Opinion: Biomass is no renewable panacea

This is an open letter to Rep. Tony Klein of the Vermont House of Representatives. I am writing to inquire about a statement you made that appeared on page 1 of the Rutland Herald last Wednesday, April 25. http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20120503/OPINION03/705039978

Published May 3, 2012 in the Rutland Herald Biomass is no renewable panacea This is an open letter to Rep. Tony Klein of the Vermont House of Representatives. I am writing to inquire about a statement you made that appeared on page 1 of the Rutland Herald last Wednesday, April 25. I refer to the article by Thatcher Moats entitled, “Biomass amendment runs into obstacle in Statehouse.” In paragraphs 9 and 10 Rep. Klein is quoted as saying that with regard to the Benning amendment under consideration last week, that would impose a three-year moratorium on biomass plant construction, the bill was not the place for it because it could open up debate on other renewable resources. Mr. Klein is quoted as saying if the amendment passed, “Then somebody has a right to come in and say 400-foot wind turbines are not renewable.” Did he really say that? My question relates to the fact that if one is comparing wood biomass, the counterpart is wind, not the turbine. Does anyone really think that someone is going to join the debate on renewable energy and argue that wind is not renewable? As for turbines, their counterpart is the biomass plant. You can find thousands of people who will argue persuasively that wind is renewable and forests and forest trees are only renewable if your time horizon is 40 years. The forests of Vermont climax after cutting in 35 to 50 years. Is that renewable? Not in my lifetime, at my age. The forests, perhaps Vermont’s single greatest asset, are only renewable under an expansive definition of the term. If large-scale biomass plants are built, forests will disappear faster than they repair. There are plenty of data that deal with this flaw in the biomass-renewable argument. While small-scale biomass for heating is efficacious, the large-scale plant proposed for North Springfield by a Massachusetts developer is projected to exploit 20,000 acres per year. Over the 50-year life of such a plant this plant would consume 1 million acres of wood. One plant, a million acres? And what about the other plants and those already in existence? A million acres here, a million acres there? Will Vermont hunters be applying for New York and Massachusetts hunting licenses? Any guesses on what a cord of firewood will cost? A truck load of wood chips for our schools and hospitals? How about wood pellets for pellet stoves? So I would respectfully like to propose the following two things to Mr. Klein. First, and most important, I recommend you include the Benning amendment in the House budget bill and have a three-year moratorium on wood biomass until lawmakers can read and process the scientific, health, and environmental negatives of large-scale burning. Second you need to reconcile biomass burning, which is a huge greenhouse gas emitter, with Gov. Shumlin’s evolved position on greenhouse gas emissions. The Legislature needs to support the governor’s greenhouse gas initiatives (also endorsed by the North Springfield Action Group in their opposition to the North Springfield biomass plant) or address why the lawmakers are not persuaded by the scientific literature or, in the case of the North Springfield proposal, the developer’s own data in their petition to the Public Service Board, which details the noxious emissions. Following the adoption of the Benning amendment, if anyone wants to then argue against wind turbines by arguing that wind is not renewable, as wood biomass from Vermont’s forests is not renewable, then I recommend telling him or her to find a logged woodlot on a hillside where the wind blows. Day one, look down feel the wind and look down at the ground. After a week repeat the same. After a month, a year and a decade repeat the exercise. After 20 years they should be able to stand on the hillside and judge for themselves what is renewable (wind) and what is “not so much” (Vermont’s forests). Randall Susman is a resident of North Springfield.