All posts in the topic Biomass/burning: not a good idea /RE: Renewables (Short link)
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 8 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Brett Haugen at Nov 21 01:23 UTC
I won't bother reprinting Anne's indecipherable and inane comments,
or Marks points 1 through 5 in which he with a broad brush spreads
environmental horror stories about biomass with no scientific
support. It's telling that both Annie and Mark lump all biomass
together... Apparently they don't realize that corn, soy, and woods
have quite different combustion characteristics and products.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 2:07 AM, Mark Sulander wrote:
> 6. Sorry to say, burning anything is no longer a really good
> idea. The air doesn't stop at
> any convenient border... it flows from our property and affects our
> neighbors and then flows somewhere
> else, down the road. Meanwhile, the air from the folks from down
> the road... is headed our way. We all need
> to do a better job to keep the air clean, since we all need to
> breathe the same air.
Mark, this is quite a cold climate we live in here- temperatures in
unheated buildings are now dropping below freezing and we have months
of winter yet to come. If we follow your advice and quit burning
anything, even if we cover our roofs with solar collectors they won't
absorb enough heat to make our homes livable. Windmills won't do the
job either- we simply don't have the favorable topography of the
ridges to the west. To stay warm through our Minnesota winters we're
going to have to burn something, and fossil fuels will at best last
us two generations, never mind seven. But it appears you prefer us to
spend our winters in thick down sleeping bags and arctic explorer
outfits, eating snow and trying to chew frozen vegies whilst coughing
and hacking from respiratory infections. So clearly the future
belongs to renewable biomass fuels, and the sooner we switch to them
the better. It is sad to see so called environmentalists standing in
the way of such progress.
warm and comfy by my corn stove in Hawthorne,
Dyna Sluyter
At 10:19 AM -0600 11/18/08, dyna wrote:
>If we follow your advice and quit burning
>anything, even if we cover our roofs with solar collectors they won't
>absorb enough heat to make our homes livable. Windmills won't do the
>job either- we simply don't have the favorable topography of the
>ridges to the west. To stay warm through our Minnesota winters we're
>going to have to burn something, and fossil fuels will at best last
>us two generations, never mind seven.
>
Connie here: Not burning any carbon-based material, or burning less
of it all the time, is the goal. Burning corncobs in a little stove
may be better than burning gas, but it's not an ideal solution.
Actually, we have a lot of sun in Minnesota, even in the winter
(that's based on fact, Dyna, not theory, and it's part of why I moved
to Minnesota from overcast Pennsylvania); my solar thermal system
chugs right along on those neat sunny days, like today. And people
are working on various ways to save the photovoltaic energy so it
lasts even over grey days and snowstorms.
Further, companies like Xcel are working to find ways to store
wind-generated power in huge "batteries," so that wind-generated
power becomes ever more reliable. (The Strib's business pages had an
article on Xcel's pilot program on that, last week) That's wind's
only defect, its inconsistency. If they can fix or minimize that
inconsistency, then wind, like solar and the wonderful geothermal
systems, becomes more feasible as a way to heat your house, as well
as keep your lights and computer on.
Don't give up too easily. Or bash efforts trying to find ways for us
not to burn anything at all.
Connie
Como, in Southeast Mpls
--
This should shed some light - no pun intended. My conclusion is that we need
ALL sources of renewable energy to solve our global climate and energy
security crisis, and we shouldn't pit one against the other.
I don't have the numbers for Minneapolis, but they are very similar to these
national numbers. I am more familiar with electricity specifically which has
a higher percentage of renewable sources and of which hydro is a much larger
source than biomass, but these are the numbers for energy consumption in
U.S. for 2007:
Total Energy Consumed: 101.605 quadrillion Btu's
Total from Renewables: 6.830 quadrillion Btu's
RENEWABLES MAKE UP 7% OF ALL ENERGY WE CONSUME. Sources include:
Biomass 53%;
Hydro 36%;
Geothermal 5%;
Wind 5%;
Solar 1%
Biomass in general is much cleaner than coal or petroleum. Hydro,
geothermal, wind and solar are completely clean.
2007 U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source (Quadrillion Btu)
Total 101.605
Fossil Fuels 86.253
Coal 22.786
Coal Coke Net Imports 0.025
Natural Gas 23.625
Petroleum 39.818
Electricity Net Imports 0.106
Nuclear 8.415
Renewable 6.830
Biomass 3.615
Biofuels 1.018
Waste 0.431
Wood Derived Fuels 2.165
Geothermal 0.353
Hydroelectric Conventional 2.463
Solar/PV 0.080
Wind 0.319
Source: US Dept. of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (EIA),
Monthly Energy Review (MER) March 2008
Even though everyone (including me) wants wind and solar, they are
intermittent, not cost comparable, and the grid still has to get built. So
while they are a tiny and vital part of the solution now, and will grow
somewhat in the long term, they are not a complete solution. Hydro and
biofuels are the largest part of the solution, with biofuels growing the
most. The rest of the solution I think will be conservation and new
technology for storage.
Good sources to learn more are:
U.S. EPA Power Profiler provides customized fuel mix and air emissions rates
by zip code.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html
Our public utility, Xcel Energy
http://www.xcelenergy.com/Residential/SaveEnergy_Money/Pages/Save_Energy_Money.aspx
Minnesota Energy Challenge
http://www.mnenergychallenge.org
There is actually quite a bit of real data on this that has been studied over the last two years by a the project team and a citizen's advisory panel looking at renewable fuel and technology options for the Rock-Tenn paper mill just across Hwy. 280 from me in St. Paul. Dyna is largely wrong, except on the gross level of global warming for the carbon neutral aspects of biomass, and the others are pretty much correct, i.e., burning just about anything is problematic and alternatives must be considered. That's why the panel was pleased that a solution involving natural gas produced off-site as an off-set for that drawn from the grid is possible and was chosen as the preferred alternative over biomass burning on-site with the most modern effective controls available. Widespread and uncontrolled burning of anything by individuals throughout the state is probably one of the biggest pollution problems in our state and Dyna can count herself as an increment of a dire threat to public health. The larger, strictly controlled biomass facilities are a much smaller problem. As a native Southern Californian transplanted here 15 years back, the laxity of burning controls was striking to me (in non-attainment areas for ozone and such, CA had already required catalytic converters on wood burning fireplace installations back then); we've reached the point where we have to consider controls for the cummulative pollution from our small fires as compared to the large but well controlled commercial conflagrations. Connie's SE Como neighborhood (disclosure: I was representing their organization on that previously mentioned panel) seems to be leading the way to real solutions, but if you're set on burning biomass in the city, keep an eye on the new U of MN Morris biomass plant and think about adding some pollution control devices to your biomass stoves. http://renewables.morris.umn.edu/biomass/ Nikki's DOE numbers aside, here in Minnesota we can do a whole lot more with biomass though, but the fuel market infrastructure does not really exist yet. Dyna is correct that we'll be burning stuff for some time to come, but with better batteries and energy carriers like hydrogen, perhaps we can minimize and keep it as clean as possible, taking full advantage of solar, wind and geothermal, eventually, just as pioneers in Southeast Como and many other Minneapolis neighborhoods show us what can be done.
Dyna and whoever-
The tone of this biomass burning discussion strikes me as unconducive to
much objectivity. While Annie did not offer any scientific objectivity
and though I agree that her son's job is not the information we need,
that doesn't mean she is inane or indecipherable nor is Mr. Sulander.
Some of us do not oppose all biomass burning in any circumstances and
most sensible people approach these things on a case by case basis.
Condemning people as fools or accepting any of this as ideology on either
side is simply unhelpful and leads to bad science. As such, I was very
disappointed when the Strib claimed, without asking most of us, that the
same people who opposed the 'burner' now oppose the Xcel power lines, as
though all we do over here is oppose things. East Phillips organization
would like time to do our own research re: this situation as we did with
the 'burner' and find our way, as well as we are able, to a responsible
and non-ideological solution.
This is what we did regarding the biomass burner which we concluded, with
the help of scientists at the University School of Public Health, was a
bad idea for this area. This was a decision based on 1) what the
community was already subjected to, 2) the number of small children here
and 3) the kind of pollution the biomass would bring. We studied all this
as a community in discussion only with objective scientists, away from
people pro or con and came up with what we felt was a responsible
decision for our neighborhood.
And yes, Dyna, we do know "what pollution and toxic particles" would have
come from the biomass plant, even though it was an advanced piece of
technology that cut back emissions about as much as possible, given
current science. I quote the following from the MPCA's Technical Support
Document for the Midtown EcoEnergy Plant:
"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) The
facility will be a major source of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)."
Analysis of this document plus analysis of area-wide health statistics
was done. I only have a BS degree in biochemistry and my advanced degrees
in philosophy did not help here, but we certainly know where to go to
fill the gap and how to understand what we learned. It was determined by
the U. of M. scientists, on the basis of the MPCA's own statistics, that
37% more asthma-agravating particulates, namely the tiniest ones that are
smaller than 2.5 microns, would enter the air of Phillips from the
biomass plant. These are the most lethal because their small size
seriously enhances their ability to enter into lungs. There were other
toxins, but this fact was very significant given that asthma attacks are
a leading cause for lack of strong school attendance in urban low income
areas, and given that this area already suffers from exaggerated
particulate matter pollution. School success is a terrible challenge here
and we felt that it was inappropriate to add this additional burden on
the already struggling families and children here.
For drawing this conclusion through scientific evidence and honest hard
thinking, some council members called us names, referred to us as rogues
and urban radicals always stirring up trouble. To implement our decision
to protect the children here cost many of us about 7 months of 24/7 hard
work and a considerable amount of money. I do not make any of these
remarks casually or as a wild-eyed idealogue, nor do I earn either power
or funds from this. These decisions by our neighbohood people were
entirely a matter of science and ethics and should be respected as such.
As should the effort to protect our neighbors and friends.
Mudslinging and all or nothing ideological approaches on either side only
leads to bad science, bad choices and unnecessary division between
people, even though it may feel good to some people to beat up verbally
on others. We have an example before us in our new president that should
shame us all when we head in that direction and start saying unpleasant
things about each other. I would think we heard enough of that in the
previous election to last us for years. Let's move this discussion to a
higher plain.
Do you know how much pollution it would create? And just what types
of emissions? It is irresponsible for a public official to blindly
blame fellow citizens for "pollution" when said public official can't
even properly identify what, if any, "pollution" may be produced. All
combustion produces emissions of various types, whether the fuel be
gas, oil, biomass, coal, etc.. that sometimes necessitates
regulating. But there is no evidence that biofuels are in any way a
threat to human health, so there is no need to further regulate the
emissions from their combustions. Not that city government, never
mind the Park Board, has any authority in such matters anyway.
> My regular organizing job is around chemicals and toxins that are
> in our neighborhoods and from that perspective my questions about
> biomass in a dense urban area are about the pollution and toxic
> particles released.
What "pollution" or "toxic particles"?
> This is no different when I fought having the incinerator downtown.
You seem to be confusing corn and trees with the garbage that fuels
the incinerator...
Hi Everyone, I would like to add some information to the exchange between Dyna and Annie on biomass and pollution: 1. There are many reasons why biomass is not a good idea. Burning materials of any type creates much more pollution than most people think. I think Annie raises a great point: if everybody did it how much pollution would it create Our reality is this: we happen to live in a densely populated urban area. Our air is already full of emissions of all kinds, so new burning sources are adding to a "container" of pollution in our area that is already pretty full to begin with. 2. Fireplaces and pellet stoves are one thing in areas away from the city, where the air is fairly clean to begin with. Here in the city however, adding thousands more of these devices will be harmful to the overall health of everyone that lives here. Some nearby neighborhoods already have some of the highest childhood asthma rates of anywhere in the Midwest; adding more burning and emissions to the mix is just not a good idea. Even healthy adults need to be aware of air emissions. When the EPA announced air alerts on several consecutive days recently, it emphasizes that healthy adults should stay indoors and avoid physical exertion because of high particulate levels. Why? Fine particulates can be harmful to healthy adults, even those with healthy cardiovascular systems, since the particulates can cause inflammation. Those who already have cardiac problems are at increased risk for a cardiac event. 3. Back to biomass: some of the worst emissions from biomass/ burning wood, include those same type of particulates, including nano-particles so small, that they cannot be filtered by any known method. These particles are just too small to be effectively attracted and trapped, even by very sophisticated types of electrostatic-charged plates. These nano-particles are so small that they can lodge deep in the lungs, cross into the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier, and even enter individual cells and degrade those cells over time. Federal regulations are already in the works to help curb nano-particulate emissions, and should hopefully be finalized and come on line in the next several years. 4. You asked for some information: here is one website that you could check, for a quick rundown of what's been happening with several proposed biomass projects here in Minneapolis and also in St. Paul during the past year: Minneapolis: http://www.neighborsagainsttheburner.org/ecoburner St. Paul : http://www.neighborsagainsttheburner.org 5. Specifically, Dyna, you made the statement: But there is no evidence that biofuels are in any way a > threat to human health, so there is no need to further regulate the > emissions from their combustions. Unfortunately, biofuels actually are a threat to human health. If you would like to check out some facts, consider the recent biomass proposal in Minneapolis, the recently cancelled Midtown "Eco Energy" Biomass Plant. For starters, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Technical Support Document on that proposal, is over 210 pages long. It may even still be listed at the MPCA website. It contains an amazing collection of chemical and particulate emissions that would have been emitted by this proposed plant, that most people would never guess would be produced by burning wood. In short, burning wood-- in many ways, is as bad or worse, than burning coal, since the wood used by this type of biomass burner would be in something like 3 inch chunks and would have had a variable moisture content. In addition, the wood would also be contaminated from being grown in a toxic urban environment, where trees do a great job of filtering the heavy metals and other toxins from the air. When that wood is burned however, the chemicals and metals are immediately released. Fortunately, the city and the developer cancelled that project last spring. 6. Sorry to say, burning anything is no longer a really good idea. The air doesn't stop at any convenient border... it flows from our property and affects our neighbors and then flows somewhere else, down the road. Meanwhile, the air from the folks from down the road... is headed our way. We all need to do a better job to keep the air clean, since we all need to breathe the same air. Other alternative energy sources hold better promise for the future, than biomass... Best wishes, Mark S., south minneapolis
Hi Dyna, Once again, I would suggest that it's very helpful to deal with the facts. Here are the some very helpful references: 1. For some great information and graphics on wood smoke, please refer to the MN Dept. of Health information cited at the MPCA website at: Minnesota Dept. of Health, Wood Smoke: Health Effects http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/woodsmoke/healtheffects.html *********************************************************************************** 2. Re: The Mpls. "Eco Energy" Burner pollution data" For the 219 page Technical Support Document that describes in detail, the chemical and air particulate soup that would have been produced by the (cancelled) "Eco Energy" burner in Minneapolis: MPCA Eco Energy Technical Support Document http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/data/bdc.cfm?noticeID=277808&blobID=19790&docTypeID=4 Best wishes, Mark S., south Minneapolis
Mark, none of your citations apply to my primary heat source, a CORN
burning stove. Corn burns so clean that the EPA doesn't even regulate
corn stoves, and in distilled form as a motor vehicle fuel it burns
cleaner than petroleum- why do you think the American Lung Association
supports ethanol? Your citations don't even apply to the EPA approved
wood stove I occasionally use to heat my garage.
What you are doing is standard environmental wacko strategy- come up
with every possible hazard of a substance and then broad brush spread
the assumption that a worst case scenario will happen if the substance
is used. Can you point to any studies that quantify the health effects
of biofuels? Probably not. But there are stacks of studies quantifying
the negative health effects of lead, untreated diesel exhaust, heavy
metals, etc.. When you can come back with evidence that biofuels are
harming human health you'll have a case, until then, you're just fear
mongering.
BTW, there's a real environmental elitism and classism behind this
anti biofuels crusade- It's poor folks that are stuck burning wood
because they can't afford increasing expensive luxuries like natural
gas. Many older homes like mine were never designed for and for all
practical purposes can't accomodate a forced air natural gas furnace. As
for solar cells and collectors, like hybrid cars there pretty much
status symbols for the well off.
And finally, for the folks that still persist in labelling all of us
that burn fuel to keep warm as polluters, I dare you to set an example
for us all. Go to your electric meter, and pull the big master shutoff
lever to the off position so Excl Energy wont be burning any more coal
to keep you warm. Then go to your gas meter and turn the valve to the
off position. Now see how long you can survive before you burn something
to keep warm.
from Starbuck,
Dyna Sluyter
It simply amazes me this argument between biomass and technology. And the false
assumptions argued.
Alcohol of course pollutes much less than petroleum or coal. To argue
differently is foolish. Burning corn produces far less pollution than the
environmental pollution from coal powered electricity. The problem is societal
cost. Burning FOOD to keep warm simply costs TOO much. Sure, large corporate
farmers get massive government welfare to underwrite the sale price, but it
does bear an enormous societal cost, and especially impacts poor people
directly with outrageous food costs.
Now the other side: The idea that technology does not already exist to
economically heat homes using wind and solar is just as fallacious an argument.
The problem is simply one of supply and demand. We simply do not have the
demand for enough of it to make such technology economically cheap enough. The
roofs of Minneapolis houses and buildings could not only heat and light all the
houses in Minneapolis they could also provide the power to run the commercial
enterprises in Minneapolis. You just have to apply existing technology and the
"GRID".
Air-to-Air heat pumps run on that electricity produced by the house, put in the
grid, and then taken back out later. They have now advanced to where a Seer 21
pump will work down to 15 degrees below zero. They will get better. Sure you
need a backup for the fifty or sixty hours a year that it gets colder than that
in Minneapolis, but that is where Dyna's corn burner would work for her and
regular old electric could work for everyone else. The most efficient gas
furnace works at about 95% efficiency. A Seer 21 Air to Air pump is about four
times as efficient and costs about 1/4 of that of the most efficient gas
furnace for the same amount of heat (and cooling as an added bonus). With a
geo-thermal well they even work twice as good.
Our place in Costa Rica has a cabin and house on it. The total electrical
energy comes from two pelton generators using the water flow from a very small
creek that also supplies all the water consumption. Not that you could use this
in Minneapolis (no mountains behind the houses) but it does demonstrate what is
possible, but again the problem is simply supply and demand. Remember folks one
of today's cars would each cost 1/2 a million dollars if you only made a few of
them, but make a million of them and they cost less than $20 thousand. The same
thing applies to efficientenergy technology.
We in Minneapolis have supplied the right of ways and monopoly to Excel for
their unsightly lines and to be part of that "Grid". Perhaps we should look at
Minneapolis energy needs as a City problem. Perhaps use the combined buying
power of a whole City to greatly reduce the cost of that technology. I know
when I was checking on the cost of Seer 21 Mitsubishi and Fujiko Air to Air
units for my community the price dropped considerably when I asked about
several dozen units. What would be the cost if we purchased several thousand as
a City sponsored project? Minneapolis needs to begin looking at City energy
consumption and production as a City of Minneapolis specific problem.
Jim Graham
The City that scorns excellence in community infrastructure as a humble
activity and tolerates shoddiness in political philosophy because it is an
exalted activity will have neither good sewers nor good public policy: its
political policies will hold more crap than its pipes. - Gem
It would be interesting to see what a city could do if it put its resources
toward this. I heard recently that many people in Los Angeles are trying to get
"Off the Grid" individually by purchasing solar shingle, wind turbines, and
even building cisterns under their driveways for their water supplies. Imagine
what could be done if a collective population did it. I haven't heard of any
communities trying this yet, I wonder who will be the first.