On Other Blogs
Is Biomass Energy Green?
The Seattle Times reports on scientific evidence that biomass is not a green alternative. Good article, but they miss the implications re: a controversial bill making its way through the state legislature.
Perhaps the news isn't as dramatic as Japan's nuclear meltdown—which has cast renewed doubt on nuclear power—but another alternative to fossil fuels, biomass (such as wood pulp), has also taken a hit in the headlines.
The Seattle Times reports today on new scientific evidence that questions how green biomass actually is.
The Times article notes that the news is a political blow to Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark, Gov. Chris Gregoire, and Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, all of whom are pushing Washington state's wood products industry as one of the green solutions to the problematic fossil fuel economy.
However, the article misses another local and political ramification. Legislators in Olympia have been trying for three years now, including this session , to undo the voter-approved renewable energy initiative.
Passed in 2006, I-937 requires utilities to produce 15 percent of their energy load from new, renewable energy sources by 2020 (with check-ins along the way, including three percent by 2012). The meddling legislation, which passed the senate earlier this month and came up for a public hearing in the house yesterday, would change the initiative so that facilities can count things like wood pulp as “renewable energy sources.” The intent of I-937 was to encourage new renewables like wind and solar power, not existing sources like wood products.
Cliff Traisman, the lobbyist for Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters, told PubliCola today, "the fact the bill has gotten this far is a cause for alarm." He notes that the 1,200 megawatt mandate for the sorts of renewable energy envisioned in I-937 would drop by 10 percent, allowing 120-160 megawatts to come from biomass.
"This is attempting to retain current paper mill jobs at the expense of creating the new jobs that come with the development of renewable energy under I-937," Traisman says.
Perhaps the news isn't as dramatic as Japan's nuclear meltdown—which has cast renewed doubt on nuclear power—but another alternative to fossil fuels, biomass (such as wood pulp), has also taken a hit in the headlines.
The Seattle Times reports today on new scientific evidence that questions how green biomass actually is.
New, sophisticated calculations are casting doubts on the merits of biomass-produced power. Some researchers have concluded that, when it comes to carbon dioxide, biomass could be more polluting — at least in the short term — than coal, and much worse than natural gas. Burning biomass is dirtier at the outset, they argue, and recouping that higher initial release of carbon could take years or even decades of forest growth.
"It's hard to imagine a more polluting and less efficient alternative source of energy than biomass," said Richard Wiles, former co-founder of Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C.
The Times article notes that the news is a political blow to Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark, Gov. Chris Gregoire, and Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, all of whom are pushing Washington state's wood products industry as one of the green solutions to the problematic fossil fuel economy.
However, the article misses another local and political ramification. Legislators in Olympia have been trying for three years now, including this session , to undo the voter-approved renewable energy initiative.
Passed in 2006, I-937 requires utilities to produce 15 percent of their energy load from new, renewable energy sources by 2020 (with check-ins along the way, including three percent by 2012). The meddling legislation, which passed the senate earlier this month and came up for a public hearing in the house yesterday, would change the initiative so that facilities can count things like wood pulp as “renewable energy sources.” The intent of I-937 was to encourage new renewables like wind and solar power, not existing sources like wood products.
Cliff Traisman, the lobbyist for Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters, told PubliCola today, "the fact the bill has gotten this far is a cause for alarm." He notes that the 1,200 megawatt mandate for the sorts of renewable energy envisioned in I-937 would drop by 10 percent, allowing 120-160 megawatts to come from biomass.
"This is attempting to retain current paper mill jobs at the expense of creating the new jobs that come with the development of renewable energy under I-937," Traisman says.
