Make us your home page

Today’s top headlines delivered to you daily.

(View our Privacy Policy)

Biomass power plant near Brooksville should raise concerns

Maybe it's the benign-sounding name: biomass. Maybe it's because it applies to such familiar and seemingly harmless materials: discarded lumber, yard waste, old shipping pallets. Maybe its advocates have just hired good lobbyists.

Whatever the reason, said Mary Booth, director of the Massachusetts-based environmental group Partnership for Policy Integrity, this source of power has a reputation as "clean, green and carbon neutral — none of which happens to be true."

Yes, Booth said, the people promoting biomass incineration have done a first-class job of "green-washing," spinning an environmentally destructive practice to make it seem harmless or even beneficial — such a good job, in fact, that new plants like the one being built to replace a coal-fired furnace on Cemex property northwest of Brooksville can qualify for tens of millions of dollars in federal renewable energy tax breaks.

And what would proponents of biomass say if they told the truth about this power source?

Well, that in a lot of ways it's worse than coal.

The American Lung Association has come out against biomass incineration. So has the Florida Medical Association. And, last week, so did the Hernando County Medical Society.

The group's president, Spring Hill pain management doctor Deborah Tracy, sent a letter to the County Commission objecting to the project at the Central Power and Lime plant, saying the emissions represent a real danger to county residents, especially those with asthma or other lung ailments.

Tracy is probably way too late. The state Department of Environmental Protection issued a permit for the project in January, and county planners long ago determined the company building the plant — Texas-based Florida Power Development LLC — didn't need a zoning change.

Still, she's got a good point.

Let's assume, as the power company states in its permit application, that the plant will burn clean material, such as lumber that has not been pressure treated.

Even so, woody matter creates more of most kinds of waste than coal, per amount of energy produced, because it's less efficient. For example, the old coal plant could produce 150 megawatts of power, compared to between 70 and 80 megawatts at the new facility.

Because the biomass plant is new, it will have better filters and other pollution controls than the old one. That's the main reason why, according to its DEP permit application, the plant will release far lower levels of nitrogen oxides, a major contributor to acid rain. So is sulfur dioxide, emissions of which will be lower in the new plant because coal is naturally high in sulfur and because of the new filters.

But even with this improved pollution control, the plant will release more mercury and more particulate matter than the coal plant did between 2006 and 2010, when it was running at less than full capacity. It will also spew out more carbon, though here the comparison gets tricky.

The federal government is working to develop standards on how to treat the carbon from biomass plants. The biggest factor in this decision: Biomass, presumably, would decompose and its carbon would be released regardless of whether it was incinerated.

The carbon in coal, on the other hand, could stay locked up underground indefinitely.

Okay, Booth and other critics of biomass burning say, but burning wood means putting a big load of carbon into the air right away rather than over the course of decades.

That means it's far from carbon neutral.

I agree, though I'd be willing to give biomass the faintest praise possible for an energy source: when it comes to carbon, long term, it seems somewhat preferable to coal.

So, why would a company with a coal-fired plant that produces electricity from a relatively cheap fuel source spend millions of dollars to rebuild it as a biomass plant that produces half as much energy?

We don't know for sure because no one connected with the project would grant an interview, and Tony Hopkins, the power development representative listed on all of the permits, sounded miffed I'd even asked.

"No comment. I'm out of the country," he said when I reached him on his cell phone.

One probable reason: tax breaks that can come to $46 million for the lifetime of a 50-megawatt plant, Booth calculated in a recent report.

There's also money in burning stuff that people will pay to get rid of, which means toxic stuff, such as the plastics, treated lumber and construction debris that the current permit forbids.

Even with that permit, there's no guarantee bad stuff won't slip into the stream of material that is chipped and then burned in the incinerator. The gatekeeper, Booth said, "is usually somebody making $7 or $8 per hour picking out the lumber that looks like it's pressure treated."

A bigger threat, in the long run, is the strong economic incentive for the company to apply for permission to burn more toxic material.

We residents and our concerned doctors need to keep an eye out for this and try to stop it. Before the permits are issued.

Follow Dan DeWitt at [email protected]. Also look for his Quick Hits column each Monday at

Biomass power plant near Brooksville should raise concerns 09/15/12 [Last modified: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:17am]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

© 2017 Tampa Bay Times


Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Dunedin man arrested for having destruction devices, deputies say

    Public Safety

    DUNEDIN — Deputies will be speaking later today to discuss a Dunedin man who was charged with possessing destruction devices in his home.

  2. Officials release names of those aboard plane that landed in St. Pete neighborhood


    ST. PETERSBURG — Officials released the names of the two people aboard the plane that made an emergency landing Wednesday on a neighborhood street in south St. Petersburg.

  3. Spencer: 'A better and more beautiful world if people like me were in power'


    In the a small theater crammed with cameras, Richard Spencer and a small group of his coordinators clashed with reporters as his controversial speech in the Phillips Center drew near Thursday.

    A crowd gathers ahead of Richard Spencer's appearance at the University of Florida on Oct. 19, 2017. [LUIS SANTANA | Times]
  4. Analysis: George W. Bush's unmistakable takedown of Trumpism - and Trump


    For the last nine years, George W. Bush has largely stayed out of presidential politics; he declined to criticize his successor, Barack Obama, and he chose not to endorse but largely ignored President Donald Trump. While Mitt Romney and others spoke out publicly against Trump, Bush stayed above the fray.

    That …

    Former President George W. Bush speaks at a forum sponsored by the George W. Bush Institute in New York on Thursday, Oct. 19, 2017. [Seth Wenig | Associated Press]
  5. Fennelly: Even frustrated Bucs fans hold out hope


    Many fans wrote back when I threw out an all-points the other day, asking if Bucs fans are perpetually in a state of expecting the worst.

    Bucs fans cheer during a preseason game against the Washington Redskins in August at Raymond James Stadium.