We can’t reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan by replacing coal with the only thing that emits more carbon pollution: biomass
Massachusetts Environmental Groups to EPA – Treating Bioenergy as Having Zero Emissions Undermines the Science
EPA’s decision to override established science and treat biomass energy as carbon neutral is disappointing for clean energy advocates and is a threat to the hard-won, science-based rules adopted in Massachusetts.
Are legislators ready to explain to families with asthmatic children why the state is paying their neighbors to increase air pollution?
The Pioneer Renewable Energy project would have burned almost 600,000 tons of wood a year, the equivalent wood yielded by clearcutting 6,000 acres of Massachusetts' forests annually.
PFPI found Solutia is violating EPA health standards by emitting hundreds of tons of sulfur dioxide each year, but the switch to natural gas will reduce emissions.
The coal plant at Solutia in Springfield is violating air quality standards in one of the most polluted regions of Massachusetts.
Gasification is not a magic technology that makes toxics disappear. New garbage gasifiers in Massachusetts will emit hundreds of tons of air pollution and consume materials that should be recycled.
The Solutia coal plant causes violations of air quality and health standards in the Springfield region. It's time it was modernized.
Considering renewable energy is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including low-efficiency, high-emissions biomass power in state RPS programs doesn't make sense.
The State of Massachusetts is serious about reducing carbon emissions and policymakers realized that providing renewable energy subsidies to a technology that makes climate change worse didn’t make sense.
High-emissions biomass power doesn't belong in a renewable energy portfolio alongside no-emissions technologies like wind and solar.
Biomass power plants won’t reduce residential wood-burning and the pollution it produces one iota, but will add hundreds of tons more new particulate matter and ozone-precursors to the air.
By pretending that cutting and burning whole trees doesn’t add carbon to the atmosphere, the newly watered-down Massachusetts regulations claim the legitimacy of being “based on Manomet” - while ignoring that study’s key finding.
What do Australia and Massachusetts have in common? Both governments are have cutting edge energy policies that acknowledge the drawbacks of biomass energy – showing that biomass energy is truly an emerging threat to forests worldwide, but that sane policy responses are possible.
A new report gives the most comprehensive listing to date of biomass power facilties proposed around the country, and the taxpayer and ratepayer-funded incentives driving explosive growth in the biomass industry.
The Massachusetts rules will require for first time anywhere in the world that renewable energy credits for biomass energy be granted based on a common sense, life cycle assessment of the carbon emissions of burning forest wood to generate electricity.
Want to know what toxins you’re breathing? Easy visualization from the National Air Toxics Assessment
Using the Google Earth maps allowed us to see that census tracts surrounding the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield MA already have the highest combined respiratory and cancer risk in Western Massachusetts.
April 12 was a “hazardous” day for air quality in western Massachusetts, yet it's full speed ahead for the Palmer Renewable Energy plant in Springfield, which will be one of the largest emitters of particle pollution in the region.
When the dust settles from the public hearing on the Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield, MA, Hampden country will still be out of compliance with pollution standards for ozone, Springfield's kids will still have asthma and elevated blood lead levels at twice the state average, and the city will still be experiencing high particle pollution. And that's if they don't build the plant.
The Manomet study relies on a number of assumptions that minimize the calculation of net carbon emissions from biomass, meaning that actual emissions are likely significantly greater than the study concludes.
The only independent, multi-stakeholder study of the carbon impacts of burning trees to generate electricity found that it would take 40 years of forest regrowth just to get to parity in carbon pollution with burning coal for those same four decades. To get to parity with natural gas would take almost a century.