VOC's in pellet production

[whit]

Turns out large-scale production can lead to excess VOC emissions (long known, but new to me). Drax just paid a big fine for that in Louisana: https://www.nola.com/news/environment/article_c451e610-4352-11ed-8a54-43df54e33cd5.html

Drax's production is all to burn for power in Britain, not the pellets we burn for heat in New England. All useful things have down sides. I'm far happier burning pellets for heat than oil, and at least in New England maintaining the economic value of forests is part of maintaining forests. But what can we make of the trade-offs in operations like Drax's?

 

[gutlo]

I wonder if domestic pellet makers emit illegal VOC's.

 

[peakbagger]

Lot of places emit VOCs, Bakeries emit VOCs when they are baking bread. Plywood mills emit VOCs, sawmill emit VOCs, folks drying wood in their backyard emit VOCs, paint booths emit VOCs. It just comes down to government setting a standard on reportable quantities and then setting limits on acceptable levels that a single source can emit. The acceptable levels usually tie back to what is the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). BACT involves economic discussions. BACT for VOCs is pretty simple for VOCs, enclose the process (in a building) collect the air being exhausted and then run the exhaust through a regenerative thermal oxidizer. The plywood folks and the bakeries bitched and moaned when they had to deal with VOCs, the car industry swapped to lower VOC paints and powder coating but once the rules are enforced they did so or went out of business which raised prices so their competitors got bigger.

The problem frequently is that the EPA sets the rules but in most states the EPA delegates responsibility to enforce the rules to the individual states. In theory a state cannot loosen federal standards but many underfund or de-emphasize enforcement of certain regulations. Frequently the orders to the environmental state regulators is "dont ask, dont tell". Its pretty easy to weaken environmental regulation, chronically underfund the state environmental department and underpay staff. Environmental regulation is complex and requires well educated folks (usually a masters or doctorate). Many states underpay their environmental employees, and the staffs are a revolving door, the employees start out with the state as their first job out of college and then if they are any good they go to work for industry where they figure out the ways to avoid the regulations. They know the career progression, so they try not to piss off their potential future employers. There are also areas of the country that are emissions non-attainment areas that have stricter regulations than other areas of the country. Pollution from lots of small sources add up in urban areas to equal that of "point" sources like a pellet plant and not only does the local area have an issue but areas downstream of them do.

My guess is small counties and rural areas desperate for jobs are not going to ask a lot of questions about a rapidly growing industry. Usually, it takes a lawsuit or two to force regulators to start doing the job the fed expects them to. Even then, the last administration fiddled with the EPA to weaken it and demonize it plus put in federal and supreme judges that would rule against the EPA despite congress passing the laws.

 

[stoveliker]

The discussion is too general. It should be specified what specific VOCs are being emitted.
Forests themselves emit vast quantity of VOCs too. In fact, plants communicate through the emission of VOCs. On the other hand some VOCs are quite toxic.

So it depends a lot on what is being emitted. A statement that VOCs are emitted doesn't mean anything useful.

 

[Mt Bob]

Off topic, but I got a thing against Drax and the UK. You would not know these things unless you keep up on the industry and green coalition publications.
Yes, Drax converted a big plant, possibly more, to burn pellets instead of coal. To be "cleaner". They also been working on carbon capture underground, which is not working out.
So, they,Drax, bought land, forests wood over here, in addition to buying other wood. They also one some of the logging, some of the trucking, the processing plants, even the ship that hauls the pellets.
Now, the way their gov. works, ALL pollution created by these processes, even the shipping to the UK, are counted as USA pollution. See how that works??
They are big time subsidized by their gov. and because of this, the normal people over there have higher energy prices, the gov sets the price.
As they have been doing this for some years, results show it creates way more overall pollution than switching back, burning all that soft coal they have, and upgrade the stack scrubbers, which probably was done anyway for the pellets. And it probably lower all of England's electricity prices for the working man. It all rings of a shell and money game, just as lots of "man made global warming" is.
OK, sorry for rant, but there are some facts to ponder.