{"id":418646,"date":"2025-12-26T08:51:12","date_gmt":"2025-12-26T07:51:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418646"},"modified":"2025-12-26T08:51:15","modified_gmt":"2025-12-26T07:51:15","slug":"biomass-energy-exorbitant-destructive-and-pointless","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=418646","title":{"rendered":"Biomass Energy Exorbitant, Destructive and\u00a0Pointless"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Illustration
Biomass Energy Process<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Shaye Wolf writes at CalMatters Biomass is a money pit that won\u2019t solve California\u2019s energy or wildfire problems  <\/strong><\/a>Shaye Wolf is the climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

California\u2019s most expensive electricity source<\/strong> is finally poised to lose a government handout<\/strong> that props up its high costs and harmful pollution. In an era of clean, cheap solar and wind energy, policymakers are rightly beginning to treat biomass energy<\/strong> like the boondoggle<\/strong> it is.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biomass energy \u2014 electricity made by burning or gasifying trees \u2014
is an expensive, dirty relic that relies on industry misinformation and taxpayer money. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a vote<\/u><\/a> later this month, the California Public Utilities Commission is expected to end<\/u><\/a> the BioMAT subsidy program<\/strong>, which requires electric utilities to buy biomass power at exorbitant costs<\/u><\/a> <\/strong>\u2014 four times the average. Californians get hit with those extra costs in our power bills, along with pollution that harms our health and climate. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Industrial<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Utilities and environmental groups support ending this costly subsidy.   But the biomass industry is fighting back<\/u><\/a> with misleading claims<\/strong> that its projects are made clean by \u201cnew\u201d technology or that they\u2019re needed for wildfire safety. Don\u2019t be fooled.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burning trees to make electricity harms the climate<\/u><\/a>. In fact, biomass power is more climate-polluting<\/u><\/a> at the smokestack than coal.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Illustration<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Biomass energy releases <\/strong>toxic air pollutants<\/strong><\/u><\/a> that endanger health, increasing the risk of premature death and illnesses like asthma. The facilities often are located in low-income communities and communities of color that have long fought to shut them down<\/u><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is telling that the biomass industry<\/strong> is rebranding.  It claims it will use \u201cclean\u201d methods<\/strong> to gasify trees instead of burning them. But gasification \u2014 which also involves heating organic material \u2014 releases large amounts of climate-harming air pollution<\/u><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

State regulators in May denied<\/u><\/a> a costly biomass gasification project
that couldn\u2019t show it would reduce emissions as promised<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The industry also promotes carbon capture and storage,<\/strong> claiming this technology will suck up carbon dioxide from biomass smokestacks and store it underground forever. But carbon capture and storage is a costly, decades-old technology<\/strong> with a long history of failure<\/u><\/a> and serious health and safety risks<\/u><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the industry claims biomass energy projects will help pay for forest thinning,<\/strong> which it says will protect communities during wildfires. That means cutting trees, often large trees, which threatens wildlife<\/u><\/a> and depletes forests,<\/strong> which naturally store carbon and fight climate change.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Illustration<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Thinning isn\u2019t a good way to keep communities safe. Most<\/strong> of the community destruction is caused by wind-driven fires<\/u><\/a><\/strong> during extreme fire weather<\/u><\/a>, made worse by climate change. The fastest-moving 3% of wind-driven fires is responsible for 88% of the damage<\/u><\/a> to homes. <\/em>[Note: no proof wildfires are worse now than in the past]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No amount of forest thinning can stop that. In fact, thinning makes cool, moist forests hotter, drier and more wind-prone<\/strong>, which can make fires burn faster and more intensely<\/u><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of California\u2019s destructive wildfires<\/strong> \u2014 like the Los Angeles area fires<\/u><\/a> in January \u2014 have burned in shrublands and grasslands<\/u><\/a>,<\/strong> not forests, making thinning irrelevant in those cases.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, the best investment for protecting communities<\/strong> during wildfires is hardening homes<\/u><\/a>,<\/strong> so they\u2019re less likely to catch fire<\/u><\/a>, and stopping new development in fire-prone areas. Yet the state has earmarked only 1%<\/u><\/a> of its wildfire funding for home hardening. Most goes to thinning.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where thinning occurs, it\u2019s most cost-effective to scatter the wood in the forest<\/strong> to create wildlife habitat, retain vital nutrients, and enhance natural carbon storage. If wood must be removed, it can be turned into mulch and shavings<\/u><\/a>. The worst choice is subsidizing biomass companies to make dirty energy.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any way you look at it, biomass energy is a polluting money pit
that won\u2019t solve our climate or wildfire safety problems.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

See also:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Green Electrical Shocks in 2024<\/a><\/blockquote>