The Curious Case of Biomass Energy
Architecturally speaking, the industrial typology of factories has always served as both inspiration and frustration. While modernism has seen the virtues of industrial warehouses as the ideal balance between space and expression with no ornamentation, others have lamented its lack of human warmth and relationship to a natural landscape. Enter Thomas Heatherwick. Sadly now postponed indefinitely, his Teeside Biomass Power Station in the United Kingdom represented a deconstruction of the factory typology and attempts to melt in a natural landscape with what can otherwise be described as the dull industrial process of electricity generation.
A new industrial typology - Heatherwick proposes a revolutionary and organic form for the Teesside Biomass Power Station (Dezeen, 2009)
Full of ideology, the power station was seen as a beacon of hope, in a location which “…is currently barren with little or no ecology, and the project will create a suitable habitat for the rare flora and fauna that return to industrial sites such as this.” (Dezeen, 2009). What I feel this shows, despite the project currently being on hold is a sense of cooperation: architecture is not merely a multidisciplinary process, but also a socio-environmental and socio-political one. Collaboration with emergent technologies, such as biomass energy firms shows incentive to create architecturally thoughtful solutions which in this case, is a complete rethink of the industrial typology within this 21,000sqm site.
An idyllic setting - reintroducing local flora and fauna into what was once a heavily industrialized area.
In our ongoing quest for sustainable electricity production, this new bioenergy has been hailed by some as a change for a better future. But what actually is biomass energy and is this really the case?
(Insert melodramatic, overly designed 3D Breaking News! Graphics here.)
A new report comprehensively investigating biomass electricity in the United States has provided new evidence suggesting that biomass was not as efficient as previously thought. The critical report contended that the process of biomass burning was essentially a form of trash incineration and that as a result, was actually performing less efficiently and releasing more pollutants than traditional coal or gas power stations (Booth, 2014). In some serious cases, the report found that biomass plants were “…emitting nearly 50 percent more CO2 per megawatt generated than the next biggest carbon polluter, coal.” (Booth, 2014).
Deceptive sustainability - A comparison of three power stations generating equal levels of electricity reveals
that Biomass is not necessarily less polluting. (Booth, 2014).
Despite the somewhat damning evidence, some organisations, notably Greenpeace have fought on both sides of the debate, highlighting the potential for a bioenergy future. It discusses in a 2012 report, the Energy [R]evolution that “…there are potentially better uses of local biogas plants from manure…better recovery of residus not suitable as feed and an increase in food production using ecological agriculture.” (Greenpeace, 2012). At the same time however, Greenpeace was extremely critical of Canadian bioenergy plans, arguing that “…the bioenergy sector is damaging its future acceptance by not acknowledging the upfront ‘carbon debt’ generated by burning trees for energy, and other significant environmental side-effects such as biodiversity loss and pollution.” (Greenpeace, 2011).
Returning back to Heatherwick’s proposal, which would have “…made use of combustion steam cycle technology to produce electricity…sourcing pine kernel shells, remnants of pin oil production, from Malaysia to use as fuel…the shells were to be shipped to the UK in container vessels and were to be pelletised…as pellets burn more efficiently.” (PowerTechnology.com, 2014). Critics, fuelled in an online discussion of this idea have both denounced it as “deforesting Malaysia so we can feel smug about our [the UK’s] energy mix” and hailed it as ingenuity, arguing that “the power station is using a by-product, something left over…someone saw waste and said let’s use this.” (Dezeen, 2009).
While the question of whether biomass energy is truly green remains to be settled, my contention is a simply this: architects, in partnerships with organisations can indeed produce better solutions for sustainable development, merging aesthetics with sustainability. Should Heatherwick’s project be realised, my fond hope is that the only contentious issue remaining is whether Northumbria is prepared for a volcano rising over the gentle valleys of the River Tees, at least that way, the problem can be one of aesthetics, and not sustainability.
References
Mary S. Booth. “Trees, Trash and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal.” (2 April 2014). The Partnership for Policy Integrity. Accessed online 9 April 2014 via:
http://www.pfpi.net/trees-trash-and-toxics-how-biomass-energy-has-become-the-new-coal
Dezeen. “BEI Teesside Power Plant by Heatherwick Studio.” (2009). Accessed 9 April 2014 via:
http://www.dezeen.com/2009/12/21/bei-teesside-power-plant-by-heatherwick-studio/
Greenpeace. “Fuelling a Biomess – Why Burning Trees for Energy will Harm People, the Climate and Forests.” Accessed 9 April 2014 via: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/
Sven Teske. “Energy [R]evolution 2012 4th Edition.” (2012) Accessed 9 April 2014 via: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/
Power-Technology.com. “BEI Teesside Power Plant, United Kingdom.” (2014). Accessed 9 April 2014 via: http://www.power-technology.com/projects/beiteesidepowerplant/