Biomass Power Has Good Potential But Possible Drawbacks in South Carolina

 

The Sun News, Myrtle Beach, S.C., USA. published a letter to the editor earlier this week by Courtney Kohavi. She lives in Little River, S.C., and is a student at Coastal Carolina University focusing on energy issues. The following is the text of her letter:

 

"South Carolina is currently grappling with the transition to clean energy. The war on and decline of coal, a historically inexpensive energy source, has struck the Palmetto state particularly hard. Eight coal plants have been retired since 2012 and six more will be retiring by 2020 to meet the Clean Power Plan standards.

"The empty coal plants sit unused, causing utilities to vigorously eye woody biomass to replace the coal operation. Woody biomass is the burning of wood products to produce energy. The infrastructure for woody biomass is essentially the same as that of a coal-fired power plant making it an ideal replacement. Woody biomass also meets baseload energy criteria which is critical to the energy grid.

"Baseload is the minimum amount of energy needed to be produced to meet energy demand. It is driven by the energy usage of the customers. To meet that demand, a steady and reliable source of energy needs to be present. Since woody biomass, like coal, can be put in an incinerator at any time and burned, it can meet baseload demand.

"This easy answer should not be taken lightly. Although the Clean Power Plan is calling for a reduction in carbon, the ultimate reason it was implemented was to halt impending climate change. Forests offer a first line of defense against accumulating carbon dioxide and threatening that purpose for energy would be detrimental to the cause. Furthermore, biomass energy is still arguably a risky energy source.

"The Partnership for Policy Integrity compiled a report of "88 biomass plants in 25 states" and found "per capita, biomass plants can release more volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide than a coal plant." Biomass plants are able to "release 2.5 times more pollution than a coal plant.

"Siting biomass is newer and the rules are not as strict yet. The largely unregulated plants release "toxic compounds like dioxins; heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and mercury; and even emerging contaminants." This seemingly appears like a harmful energy source not only to the health of the citizens but for the integrity of southern forests. But a budding biomass industry might actually be saving forests.

"In an area that is predominantly private property and where land has been historically harvested for various industries, biomass offers the opportunity for people to continue profiting from their land. The paper industry has been steadily declining and the need for trees has declined along with it. Biomass offers to replace that decline with a fresh new demand. Where property owners might have been forced to sell land for development, now there is an opportunity to continue harvesting and replanting with tree seedlings.

"Woody biomass energy is controversial and quite the conundrum for energy sustainability. Biomass energy offers a renewable source of energy but it might not be as clean as South Carolina hoped it would be. It also threatens forested land but might also be incentivizing landowners to replant and grow trees for profit, land that might otherwise be sold in an area of high projected development.

"Whether or not biomass is the future of baseload energy, it deserves a closer look."