Biomass

Biomass Carbon Accounting and Other Reports of Interest from the University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group

by

A link to this report showed up in my inbox a while back.

#31. Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wood Bioenergy. Jay O’Laughlin (September 2010).

The utilization of woody biomass to produce energy is accompanied by concerns about sustainable forest management and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from burning biomass. The conversion, or potential conversion, of land from native forest to biofuel crops has led to reconsideration of emissions accounting practices. This report critiques and responds to the Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and conducted by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. This report is designed to respond to a call for information by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as it reconsiders how GHG emissions from biomass combustion should be treated under its regulatory
responsibilities. Full report in PDF format.

Some previous posts on this blog on the Manomet study and about biomass are here and here.

But the University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group has developed a variety of interesting papers on other topics.
Check out their other studies here and here.

Forest Biomass Carbon- Letter vs. Letter

by

David Beebe said, in a comment here on this previous post:

“Perhaps vested interests aren’t the best sole source for getting to the heart of the science on this matter without at least including contrasting conclusions coming from perhaps more objective sources?

For instance, http://216.250.243.12/90scientistsletter.pdf”

Now I know some but not many of these “vested interests”. In fact, Jim Burchfield has posted on this blog. As far as I know, all scientists have vested interests in getting research funds. And if you know a lot about something, (say a bird species), you tend to think they are pretty important; hence you are never very objective. Maybe we ought to give up the mythology of the objective scientist and just slog through the claims and counterclaims using logic and practitioner knowledge and see how far we get.

So let’s examine the knowledge claims in this letter.

1. Replacement of fossil fuels with bioenergy does not directly stop carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes or smokestacks. Although fossil fuel emissions are reduced or eliminated, the combustion of biomass replaces fossil emissions with its own emissions (which may even be higher per unit of energy because of the lower energy to carbon ratio of biomass). Agreed.

2. Bioenergy can reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide if land and plants are managed to take up additional carbon dioxide beyond what they would absorb without bioenergy
This isn’t the clearest statement. Plants will grow and absorb carbon. If the previous plants are removed and used for bioenergy, new plants will grow and absorb carbon equivalent to that released when the previous plants are burned. Are we saying the same thing here? Not sure.

3. Alternatively, bioenergy can use some vegetative residues that would otherwise decompose and release carbon to the atmosphere rapidly. I would add possibly “even more rapidly through fires.”
4. Whether land and plants sequester additional carbon to offset emissions from burning the biomass depends on changes both in the rates of plant growth and in the carbon storage in plants and soils. OK.

6. For example, planting fast-growing energy crops on otherwise unproductive land leads to additional carbon absorption by plants that offsets emissions from their use for energy without displacing carbon storage in plants and soils. Agreed but not many acres around that are unproductive but would also grow energy crops.

7. On the other hand, clearing or cutting forests for energy, either to burn trees directly in power plants or to replace forests with bioenergy crops, has the net effect of releasing otherwise sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, just like the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

The other letter did not talk about replacing forests with bioenergy crops, or clearing forests. If it is thinning, that carbon would be released anyway when the suppressed trees ultimately die. I am not following this logic for thinnings, or for dead trees. If we take dead trees, they are replacing fossil fuels and the place they vacated will be sequestering carbon. By getting the dead guys out, they are also opening places for new plants to re-sequester faster.

These seem to be the main questions:

1. What biomass are you taking off the acres?
2. What would happen to the carbon if you didn’t remove some biomass?
3. What would happen to the carbon if you removed the biomass but didn’t use it for energy?
3. What is the difference if you did use it for bioenergy?

Let’s use an example.

You are doing a thinning in ponderosa pine to “restore to HRV” and/or for fuels reduction.
You can use the trees for energy to replace fossil fuels OR you can put them into wood products OR you can pile them and burn them.

If you put them into wood products, the carbon will be released more slowly than in the woods. But you would be using the gas for heavy equipment and transportation and electricity (coal?) at the mill, more transportation to the Home Depot, etc. However, at the Home Depot it would replace boards from Canada, which might presumably have the same gas to extract from the woods, maybe hydro for western mills (don’t know) and possibly more transportation.

If you put the trees into bioenergy, you would still have to haul somewhere or chip and haul. But should this be compared to, say, extracting natural gas? There seems to be plenty of hauling associated with that, including heavy equipment drilling, compressors, etc. Or our old friend coal. Say, on an open mine there are huge pieces of equipment moving overburden and coal around (see photo above) (compared to how much for a skidder per energy unit) , and it goes on a train to the power plant, if you are in Wyoming, at least.

In fact, the more you think about this (in our region, we are being litigated on both coal and natural gas impacts currently, but not bioenergy) the more it makes sense to not consider carbon any differently from any other environmental impact.

It makes sense to me to line them all up (carbon, particulates, development impacts, etc.) and then make the judgment about what is the best energy source .

A carbon-o-centric view of energy sources might be good for some things (like setting up carbon trading), but not so good for others (deciding on the least expensive, and impactful energy technology that helps put jobs in rural America, and lets us control our own energy destiny).

Biomass and Carbon Accounting- Two Letters and a Powerpoint

by

Found these on the Society of American Foresters Policy website here. First, there’s a link to a powerpoint by Al Lucier on biomass and carbon.

Then there are two letters to the House and Senate, signed by a group of scientists, including this quote:

A consortium of research institutions has, over the last decade, developed life cycle measures of all inputs and all outputs associated with the ways that we use wood: a thorough environmental footprint of not just managing the forest, but harvesting, transportation, producing products or biofuels, buildings or other products, maintenance and their ultimate disposal. 4 Results of this research are clear. When looking across the carbon life cycle, biomass burning does produce some fossil fuel emissions from harvesting, transportation, feedstock preparation and processing. These impacts, however, are substantially more than offset by eliminating the emissions from using a fossil fuel. Sustainable removals of biomass feedstocks used for energy produce a reduction in carbon emissions year after year through a reduction in fossil fuel emissions far greater than all of the emissions from feedstock collection and processing. When wood removals are used to produce both renewable materials as well as bio-energy, the carbon stored in forest products continues to grow year after year, more than off-setting any processing emissions while at the same time permanently substituting for fossil fuel intensive materials displacing their emissions.

Finally, biomass power facilities generally contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gases beyond just the displacement of fossil fuels. The use of forest fuels in a modern boiler also eliminates the methane (CH4) emissions from incomplete oxidation following open burning, land filling, or decomposition which occurs in the absence of a higher and better use for this material. Methane is a 25 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. In contrast, the mining of coal and exploration for oil and gas release significant amounts of methane and other harmful pollutants into the environment. Any modeling to examine the impact of carbon-based fuel sources must account for all of these impacts.

Now, think about the scientists who signed this letter and the analytical suggestions in the Angora lawsuit for NEPA. Perhaps lawsuits, as well as scientific papers, would be best informed by a vigorous public debate over knowledge claims.

Adventures with the Biochar People

by

The State of Colorado convened an interesting meeting to discuss biochar. For those of you unfamiliar with it, here’s the Wikipedia article and here is another general and historic description of its use.

The group included a variety of scientists, from the Forest Service, ARS, and CSU; and a variety of people with interests in development of biochar products and markets. There’s a natural connection in Colorado between the ever-present bug killed trees, and restoring the soils of abandoned mines. Not only that, biochar may be valuable for agricultural soils in Colorado. What was interesting to me was how much this meeting was not the usual suspects talking about our usual stuff. The connection to agriculture was strong- definitely an “all lands” approach. We had people talk about international aspects of food security, and US soil loss; we had people who were starting businesses to use different kinds of waste; we had people interested in renewable energy. The Front Range of Colorado is a hotbed of interest in renewable energy- we have DOE’s National Renewable Energy Lab, the Colorado School of Mines, the University of Colorado and Colorado State.

Someone even asked “what kind of competition is there for feedstock from dead pine trees?”. That’s how novel our issues are to these folks. The great thing about this dialogue is that the technology is at such an early stage that its development can be guided by environmental concerns. You don’t like big plants because you are afraid that the FS will be pressured to cut extra trees? Well, we can have small mobile equipment that can cluster when large amounts of dead trees are available, and then migrate somewhere else.

There appear to be extra dead trees sitting around from fuel and hazard tree treatments. No one is arguing (at least that I have heard) that they all must be burnt in place for environmental reasons. Abandoned mines and agricultural soils are previously impacted and currently managed by humans, so they are not subject to the same kinds of concerns that people might have for previously unimpacted soils of native forests.

It’s pretty obvious to Coloradans that using some of our dead lodgepole would be a good idea; renewable energy is a good idea; and sequestering carbon and helping soil is a good idea. The State level is a handy scale to organize, as there is social and political coherence- and groups of people who are used to working with each other on a variety of issues. It was invigorating to see a group of people excited about the opportunities to do good and make a living, and for us all to talk about what we can contribute to this goal.

Whither Dead Trees? The Bark Beetle Summit

by

What is the role of the timber industry in Colorado? The current mill is on life support. Should we attempt to get back more industry in these tough times, or simply move on to other uses such as biomass? Or just let the material sit in big piles throughout the landscape?

See this story from ABC news.

Beetles that burrow under the bark of trees have killed about 21.5 million acres in the interior West, or more than 33,000 square miles, Tidwell said at a bark beetle summit hosted by Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter.

The Forest Service estimates about 98,000 trees are falling each day, but government funding can’t keep up with how many trees must be cut to protect watersheds, people and infrastructure.

“We have a true crisis on our hands,” Ritter said….

The troubled Intermountain Resources mill in Montrose, which is in receivership, might process some of the felled trees, but costs of hauling trees cut in the north-central Colorado mountains to southwest Colorado are high.

That has left some logs to sit unused as contractors haul them to nearby private land rather than a faraway mill, said Patrick Donovan of Cordes and Co., the mill’s receiver.

The mill also has had problems making timber contracts with the Forest Service work out as struggles in the housing industry have affected timber prices, he said.

“We’re begging for logs. We’re willing to pay for logs, but we can’t get logs,” Donovan said.

Ritter said the silver lining to the beetle epidemic is looking for economic opportunity that can come from dealing with infested trees.

His summit aimed to set the foundation for how governments, the private sector and nongovernment groups can tackle the hundreds of miles of corridors where dead trees need to be removed, with limited funds.

“Mother Nature bats last. We’re just trying to keep the ball game going into extra innings,” said Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.

There’s another piece on the Summit by Bob Berwyn here.

Dixon and others once again addressed the fundamental economic issue associated with treating vast areas of beetle-killed forests, describing how existing market conditions make it a challenge to find value for the timber — especially now, several years into the insect epidemic, as many of the trees are quickly losing their value as timber that could be milled into lumber.

Still, Dixon said the traditional timber market will continue to be part of the solution.

“I think it’s true, we need an integrated market … we can’t lose our traditional market. We have to maintain what we have and be part of the dialogue to encourage new emerging markets … propellants, bioenergy, and biomass,” he said.

The Forest Service is working on statewide stewardship agreement with Colorado that could allow the state to serve as a “general contractor,” to help get around haul costs and address the challenges smaller operators face when it comes to getting bonded for the forest work.

I wonder if we’re seeing the beginning of the “post timber war” era, where people decide what they want to have on a landscape and, if there are byproducts of that use, we all get behind using the material, while building resilient, sustainable local communities. Some of us are the offspring of Depression-era parents who grew up with that old adage “waste not, want not.” Which echoes in the sustainability movement of today. As the Colorado Forest Service cap I have says “local people, local wood.” Or to expand it, local people, local food, local energy, local wood. Sounds like the refrain of a folk song, or perhaps a rap?

U Rate This Biomass Technology- Maine Wood to Energy

by

Here’s a link.
Based on this article, these projects should:

1) reduce costs for schools compared to fuel oil for heating
2) employ people in the State of Maine
3) meet EPA air quality standards

So conceivably we are comparing the environmental benefits and costs with that of fuel oil. Remember on our previous post we talked about some of these:

Environmental impacts of removing from ground.
Environmental impacts of transportation from location to processing site
Environmental impacts of processing activities
Environmental impacts of transportation from processing center to site of use
Environmental impacts from use at site of use.

So what we would need to do is examine all of these impacts from local wood use compared to fuel oil.

Here is an article about wood for fuel in Maine and the results of the Governor’s Taskforce from the Maine Democrat website.

Here are some quotes from this article:

Wood pellets are a great option for the people of Maine. Some are converting their systems, pulling out their old natural gas, oil or propane furnaces and installing wood pellet furnaces to heat their homes or businesses,” said Commissioner of the Department of Conservation, Patrick McGowan, who is heading up the initiative. “Most people are buying wood pellet stoves and to supplement the oil, propane or natural gas furnaces and they have found real savings. The DOC changed over our forestry operations for the 07-08 winter, and cut costs in half. Now with oil prices even higher, we will see greater savings.”

With home heating oil at $4.70 a gallon, it amounts to thousands to heat an average Maine home. Residents are now looking for home heating security. Wood pellets, made in Maine, are a local natural resource. The pellets are made from sawdust, or wood waste from mills or forests. They vary in quality depending on the stock source. Maine’s forests could be part of a readymade solution to the energy crisis.

“This is a Maine solution, using a Maine natural resource, processed at Maine plants, employing Maine people at a stable price. Energy prices connected with fossil fuels have all gone way out of sight. What we know is there is no shortage of oil; they are blaming it on speculators for the most part. But, it’s greed on the part of oil companies. People of Maine are struggling. It’s not your local oil dealer that’s making this money. He’s still working the same margin they worked on for the past two decades.”

I also think there is some congruence between the statements above and those of Chris Huhne UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in his remarks in China earlier this week as posted here.

Regardless of the public consensus on climate change, it is clear that relying on increasingly rare fossil fuels is not a long-term option. We cannot be exposed to the risk of resource conflict. Nor can we afford to remain at the mercy of volatile fossil fuel markets.

Not only are we vulnerable to interruptions in supply, we are also exposed to fluctuations in price. Oil or gas price shocks could reverberate throughout our fragile economy, hampering growth.

A more sustainable supply of energy is not an expensive luxury. It is a critical component in our national and economic security.

Through the Looking Glass- At Biomass

by

with apologies to Lewis Carroll

The time has come, the Blogger said
To talk of many things:
Of carbon and of issues
That biomass use brings
And whether fossil fuels are best—
Giv’n all considerings

I was hoping to have time to approach this topic in an organized way, but that will not happen in the foreseeable future. It’s probably time to plunge in, starting with thinking about the carbon neutral concept. Matthew Koehler had some relevant papers in his posts #1 and #2 here which we can go back to when we talk about this.

We also had a previous post here on the Manomet study.

To me, though, the starting point has got to be understanding the different approaches to carbon accounting and why they are different.

here is a a fairly straightforward approach by Steve Wilent in the Forestry Source. What do you think?

f you think “sustainable,” current king of buzzwords surrounding forestry, is over-used and difficult to define, its successor is even more problematic: “carbon neutral.” Energy produced from forest biomass is said to be carbon neutral, because any carbon dioxide released is later sequestered as new biomass grows. This is true. You might also argue that the combustion of woody biomass releases carbon that the trees already had sequestered, thus paying off any CO2 debt by withdrawing on a CO2 deposit account.

Some states, environmental groups, and, in a recent ruling, the US Environmental Protection Agency, assume that all carbon dioxide is equal, that CO2 from the combustion of forest biomass is the same as CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. That’s true, too. CO2, regardless of its heritage, affects the earth’s climate in the same way. So, there are valid arguments on both side of the carbon-neutral issue.

However, the argument is, for the time being, irrelevant. Although the ultimate goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 in the biosphere, there is little chance of a meaningful reduction in the short term. There are as yet no non-carbon-emitting alternatives to fossil fuels that are both less expensive and as widely available. Until the development of such alternatives—solar power being the ideal, since an unlimited supply is available—it is better to use non-fossil fuels such as biomass.

Look at it this way: CO2 exists both in the biosphere (air, water, soil, plants, animals, and so on) and below the biosphere (fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). The concentration of CO2 in the biosphere—in particular, in the atmosphere and oceans—has increased because we humans have transferred large amounts of fossil carbon to the biosphere, largely through the combustion of fossil fuels.

As we work toward greater energy efficiency and develop new carbon capture and storage technologies, one of our primary goals ought to be to slow that transfer of CO2.

The Forestry Source- Anyone wishing to subscribe can go to this page: and click on Subscribe. Costs $42 for individuals, $79 for institutions.

Beware of the Ghost (Timber) Industry!

by

As I’ve said, in some places (perhaps most?) the timber wars are so over. As much as some people think “the timber industry” is big and scary.. in many places you would look hard to find it. And where you find it, it is only a dim reflection of its former self. Perhaps, like a ghost, the industry exists, but just like we don’t run our lives with a strategy of ghost-avoidance, we shouldn’t be developing policies to avoid having a functioning timber or biomass industry. In my view, we should do what we jointly decide needs to be done on forested lands, public and private, for a variety of mutually chosen reasons, and help facilitate that financially by selling the products where feasible- oh , and by the way, providing jobs in Elk Country and other parts of rural America where jobs are scarce.

At least where I live, “commercial” is not a scary word; quite the opposite. It’s even “green.” See the link here.

Here’s a recent and well-researched story about the bark beetle problem in Colorado from the New York Times.

Loggers bidding for Forest Service contracts to clear out beetle kill typically anticipate that a second payday will come from selling the wood, defraying some of their costs. But when the housing bubble popped, lumber demand dropped off and production numbers at Western sawmills tumbled.

Considering there is only one large sawmill in Wettstein’s zone, it normally processes much of the beetle-kill wood. But Colorado-based Intermountain Resources LLC defaulted on some of its loans and was forced to shut its doors in May.

The mill, which is currently in receivership, is accepting wood again, but it is only working through about 75 percent of the timber it once did, said Pat Donovan, the court-appointed receiver for the mill.

The wood pellet industry has also taken a dive. Just several years ago, converting beetle-kill wood into pellets that could be used to heat homes or co-fire coal plants was eyed as an ideal way to dispose of some beetle-killed timber.

The recession and cheaper natural gas play a role

But pellet plants in Wettstein’s area suffered a blow last year when natural gas prices dropped. Market conditions forced both the Confluence Energy facility and the Rocky Mountain Pellet Company Inc. plant — then the only pellet mills in Colorado — to close up shop from December to May. While both plants are open again — though Confluence Energy is only up at half-mast — future operations hinge on demand and natural gas prices.

The outlook may not be bright. A fireplace products trade group that tracks how many pellet stoves are sold to retailers (though that may not translate into homeowners buying them) indicates that in 2009 sales were down 67 percent from where they had been in 2008. Making matters worse, the federal tax credit for purchasing pellet stoves — allocated from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars — expires at the end of the year.

With less revenue available to offset logging costs, contractors’ asking price to clear an acre of beetle kill is on the rise. Where the Forest Service used to be able to find loggers willing to clear an acre of beetle kill for $1,500, now it can cost as much as $3,500 — meaning the Forest Service can do less with its existing pool of funds.

Say It Ain’t So, Cathie; No Biofuels in Elk Country?

by

I guess the “Empty Quarter” (see Colors of Elk Country post) will be empty of biofuel research.

Cathie Wotecki is the Undersecretary for the Research Education and Economics area at USDA.

Here’s the link to the story.

The USDA says five regional biofuels research centers would be created. The centers, a collaboration between the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the U.S. Forest Service (FS), would be established at:

* Northeast Center — Madison, Wis., led by the Forest Service

* Central East Center — UNL, led by ARS

* Southeast Center – Boonesville, Ark., and Tifton, Ga., (both ARS) and in Auburn, Ala. (FS)

* Western Center — Maricopa, Ariz.

* Northwestern Center — Pullman, Wash., (ARS) and Corvallis, Ore. (FS)

Funds are also to be made available to assist in the construction of new biorefineries, starting in 2011. One refinery would be built in each of the regions serviced by the new biomass research centers, but no locations were announced.

OK, I guess Pullman counts as Elk Country, but associated with Oregon State and called “Northwest” not so sure that the east side will get attention… also Maricopa may not quite be Elk Country.

The photo is of Maricopa, Arizona. Disclaimer: I once worked in the REE mission area for an agency then known as CSREES and now known as NIFA.

Shrinking the Carbon Footprint -Biomass Grants to U of M

by

Here’s an article on biomass at U of M- “University of Montana officials hope to shrink the carbon footprint of campus by nearly a quarter by building a $16 million, wood-fired, biomass boiler onto the existing heating plant.”

Julie Kies coordinates the Fuels for Schools and Beyond program with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. She said the biomass plant proposal represents proven technology, as forest-products mills have used similar technology to heat their facilities for decades. In addition, 10 Montana public schools already use similar technology, as does UM-Western in Dillon and the University of Idaho in Moscow.

“What sets the UM plan apart is its scale, though it still won’t be as large as the co-generation facilities used by mills,” Kies said. “But it would be the largest such plant used at a Montana educational facility.”

Duringer said the University of South Carolina completed a similar project with mixed results that UM has learned from. Other campuses now introducing biomass plants include the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.

In addition to the University of Montana, the DNRC awarded grants to two other area projects. Mineral Community Hospital in Superior received $175,000 for its biomass energy facility that will serve the hospital, elementary school, and high school. Clark Fork Valley Hospital in Plains received $104,000 for its wood pellet-based biomass energy system.

Here is another piece:

Julie Kies, DNRC Biomass Program Manager, sees the expansion of biomass utilization in Montana as a positive for both local economies and the state’s forest industry. The Montana Fuels for Schools and Beyond Program has helped to fund and implement 10 other biomass energy projects in Montana, starting with the pilot project at Darby School in 2003. We’re pleased to see woody biomass energy expanding to other facilities in the state including hospitals and university campuses, she said. Information about DNRC’s Biomass Utilization Program can be found online at http://dnrc.mt.gov/forestry/assistance/biomass