Montpelier 2/22/2012
It is forcast to be Chance of Snow at 10:00 PM EST on February 22, 2012
Chance of Snow
43°/32°

Run of Site Leaderboard

Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer banner.

Articles in this series

7 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. Meg Sheehan

    Finally, the greenwashing of biomass incinerators is being challenged. Great job, Mr. Schlossberg! Thanks for getting out the truth.

  2. Rachel J Roy

    If biomass is such an incredibly profitable notion, the venture capitalists would be all over it with no need for public funding. The fact that they are not indicates loud and clear that they know very well that it is neither clean, nor green and most importanly..NOT SUSTAINABLE. It only works when you get the tax subsidies, and then cut and run after a few years. Check with Athens, Maine, folks. Have a look see at what Mr. Emero brought to that town.

    Biomass incineration might have been innovative for cave men, but it kind of like firing up your woodstove to generate electricity to cool off your house on a hot day…silly.

    I think we can do better with our taxpayer fuding of new clean, green and sustainable energy approaches. For what we will subsidize on this one plant alone, we could probably super insulate and put solar and PV panels on every home in town, thereby decreasing the increased risk to all our health, minimizing the need for carbon-based fuels and employing hundreds in the process.

    Let’s put biomass incineration on the back burner, folks. It’s not clean, it’s not green, it’s not innovative, and it’s not sustainable. It IS, however, A HUGE TAXPAYER RIPOFF!

  3. Doug Gibson

    I may be completely off base here, but didn’t the legislature just adopt language that allows Vermonters to install biomass boilers in our homes and businesses? Maybe the exhaust isn’t consdiered as harmful? I know some people with knowledge of the biomass boilers were concerned that the biomass boilers did not meet Vermont code in terms of construction, but I never heard anything about harmful impact from the exhaust, nor I think did the committees that greenlit biomass boilers coming into Vermont. Again, I may be talking apples and oranges here.

  4. Netaka White

    Wow. What a completely one sided point of view from a self-declared ‘non-expert’ (Josh S.). VT Digger, c’mon, we expect better. Citing air quality studies from 1996 (before current emission technologies), using worst case scenarios, cherry picking data, yikes. Decisions about our energy future require time and thoughtful consideration of ALL the facts, not just the ones that agree with our view of the world. The only line quoted from this (so-called) \informative\ meeting in Pownal that rises to the level of truth was spoken by Rep. Botzow, \…don’t be over-ruled by hope or fear. Do your homework.” Thank you Bill.

    1. Josh Schlossberg

      The 1996 study was about heavy metals in ash, not air pollution.

      More info on Netaka White below, the previous comment poster who seems to be upset about my cited and documented presentation on the impacts of biomass incineration:

      http://www.vsjf.org/who-we-are/staff

      Netaka White has been the Biofuels Director at the VSJF (Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund) since May, 2008. Prior to joining VSJF, he was the co-founder of Vermont Biofuels Association and served as its Executive Director from 2004-2008.

  5. Gary Michaels

    …And wind and solar would survive without subsidies?

    According to a study commissioned by the National Conference of State Legislators, solar energy receives total federal subsidies and support totalling $24.34 per megawatt hour; wind $23.37. Biomass receives just 89 cents.

    How ’bout them apples?

    Mr. Schlossberg burns wood for energy? So if everyone in the Valley burned wood — with uncontrolled particulate emissions and products of incomplete combustion — and that’s OK? I find that environmentally hypocritical.

    Finally, so what are Mr. Schlossberg’s qualifications to make these statements of fact regarding biomass energy? His statements have no relativity. Exactly how does a 14-year-old study from Australia have relevance to Massachusetts or Vermont?

    Give me a break!

    1. Josh Schlossberg

      Mr. “Gary Michaels,” do you too work for the biomass/biofuels industry?

      Not so sure about your subsidy numbers, but in my opinion, ALL “clean energy” subsidies should go to zero-emission, zero-waste (after construction) renewables WITHOUT SMOKESTACKS, like solar and wind, as well as efficiency measures (lifestyle change is the real answer).

      There is no question that burning wood for heat has an environmental and health impact and while my rental has only a woodstove, I am not an advocate for wood heating. However, burning wood for heat has 90% efficiency as opposed to electricity, which is 25%. And a huge biomass incinerator burning 500,000 tons of wood a year is a far cry from a woodstove burning 3 cords.

      It is unfortunate that you think someone has to have a PhD to report documented information on a topic. I am a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and have been studying biomass incineration closely and writing on it since 2005. Do I have to be a PhD forest ecologist, PhD climatologist,and medical doctor to report on data put forth by experts? That’s a scary assertion on your part, that a journalist–or even your average person–has no right to put forth information into public discourse.

      The Austrian study is in regards to heavy metals accumulating in biomass ash, relevant the world over. Here is a study from the US, if that makes you feel better:

      Fires Fuel Mercury Emissions, University Of Michigan,
      ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2007)

      “Forests act as mercury traps because mercury in the atmosphere—which comes from both natural and human-generated sources such as coal-fired power plants and municipal waste incinerators—collects on foliage. When the foliage dies, it falls to the forest floor and decomposes, and the mercury enters the soil. “

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don’t accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don’t support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn’t a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.