News Articles About Beaver Wood Energy and Biomass:
The Power to Persevere: How One City Is Rebuilding Itself Through Biomass
renewableenergyworld.com – November 16, 2011
BERLIN, N.H. — Drive deep enough into the White Mountains of New Hampshire, and you’ll be on your way. Continue far enough past the ski resorts that make the region famous, and you’ll head straight for some of the most rugged peaks in North America. Stay close enough to the unforgiving Androscoggin River, and you’ll soon see the sign.
“Welcome to Berlin, New Hampshire: The City That Trees Built.”
It’s then that you’ll realize that this struggling city doesn’t take failure easily. And giving up? It’s just not the way they do business.
So when the city set out on a course to rebuild itself, it once again turned to the dense forests that long ago defined this community. For the 10,000 residents of Berlin, the cornerstone of the revitalization is a 75-megawatt biomass power plant that will by 2013 sprout from the ashes of the city’s historic paper mill.
(Click on title for full story)
Study confirms biogenic emissions result in no net carbon release
biomassmagazine.com – November 10, 2011
A new study with multiple co-authors, including researchers from the U.S. Forest Service, found that energy produced from forest biomass merely returns recently absorbed carbon to the atmosphere, and essentially results in no net release of carbon, provided overall forest inventories are stable or increasing.
The report, “Managing Forests Because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and Land Management Policy,” summarizes the most recent science regarding forests and carbon accounting, biomass use and forest carbon offsets. The authors, researchers from the U.S. Forest Service as well as several universities, natural resource and environmental organizations, hope their findings will lead to better policies, based on their findings.
(Click on title for full story)
The entire study can be downloaded here.
How Manomet Got it Backwards
by William Strauss – August 26, 2011
The biomass curves assumes a 30-year growing cycle with dedicated sustainable forests so that no new net CO2 is released by combustion after the 30th year from biomass facilities started in 2011. The coal curve is business as usual. The model assumes a 2.5% annual increase in demand.
In 2010, the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences conducted a study for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to examine the greenhouse gas implications of using woody biomass for energy. Manomet’s report stated that burning wood initially emits more greenhouse gasses than burning fossil fuels, and that it can take 30 years or more for this “carbon debt” to be repaid. The news media misinterpreted the findings, screaming “Wood Worse than Coal” in headlines that played around the world. In response to the controversy, Manomet issued a statement of clarification, but stood by their science and the idea of a carbon debt. Massachusetts, for its part, took the study to heart and has drafted revised regulations that will dramatically reduce the likelihood of new biomass energy facilities being built under the state’s renewable energy portfolio standards.
The problem, as I see it, is that the debt-then-dividend axiom on which Manomet bases their whole study is fundamentally flawed. Those who study complex systems theory are familiar with the concept that selection is information; in this case, the Manomet authors have selectively limited the scope of their worldview in a way that only allows for one conclusion.
The foundation of the Manomet argument is that there is a debt when CO2 is released when we burn wood from a tree, and over a growth cycle, the debt is repaid as new trees grow and gather carbon from the atmosphere. Taken to the logical extreme, they’re taking a theoretical fully grown tree, harvesting it, burning it, measuring the carbon, then watching an empty space for 30 years until new trees grow in its place. Figure 1 shows this in a chart form.
But what if we look at the forest on a landscape level, rather than on a tree-by-tree basis? Say there’s a forest system with 1,000,000 tons of biomass on January 1 of a given year. Because forests are always growing, that system might have 1,010,000 tons of biomass at the end of that year. In this case, the forest has increased its carbon stock over the year by 10,000 tons. If 10,000 tons of biomass are harvested from the system on December 31, then the system begins the next year with the same stock of biomass and carbon it had at the beginning of the previous year. The harvest was carbon neutral.
Now instead of starting our carbon counter in the present, as Manomet does, let’s start it at the time the stand was last harvested. Figure 2 (below) takes a single stand of trees and starts the accounting 30 years ago, back in 1982. The dotted line is the zero net carbon level (this accounting doesn’t include any carbon other than that from combustion and it does not consider the carbon in the stumps and other unharvested components). The trees capture carbon for 30 years, which is shown by the downward sloping red line. In 2011, the forest is thinned, and the stand gives up the portion of its carbon accumulated in the last 30 years. The stand regrows over the next 30 years (it sequesters more carbon this time, due to improved silviculture).
Clearly this scenario has a number of simplifying assumptions that may change the shape and magnitude of the points on the chart. But the underlying conclusion is also clear: if biomass is harvested from existing forests that will be sustainably managed in the future, there is no debt. I call this “dividend-then-benefit” logic.
The Manomet authors have made it clear that their study’s scope was limited to Massachusetts. Since my background is in Maine’s wood supply, I’ll concede that it’s possible that Massachusetts cannot support any further growth in the use of wood for energy without depleting the stock of trees, though it’s worth noting that the U.S. Forest Service estimates that Massachusetts is presently harvesting only 25 percent of its annual growth. One should not assume that the Massachusetts conclusions can be extrapolated to other states. And none of that changes the Manomet study’s fallacy of not accounting for the already-accrued carbon dividend inherent in sustainably managed working forests, whether they are located in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Manomet’s debt-then-dividend axiom is a flawed basis for a proper understanding of the carbon benefits that wood-to-energy can provide. In fact, Manomet gets it backwards. There is no debt if the forest system has been in growth-to-harvest equilibrium or has a growth-to-harvest ratio greater than 1/1 and the forest is managed sustainably so that the net stock of biomass does not deplete. By limiting its scope to only looking forward from 2011, Manomet ignored the “money in the bank” that’s been accruing for decades, which would be like ignoring the money you already have in the bank when deciding whether or not you can afford to take out a mortgage.
Wood-to-energy from sustainably managed forests, a process that all of Europe has codified in its carbon accounting rules, can provide net-zero carbon emission or even positive carbon sequestration if the woody biomass stock is not depleted or grows over time. A more detailed analysis of this subject can be found here.
The biomass curve assumes that the biomass used in 2011 is from sustainable forests that have already sequestered the CO2. The model assumes a 2.5% annual growth rate in demand. Improved silviculture increasing yield per acre assumed to match the growth in demand.
William Strauss is the founder and president of FutureMetrics. He is also the chief economist for the Biomass Thermal Energy Council (Washington, DC) and for the Maine Pellet Fuels Association
Biomas energy is carbon-neutral
letter to rutlandherald.com – October 20, 2011
It appears that Chris Matera of Massachusetts Forest Watch has spent little time observing what is actually going on in our working forests. His article on wood-burning in last Thursday’s paper shows woeful ignorance of actual forest processes and forestry practices.
We have a sugarbush in Shrewsbury which we manage for optimal sugar and timber production, and for biomass to provide fuel for our evaporator, domestic hot water, and heating our house and workshop. We burn about 40 cords per year (mostly in maple syrup production) and have been working on this land for about 25 years. It will take at least five more to get it where it should be. Our operation is a mini-version of larger biomass projects that Chris excoriates, and what we have found is generally true for all of New England.
Many of our forests are overstocked. That is, too crowded with trees. Growth is slow. Much of the forest biomass is in weed trees that are useless for saw timber and inhibit the growth of our maple crop trees. These are what we focus on when we gather fuel. This does not result in deforestation. Quite the contrary, it results in a much healthier forest of large, well-formed trees that grow quickly and produce much more. The process is like weeding a garden. Every weed you pull enhances the crop you are really trying to grow.
The crowded overstocked forest does not sequester more carbon. It is in equilibrium. Carbon uptake through growth is offset by carbon released through rot. When we thin and remove the wood, new growth occurs and carbon uptake happens. This uptake, over time, balances the carbon we release on burning in our evaporator, etc. Our fuel use produces no net carbon increase.
In a nutshell, biomass projects are not intent on deforestation but on forest improvement through thinning. The result is carbon-neutral energy, enhanced timber and sugar production and many traditional jobs in the forest. This is true whether wood goes into my evaporator or your parlor stove, the furnace in your local school or a power plant like the one proposed for Fair Haven. Additionally, thinning allows more sunlight to reach the forest floor, stimulating the growth of small plants that are good food for wildlife.
I invite Chris to come look at our forest. Observe the large strong well-spaced trees where we have thinned, and the scrawny crowded trees where we have not.
ARTHUR KRUEGER
Shrewsbury
Fair Haven pellet plant project back on track
rutlandherald.com – September 24, 2011
FAIR HAVEN — Contractors for a proposed biomass plant and wood pellet manufacturing facility in Fair Haven said permitting applications for the project are back on track after Beaver Wood Energy closed financial deals to cover additional permit costs.
A company official said they acquired more than $1 million in additional funds to complete development. It removed a road block in the project’s permit process.
Beaver Wood developer Tom Emero said the additional money was for the Act 250 land use permit and other aspects of permitting. He said, with the financing in place, they will move forward with the Section 248 permit process with the Vermont Public Service Board.
(Click on title for full story)
The Unkindest Cut
Seven Days – June 29, 2011
This is what tree hugging looks like in the Northeast Kingdom: A green, crane-like harvester crawls into a stand of trees. With a belch of black smoke, its hydraulic steel arms embrace the trunk of a towering white pine.
Within seconds, a 200-mile-per-hour rotary blade the size of a manhole cover has sheared through the tree’s base like a weed whacker mowing down a dandelion. The tree doesn’t fall, but stays upright in the harvester’s metallic grip. The feller buncher, as the rig is called, grabs a second tree, then a third, severing trunk from stump with a quick puff of sawdust. With three trees in its grasp, the crane lays its bundle down on the forest floor.
(Click on title for full story)
Sprucing up our energy supply
politico.com – June 19, 2011
What’s green, grows on trees, creates jobs and supports healthier forests in rural America?
Answer: woody biomass.
If you were enraptured with the cap-and-trade debates in the House Energy and Commerce Committee two years ago, you’re likely already familiar with my passion and advocacy for energy produced from woody biomass.
But most of you probably had something better to do.
(Click on title for full story)
Is Wood the Best Renewable Fuel for Heating?
Popular Mechanics – January, 2011
Wood heating isn’t what it used to be. It’s now clean, efficient and, in the right stove, high-tech. And, as it’s always been, it’s a renewable resource. Here is what the future holds for wood heating.
(Click on title for full story)
Biomass Power Association Applauds EPA Decision on Carbon Regulation Deferral for Biomass
BPA Press Release – January 12, 2011
WASHINGTON, DC – President and CEO of the Biomass Power Association (BPA) Bob Cleaves today applauded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision to delay carbon dioxide (CO2) regulation of biomass facilities for three years. During this time, the EPA will classify biomass as a “Best Available Control Technology” and will provide states with policy guidance on how to support this decision.
In a letter sent today to Congressional supporters of biomass, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson stated, “As you know, biomass can be part of a national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and efforts are underway to foster the expansion of renewable resources and promote biomass as ways of addressing climate change and enhancing forest management.”
(Click on title to download full press release)
Rising Heating Oil Costs Result in Record Savings with Wood Pellets
businesswire.com – January 10, 2011
GOFFSTOWN, N.H.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–As homes heating with oil are facing record-level heating bills, consumers heating with wood pellets are suddenly realizing record savings.
This January, Popular Mechanics introduced “the high tech, carbon-neutral alternative fuel of the future” – wood. Providing environmental and economic benefits, and a level of convenience unmatched by traditional wood stoves, over a million US homes now heat with a wood pellet stove. “The savings have never been greater,” notes Jon Strimling, President of www.WoodPellets.com.
(Click on title for full story)
Let’s dispel three myths about wood power
concordmonitor.com – January 9, 2011
There is a growing mythology among some who profess a concern about healthy forests and our energy future that wood is bad as a fuel for energy, and that we in the northeastern United States are foolish to include wood in the mix of fuels that can sustain our energy future.
(Click on title for full story)
Biomass energy for Vermont
timesargus.com – November 21, 2010
By Tom Emero
I would like to thank the residents of Pownal and Fair Haven for their participation in discussion about proposed biomass projects in their towns. As many of you know, Beaver Wood Energy has proposed two 30-megawatt energy projects that will bring good-paying jobs, tax savings and clean energy and private investment to those communities.
I want to give everyone an update on the status of the projects.
1) We have filed the necessary permit applications with state regulators in Montpelier.
2) We have met with regional planning commissions, select boards, planning commissions, energy committees and the public in both towns.
3) We have listened to your concerns and tried to answer your questions. When we first proposed these projects, many important issues were raised that will only make the projects better.
(Click on title for full story)
EPA rule threatens economy
Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp – November 9, 2010
Misguided opposition to biomass energy in the commonwealth is not the only barrier to economic recovery in Massachusetts. The entire Bay State must now contend with an issue that surfaced this summer at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, one that will further threaten our state’s economic recovery and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The issue centers on the EPA’s change to greenhouse gas rules in a way that will diminish job creation in the renewable biomass energy sector.
(Click on title for full story)
Fair Haven VT wants their Biomass
rutlandherald.com – October 20, 2010
FAIR HAVEN – Various community members voiced concern about a proposed
biomass project at a Select Board meeting Tuesday, not because of
disagreements toward the project, but because many people believed it to be
“too good to be true.”
Tom Emero of Beaver Wood Energy, along with Blair Enman and Nicole
Kesselring of Enman Engineering, presented updated information on the
proposed 29 MW biomass and wood pellet plant project.
Serena Williams, town manager, asked Emero to speak to the Select Board
after receiving a letter from Beaver Wood Energy on an Article 248 permit.
Article 248 requires companies to obtain approval from the Public Service
Board before beginning site preparation or construction of energy
transmission facilities in Vermont.
(Click on title for full story)