In 2002, the Bush Administration 'renamed' Wood Burning Gasification Plants to 'Biomass Plants.'
These plants use any form of biomass including any all kinds of animal waste product as fuel. They also use trees. They don't say they use trees, but, they do. The 'residue' is chipped trees. The residue can be gotten from any all forms of wood products. There is a gross difference when wood is used for paper and lumber than when it is used for BURNING and adding carbon dioxide to the troposphere.
There is a gross difference between using 'annual plants' such as 'prairie grasses' and 'wood residue.' The 'turn-around time' of carbon dioxide is one year when prairie grass is grown for the purpose of ethanol production as opposed to ten years or more for any form of tree. Additionally, there are trees such as Hybrid Poplar that are advocated to grow for biomass. Hybrid Poplar has pollen no different than any other Poplar, where there are Poplar Plantation Forests there is insult to the biodiversity and in introduction to artificial LAND USE and artificial 'pollen danger' to 'native forest populations.'
Dr. Chris Fields, the Co-Chair of the IPCC Working Group has already stated, the forest globally are in danger of fire within the next several decades. We are already witnessing forests ignite for little reason other than drought. I don't care if someone dropped a match in the forest or intentionally lite the forest on fire, the RAPID SPREAD and FURIOUS nature of the wildfires are due to profound drought that was predicted over 15 years ago. If forests are already known to be in danger than why continue to expand their use in a way that is increasing that danger by adding huge amounts of carbon dioxide to the troposphere?
Biomass Plants pollute far worse than coal plants. Their carbon dioxide emissions are far higher as are their particulate matter, NOX, SOX and VOCs. None of this makes sense. None of it.
There is no reason to justify 'unethical' use of trees for BURNING for the production of electrical energy when every bit of biomass these plants use can be turned into ethanol, biodiesel OR FERTILIZER.
Biomass Plants should be banned from further production. The industry also lies in regard to the dangers of the 'ash' from these plants. There is radioactive waste, including Actinium, along with heavy metals, such as boron and arsenic. Because these plants masquerade as 'natural' energy with 'natural' waste they have been used in some states as 'agricultural amendment.' An agricultural amendment was NEVER a fertilizer, but, farmers were told it would benefit their yields. When farmers eventually realized the 'amendment' was contaminating their ground water they no longer hauled the ash away for free to add it to their agricultural production of crops. YES, this is in the USA !
Biomass Plants need to be banned from use in the USA. They are a public health harzard including causing lung disease and cancers.
,,,In the United States, biomass power plants burn a variety of feedstocks, including rice hulls in Louisiana and sugar cane residues, called bagasse, in parts of Florida and Hawaii. A vast majority, though, some 90 percent, use woody residue as a feedstock, according to the Biomass Power Association. About 75 percent of biomass electricity comes from the paper and pulp companies, which collect their residues and burn them to generate power for themselves.... (click title to entry - thank you)
