Use of genuine by-products from sawmills to produce heat and electricity, biofuels and the like could reduce carbon emissions compared to use of coal or petroleum products. However, that’s a slippery slope as we have seen in the case of our larger biomass energy plants which take in primary forest biomass when there are not enough wastes, or just because it’s cheaper.
View also the submenus under this heading – Literature, Accounting Standards & Data, Using The Feds’ Bioenergy GHG Calculator, Wastes and Residues, Business/Development, In the News (all in the ‘workin on it’ stage), also, items under REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS//INCREASING CARBON SQUESTRATION on the Climate Change page.
Using primary forest biomass to produce bioenergy/biofuels increases GHG emissions over the next 50+ years compared to use of coal or petroleum fuelsIt’s over the next 50 yeas that we really need to reduce our GHG emissions. View:
– Natural Resources Canada GHG Calculator confirms Nova Scotia forest bioenergy schemes are worse than coal (Post on this website Jan 3, 2017)
– Biofuels increase, rather than decrease, heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions (University of Michigan, 2016).
Forest Biomass Energy Policy in the Maritime Provinces: Accounting for Science
East Coast Environmental Law Report by Jamie Simpson, Dec. 2015. “We evaluate whether government policy on forest biomass in the Maritimes is keeping pace with science. Is the harvest of forest biomass sustainable from a biodiversity perspective and does the burning of forest biomass reduce overall carbon emissions? If not, then should governments continue to offer incentives to make forest biomass energy economically feasible?”
Are biofuels from Nova Scotia forests good for the environment? Show us the science!
Post on this website, May 4, 2017
Stop destroying Nova Scotia’s forests for biomass power generation
Started by a St. Margaret’s Bay resident in March 2016, this electronic petition garnered more than 25000 signatures in less than 10 days. Likely as a result, the province amended renewable electricity regulations, eliminating the “must run” designation for the Port Hawkesbury biomass plant. (View CBC news item.) As well, it led to the creation of the Nova Scotia Healthy Forest Coalition. The petition remains open. A paper petition for submission to the Nova Scotia legislature is now in circulation.
Short Update on Biomass, July 20, 2016. “On April 8, 2016, the NS Government announced that the Nova Scotia Power biomass plant will no longer run 24/7, which the Ecology Action Centre and others called ‘a great first step’ to eliminating biomass”… However, it wasn’t long before alternative uses of the “low grade” wood were being promoted such as marine biofuels…”
Feeding the Fire Biomass and Nova Scotia’s Race for the Bottom
Article by Linda Pannozzo in the Halifax Examiner, March 4, 2016. She explains why “calling biomass “renewable” in Nova Scotia is about as inconsistent as giving up liberty for freedom. It’s basically a lie and in the context of how forestry is done in this province it’s about as Orwellian as you can get.”
Oh Dear, “Europe Aims to Close Loophole on Wood Energy”
Post on this website.
The Great Carbon Scam
Article in new Scientist 21 Sep 2016. You may have to take out a free membership to view the article. It describes why biomass burned to produce electricity should not be counted as renewable energy.
It’s too big – The Biomass Plant at Port Hastings
By RobertDevet in The Nova Scotia Advocate. March 12, 2016. “In a mere 10 minutes this documentary makes the case that to feed the boiler, to satisfy the voracious appetite of the Point Tupper biomass plant, the Department of Natural Resources is stressing forests in eastern Nova Scotia and jeopardizing the future of much of the forest industry.”
Is wood a green source of energy? Scientists are divided
By Warren Cornwall Science Jan. 5, 2017. A good overview of the debate on this topic in scientific & industrial circles. “This past February, 65 scientists, many from major universities, penned a letter to Senate leaders warning that the carbon-neutral label would encourage deforestation and drive up greenhouse gas emissions. But a month later, more than 100 scientists took the opposite view in a letter to EPA, stating that “the carbon benefits of sustainable forest biomass energy are well established.” A lot depends on whether you look at the next 40 or the next 100 years, also whether enhanced soil GHG emission following clearcutting are taken into account. The Planet will be an impartial judge.