Biomass as power source is generating opposition
When Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition C in 2008, they made a commitment to support renewable energy, including biomass.
And energy producers responded, vowing to build several power plants that promise to turn timber, wood chips and even corn cobs into electricity to power thousands of Missouri homes.
But as those plans now go before state regulators, some environmentalists, property owners and timber industry officials are beginning to balk. They worry some of the proposed plants will create new sources of air pollution, strain local water supplies and possibly prompt Missouri’s Ozark forests to be clear-cut.
“I think the environmental community wants to embrace biomass because it’s not coal,” said Kathleen Logan Smith, director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. “Nobody wants to see more coal plants. But I’m not sure ‘it’s not coal’ is a good enough reason to jump on board.”
Those concerns are being raised just as several new biomass projects are beginning to pick up momentum, lured to Missouri by both federal subsidies and the expected increase in demand as a result of the new voter-approved renewable energy standard established under Proposition C. That ballot initiative directs investor-owned utilities to acquire 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2021.
In Perryville, Mo., the Indiana-based company Liberty Green Renewables is awaiting approval from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for an air permit, a critical component of its plans to build and operate a $120 million 32-megawatt plant, which could supply power for 23,000 homes. That decision is expected within two weeks, DNR officials said Thursday.
And last week, ProEnergy Services of Sedalia, Mo., and the city of Salem announced they had signed a memorandum of understanding to explore the development of a wood-fired plant there.
Company officials confirmed they are in talks with several other southern Missouri towns to launch similar ventures. Driving the move is the fact 13 that Ozark communities are slated to see their power supply contract expire in 2013.
“There isn’t a need for a plant in every one of those towns,” said John Smeltzer, ProEnergy’s vice president of renewable energy. “Three to four plants could cover the load when you’re talking about what’s being lost.”
But some Missouri residents aren’t sure the state needs any biomass plants.
Biomass is generally defined as any kind of plant-derived organic matter. The term often means wood waste such as mill residue from paper or pulp mills; forest residue left behind by loggers; agricultural waste such as corn cobs or any number of dense fast-growing crops.
But it also can mean municipal trash and tires. And that’s one of the things that can make some environmentalists leery.
Another is the fact that combustion technology creates air pollution.
The Missouri Coalition for the Environment is encouraging its members to oppose the Liberty Green air permit, pointing to the fact that the plant will be a new source of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.
At a recent Perryville City Council meeting, Dr. Bill Sammons, a Massachusetts pediatrician and national biomass opponent, told local leaders that burning biomass for energy was “dirtier than coal.”
He cited medical studies that show how relatively low levels of particulate matter can cause or aggravate respiratory problems particularly for the young, elderly and sick.
City leaders, however, aren’t buying it. In fact, Perryville Mayor Debbie Gahan said research indicated the plant’s emissions wouldn’t amount to “much more than steam.”
“We see this as a good move for our community and certainly not one that’s going to harm the environment in any way,” Gahan said.
Liberty Green officials say they plan to use a type of technology at the Perryville plant that limits emissions to 10 percent of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter for the same level of electricity produced by a traditional coal-fired boilers.
“There’s not going to be a cleaner wood-fired plant in the state,” said Jack Farley, Liberty Green’s co-founder.
Farley added that the Perryville plant wouldn’t be burning tires or any kind or chemically treated wood waste.
DNR officials confirmed this week that the air permit being drafted for Liberty Green does not allow such materials to be burned.
While tires and trash might be outlawed, some landowners and wood products companies wonder just what the new biomass plants will burn to produce electricity.
They worry there aren’t enough trees, wood waste and water to meet the plants’ demand.
“We don’t have the kind of forests that can support clear-cutting like the chip mills did several years ago,” said Tom Kruzen, a Mountain View landowner and longtime Sierra Club member. “And if it’s going to jeopardize our forests and put our Ozark streams at risk, I’m against it.”
An analysis conducted this year by the Missouri Forest Products Association found that the timber-dependent towns of Salem and Ava do have enough woody materials to support biomass plants if they were relatively small.
Still, association officials said some of their members worry new plants might pose costly competition for woody materials also used in pallets, particle board and charcoal.
“There’s no question, we’re walking a tightrope on this issue,” said Steve Jarvis, the association’s executive director.
For the Perryville plant, Liberty Green plans on getting its wood supply from urban tree trimmings, logging leftovers and wood chips, Farley said.
ProEnergy is proposing to build a plant in Salem capable of producing up to 20 megawatts. A plant that size would require about 300,000 tons of green material a year, and the products association project about twice that amount is available in the Salem area.
“Our project is small enough that it’s not going to put anyone out of business,” Smeltzer said.
While both companies have touted the economic benefits the proposed plants might bring, some environmentalists say Missouri’s electricity consumers would be better served if biomass subsidies and tax incentives were directed elsewhere.
“If we put $200 million into energy-efficiency efforts, think of all the good stuff that could happen in Missouri,” said Logan Smith of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. “We could save money, and we could save jobs.”
-KIM McGUIRE
