A story in today’s Wall Street Journal (dateline: BLUE LAKE, Calif.) offers a withering indictment of biomass energy plants, with Blue Lake’s own serving as exhibit A. The story opens on the “malodorous brown smoke” that billowed from the plant two years ago (Heidi Walters wrote about it shortly afterward) and goes on to suggest that biomass plants collectively are dirty, dirty polluters bilking American taxpayers for hundreds of millions in green subsidies.
Reporters Justin Scheck and Ianthe Jeanne Dugan report that biomass plants in the U.S. have received “at least $700 million in federal and state green-energy subsidies since 2009 … .“
Yet of 107 U.S. biomass plants that the [Wall Street] Journal could confirm were operating at the start of this year, the [Wall Street] Journal analysis shows that 85 have been cited by state or federal regulators for violating air-pollution or water-pollution standards at some time during the past five years, including minor infractions.
They don’t say how many of the infractions were minor. The rest of the authors’ case against biomass relies largely on anecdotes about bad apples, particularly a Fresno-based plant called Madera Power that was repeatedly caught — and fined for — burning plastic.
Kevin Leary, the co-owner of Blue Lake Power, offers the story’s money quote, griping that, “It’s goddamn hard to stay in compliance.”
The authors say that Blue Lake Power has received more than $7 million in federal grants and subsidies. Addressing the fallout from the plant’s 2010 smokeout they report:
The North Coast Air Quality Management District investigated and found several violations. It reached a settlement with Mr. Leary requiring Blue Lake to pay $1.4 million but allowed it to spend most of the money buying new pollution-control equipment and developing better operating practices rather than paying the agency.
How dare they, right?
We won’t go so far as to suggest that the story has an anti-green energy slant, but it’s worth noting that the authors allow the claim that biomass is “dirtier than coal power in certain ways” to go by unchallenged.
To their credit they do acknowledge that, “Fossil-fuel industries also receive government subsidies.”
But they don’t dwell on it.
This article appears in Manure Maneuver.
So I was a bit disappointed by this article. While there is some good reporting as to what the Wall Street Journal article said, the article didn’t add any real information. For instance it also let the claim that biomass “is dirtier than coal power in certain ways,” go unchallenged. When I started reading the article I had hoped the Journal would have reported some facts that could help to educate and inform the reader as to the facts. I look forward to seeing the follow-up story with figures and facts about the issue.
The right dwells on the over regulation and intrusion of governnment that small businesses must deal with regularly. Small business and business in general is sacrosanct, yet a new industry, an industry striving to be green is just short of evil. The double standard is alive and well at the WSJ.
Is anyone interested to know that biomass is far less harmful than coal in every scientifically measurable way? Oh, I am sorry I forget that environmentalists are only interested in science if it supports what they are trying to claim at the moment. I’m personally a bit tired of people writing nonsense like this. Biomass power is positive in every single respect. It creates local jobs (coal is imported – billions gone), it is far cleaner, infinitely greener and it promotes the planting, management of timber and investment in timberlands. If that is a bad thing maybe someone can help me understand what good is.
The Wall Street Journal has gone the same way as Faux News since Murdoch bought it. It’s not good for much besides lining a hamster cage nowadays.
@Jesse Sewell — I’m having difficulty parsing out the point of your comment — was that sarcasm about science or environmentalists or biomass power being good?
I have not yet read the WSJ article but the one thing to keep in mind is that EVERYTHING we choose to do has negative consequences as well as positive benefits. And that certainly includes biomass energy production.
Whether you focus on the negative (as WSJ apparently did) or the positive depends on what outcome you individually are likely to accrue the most benefit from.
And by the way, coal isn’t imported — the US has perhaps the largest coal reserve on the planet and plans are afoot to export a lot of coal — but it does have serious negative consequences in its extraction and use.
One thing that rings true, whether for ethanol fascists in Iowa or oil industry corporatists or so-called green energy advocates is the ignoring of the fact the market chooses the best product as long as individuals are protected from harm. The focus on the details of the science is a distraction from the issue of private property and how that concept can be the foundation for a cleaner and more prosperous world.
These plants are entirely dependent on fossil fuels and cannot run without them. How does the “green, renewable” biomass get from the forest into the plants’ boilers? Starts with a chain saw, then a loader puts the logs on a truck which drives out of the forest to a location where chipping occurs, then the chips are loaded into another truck which drives to the plant and dumps the chips into a pile in the chip yard where a big loader pushes them around to mix them and eventually pushes them into the feed for the burner. If we figure all those loaders and trucks go about 50 miles one way – 100 round trip (a reasonable number given that BL Power gets chips from as far away as Oregon) – they use about 20 gallons of diesel per delievered truckload of chips. BL Power needs 20 truckloads a day. Diesel diesel makes 22.5 lbs of CO2 per gallon, so that ends up being 20 gallons x 22.5 lbs x 20 trucks/day = 9000 lbs, or 4.5 TONS of CO2 per DAY. And that’s before anything comes out of the stack at all.
So, like ethanol, biomass only appears green when you don’t consider the entire chain of supply.
shame on the WJ for not printing a feel good puff piece!
Biomass power IS as dirty, or dirtier, than coal – in many ways. Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from biomass plants are the same or higher than those from coal plants. And greenhouse gas emissions per unit energy are far higher. There’s lots of information posted at http://www.pfpi.net.
Seven million in subsidies received and yet the company felt the need to steal water from the city’s fire hydrant to fill their Blue Lake Power water truck!
Eyewitness watched this occur after dark. Denials by Blue Lake Power to follow. Shameful.
http://deaf4christ.org/#usa carisoprodol 350 mg ndc – carisoprodol soma