Metso Corporation is pretty confident in its green cred. The Finnish company calls itself “a global supplier of sustainable technology and services” and in a press visit today the company’s VP of strategic development, Michael Hoven, and communications manager, Sanna Rahikainen, when asked if they considered Metso a green company, said it was. They said they don’t greenwash and are proud of what they were doing for the environment.
Unfortunately the devil is in the details, and Metso has a way to go before this blogger would feel comfortable calling it a truly sustainable business.
The key to Metso’s self-proclaimed environmental credentials is its production of biomass boilers to replace those powered by coal and other fossil fuels. It’s true that biomass has the potential to be an energy source that is superior to fossil fuels from an environmental standpoint. There are at least three keys in my mind to ensuring that biomass is a real sustainable solution:
- The fuels sources have to be renewable.
Biomass producers have to use renewable resources, such as plantation forests, as the fuel stock for the boilers. To really get why, we have to take a trip into carbon sequestration land. Biomass and fossil fuels both have global warming potential because when they are burned, carbon is released into the atmosphere. Too much of that and you get global warming. The key to making biomass neutral on the carbon issue is to deplete fuels stocks (trees, switch grass, corn, whatever) at the same rate as you plant more. That way, as you burn and release CO2, a theoretically equal amount will be sequestered in the new crops you are growing.
Metso is doing a decent job here- it does burn trees, which can be replanted. The problem is the other things it is burning, as well as the attention (or lack-therof) it pays to ensure that the stocks they deplete are renewed on an environmentally-responsible basis. Which leads me to my second point:
- The fuel sources have to be renewed.
The challenge is that if you don’t actually do the replanting, or you use a fuel stock such as old growth forests that aren’t easily replicated, or you burn old scraps like packaging, recycled wood, and “de-inking sludge” (a by-product of paper production) all of which are current practices of Metso, your burning process actually just releases CO2 that wouldn’t otherwise be released, that isn’t being re-sequestered. Guess what that means? You are a regular old CO2 emitter, just like the gas company. I asked Metso about its plans to replenish the stocks it uses, but it doesn’t see this as its responsibility.
- Fuel stocks should be local
Lastly, the fuel stocks need to come from the local area surrounding the plant, otherwise you are emitting CO2 just to bring the stocks to the power plant for burning. Until we get some electric 18-wheelers on the market, the CO2 that gets emitted to bring the stocks to the plant is not going to be recovered from the atmosphere. Metso doesn’t seem to have a strategy to encourage sourcing from local stocks.
The most frustrating thing of all was not only that Metso didn’t seem to understand the limitations of biomass as a renewable resource. The presentation we saw included several happy green planets and lightbulbs with trees growing out of them. We also heard many references to the carbon-neutrality of Metso’s biomass, despite the fact that Metso’s process is anything but carbon neutral. When pressed, Mr. Hoven said that his numbers only deal with his boilers–not what happens to the stocks before they get to him. He considers the biomass to be carbon neutral, despite the fact that his company doesn’t seem to be thinking hard about stock replenishment.
At Triple Pundit, we like to give companies the benefit of the doubt, and I have to say I felt a bit conflicted about writing this post so harshly because the folks we spoke to did truly seem proud of their company and it’s environmental potential. So let’s keep the benefit of the doubt open, but with a strong caveat – I think Metso needs to take a deeper look and start thinking more earnestly about its product and production before turning up the volume on claims of greenness, lest it be accused of greenwashing.