Opinion
Snow Days Bring Worries for Adults

What Is Real Purpose of Animal Law?

Let's Get State Police Out on the Road Again

It's Time To Fork Over All that Unspent Pork

Kudos and Thanks for Quick Response

Edgewood Parade Turned Out Nicely

AYP Status Doesn't Tell Whole Story

Letters to the Editor

Editorial: Hibbs Has Done Job of 2 Mayors

Editorial: Law Revised for Problem Animals

More
Opinion

HOME	CLASSIFIEDS	OBITUARIES	SPORTS	OPINION

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Guest View: The Truth About Biomass Energy

By David S. Cohen

    In this publication, the "Forest Guardians" and their supporters have repeatedly made four erroneous claims against biomass energy— as well as numerous ad hominem arguments against our alternative energy company. As I prefer reasonable debate to nasty politics, I shall ignore in this article their personal attacks and instead focus on the truth-value of their assertions.
    Let us, then, dispassionately ask: What do they assert and is it true?
    They assert that biomass doesn't belong among the list of clean renewable energy sources which, they further say, should include only solar, wind and geothermal; that our biomass facility will clear-cut the forests; that biomass isn't a renewable energy source; and that biomass energy pollutes the air.
    Are these claims true? They assert all this with such an air of certainty, as if there could be no other environmentalist point of view, that you would be forgiven if you weren't aware that the "Forest Guardians" are very much in the minority among environmentalists. They are not the mainstream.
    Take for example the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), with 200,000 scientists and citizens as supporters. They entirely reject all four of the "Forest Guardian" claims.
    First, the Union of Concerned Scientists states— contrary to the "Forest Guardians"— that biomass indeed belongs on the list of clean energy sources: "To many people, the most familiar forms of renewable energy are the wind and the sun. But biomass (plant material and animal waste) supplies almost 15 times as much energy in the United States as wind and solar power combined— and has the potential to supply much more."
    Let me repeat that: 15 times as much energy as solar and wind combined, with the potential to supply much more. Yet, rather irresponsibly, the "Forest Guardians" want to "scrap" this potent form of energy.
    I agree that solar and wind are wonderful sources of clean energy. But the problem is that solar only generates power during daylight and wind only makes power when the wind is blowing. Biomass, a truly renewable fuel, however, can run at any time of day, and that's why the scientific consensus is that biomass is a critical part of a holistic approach to alternative energy development.
    Second, the Union of Concerned Scientists explains— contrary to the "Forest Guardians"— that biomass does not necessitate "clear cutting" the forest: "There are a wide variety of biomass energy resources, including tree and grass crops and forestry, agricultural, and urban wastes. It is the oldest source of renewable energy known to humans, used since our ancestors learned the secret of fire."
    You see, biomass facilities can and do run on far more than just forest thinnings, since biomass power also utilizes other bio-resources, from rotted trees to animal waste. And think about this. The use of biomass energy power has been around since the dawn of human time, and yet somehow our forests are still with us, aren't they? If the "Forest Guardians" were correct, wouldn't the forests have been cleared away by now?
    With the advancements in biomass technology, with the federal and state laws that regulate biomass projects, with the heightened environmental awareness of the American citizenry, it is simply ludicrous to suppose that our alternative energy company could get away with "clear cutting" our beloved national forests.
    I'm personally offended that the "Forest Guardians" could say such a thing about us, a local green energy company. What we propose is to make prudent use of brush that is being cut down in any case, before we ever came into the picture. Why not make use of this biomass material which is being cut due to pre-existing policies? It is now uselessly rotting away, thereby releasing greenhouse gases, or being open-burned, thus directly polluting the environment. Our project would reduce this pollution.
    Third, the Union of Concerned Scientists also explains why the "Forest Guardians" are mistaken when they claim that biomass is not a renewable energy source: "Biomass is a renewable energy source because the energy it contains comes from the sun. Through the process of photosynthesis, chlorophyll in plants captures the sun's energy by converting carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground into carbohydrates, complex compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. When these carbohydrates are burned, they turn back into carbon dioxide and water and release the sun's energy they contain. In this way, biomass functions as a sort of natural battery for storing solar energy."
    Why the "Forest Guardians" would reject the renewable credentials of biomass is mysterious, given the overwhelming majority of scientists who think exactly opposite.
    Lastly, the "Forest Guardians" are very much mistaken about pollution. Again, the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Biomass reduces air pollution by being a part of the carbon cycle, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent compared with fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are also reduced substantially." The operative word here is reduces.
    The New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department on their Web site also confirms, contrary to the "Forest Guardian" claims, that biomass facilities reduce air pollution. They further point out that biomass power improves watershed quality, expands job opportunity for local communities, diminishes the risk of wildfires, reduces the use of landfills, and prevents water contamination from animal and municipal wastes, even as it generates heat and electricity for our homes.
    The "Forest Guardians" are of course entitled to their opinion about biomass energy, but they are not entitled to misrepresent the facts about it, nor are they entitled to libel the integrity and intentions of Western Water and Power, a company that I helped start precisely because I care about our environment and I worry about our present reliance on dirty sources of power like coal, oil and gas.
    Be that as it may, whatever the "Forest Guardians" say about our green company, let us at least not forget that their view is by no means the last word on biomass. All four of their claims are very much rejected by the majority of scientists and environmentalists.
    David S. Cohen is a former chairman of the New Mexico Service Commission, a utility lawyer and expert on public utilities, and president of Western Water and Power, the alternative energy company proposing to build a biomass facility. Further information about biomass can be obtained at www.nmbiomass.com.