One of the arguments that is heard over and over from opponents of Fibrowatt’s biomass power plants is that these plants are “dirtier than coal.” I’m intrigued as to why they make such a comparison, or for that matter, why people seem to buy this argument, as it’s hard to understand how you can compare a biomass power plant like Fibrowatt’s with emissions from large-scale coal plant. Coal plants are 10 – 15 times larger than a Fibrowatt plant.

While it doesn’t make much sense to make this comparison, this is not to say that the tag line “dirtier than coal” is soon to go away. These people know that a coal plant is not a “favored” source of energy in the court of public opinion, conjuring up plenty of negative emotions, so it’s an easy point to rally around – even if inaccurate.

So, how do you put this in the proper perspective? How do you compare these two dissimilar items? Let me try.

donutAfter spending a little time in a checkout line at a local big-box store, I happened upon a book that got me thinking. Maybe you have heard of the book – Eat This, Not That – which helps people compare foods and identify which foods are healthier. Look through the food categories and (while you might start to feel bad that the items you love keep showing up on the “not that” side of the comparison) you will note that the book compares like items. The book is built around the comparison of a tub of yogurt “A” with a tub of yogurt “B.”

So how is this applicable to the opponent’s favorite – biomass / coal comparison?

By comparing a Fibrowatt plant to a coal plant, these opponents are not making a like comparison. What they are trying to do is seemingly convince you that 10 – 15 bacon cheeseburgers are healthier than one donut. Sure the donut might have 19 grams of sugar and the bacon cheeseburger has only 7; but unless you are prone to fiction, I think it is very unlikely that you will be convinced that 10 – 15 bacon cheeseburgers are better than one donut.