EPA rears up, acknowledges co-firing biomass with coal increases GHG emissions
Combustion physics lend support to a minor rebellion against lawmakers who legislated biomass as “carbon neutral”
Combustion physics lend support to a minor rebellion against lawmakers who legislated biomass as “carbon neutral”
Even ignoring the CO2 coming out the smokestack, the new policy sets a lifecycle emissions standard that imported wood pellets can’t meet
Co-firing biomass with coal will increase emissions, decrease power plant efficiency, and increase forest destruction, to boot.
Why is the State of Massachusetts offering incentives for wood heating when wood burners are already a major source of air pollution in Massachusetts?
The White House strongly objects to language in the House Appropriations Bill that would compel EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as if they emit zero carbon pollution.
Policy riders forcing EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as emitting zero carbon pollution defy climate science and the demonstrable fact that burning trees for power emits more carbon than coal or gas.
34 investment groups with over $53 billion in assets under management have requested that the SEC examine claims of climate benefits in the biomass energy sector, and enforce disclosure rules
You can’t meet carbon and air pollution reduction goals by replacing coal with something that’s dirtier than coal
Treating bioenergy as if it has no carbon emissions could make proposed coal-to-wood conversions in Ohio viable, threatening the state’s forests with being cut for biomass fuel.
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.

