I recently read an article claiming that "biomass" energy will produce more greenhouse gasses than coal over the next 40 years.
Basically, biomass energy is the process of harvesting, then burning/incinerating wood and other plant (sometimes animal) products. In addition to wood, the biomass plant category includes corn, hemp, and sugarcane. The act of harvesting can include using construction debris, collecting waste or fallen trees, or by cutting live trees.
Massachusetts, under Governor Deval Patrick, recently invested $1M into the development of four new wood-burning plants in their State, but has decided to rethink their position based on this study, which was prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. The department has opened the study for comments, and plans to conduct hearings this July.
Click References to this study can be found in numerous articles: Here, and here
Now, I’ve listened to Charlie Bass speak a number of times. Each time, he’s touted the fact that he’s been successful in the renewable, "biomass" energy business for a while. Charlie has used his time and experience in the biomass industry, since losing to Paul Hodes in 2006, as a badge of honor. Charlie is a board member for 2 renewable energy companies.
He has claimed that biomass can help us "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" (it could make a small dent, at the expense of cutting a lot of trees), is renewable (only if cut-based harvesting is followed by replanting), and is clean. Well, according to this study, it may not be as clean as we thought, and is certainly not "carbon-neutral".
I recently asked Charlie whether he’ll resign from the boards of these companies (one makes wood-pellets, the other builds biomass plants), or recuse himself from all energy policy activity in Congress, should he be elected in November. His response was that he will "resign from the boards".
However, my big question is…