In California, A Push Grows to Turn Dead Trees into Biomass Energy

By the time new wood-fired power plants are online, most of the 147 million dead trees (so far) will have rotten and fallen — and some will have burned in wildfires.

From Yale:

In California, A Push Grows to Turn Dead Trees into Biomass Energy

As forests in California and the Western U.S. are hit by rising numbers of fires and disease outbreaks related to climate change, some experts argue that using dead and diseased trees to produce biomass energy will help to restore forests and reduce CO2 emissions.

12 thoughts on “In California, A Push Grows to Turn Dead Trees into Biomass Energy”

  1. So is there really a difference in CO2 emissions if all these dead trees burn up in wildfires or they burn up in someones wood-fired power plant biomass energy experiment?

    Reply
    • Of course, they can adjust operations to meet air quality conditions. Apparently, since wildfires are ‘natural’, their smoke is not an issue.

      Sadly, there is a segment of the mountain population who is against all kinds of fires, as well as thinning projects.

      Reply
    • Yes, there is a difference. The report mentioned in the Yale article, from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, lays it out pretty well.

      https://www-gs.llnl.gov/content/assets/docs/energy/Getting_to_Neutral.pdf

      We’ve debated the use of biomass and whether to leave forests nature (to boost CO2 sequestration, etc.) to or manage them. The LLNL report says we can do both — manage forests, use biomass, but also boost natural CO2 uptake.

      KEY FINDINGS
      By redoubling efforts to reduce and avoid existing emissions, and proactively
      pursuing negative emission pathways, California can achieve its ambitious
      carbon-neutral goal by 2045.

      By increasing the uptake of carbon in its natural and working lands,
      converting waste biomass into fuels, and removing CO2 directly from the
      atmosphere with purpose-built machines, California can remove on the
      order of 125 million metric tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere
      by 2045, and achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions.

      California can achieve this amount of negative without buying offsets from
      outside the State. This approach addresses local emissions without the risk
      of leakage or offshoring, so the overwhelming majority of the money is
      spent on local jobs and local industry.

      These negative emissions pathways come with important co-benefits to air
      and water quality, resilience to a changing climate, and protection of life
      and property.

      California can achieve this goal at a cost of less than $10 billion per year,
      less than 0.4% of the State’s current gross domestic product.

      Some of the removed carbon will be bound in natural systems or soils, but
      the bulk will need to be permanently and safely stored deep underground.
      Only moderately and highly mature technologies are required to achieve
      this negative emissions potential; however, accelerating demonstration and
      deployment for some of them is a key need.

      To realize these benefits, concerted efforts are required to broaden uptake
      of new land management practices, establish infrastructure, including
      waste biomass processing plants, to produce carbon-negative fuels and
      pipelines to transport CO2 to underground permanent storage sites.

      The importance of achieving this level of negative emissions stretches far
      beyond California – the Golden State can demonstrate to the world that
      carbon neutrality is achievable.

      Reply
    • If it replaces energy that is more CO2 intensive and fossil-sourced, and saves CO2 expenditure (fuel for firetrucks, for example), then yes- obviously. The accounting is critical, and rarely if ever done in a comprehensive way- and in this case if the power generated is as you mentioned in an experiment and not for a utility- then it likely does not lower CO2 emissions; unless you can count the future CO2 emissions savings that such research might yield. Carbon accounting is kind of a rabbit hole.

      The other potential benefit is saving the forest soils the damage from more intense wildfire than the ecosystem is adapted to, which could hamper rates of CO2 reuptake into forest biomass and soil. The math on cost/benefit of biomass energy and cofiring potential wildfire fuels with coal is enticing if you factor in risk reduction and forest health.

      Reply
  2. When we tried to use our dead lodgepole in Colorado, some groups were afraid that doing so would return us to the days of “industrial forestry” .. such as it might have been in Colorado. I wonder if there’s really a trust problem at the base of it (which could be addressed directly) versus the old “it’s better for them to burn in wildfires” argument.

    “But Wolf, of the Center for Biological Diversity, sees little difference between Kusel’s push for biomass and the destructive logging of the past. Government contracts for biomass removal include commercial logging — not just dead trees and woody debris, but larger diameter trees, too, she says. Even dead trees sequester carbon, contributing to California’s carbon neutrality goals.”

    A trust issue, simple enough, put a diameter limit for biomass removal or have some 3rd party review prescriptions or…
    Certainly dead trees sequester (as in store) carbon, but living trees (add to and store) carbon and are also more desirable to many species of wildlife and people.

    “As to the threat of fire, Wolf says, the most important work communities can do to protect themselves is to prepare their homes with fireproof roofs, vent screens, and pruned vegetation. Beyond towns, fire is a natural and necessary component of forest ecosystems and should not be suppressed, she says: “It’s a kind of hubris that humans think they know better than the forest. Forests did fine for millennia without us.”

    Many have said that fires are much worse due to climate change. It seems to me you have to pick a lane here.. either fires are unnaturally bad due to climate change, or they are still “natural”?

    Reply
    • “But Wolf, of the Center for Biological Diversity, sees little difference between Kusel’s push for biomass and the destructive logging of the past. Government contracts for biomass removal include commercial logging — not just dead trees and woody debris, but larger diameter trees, too, she says. Even dead trees sequester carbon, contributing to California’s carbon neutrality goals.”

      “…larger diameter trees…” equals merchantable trees between 10.0 inches in diameter and 29.9 inches in diameter, averaging about 15 inches in diameter.

      There are multiple ‘styles’ of biomass projects. The most common one is to sell the biomass generated in a regular green timber sale. Sometimes a biomass project can have a small scale timber sale embedded within it. Generally, a 10 inch diameter tree or larger is a sawlog, not utilized in biomass operations. Sometimes, a Service Contract generates biomass materials, and the operator is usually required to remove it, physically, from the project area.

      Reply
    • I have been reading about all the things that can be made from biofuels, besides electricity,, from natural gas to jet fuel. I really think is the wise course to take to utilize the woody material from thinning and the harvest of dead trees.
      If anyone has seen the smoke coming out of a biofuel plant and the smoke from a wildfire I would think it becomes pretty obvious which would be preferable.
      Fire might be a valuable tool on some forests, but not all.
      I would also like to mention that there is a abundance of new logging equipment and methods that have a very light touch on the forests.

      Reply
  3. Dead trees will stay out of the atmosphere longer if we just leave them alone. The choice is NOT whether to burn in wildfire vs burn in boilers, because a portion of the dead trees won’t burn at all. As carbon scientists Olga Krankina says “Dead trees don’t go to heaven.”

    Reply
    • “because a portion of the dead trees won’t burn at all.”

      Here in California, dead trees (other than incense cedar, which we’ve seen on the forest floor, from the culling of many decades ago) will burn before they rot into soil components. Tree rings studies in Mariposa County show that there were around 10 fires during the last 100 years.

      Disregarding the reality of human-caused wildfires is unwise.

      Reply
    • 2nd, I think the article could be confusing and maybe they are talking about some different things..

      1. Tree and Brush Removal for Fuel Treatments

      “Along with thinning trees in overcrowded forests, Kusel says, biomass projects help rebuild rural communities by creating jobs, all while preventing the massive carbon emissions released in wildfires. The Moonlight Fire alone spewed the annual CO2 equivalent of 750,000 gasoline-power cars.

      “If we can’t figure out what to do with the lowest-value material, we will fail at restoring our forests,” says Kusel.”

      If we thin trees for fuel treatment projects, and can’t sell them, then we burn them in piles (I’m assuming that sends them to heaven). The question is then whether it is better to burn them in the open air or in a biomass plant, conceivably reducing the use of other (fossil) energy sources.

      It’s a simple either/or -burn in plant or in situ.

      2. Use Dead Trees for Biomass.

      There are pros and cons to this, but it seems to me that the pros and cons are extremely site-specific.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Sharon Cancel reply