Guest View: Biomass Project Isn't Sustainable

The energy source for power production is piñon and juniper trees

I would like to respond to David Cohen's article, "The Truth About Biomass Energy" (Guest View, Aug. 9).

I live in the area and I much appreciate WildEarth Guardians' assistance in helping our voice be heard concerning our lack of desire to see the biomass plant located in Estancia. Mr. Cohen stated he was going to be polite and focus on just the truth and then proceeded to do just the opposite. I would like to address some of the errors in his column, either factual misstatements or omissions.

He is correct in stating that solar and wind energy are wonderful sources of clean energy and generate power only at certain times. However, technology is available to store this energy and release it when it is needed. Two known methods are chemical (batteries) and thermal (brick storage). These are definitely the energy sources preferred in our very sunny and very windy area to provide the cleanest energy possible.

Mr. Cohen is also correct to state that biomass facilities can and do run on far more than just forest thinnings. However, the energy source for Western Water and Power Production is piñon and juniper trees. He has a lease to cut trees on 43,000 acres of piñon/juniper habitat near Gran Quivira up through Chupadera Mesa, and this is just the beginning of obtaining biomass material to keep the plant burning. The Union of Concerned Scientists states that raw biomass typically can't be cost-effectively shipped more than about 50 miles before it is converted into fuel or energy. Does this give you a picture of what the land, 50 miles in every direction from the plant, will look like after this plant has been continuously burning for 20 years?

Clear cutting forests, which Mr. Cohen states WWPP would never be allowed to do, occurs every day in this country, from the Olympic peninsula to the Manzano forest to local ranch land. WWPP will not be making prudent use of brush (as stated), they will be harvesting trees for the purpose of burning them. The plan for cutting this acreage has not been released so we can't yet know for sure what will happen- will it be clear cut, radically thinned or scientifically thinned? The lease itself is on shaky grounds. The requirements for the bidders were such that only Mr. Cohen's company was eligible to bid and the person approving the lease, Patrick Lyons, our land commissioner, has stated that he is not legally obliged to consider all lease bidders.

Mr. Cohen's third claim, that biomass is a renewable energy source, contains an almost complete paragraph from the Web site for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

However, he omitted the last statement, which I would like to provide: "As long as biomass is produced sustainably- with only as much used as is grown- the battery will last indefinitely." There is no possible way for this to occur with this project. The trees planning to be cut take 100-300 years to grow. The Union of Concerned Scientists discusses the use of trees as energy crops, using trees that grow as much as 40 feet in 3-8 years. They are not referring to the trees that grow here. Additionally, there is no talk about replanting the trees that will be removed and the amount used will not equal the amount grown.

Therefore, biomass is not sustainable for this project.

Yes, biomass may reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent compared with fossil fuels. This figure, however, does not take into account the reduction of carbon sequestering trees that will be removed and not replaced. This scenario does not occur when fossil fuels are burned because there is no original source of carbon sequestration that is being eliminated. Also, there is not currently a fossil fuel plant in Estancia, so WWPP is talking about increasing carbon dioxide, and numerous other emissions in our local air. The Union of Concerned Scientists also cautions that one of the problems with burning biomass is that it can cause some pollution if it is not carefully controlled. To counter this, they suggest burning biomass and coal together. They also recommend three noncombustion methods for converting biomass to energy- thermochemical, biochemical and chemical.

In conclusion, the Union of Concerned Scientists does support biomass as a form of energy. However, their concept of biomass energy and WWPP's concept of biomass energy are very different concepts.

Anyone interested in further information can go to the Web site ucsusa.org.

Peggy Norton is a Mountainair resident.

Copyright 2007 Albuquerque Journal - Reprinted with permission


 

All active news articles