Verso Bucksport, Bucksport, MEBurgess Biopower, Berlin, NHLyonsdale Biomass, Lyons Falls, NYReEnergy Black River, Fort Drum, NYBiogreen Sustainable Energy, La Pine, OREvergreen Community Power/United Corrstack, Reading, PANacogdoches Power, Sacul, TXEDF Allendale, Allendale, SCDominion Energy, Southampton, Altavista, and Hopewell, VANippon Paper, Port Angeles, WAPort Townsend Paper Company, Port Townsend, WA12
Introduction: Biomass power, the renewable energy that pollutesThe biomass energy industry has always been highly polluting, as many communities wherefacilities are located can attest. Inherently high-emitting and poorly regulated, the industry’s trackrecord was revealed by a 2012 Wall Street Journal article reporting that nearly 80% of the facilitiesinvestigated by the paper had been cited by state or federal regulators for violating air pollution orwater pollution standards at some time in the last five years. 1 Despite this history, however,biomass energy receives multiple renewable energy tax credits and subsidies. The availability ofthese incentives, which are worth millions of dollars per year to an individual facility, has driven asurge in biomass power plant proposals around the country (Figure 1), with more than 70 utilityscalewood-burning power facilities built or underway since 2005, and another 75 proposed and invarious stages of development. 2 Some of these are new power plants, and some are old coal-firedpower plants that are being re-fired with biomass, such as Dominion Energy’s three 51 MWcoal plants in Virginia, the Altavista, Hopewell, and Southampton facilities, whichDominion has rescued from mothballs to convert into “renewable energy generating assets.” 3Figure 1. The biomass power industry is growing rapidly11,00010,50010,000Biopower capacity (MW)9,5009,0008,5008,0007,5007,0002006 2008 2010 2012 <strong>2014</strong> 2016Figure 1. Actual and projected growth in the biopower industry from 2008 (built capacity for the 2008 industryfrom Energy Information Administration; 4 built capacity and proposed capacity from 2008 onwards from Forisk,Wood Bioenergy US database, December 2013). Not all proposed facilities will be built.Building a biomass plant and generating electricity by burning wood is costly. According to theEPA, the levelized cost of generating electricity from biomass in 2011 dollars per megawatt-hour is$97 - $130, whereas the cost of onshore wind is $70 - $97 and the cost of natural gas combined1Justin Schenk and Ianthe Dugan. Wood-fired plants generate violations. Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2012.2Forisk, Wood Bioenergy US database, December, 20133 Our report and letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission on bioenergy “greenwashing” by Dominion, SouthernCompany, and Covanta can be found at http://www.pfpi.net/investors-to-sec-please-scrutinize-bioenergy-claims4Energy Information Administration. Existing generating units in the United States by State, Company, and Plant, as ofDecember 31, 2008.13
- Page 1 and 2: Trees, Trash, and Toxics:How Biomas
- Page 8 and 9: The fix: EPA should regulate bioene
- Page 10 and 11: To test whether the industry emissi
- Page 14 and 15: cycle technologies is $59 - $86, de
- Page 16 and 17: The physical reasons why bioenergy
- Page 18 and 19: All three facilities went through a
- Page 20 and 21: supposed to use the technology that
- Page 22 and 23: Bioenergy emissions of criteria pol
- Page 24 and 25: CO 2 and conventional air pollutant
- Page 26 and 27: are federally and practically enfor
- Page 28 and 29: Table 4: Biomass power plants with
- Page 30 and 31: shutdown, when emissions can increa
- Page 32 and 33: Table 5: Biomass power plants with
- Page 34 and 35: Nitrogen oxides (tons per year)Figu
- Page 36 and 37: PM 2.5 , including condensable PM,
- Page 38 and 39: Synthetic minor facilities tend to
- Page 40 and 41: material classified as a commercial
- Page 42 and 43: is regulated under the boiler rule,
- Page 44 and 45: As an incinerator, the facility wou
- Page 46 and 47: Table 8: Industry data helps biomas
- Page 48 and 49: permitting authorities, especially
- Page 50 and 51: La Pine, Oregon, used the NCASI fac
- Page 52 and 53: Connecticut, the permit only requir
- Page 54 and 55: then the load is considered to 100%
- Page 56 and 57: elatively high filterable PM standa
- Page 58 and 59: EPA rules compare contaminant conce
- Page 60 and 61: commodity” - therefore, the facil
- Page 62 and 63:
emove obviously contaminated materi
- Page 64 and 65:
developmental and reproductive effe
- Page 66 and 67:
The Evergreen plant is located in t
- Page 68 and 69:
Loophole 4: Most biomass plants hav
- Page 70 and 71:
Summary case studies: the emerging
- Page 72 and 73:
emission limits for HAPs, but does
- Page 74 and 75:
company was permitted to use non-EP
- Page 76 and 77:
Verso Bucksport, Bucksport, MEWhat:
- Page 78 and 79:
Biogreen Sustainable Energy, La Pin
- Page 80 and 81:
iomass from land clearing operation
Change language