Wood Worse than Coal?

“

Aug 29, 2010

We have put together a presentation that rebukes these headlines and makes better sense of issue. You can see it at:
http://biomassfuelssummit.com/epa-biomass-ruling/

Ben Peterson

“

Aug 13, 2010

There are many issues to the biomass debate but some can never grasp the complete picture, which is very large. The demand for biomass allows good forestry to continue to be implemented by foresters.  Having a continued market for low grade wood that is produced in improvement harvests and thinnings is key to allowing the landowner to improve forest quality while covering the costs. For if this value of low grade wood was to disappear many landowners would fold and sell their parcel to the next developer. How would sequestration work if forest more rapidly went to pavement and buildings?  Land has a cost to owning and managing biomass helps offset these costs. 

Young forests have been shown to have greater carbon sequestration efficiency than older forests though some balance needs to be met.  It always seems left out that local power plants with local energy sources reduce the total carbon picture from the transportation side of things alone. This goes for all things, buy local should be the carbon mantra whether food, fiber or energy. Where did the last 2x4 you purchased at home depot come from, or do you even care?
Energy sources need to be diversified, managed in a way that reduces transportation and extraction and production of the energy source for every region of the country.  This will be the only way to move toward carbon neutrality.

Scott

“

Jul 03, 2010

Seems like excess cutting (Especially areas in Mass) would open avenues for exotic plant species to gain a foothold in areas they had never been in.  Little by little that creeps in.  Once it’s producing seeds and we have a high Avian population scavaging on them the exotics root in sporadically in areas we may not be able to MAINTAIN!  There Just doesn’t seem to be ENOUGH biomass in some areas.  Transportaion of Beetlewood and fungus could become an issue.  Invasive seeds too.  Small scale Biomass generators could be the ticket for certain Counties.  I suppose a current inventory and forecasted inventory Should be of a certain volume for “LOCAL Sustainability.”  Diversify power generators.  Use wind when the topography allows.  Perhaps wind and Solar or Solar and Biomass. 
Some wood is better left to rot!  I find rotten punky wood makes a good blend between Lawn and forest.  I’ll mix rotten wood and chopped leaf litter.  Using it in areas to capture surface runoff from grassy or exposed areas before entering a wet zone.  Mabey we should be looking more twords using our VALUABLE and overlooked “biomass” as water filters, soil enhancers,  sheltered areas for habitat.

Paul Cysz

“

Jun 26, 2010

If the pro biomass people who claim to be so concerned about enhancing the interests of the owners of the forests spent that much energy into selling the high value timber to the people with all the money- that is the East Asian and OPEC nations- the forest owners and their forests would be far better off. If every biomass plant on the drawing boards was built- the value to forest owners would be trivial compared to a return of high stumpage prices as we saw just a few years ago.

All truly pro forestry organizations should band together and send a large number of salesmen to those nations- while our national government should let nations who don’t trade fairly with us that we will now insist that they balance their trade- and they can begin by buying our premium timber.

Joe Zorzin
Mass. Lic. Forester #261

Joe Zorzin

“

Jun 26, 2010

As with any energy issue, there is no simple answer. For example, in Western Massachusetts there are several proposed biomass energy plants. Apart from the carbon issue, one should consider the impact of the plant on river water used to cool the turbines. Also, there is a debate about whether there is enough wood available to supply the plants in a sustainable manner, which leads to the question of how much and which State lands should be harvested (Quabbin watershed, for example).
I certainly don’t have answers, but it is simplistic to just look at the carbon issue. And every region has its own set of issues. Power plants not located on a river don’t raise water quality issues but may well raise other concerns.

Peter

“

Jun 25, 2010

Dave, I’d be most interested in looking at biomass harvesting from the woodlot owner’s perspective; does the existence of biomass markets change revenue per acre; the ability to make economic thinning/improvement cuts, etc.  Also how biomass demand relates to pulp demand; what the experience has been around existing bioenergy plants in the northern states, provinces and northern Europe; where in the Northeast plants could be most advantageously sited; what cultivation practices may develop and what effects biomass cultivation and harvest might have on soil composition and run-off, wildlife populations and the appearance of cultivated acreage.  In any case, I look forward to the coverage.

Roger Wilson

“

Jun 25, 2010

I agree that wood is a “renewable resource” and that perhaps in the long run the CO-2 from the wood burned is recaptured in new growth, but in the short run, it is not.  We will burn more than can replenish and the equation will fall apart.  Consider David Brynn’s comment, repeated in Bill McKibben’s book Eaarth—Our (Vermont’s) forests produce just under 4 cords of wood per person in the state every year in terms of new growth”, (and about half of that is already being harvested.)  “We are not awash in wood.”

Greg Moschetti