I have to admit that I am confused about the whole biomass concept of burning wood for energy. How does this process differ from the wood boiler situation, other than being on a much grander scale and making power for a grid rather than one residence? I read an article yesterday on Yahoo news entitled, "Fire dangers fuel trees-for-fuels plans." According to this article, a company called Rough & Ready Lumber is entering the energy business by building a $5 million plant to burn logging debris and generate electricity for a regional power grid. The article notes that biomass projects help limit forest fires and insect infestations, because they will finance forest thinnings. Per the article, forests have to be thinned to deter widespread forest fires and eliminate bug infestations. This promotes the health of the remainder of the forest. Biomass plants need to be located near the trees, the transmission lines and the mills for use of the excess steam. The article does not say what the excess steam is used for, but I assume the mills use it for additional energy. Some deterrents to biomass plants are less tax credits than those provided for wind and solar power, as well as an absence of long-term contracts from the Forest Service for forest thinning. There is currently only one such contract.

I suppose the biomass concept is a good one. After all, trees do grow back, so they are a source of renewable energy if used wisely. Also, much of this excess wood and trimmings were previously wasted, so why not use them? Further, these projects can help foster the health of the remainder of the forest by serving as a source of funds for thinning work. Yet, I still have to hesitate and question how much pollution is created with these projects. Wouldn't a lot of particulates be created with this burning? In addition, isn't there a risk that lumber companies will want to burn more and more wood to create energy thereby putting this first and forest conservation, second? Moreover, why should biomass receive equal tax credits as wind and solar power, when the latter generate no pollution to produce energy? It seems that wind and solar power should still be favored. Nevertheless, if done wisely, there does appear to be room for use of biomass for power. It still beats burning coal and oil.