landfill gas-fired power facility. The facility burns whole-tree chips.”

2. New Hampshire: “Tamworth Power Station is a 22.5 MW waste wood power facility… the facility uses wood from trees unsuitable for lumber or pulp.”

3. New Hampshire: “The Bethlehem Power Station burns low quality wood, which is continuously replenished through the natural forest cycles. The facility uses approximately 675 tons (per day) of whole-tree chips.”

4. Vermont: “The Ryegate Power Station burns 250,000 tons of whole-tree chips per year.”

5. Vermont: McNeil Station (Burlington Electric) “Seventy percent of the wood chips that fuel the McNeil Station are called whole-tree chips and come from low quality trees and harvest residues. The trees, a majority of which are on privately owned woodlands, are cut and chipped in the forest… To run McNeil at full load, approximately 76 tons of whole-tree chips are consumed per hour. That amounts to about 30 cords per hour (there are about 2.5 tons of chips per cord of green wood).”

McNeil Station, Vermont. Photo by Chris Matera, Massachusetts Forest Watch.

EXHIBIT B: Evidence that whole trees will be the fuel of choice for future biomass power

1. New Hampshire, Laidlaw Energy: “The Berlin biomass-energy project (the “Berlin Project”) will be one of the largest biomass-energy facilities in the United States… and will utilize in excess of 700,000 tons of clean, whole-tree wood chips per year in order to generate approximately 65 megawatts of electricity, thus generating substantial local economic activity for loggers, truckers and other local businesses. The fuel source for the Berlin Project will be whole-tree wood chips and other low-grade wood.

2. New Hampshire: Schiller Station: “Currently, PSNH’s Schiller Station in Portsmouth operates three 50 megawatt coal-fired steam boilers built in the 1950s. PSNH will replace one of these coal boilers with a new fluidized-bed boiler. This state-of-the-art boiler will burn whole-tree wood chips and other clean low-grade wood materials to generate electricity.”

3. Ohio (from EWG’s report): “The enormous Beckjord coal plant seeks to re-fire with biomass. They answer, in a response to the question about fuel sources, that “the most likely initial fuel will be woody biomass produced by whole-tree chipping” and will “likely be local within a 50 mile radius of the coal landing terminal…” (Beckjord Response to Interrogatories, Case No. 09-10230EL-REN; filing with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio).

EXHIBIT C: Evidence that without whole tree harvesting, there won’t enough wood for fuel

North Carolina/South Carolina:

Proceedings before the North Carolina Utilities Commission in connection with Duke Energy Corp.’s bid to get renewable energy credits (RECs) for the power it generates by burning whole trees in coal plants.

Letter filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center and Environmental Defense Fund in opposing Duke Energy’s application:

Duke has asked the North Carolina Utilities Commission for permission to burn wood, including chips from cutting up whole trees, with coal at its Buck power plant in Rowan County and Lee plant in Williamston, S.C.

Duke requests that the Commission register “whole tree” biomass derived from cutting forests as a renewable energy resource. Because the definition in Senate Bill 3 limits woody biomass to “wood waste,” Duke’s application should be denied.

Duke Energy’s responses to questions in pre-hearing testimony:

Q: How would a limiting interpretation of the definition of “biomass resource” impact the company’s… compliance strategy and resource investment plans?

A: Duke Energy Carolinas would be forced to significantly alter its… compliance strategy if the definition of “biomass resource” was interpreted as a matter of law to exclude all other wood fuel sources except “wood waste.” As illustrated by the testimony of Company Witness Steward, there is already limited “wood waste” supply in the marketplace, and such a limiting interpretation would create an artificial premium for that supply… there may simply not be enough “wood waste” fuel available to support the relative needs at Company-owned or third party sites.

Further testimony by Duke Energy:

In December 2009, the Company issued a Request for Information for Biomass Fuel Supplies and received 26 responses for a variety of biomass resources. The predominant biomass fuel that was offered was from whole-tree chips.

In today’s marketplace, only approximately 6% of forest residues are collected within our service area. Most are left at the harvest site because they are considered uneconomic to transport and have low quality for utilization due to size, dirt, and bark content.

EXHIBIT D: Evidence to support EWG’s conclusion that “energy crops” won’t produce biomass fuel any time soon.

Duke Energy hearing testimony:

Q: Can the company use “energy crops” to meet the wood fuel needs to support its biomass implementation plans?

A: No, at least not at the present time. Energy crops, which are plants, trees and other crops planted specifically for use as energy fuel, are simply not presently available in the marketplace in quantities to sustainably support any type of biomass operations within Duke Energy Carolinas service territory.

A lot of trees are already being burned in power plants and more forest cutting is on the way under the currently planned expansion of biomass power. Add to that the forest cutting planned by the expanding wood pellet industry, which is shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of pellets made from American trees overseas to be burned in European plants. The combined demand for chipped and pelletized wood biomass fuel represents a massive drain on forests that can’t be met with “waste wood.” It only takes a couple of easy calculations – calculations the biomass industry has made, too – to know that this is so.

  • Glen Ayers

    Thanks for putting together such a great rebuttal to the obvious propaganda maneuver by the BPA regarding whole tree chipping. Were they hoping that “A big lie told often enough becomes the truth” would cover up the facts? Bob Cleaves is the Goebbels/Hitler of the biomass world.

    This quote by the CEO of Louisiana-Pacific sums up the industry’s attitude:

    “We need everything that’s out there. We don’t log to a ten-inch top. We log to infinity. Because we need it all. It’s ours. It’s out there, and we need it all. Now.”
    –Harry Merlo, CEO, Louisiana Pacific

    Not a single thing has changed since Merlo told the truth, except that the rate of deforestation has increased. Biomass is the new “Final Solution” for the liquidation of our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th growth forests. Thanks for exposing the lies!

    -Glen Ayers,
    Soil Scientist, Massachusetts

  • Nils Bruzelius

    Hadn’t seen Harry Merlo’s quote. That says it all.
    Nils Bruzelius, EWG Executive Editor

  • Judith Eiseman

    I have no reason to doubt you, but PLEASE be excruciatingly correct in anything you say or attribute. The other side will nail you if you aren’t and your hard work will be lost.

  • M.A. Kinnaman

    They will lie through their teeth to keep getting that tax payer money to operate on!

  • Kris Castle

    Some of the issue here may be your mis-understanding of the term “whole tree chips”. As used in the forest industry for decades, this term means that the whole tree is utilized (e.g., hops, branches, rot, etc.), though th etrunk of the tree may have been harvested for and sent to a sawmill, pulp mill or other higher-value market. This is typically what occurs in forest management activities using “whole tree chipping”.

  • Mary S. Booth

    Kris Castle:
    I disagree with your assessment of our understanding of the term “whole tree chipping”. The term is self-explanatory – it means the entire tree is chipped for fuel. If as you state, the trunk of the tree is used for commercial timber, then the remainder (the tops and branches) are referred to as “logging residues” or “forestry residues”. As the industry knows, and as Duke Energy knows (as demonstrated above), the amount of tops and residues generated by the commercial timber industry is a tiny fraction of what the biomass industry requires as fuel. This is why “whole tree chipping” for power generation is already occurring to provide fuel for numerous biomass plants and coal plants that co-fire biomass, and why we’re about to see a dramatic increase in combustion of whole trees.

    Mary S. Booth, author of EWG’s analysis of the biomass industry, “Clearcut Disaster”

  • Rachel Smolker

    Re misunderstanding of whole tree chipping, Kris says these “MAY” have been harvested as sawlog. That seems to be the operative word? It leaves open the possibiity of “or may not”.

    As I understand, many incinerators cannot handle messy chip material, and really must use chip generated from center wood, not a lot of bark, dirt or other materials. If this is true, then much of the “residue” is too dirty to burn in any case?

    Lastly, some of the defnitions of biomass, for example in ACESA or APA climate bills, include language about “nonmerchanteable” timbers. I take it this means forestry operations will cut not only the prime sawlog trees, but also pretty much everything else since there is now a market for it. This makes clearcutting, or at least much heavier harvesting, profitable.

    Thanks Mary and EWG for compiling this – and for the great report

  • Erich J. Knight

    Having Our Biofuels and eating them Too

    Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, the basic cell structure of plants, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.

    We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.

    It’s hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel. Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.

    Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

    Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

    Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle. This Virtue is lost by Clear cutting forest’s Soil Carbon loss.

    Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
    “Feed the Soil Not the Plants” becomes;
    “Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !”.
    Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
    Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
    Microbes like to sit down when they eat.
    By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders & Kingdoms of life.
    ( These oxidised surface charges; carbonyl. hydroxyl, carboxylic acids, and lactones or quinones, have as well a role as signaling substances towards bacteria, fungi and plants.)

    This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of penitence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.
    Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic “capture” collectors are up and running, the “storage” sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

  • Dicken Crane

    Mary
    Kris is right. It is unfortunate but terms are not always self explanatory. Most chips used to go to pulp mills for paper and they came from debarked logs or slabs. The energy sector has opened up a market for “whole tree chips”. What is meant by “whole tree” is that the bark, branches and leaves are included. It doesn’t mean that the entire tree is included. Most whole tree chipping jobs in NE have a slasher in front of the chipper cutting off the saw logs and pulp and only sending the tops, rotten logs and trees that are too small through the chipper. Limbs from road and power line maintenance are also “whole tree chips”. They are lower value and price than pulp chips. The term you are looking for is “forest derived chips”. “Whole tree chips” may or may not be “forest derived chips”

  • Fuddlebunker

    As many debates go, a clear understanding of terms is needed. When quoting someone, do you know what they mean when they refer to a “hot term”, or is it being pulled out of context. Is the “accepted” definition of that term broadly accepted as accurate in different parts of the country or even from company to company, market to market. So, who says what is “Whole tree chips”, do they all agree, and how does that definition change or support the viewpoint.

  • TribalScribal

    OK, let’s see now, it could be like potato chips only made from whole trees! No? Let’s see, little chips that fall from a whole lot of trees? Gosh, English is hard!

  • Matt Merritt

    Could you maybe just call the companies and ask them? Because if you’re wrong, you should take this post down.

  • Suz-Anne Kinney

    While I acknowledge that some whole tree chips will be used by biomass energy companies, unless the amount of this material used is minimized, the endeavor quickly becomes cost prohibitive.

    In addtiion, those concerned that whole forests will be razed in order to supply energy facilities with biomass can rest assured that this decision will not lead to the wholesale clearcutting of our forests. Selling small diameter logs to pulp and paper companies and to small-dimension lumber mills is a much more lucrative proposition. Selling large diameter trees to mills manufacturing wood products is even more lucrative, a fact which incentivizes landowners to allow trees to grow to maturity. The forest landowners I know will never be willing to forego these bigger paydays for the $1 or $2 per ton (sometimes less) they will be offered for biomass harvests.

  • Rachel Smolker

    Erich Knight leaves this same rant all over the internet…The biochar enthusiasts are – a tad overconfident lets say. The science on biochar? VERY little known, but as Johannes Lehmann the grandaddy of this bad idea said in a talk a few weeks ago – “more questions than answers”. Yet they are eager to calim that we can “reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 12%…” in a recent paper in Nature Communciations. If you bother to look at the 40 pages of supplementary materials…this would require collecting, transporting, pyrolizing and then tilling into the soil virtually all “residues” from farms, forests – what have you – animal manures, and all – as well as converting over 556 million hectares of land to produce crops specifically to be burned. This would be quite an undertaking – WOW. If only we had reason to be confident it would in fact work, the carbon WOULD remain sequesterd, and all the many many other benefits Erich is waxing poetic over. But commen sense dictates that it would make sense to DECREASE demand for biomass, and stop burning stuff. For a review of some of the rather concerning concerns…
    http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf