Proving Biomass Power Economics


Biomass Power Association President and CEO Bob Cleaves reiterates the symbiotic relationship between responsible forest management, sustainable forests and the biomass power industry.

Following the U.S. EPA’s Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources released in November, the volume of the debate about the wisdom of the framework and its accompanying memo to states has, not surprisingly, been turned up considerably.

Much has been made about the potential future effects of (correctly) counting biomass power as a “zero-emissions” power source. Will this cause all of the U.S. coal plants to convert to biomass? Will this lead to widespread forest devastation?

As all in the biomass industry are aware, the answer to these questions is a resounding “no.” The reason for this, beyond environmental concerns, politics, policy or regulatory barriers—all of which are important forces on their own—is simple: economics. The feedstocks used for biomass in the U.S. are primarily wastes derived from other industries. Given the relatively low energy prices in the U.S., now and for the foreseeable future, no rational landowner would sell high-value fiber like sawlogs or pulp for the prices commanded by using wood for energy.

The universe of fuels used in our plants is entirely a function of power prices. Energy has and always will be the least attractive market for biomass.

In late March, I spoke at the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board hearing on biogenic emissions to deliver this message. The comments submitted by the Biomass Power Association encouraged the EPA to classify biomass as “zero carbon,” once and for all.

One way that we can demonstrate the role of economics is by looking at two of the biggest biomass states, California and Maine. Historically, the California industry heavily relied upon forest-derived biomass. As the California forest products industry shrank, plants were increasingly forced to source their fuel elsewhere. Today, California’s biomass sector remains strong, relying upon forest residues for only 13 percent of its fuel, with the remainder from a wide variety of sources.

In contrast is Maine, which ranks fifth in the U.S. for the production of biomass power. Biomass is responsible for 25 percent of Maine’s overall power supply and represents 60 percent of the state’s renewable portfolio. Wood accounts for almost one-third of New England’s entire renewable supply, with Maine supplying a significant amount to the region.

Maine’s forest products industry is healthy and sustainable. As the largest privately owned, contiguous working forest in the U.S., it is a model for what can happen—both for rural communities and for the health of forests—when low-value wood is utilized for power. Pulpwood represents 56 percent of the 459 million cubic feet that was harvested from Maine’s woods in 2011; sawlogs make up 23 percent; biomass for electricity accounts for 18 percent; and pellets and firewood, 2 percent. All of these uses coexist, and each contributes to the economic health of the forest, allowing landowners to manage “forests as forests” and have access to markets for all parts of the tree. It is precisely because of these markets that Maine boasts a 97 percent regeneration rate and twice the standing wood volume today than it did in 1950.

Regardless of region, all biomass plants throughout the country share the same basic principle: They cannot compete with higher-value uses like sawlogs and merchantable pulp. As a result, even if EPA were to conclude that all biomass is carbon neutral, the fear that biomass electricity would somehow undertake major harvests and compete with the value of pulp and sawlogs is fantasy. Use of fuel is not a function of carbon accounting—it’s a function of price.

Article cited from: http://goo.gl/2RbSGJ



  1. Waste No Waste: Time to Embrace Biogas
  2. Is Big Gas finally learning to love biogas?
  3. We need to get behind Renewable Natural Gas
  4. Difference between a Turbo and Positive Displacement Blower
  5. The Difference between Methane and Natural Gas
  6. First Dairy Biogas Project in Connecticut
  7. Does Renewable Natural Gas Have a Future in Energy?
  8. Biogas Offtake Opportunities For Digesters
  9. Wisconsin Dairy Begins Production of Renewable Natural Gas
  10. Anaerobic Digestion Sector Forming a Clearer Picture
  11. Brightmark to Expand Western New York Dairy Biogas Project
  12. Biogas - The Energy Wonder That's Under Our Noses
  13. Power Generation Achieved by a Self-Assembled Biofuel Cell
  14. Less Carbon Dioxide from Natural Gas
  15. Project Uses Renewable Electricity for RNG Production
  16. Smithfield Hog Farm Provides Natural Gas to Missouri City
  17. From Waste to Gas
  18. Gas Clash Threatens Australian Export
  19. Maximizing Opportunities of Anaerobic Digestion from Wastewater
  20. Catalyst to Speed up Conversion of Biomass to Biofuel
  21. How It Works: Ethanol
  22. Anaerobic Digestion - the Next Big Renewable Energy Source
  23. Anaerobic Additions
  24. Three (3) Tech Solutions for Modern Landfills
  25. The Costs and Benefits of Anaerobic Digesters
  26. Bacteria Farts Power Wastewater Plant in Fort Wayne
  27. Europe’s First Poultry Manure Biogas Plant
  28. Electricity Using Pig Manure
  29. $38-Million Biodigester coming to Grand Rapids
  30. Biochar Could Benefit Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manure

For additonal reading, please visit us at: News Worthy

Difference between a Turbo and Positive Displacement Blower