English 101
Linda Martin
Research Paper
Jordan Hartt
November 29, 2010

Slash/Burn and Chips

An argument for Biomass Co-Generation

Biomass co-generation is the historically proved approach to energy production. For thousands of years, the Plains Indians (then early settlers) used buffalo chips to build fires to heat their tepees (and sod huts). This was probably the first use of biomass energy in America. Early settlers learned from the Indians to heat their sod huts. After the buffalo became extinct, cow chips were used. On the plains there weren’t many trees and coal had not been discovered there, so this was a matter of survival (Whyte n.d.). Once the chips were dried in the sun they were almost odorless, and placed outside the tepees and sod huts. Western pioneers would modify their stoves to burn cow chips as they were plentiful along the cattle drive trails where the cattle were brought to the railroad cars for sale, and transporting to other areas. They compacted hay and then twisted it into twig-like bundles called cats. When the settlers started farming on the plains, they used corn stalks, corn cobs, and sunflower stalks as a source of fuel. In the United States, the first facility identified as a biomass power plant went on line in 1982. Using corn residues, rice husks, soy beans and sorghum residues, willows, switch grass, and organic waste from land fills as fuel, we could provide enough energy for all the homes in New England (Whyte n.d.). I interviewed Paul Perlwitz, an engineer for Nippon Paper Industries USA Co., Ltd, who works in the environmental department. He is working endlessly complete their project to build a $71 million biomass boiler. The new boiler will be 68% efficient, far greater than other coal fired plants using fossil fuel. Nippon Paper Industries USA (NPI USA) produces telephone directory paper, shipping to customers in North America and Australia. The mill's pulping systems consists of refined mechanical pulp and recycled paper. Formerly Daishowa America Co., Ltd, the mill was originally built in 1920 at the base of Ediz Hook on the Strait of Juan de Fuca and is located in Port Angeles, Washington. A de-inking facility was constructed in 1992 and processes upwards of 80,000 tons of recycled paper each year. It is one of the few de-inking facilities in North America that can recycle old telephone directories. The Nippon Paper mill employs 244 employees and produces 160,000 tons of telephones directory paper a year. Approximately 60% of the pulp used is from mechanically refined fiber. The other approximate forty percent is from the de-inking (removing ink and other finishing materials, like coatings, sizing, and adhesives from printed paper (De-inking n.d.) and pulping system used to recycle residential wastepaper and old telephone books (Nippon Paper Industries USA Co. n.d.). Next month, Nippon Paper Industries USA Inc. will celebrate their 90th anniversary. In a business group’s weekly breakfast meeting held by the Port Angeles Business Association (PABA), Nippon will receive special recognition for its “history of employing many of their residents, providing their youth with scholarships, and sponsoring community endeavors that contribute to the health and welfare of the community” (Business Politics and Environment 2010). Pam McWethy, Sarah Goldblatt, and Michele Burns are members of the PT AirWatchers. They were on the Taylor Street dock in Port Townsend to protest the mill’s biomass project this week. They said that “further studies need to be completed before the mill gets the go ahead for biomass. The air is an issue with so many residential homes in the area, and while particulate matter may be decreased, the carbon dioxide—the major gas—and volatile organic compounds and other substances will increase. Trucks will be driven 24/7” (McWethy cited 2010). They also felt that the 125 foot chimney stack will dispense air emissions beyond the present emission range. After a review process and public comment period, the Department of Ecology issued an order allowing the upgrade to PTPC in Port Townsend, and the go ahead to upgrade their boiler at its mill to run on waste wood, including some forest biomass. The Port Townsend Mill started on Monday, October 6, 1928, as a Crown Zellerbach kraft paper mill, doing business as the National Paper Products Company. The citizens of Port Townsend fought hard to be the site of the new mill, and after they nearly lost the bid to Aberdeen, construction began at Glen Cove in September, 1927. As a side benefit, the city gained a new, reliable water supply, needed to sustain the production of paper and the increase in population. The new National Paper Products Mill infused new life into the languishing city and immediately became the backbone of Port Townsend’s economy. Today, the Port Townsend Paper Mill is Jefferson County’s largest private employer. In 1980, Crown Zellerbach became the West Coast leader in emission controls by installing new furnaces and smokestacks and by improving its wastewater treatment facilities. On December 20, 1983, Crown Zellerbach sold the mill to Haindl Papier GmbH of West Germany, which renamed it the Port Townsend Paper Corporation, employing 500 workers. In December 1997, Haindl Paper GmbH, after losing money for several years, sold the Port Townsend Paper Corporation to Northwest Capital Appreciation Inc., a private equity firm that was credited with saving the mill from closure. In March 2001, the corporation purchased Grown Packaging Ltd. of British Columbia for $61.5 million, which added four plants that manufacture boxes and packaging materials from kraft paper. In a telephone interview with the environmental department, today (2010) the Port
Townsend Paper Mill, located at 100 Paper Mill Road, has approximately 280 employees in Jefferson County the mill manufactures 525,000 tons of unbleached paper and cardboard every year. Combined with the Crown Packaging operations in Canada, the corporation sells more than $350 million of paper products annually. This privately held corporation continues to be the backbone of Port Townsend’s economy as well as the largest single employer in Jefferson County. Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wilson defines biomass as wood and bark not used for products (small trees, tops, branches, mill residue, and urban waste) (Skog, 2009). In Washington State the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received a $1 million dollar grant from the U. S. Department Forest Service (USFS) to assess forest biomass availability and sustainable harvest thresholds on forest lands throughout Washington State; some of the funds will be allocated for the study (DNR, 2010). The State of Washington is committed to sustainability of its forests and applying science to make sure the forests will be healthy now and for years to come, according to Commission of Public Lands, Peter Goldmark (DNR 2010). The study is anticipated to take a year. The deadline for the request for proposal (RFP) was closed just last month, and the RFP was awarded November 1, 2010. The findings will give the DNR critical information that can be used to determine the best locations, scales, and processing technologies for forest biomass in the future. According to Goldmark, it is a very important next step to the emerging biomass industry. To ensure that the forest biomass is done in an ecological sustainable way the DNR, USFS, and many other agencies share responsibility. The RFP is called Washington Forest Biomass Supply Assessment and is a 38 page document that has minimum qualifications for individuals bidding on the project. The Consultant must be licensed to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant must have at least ten year's experience in sophisticated quantitative and qualitative analysis of commercial forest management, forest product supply studies, market analysis, forest water, soil, and habitat protection, forest health, and harvest operations, applicable to Washington State (Washington, 2010). Using some of this forest biomass for liquid transportation fuel, heating, and electrical power generation will pay an important role in Washington’s emerging green economy and help address climate change (DNR, 2010). Aaron Toso, Director of Communications & Outreach with DNR is an excellent resource to provide information on the constant changes taking place with biomass in Washington State. In my brief discussion with Toso, he said he felt that with the new trend in biomass it is essential to stay on top of the situation now that Port Angeles and Port Townsend have been approved for biomass co-cogeneration (Toso 2010).
Technical resource potential for developing bio-power from beneficial biomass:
|Renewable Resource |Electric Generation Capacity |Electric Generation (billion |Renewable Electricity Generation as % of|
| |Potential (in gigawatts) |kilowatt-hours) |2007 Electricity Use |
|Energy Crops |83 |584 |14% |
|Agricultural Residues |114 |801 |19% |
|Forest Residues |33 |231 |6% |
|Urban Residues |15 |104 |3% |
|Landfill Gas |2.6 |19 |0.4% |
|Total |248 |1,739 |42% |

( DOE, 2005) Lisa Gibson is an Associate Editor for Biomass Power & Thermal. She composes articles for the website other print publications, and assists in the editing process. She works with the Biomass Power and Thermal team to develop story ideas and determine content, and assists with planning BBI International’s biomass-related events. Lisa has been with the magazine since April 2009, after working as a daily newspaper reporter at the Grand Forks Herald in Grand Forks, N.D., for more than three years (Gibson 2010). According to an article recently published by the magazine Biomass Power and Thermal, Lisa provided information specific to the Port Townsend paper upgrades boiler to biomass. The Washington Department of Ecology has given Port Townsend Paper Corp. in Port Townsend, Wash., and the go ahead to upgrade a boiler at its mill to run on waste wood, including some forest biomass. PTPC and partner Sterling Energy Assets have proposed a cogeneration project to install a new steam turbine generator that will extract steam from the upgraded boiler and the recovery furnace to support mill operations. The project would also generate 25 megawatts of electricity for the grid (Gibson, 2010). The picture below depicts the exact contents to which the Forest Products Laboratory has defined as biomass.

[pic] Port Townsend Paper Corp. has been cleared to begin work on a boiler upgrade that will allow the mill to use waste wood to power a steam turbine generator (Gibson, 2010).
Sheraton Seattle Hotel, in Seattle. The conference will have an exclusive focus on biomass utilization in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada, the Pacific West Biomass Conference and Trade Show is one of three regional offshoots of Biomass Magazine's International Biomass Conference & Expo. The program will focus on the vast potential for biomass utilization in the Pacific West-from southern California to the Washington/Canada border-featuring more than 60 speakers within four tracks: Electricity Generation; Industrial Heat & Power; Bio-refining; and Biomass Project Development and Finance (Gibson, 2010). Our little town of Port Townsend is making major new around the world. This is a really big issue.
|Reasons For Biomass |Reasons Against Biomass |
|There is enough waste wood to scale up the biomass heating industry |Cutting down and burning our forests is not a solution to climate |
|from decades without bumping into the limits of waste wood |change. |
|availability. ~10 million tons in Oregon alone. That equals 65% of | |
|Oregon natural gas use (160 Trillion Btus). Washington State should | |
|have a similar amount of waste wood available. | |
|A boiler large enough to provide all the heat and hot water for a |Biomass is a green washed false solution that distracts from the real |
|25,000-square-foot building puts out fewer harmful emissions than the |work that needs to occur to stop climate change and curb energy |
|average EPA certified wood stove used to heat a small home. |consumption, namely ending war and dismantling capitalism. |
|Biomass heat boilers are 85% efficient as opposed to biomass |Natural gas isn't a viable heating fuel either, but replacing one form|
|electricity generation, which is only 25% to 30% efficient at best. |of pollution and eco-destruction with another isn't progress. |
| |The timber industry loves biomass because it could breathe new life |
| |into a failing market. |
|In today’s economic climate, one of the biggest benefits of biomass | |
|heat is its job-creation potential. | |
|Long term, biomass heat is estimated to be able to produce upwards of |Can Port Townsend Mill produce convincing air-quality modeling |
|4,500 new full-time jobs in Oregon, and a similar amount in |indicating that the proposed plant will comply with both current EPA |
|neighboring states, if the industry is allowed to survive and thrive. |standards and the more stringent standards slated to go into effect in|
| |2011? |
|Widely used and promoted in Europe as a way to reduce reliance on coal|Opponents raised concerns about environmental and health hazards from |
|and oil, biomass heating systems for commercial and |the proposed Port Townsend Mill plant. |
|institutional buildings are spawning a brand new and fast-growing | |
|industry in the US, one that we can ill afford to see regulated out | |
|of existence, especially in the Pacific Northwest. | |
|Exploitation of waste biomass for direct conversion to useful energy |The CO2 generated by the plants adds to our global warming problem. |
|is indeed the right thing to do. It's far better than co-firing with |Wood biomass is not “carbon neutral” as frequently advertised, |
|coal in a much less efficient plant or wasting the biomass by |particularly in the short run (20 years). |
|"storing" it in landfills. It is also important to keep the demand for| |
|biomass fuel in balance with the regional supplies of waste biomass to| |
|insure the higher-value biomass is preserved for higher-value uses | |
|such as pulp & paper, flooring, etc. and to insure that the emissions | |
|benefits of biomass utilitization aren't more than offset by emissions| |
|resulting from its transport. | |
|It is important to support reducing greenhouse gas emissions. |Increased air and water pollution, and the potential adverse human |
| |health impacts. |
|Biomass boilers, on the other hand, can easily be installed into |The supply of wood stock required to power the plant (and three others|
|schools, airports, hospitals, and other buildings, and in areas like |proposed for the Peninsula) exceeds the current supply. These plants |
|the Pacific Northwest, they can be located close to the source of |would create a demand for wood for 15–25+ years that could adversely |
|waste wood, reducing the need to transport fuel. |impact regeneration of the forests. |

In conclusion, with our current global issue regarding our air, water and fuel consumptions it is import to remember a few things. Burning or gasifying biomass does emit carbon into the atmosphere. With heightened interest in renewable energy and climate change, scientists have put biomass’ carbon emissions under additional scrutiny, and are making important distinctions between biomass resources that are beneficial in reducing net carbon emissions and biomass resources that would increase net emissions. While our understanding of specific biomass resources and applications will continue to evolve, we can group biomass resources into three general categories, based on their net carbon impacts. Beneficial biomass As mentioned previously, there is considerable consensus among leading scientists that there are biomass resources that are clearly beneficial in their potential to reduce net carbon emissions. These beneficial resources exist in substantial supplies and can form the basis of increasing production of bio-power and bio-fuels. Harmful biomass In contrast to these beneficial biomass resources, scientists generally agree that harmful biomass resources and practices include clearing forests, savannas, or grasslands to grow energy crops, and displacing food production for bio-energy production that ultimately leads to the clearing of carbon-rich ecosystems elsewhere to grow food. Harmful biomass adds net carbon to the atmosphere by either directly or indirectly decreasing the overall amount of carbon stored in plants and soils. We all should be concerned that biomass will be developed sustainably and beneficially—in ways that are cleaner and safer than our current energy mix, that are truly sustainable and that will reduce net carbon emissions. Beneficial biomass resources will in most cases be cleaner, sustainable and beneficial. Harmful biomass resources almost always will not. Marginal biomass resources may be cleaner, sustainable and beneficial—or not—depending on specific circumstances. On the basis of the science, it would be unwarranted to support the use of all biomass resources, with any conversion technology and for any application. It would also be unwarranted to oppose all biomass on the basis that some biomass resources, conversion technologies or applications are not sustainable or beneficial. Unfortunately, some biomass advocates and biomass opponents alike make just these mistakes—failing to distinguish beneficial from harmful biomass resources. Thus, all too often the debate about biomass is conducted in absolutist terms, either arguing that all biomass is “carbon neutral” or that “biomass” writ large will accelerate global warming, increase air pollution or lay waste to forests. These absolutist approaches to biomass have led to two pitfalls in developing biomass policy. Absolute advocates have supported policy that would let almost any kind of biomass resource be eligible for renewable energy and climate legislation. On the other extreme, absolutist opposition has led to proposals to effectively remove most kinds of biomass from policy, especially at the state level. Both approaches pose challenges to the development of beneficial bio power generation. The “anything goes” approach risks the development of harmful biomass resources that will increase net carbon emissions and cause other harm. Such a path also risks undermining the confidence the public and policymakers can place in biomass as a legitimate climate solution—which could eventually threaten the inclusion of beneficial biomass as a renewable energy resource in policy. In tarring biomass with too broad a brush, some biomass opposition lump beneficial resources with harmful ones and risks not developing beneficial biomass at large enough scale to capture important benefits for the country and the planet. As a group of biomass experts, comprising both advocates and skeptics, noted in an article in Science, “society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse gas reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when bio-fuels are done right.” To capture the benefits of beneficial biomass and avoid the risks of harmful biomass, federal and state policies should distinguish between beneficial and harmful biomass resources. Most policy related to biomass-based energy, be it for fuels, electricity or thermal, includes a definition of eligible biomass resources. This definition should make beneficial biomass resources eligible, exclude harmful biomass resources and practices, and include practical, reasonable sustainability standards to ensure that harvests of biomass do not degrade soils, wildlife habitat, and bio-diversity and water quality. UCS has developed practical, effective sustainability standards for inclusion in biomass definitions, especially at the federal level (DOE, 2005). Biomass energy brings environmental benefits—particularly reducing all kinds of air pollution, and net carbon emission. Biomass can be frown and harvested in ways that protect soil quality, avoid and maintain wildlife. Biomass will offer economic and energy security benefits as well. Starting by growing our fuels at home, we reduce the need to import fuels from other states and nations, this will reduce out expenses and exposure to disruptions in that supply. By using biomass resources the states that import coal from other states and countries could be diminished. The expansion of biomass gives to farmers and forest owners a valuable new market for their crop residues, new energy crops and forest; this would then reduce our global warming effect.

Works Cited

"Business Politics and Environment." Paper Mill's Anniversary to Be Feted [Port Angeles] 21 Nov. 2010: D1. Print.
De-inking. (n.d.). Google. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS401&q=define%3Ade-inking&aq=f&oq=
Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bio products industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf.
"DNR Biomass Supply Study." Sustainability and Vitality of Washington’s Forests. 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/News/Pages/2010_08_19_rfp_biomass_nr.aspx
Lisa Gibson. Biomass Power and Thermal 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5094/port-townsend-paper-upgrades-boiler-to-biomass.
McWethy, Pam, Goldblatt, Sarah, & Burns, Michele. Personal Interview. 18 November 2010.
Nippon Paper Industries USA, Co. (n.d.). Department of Ecology State of Washington. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/industrial/pulp_Nippon.html
Skog, Ken. "Forest-based Biomass Supply for the U S." Pinchot.org. 11 June 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 20112. http://www.pinchot.org/uploads/download?fileId=613
Toso, Aaron. Telephone Interview. 16 November 2012.

Washington. State of Washington. Department of Natural Resources. Washington Forest Biomass Supply Assessment. Vol. RFP. Olympia: State of Washington, 2010. Print. 11-10.
Whyte, Helena. "Helium." The History of Biomass Energy in America. Http://www.helium.com/items/1520942-biomass-energy-in-america. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.