Biomass Incineration
[Printable PDF version of this factsheet]

Click here for ‘Burning Issues with Biomass’ article

Biomass and Global Warming

Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error (Searchinger, et. al., Science Magazine, Oct 2009) (full article)

Letter from 90 Scientists to Congressional Leaders urging that biomass global warming emissions be accounted for properly (May 17, 2010)

Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study
(June 2010 report by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
Full Report [5MB]

Study found that, after 40 years, the net GHG emissions from biomass burned for electricity are still worse than coal, even when considering forest regrowth, and that biomass emissions are worse than natural gas even after 90 years. It also found that biomass, burned in small scale heating applications or in combined heat and power (CHP) industrial applications is worse than natural gas, but better than burning oil.

Review of the Manomet Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study by Dr. Mary Booth
July 2010 report showing how the Manomet study understates GHG emissions from biomass.

Wood Based Bioenergy: The Green Lie The impact of wood-based bioenergy on forests and forest dependent people (May, 2010). Prepared by the Global Forest Coalition.

Clearcut Disaster: Carbon Loophole Threatens U.S. Forests (June 2010 report by Environmental Working Group) (full report)

Massachusetts Forest Watch comments on how the Manomet study understates biomass impacts (July 2010)

Massachusetts to Impost New Regulations on Biomass Incinerators in Response to Manomet Study (July 2010 Letter from Ian Bowles, Secretary of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources)

Biomass Dirtier than Coal

Because biomass has a lower heating value than fossil fuels, burning biomass emits more carbon dioxide than coal or natural gas per unit of energy produced. Biomass has also been found to emit more nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) than coal and natural gas. See this comparison of facilities in Massachusetts: Biomass and C&D are dirtier than coal

Medical and Health Associations Opposed to Biomass

Biomass Incineration has “Unacceptable Health Risks” and Drives Up Health Care Costs (Compilation of Anti-Biomass Statements from Medical and Health Associations)

North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians (April 2010)
Letter expressing concern about proposed poultry litter incinerators.

Physicians for Social Responsibility / Pioneer Valley (MA) (Feb 2010)
“the biomass power plants being proposed for several Pioneer Valley locations would contribute to particulate air pollution emissions in a region that already has pollution problems, and therefore we oppose the construction and operation of such plants”

Massachusetts Medical Society (Feb 2010)
“Massachusetts Medical Society believes that biomass combustion electricity generation plants pose an unacceptable public health risk…”

Florida Medical Association (Dec 2009)
“the Florida Medical Association urges state government to adopt policies to minimize the approval and construction of new incinerators including mass-burn, gasification, plasma, pyrolysis, biomass, refuse-derived fuel and other incinerator technologies, and to develop a plan to retire existing outdated incinerators”

American Lung Association (MA) (Nov 2009)
Letter opposing renewable energy credits or any other preferential treatment for biomass in energy or climate legislation.

Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition (Nov 2009)
Testimony in Opposition to the Building of a Construction and Demolition Wood Waste Incinerator in Springfield, MA

Letter about Medical Opposition to Biomass in Climate Legislation (Oct 2009)

American Lung Association (June 2009)
“The Lung Association urges that the [climate] legislation not promote the combustion of biomass.”

Erie County (PA) Medical Society Statement on Proposed Tire Incinerator (July 2008)

Biomass Incinerators Not Good for Jobs

Letter to Senator Stabenow Showing how few Jobs are Created by Biomass Incinerators

Biomass Burning is Bad for the Economy and a Poor Job Creation Vehicle

Biomass Basics

Bioenergy is an umbrella term for “biomass” (incinerating for electricity production) and “biofuels” (converting to liquids for burning as transportation or heating fuels). The biomass term has meant burning of: municipal solid waste (trash), tires¹, construction/demolition wood waste, crop and animal wastes, energy crops, trees, gas from digestion of sewage sludge or animal wastes, and landfill gas.² Biomass can include any non-fossil fuel that is arguably “organic.”

“Green” biomass (like energy crops) is often a foot in the door for more toxic waste streams. Plants that start off burning “clean wood chips” can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires. Economic pressures encourage use of these dirtier fuels.³

“Alternative” vs. “Renewable” vs. “Clean & Green”

All of the above terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean different things. Just the term “renewable” can mean different things in various state or federal energy bills, laws and programs. Non-profit groups and private energy certification programs all have their own definitions as well. While these terms generally mean “not fossil fuels and not nuclear,” even coal technologies have been included in state and federal “alternative” and “renewable” energy policies.⁴ Almost universally, many sorts of incineration schemes have been included in the various renewable energy laws, usually in the guide of “biomass” and landfill gas. “Clean” and “green” are rarely, if ever, defined and are terms of general environmental benefit with no generally accepted meaning.⁵

Renewability does not usually mean clean or green. It’s only used to describe whether an energy source is replenishable and replenished on some reasonably short time scale.⁶ Renewables aren’t necessarily cleaner than other fuels. Since biomass incinerators are considered renewable, they are given an advantage over cleaner (but still quite polluting) fossil fuels like natural gas.⁷ Since all of these words have been abused to include polluting smokestack industries, no combination of these words can be counted on to convey only zero-emission technologies like wind and solar.

Renewable energy policies support incineration. There are five main advantages available to technologies that are labeled “renewable”: tax credits, subsidies, research grants, renewable portfolio standards, and green pricing programs.

Biomass competes with wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal for the renewables market. Wind is becoming one of the cheapest energy sources altogether and is about 10 times cheaper than solar. Biomass (especially landfill gas) is the cheapest except for where there are good wind sites. We are likely to see many more biomass burners because they can be built in many more places than good wind sites can be found. Since there is already a market for incinerators (based on the economics of the waste industry), biomass competes most directly with wind, the cleanest and most promising power source. Eliminating biomass from renewables definitions means wind would get better funding.

Biomass = Combustion = Pollution

All biomass combustion technologies put pollution in the air in order to make “green energy.” Even with the best air pollution controls, a single plant can still release millions of pounds of regulated pollutants each year.⁸ Environmental regulations are surprisingly weak and air pollution permits fail to require that any toxic emissions be monitored on a continuous basis.⁹ Air pollution controls only effectively transfer toxins from the air to the ash, which will eventually pollute soil and water where it is dumped. Most of the biomass wastes/fuels contain chlorine, creating dioxins¹⁰ (the most toxic chemicals known to science) when burned.

Anything that creates pollution in the course of producing electricity shouldn’t be considered clean, green or renewable. Wind and solar, even though they have some environmental impacts in their construction don’t have to keep polluting in order to make electricity. Even though environmentalists tend to think of “biomass” as grass and trees, the vast majority of what is actually proposed by industry (and of what is already benefiting from pro-biomass renewable policies) is trash incineration, construction & demolition wood waste incineration and landfill gas burning.

Waste Incineration

Waste incineration is the worst category of biomass. Providing increased waste disposal capacity worsens the waste problem by lowering the costs associated with waste generation. It also destroys resources (some of which are best recycled or composted), and turns them into toxic ash and toxic air emissions. Wastes that cannot be reused, recycled or composted cleanly ought to be stabilized through digestion, then landfilled rather than incinerated.

What makes waste dangerous is not its volume, but its toxicity. People don’t usually die from waste falling on them, but exposure to toxic constituents of wastes can cause all sorts of health and environmental problems. When wastes are incinerated, their toxic constituents are liberated into breathable air emissions and the toxic ash contaminates groundwater. The ash that is left then has a higher surface area and is more dangerous in a landfill, where rainwater will leach out the toxins more readily than if the waste is left unburned. Incinerator ash has been promoted for such applications as ingredients in cement, fill for reclaiming mines, fertilizer, biochar¹¹ (charcoal), industrial tile and road base. These are more dangerous than landfilling, bringing contamination closer to where they can harm people.

Incineration has become a dirty word since activists have stopped hundreds of incinerators since the 1980s. Newer types (gasification, plasma arc and pyrolysis) claim not to be incinerators, but share the same fundamental problems.¹²

The Fuels

Trash incineration comprises 28% of existing “biopower” capacity in the U.S. In the extended Mid-Atlantic area (Virginia to New York), trash incineration makes up 66% of such capacity.¹³ Waste and energy corporations have a lot to lose if trash incineration is not considered renewable.

Tires contain many toxic constituents, which make burning them hazardous. Halogens in tires cause hazardous emissions when burned such as dioxins, furans, PCBs, and chlorobenzenes. Toxic metals such as mercury, lead, arsenic and chromium are also released when burning tires.¹⁴ Many other hazardous air pollutants are released from burning tires with studies having shown tire burning to be dirtier than coal.¹⁵ While not widely promoted as biomass, tire burning has been considered in some federal biomass research programs¹⁶ and corporations have promoted tire incinerators as renewable energy facilities – seeking to benefit from state renewable energy mandates.¹⁷

Wood waste is a very broad category. It includes – but is not limited to – wood pallets, construction / demolition wood waste, land clearing and right-of-way tree trimmings, Christmas trees, tree and shrub trimmings, paper and lumber mill waste, and wood products industry wastes. It can even include trees that have been used to suck up toxic chemicals from contaminated soil in “phytoremediation” projects.¹⁸ Wood waste can come contaminated with wood preservatives, binders, paints, glues, chlorine bleach, plastic laminating materials, chlorinated adhesives, or phenol and urea formaldehyde resins, nails/staples, or other non-wood materials. Treated woods are usually coated with creosote, pentachlorophenol, or copper chromium arsenate (CCA).¹⁹ It is difficult to sort out treated wood (which can be up to 50% of wood waste) – even trained workers miss 30% of it.²⁰ Burning CCA-treated wood will release cancer-causing arsenic and chromium VI. Although arsenic is no longer used in new wood treatment,²¹ this will be a problem for decades to come. Most CCA wood is still in use and its presence in the waste stream is increasing.²² Since copper is a catalyst in dioxin formation,²³ a small bit of CCA wood will greatly increase dioxin emissions from wood burners.

Some wood burners that are permitted to be taking “clean” wood wastes have been allowed to accept a certain percentage of chlorinated wastes, since some wood waste suppliers are unable to completely isolate all vinyl-coated material.²⁴ In construction/demolition wastes, there is likelihood of PVC (polyvinylchloride²⁵) contamination from many sources common in building materials.²⁶ Wood burners also emit formaldehyde, acrolein, phenols, benzene, napthalene (present in creosote), and PAHs, not to mention NOx, SOx, VOCs, and particulate matter. Wood storage piles present fire risks, and outdoor piles risk wetness from rain, which leads to higher emissions when burned.

Waste wood that is truly clean ought to be reused or made into paper, but not burned. Industrial wood burners, even if they start off burning a relatively “clean” supply of wood wastes, often end up seeking to burn more hazardous types of waste. In some cases, wood waste facilities have sought to burn wood tar waste.²⁷ In other cases, state agencies have allowed industrial wood burners to dispose of their oily water by spraying it on their wood fuel.²⁸ Some states actively encourage industrial wood burners to burn waste tires.²,³⁰ It has been argued by some corporations that they need to co-fire tires in order to become “leaner and meaner” in the deregulated electric market.³¹ Many industrial wood burners are already permitted to burn tires, plastics, treated wood waste, black liquor solids (toxic, chlorinated paper mill wastes) and/or other paper mill sludges.

Agriculture wastes include, but are not limited to, orchard tree crops, vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop byproducts or residues as well as nuts, shells, hulls, and other food processing wastes. Crop wastes should be tilled back into the soil to promote soil health, tilth, fertility, and nurturing of the organisms remaining within the soil. Where this is impractical, crop residues ought to be composted or recycled into paper products, not destroyed in incinerators.

While animal factory wastes could include corporate hog factory wastes, dairy factory wastes, beef feedlot wastes, and more, these are usually too wet to be burned (though are used in digesters to provide “biomass” power).³² However, poultry litter (chicken and turkey manure and the wood chip bedding it falls on) is dry enough to be incinerated for electricity production. Britain’s Fibrowatt has proposed many throughout the U.S. and Europe.³³ They have successfully lobbied state and federal politicians to get poultry waste incineration included in renewable energy laws.³⁴ Due to weaker pollution control requirements on biomass incinerators, new poultry waste incinerators are more polluting than new coal plants for some of the major criteria air pollutants.³⁵ Community groups in several U.S. states and in other countries have organized to stop poultry waste incinerators, sometimes joined by farmer advocacy groups, since farmers see poultry litter as valuable fertilizer.

Energy crops are typically fast growing trees (like poplar or willow) or grasses like switchgrass. These are prime targets for genetic engineering. Biotech grass seed has been found to contaminate native grass as far as 13 miles away.³⁶ Switchgrass has been found to have 7 times as much chlorine as coal in an Iowa study.³⁷ Chlorine in wheat straw has been found to have so much chlorine as to be corrosive to boilers.³⁸ There are no organic requirements for these crops. Toxic herbicides and wastes used as fertilizers have introduced contaminants to switchgrass crops,³⁹ that can be taken up by the crops. In phytoremediation schemes, plants suck up toxins from contaminated sites.⁴⁰ Contaminants are released when these trees and grasses are later burned.

Gas-based biomass includes digester gas and landfill gas. Digesters essentially compost waste in a vessel, producing a gas that is mostly methane. This can make sense for sewage sludge and animal wastes, but renewable energy policies shouldn’t subsidize waste management for animal factories.⁴¹ Landfill gas burning for energy is toxic and actually worse for global warming than not burning for energy. See our landfill gas factsheet for details.⁴²

Sustainable Ag and Zero Waste Solutions

Sustainable agriculture is an energy and climate solution, but not by growing and burning things. Biomass incineration is not a waste or energy solution, though, as it is the most polluting and energy-wasting way to manage materials.⁴³ “Zero waste” strategies (including reduce, reuse, recycle…) can nearly eliminate the need for landfills and incinerators, benefiting the climate and saving energy and materials.⁴⁴

Footnotes

1. Tire Derived Fuel energyjustice.net/tires
   

2. Landfill Gas energyjustice.net/lfg/
   

3. Viking Plant, PA example. See footnotes 27 and 28.
   

4. Examplesninclude: the Federal Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the PA AEPS (Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard.
   

5. National Association of Attorneys General “Environmental Marketing Guidelines for Electricity” Revised Draft, Aug 12, 1999. http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990012.shtm
   

6. Ibid. http://www.ftc.gov/be/v990012.shtm
   

7. Natural gas includes many contaminants such as organometallic compounds and radon. Combustion releases many toxic metals including lead and mercury as well as dozens of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Natural gas lines can also be contaminated with PCBs
   

8. Fibrowatt’s Fibrominn facility is permitted to emit 5 million pounds (2,500 tons) of regulated pollutants.
   

9. Continuous Emissions Monitors Continuous Emissions Monitors
   

10. Dioxin Information http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/
    

11. Ernsting and Smolker. Biochar for Climate Change Mitigation: Fact or Fiction? February 2008. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf
    

12. Incineration and Incinerators-in-Disguise https://energyjustice.net/incineration/
    

13. Operating Biopower Capacity (1999), by Fuel Type, World Electric Power Plants Database, Utility Data Institute / McGraw-Hill Companies, June 1999. The extended Mid-Atlantic area includes Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York.
    

14. Greenpeace, “Tire Incineration and Toxic Emissions: New data from the Modesto Incinerator, Westly, CA.” http://www.ejnet.org/files/tires/files/greenpeaceletter.html
    

15. Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club, “Comments on Resolution 97-425 to Authorize Tire-Derived Fuel Use in Cement Kilns and Utility Boilers for Energy Recovery,” submitted to California Integrated Management Board, October 22, 1997. The comments showed there to be increases in the following pollutants emitted from co-firing whole tires with coal vs. burning only coal: NOx, SO2, CO, particulate matter, chlorine, benzene, dioxins, PAHs, chromium VI, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. https://energyjustice.net/tires/files/carman1997ciwmb.pdf
    

16. “Summary of the First Annual Biomass Resource Assessment Review Task V,” August 24th, 1995.” At the end of this meeting report, they listed research priorities, in which burning tires was listed as a low research priority which didn’t receive any votes, but which is “important and should not be overlooked entirely.” http://rredc.nrel.gov/biomass/portland.html
    

17. ERE’s attempt to get tires in the PA AEPS; also a car company in Detroit had promoted tire burning as rewewable (Ecology Center had it in its newsletter one year)
    

18. Phytoremediation https://energyjustice.net/biomass/phyto
    

19. Pentachlorophenol is a chlorinated compound, which will form dioxins and furans when burned.
    Feldman, Jay, M.A. and Terry Shistar, Ph.D., “Poison Poles — A Report About Their Toxic Trail and Safer Alternatives,” National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, 1997.
    http://www.ncamp.org/poisonpoles/
20. Solo-Gabriele, Helena and Townsend, Timothy “Educational Outreach and Stain Distribution Project for Identifying Copper-Treated Wood”, January 2005, Report # 0232003-05 (1.75mb) http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/final_stain_m5.pdf
    

21. The Environmental Protection Agency retricted us of arsenic and CCA for only certified pesticide applicators by the end of 2003. http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/
    

22. Solo-Gabriele, Helena, and Timothy Townsend, “Generation, Use, Disposal, and Management Options for CCA-Treated Wood,” May 1998, #98-1 (972 Kb). http://www.hinkleycenter.com/publications/CCA-treated_wood_options_98-1.pdf
    

23. A compilation of scientific studies on metals serving as catalysts for dioxin formation can be found here: http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/catalysts.html
    

24. Karakash, John, CRSS Viking Operations Inc., letter to Richard Maxwell, PA Department of Environmental Resources Air Quality Management Division, March 22, 1993. This letter states that a wood waste supplier to the Viking wood waste incinerator in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania is “unable to completely isolate all vinyl-coated material.” The PA DEP has allowed both of the main suppliers to this wood waste burner to supply wood waste with an average .04% chlorine content (16 pounds per 20 tons of waste). http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/
    

25. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) http://www.ejnet.org/plastics/pvc/
    

26. For example, all household electrical wire sold in the U.S. is coated with PVC plastic. Since this wire is made of copper, it’s an extremely dangerous mixture to have burned, since the copper will catalyze increased dioxin formation out of the PVC.
    

27. Maxwell, Richard, PA Department of Environmental Resources, note to John Karakash, CRSS Viking Operations Inc., 9/15/1994.
    

28. Maxwell, Richard, PA Department of Environmental Protection, letter to Steve Henry, Viking Energy of Northumberland, “re: Oily Water Waste,” 8/1/1998.
    

29. Illig, Richard, PA Department of Environmental Protection Residual Waste Coordinator, Internal Memorandum “re: MMI at Viking Energy of Northumberland September 26th, 1995,” 10/5/1995. This memo states: “Currently, Viking is experimenting with the burning of other materials at their Michigan facility. Some of the alternate fuels considered include creosote wood and tires among other materials. The Northumberland facility is also encouraged to consider the use of wastes as alternate fuels.”
    

30. Pennsylvania’s Waste Tire Recycling Act encourages the burning of tires. See the PA Department of Environmental Protection website for details: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/MRW/Tires/Tires.htm
    

31. Harrison, Vicki, “Supervisors: Burning issue may require expert opinion,” The Daily Item, A1, August 20, 1998.
    

32. There’s an exception in a proposal for direct combustion of hog waste in North Carolina. Visit the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League for further information and resources. www.bredl.org/
    

33. FibroWATCH: The Campaign to STOP Fibrowatt and Poultry Litter Incineration https://energyjustice.net/fibrowatch/
    

34. Such as the Federal Renewable Energy Tax Credit. State level subsidies exist in at least MN, NC, and AR. Specifically, see House Bill 1180, “The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999” became Public Law No. 106-170 when passed on 12/17/1999.
    

35. Alternative Resources Incorporated, A Review of the Air Emissions from a Fibrowatt 50-MW Power Plant Fueled with Poultry Litter, Prepared for Fibrowatt, LLC, Feb, 2000. This report shows that NOx and carbon monoxide emissions from Fibrowatt’s proposed turkey litter incinerator in Minnesota would be a little higher than coal plant emissions. It also shows that acid gases (sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride) and particulate matter (PM10) would be about the same as coal plant emissions.
    

36. “Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds,” New York Times, Sept. 21, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/21/business/21grass.html
    

37. “Results From the Chariton Valley Biomass Project — Switchgrass Co-Fire Testing,” Wade A. Amos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, p2. Presented at BioEnergy 2002 Conference.
    

38. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID. “Selective Harvest of Higher Value Wheat Straw Components,” study reveals corrosion to the boilers from chlorine present in the biomass.
    

39. 2,4-D (a chlorinated herbicide that is half of agent orange) and poultry litter were used on the switchgrass demonstration project in Chariton Valley, Iowa. Another swithgrass project in Florida has used sewage effluent and some have even discussed using sewage sludge.
    

40. Phytoremediation. https://energyjustice.net/phyto
    

41. Anaerobic Digesters. https://energyjustice.net/digesters/
    

42. Landfill Gas Factsheet. https://energyjustice.net/lfg/
    

43. Zero Waste for Zero Warming report prepared by GAIA. According to EPA statistics cited in the report, Recyling mixed paper saves 9 times the amount of energy generated by incinerating the paper. https://energyjustice.net/biomass/GAIA_Incinerators_vs_ZeroWaste.pdf
    

44. Zero Waste Materials. https://energyjustice.net/incineration/
    Also, see GAIA: Zero Waste

Last modified: 17 July 2010