The editor noted that it was interesting that large-scale biomass
projects proposed for Michigan should face so much opposition while in
Vermont groups have identified biomass as "potentially feasible as a
means of fair, renewable energy that meets Vermont's environmental
standards."
The partners involved with a three-year UVM-sponsored community biomass
project have been working to understand the information needs of
communities that are considering wood energy options and to begin to
fill in the information gaps while exploring the viability of increasing
wood biomass harvesting and use.
From the outset, the efforts to conduct research and collect data to
assist with assessing this feasibility have been embarked upon under the
premise that the biomass in question would be harvested, procured and
utilized in a sustainable manner - while concurrent attempts were being
made by individuals and the community to increase efficiency at all
levels (including woodstove efficiency, better insulated buildings,
efficient transport, etc.).
The UVM biomass study has in fact generated data that does indicate that
there is additional woody biomass that could be harvested from local
woodlands, which could then be utilized to decrease our reliance on
fossil fuel-based energy sources. We estimate that the additional wood
that could be harvested is about one cord per resident per year.
Although more wood is there, significant questions remain to be
answered. Are landowners willing to sell it? If so, at what price? Can
it be harvested in ways that protect water quality, site productivity,
biological diversity and the capacity of the site to sequester carbon?
If so, at what cost? If the full costs of harvest, transport, production
and monitoring are built into the business model, will the biomass
facility be economically viable? Data and partial analysis to help
answer these questions were reviewed recently in three-part series
published in The Valley Reporter.
The intent of the UVM study, however, is not to actively promote the use
of the forests for this purpose but rather to make this information
available to the community, so that community leaders can decide whether
to promote an increase in biomass as one means toward energy
independence. Further, the study aims to assist the communities in how
they might best define, assess and evaluate "sustainability" as it
relates to the harvest, procurement and use of wood as an energy source.
In addition to the ongoing and necessary dialogue across various media
on a whole host of energy-related issues from energy legislation to the
BP oil spill to Vermont Yankee (from local to global) there have been a
number of a pieces recently discussing the pros and cons of biomass and
whether wood biomass in particular is really a sustainable, viable,
renewable energy option.
These informative articles include a June 18, 2010, New York Times article on the Massachusetts Manomet study that calls into question the
net benefits of biomass power
(www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/science/earth/19biomass.html?bl) and a Times
Argus article that reports that biomass projects being proposed in
Vermont are in fact different from those in Massachusetts (and Traverse
City, MI). The study was conducted by the Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences.
There are a number of distinctions that separate the projects proposed
for Traverse City and anything that would happen in the Mad River
Valley. First, projects in the Mad River Valley would undoubtedly be on a
much smaller scale (and are already, as with the Harwood wood
chip-powered facility). Second, they would focus on thermal energy as
opposed to generation of electricity.
The Manomet study in fact concluded that biomass used for thermal
purposes is much better for atmospheric carbon and climate change than
biomass electric. And, finally, the UVM study is focused on local
communities making decisions that are ecologically sound, local, and
fair to all of the players so the intent of any information generated
from this study would be to be utilized within this context.
David Brynn, Vermont Family Forests; Tara Hamilton, Northern Forest
Alliance.
