Tag Archives: atmosphere
European Climate Policy Drives Wood Pellet Boom In NC
Published: August 17, 2013 The pellet economy Enviva estimates the economic impact of its pellet mills in Ahoskie and Garysburg and its planned export terminal at the Wilmington port: • Ahoskie: 74 workers, average salary $35,000. Enviva buys timber worth $21 million from North Carolina and Virginia loggers. Produces 365,000 tons of pellets for $170 a ton. • Garysburg (Northampton County): 79 workers, average salary $35,000. Enviva buys timber worth $35.4 million from North Carolina and Virginia loggers. Produces 500,000 tons of pellets for $170 a ton. • Wilmington: $40 million to build export terminal, to begin operation in 2015 with 23 workers, average salary $37,783. One million tons of pellets to be exported on 25 to 30 vessels per year. Not included here: Two mills that will produce pellets for export through Wilmington. Source: Enviva LP By Bruce Siceloff — bsiceloff@newsobserver.com AHOSKIE — In the searing August heat, big yellow logging machines pile up the harvest from 153 acres of sweet gum, red oak and maple trees. A roaring log loader grabs the trunks to slice off 16-foot logs and stack them for one of the sawmills that provide a traditional market for Eastern North Carolina timber. These logs are worth $20 to $40 a ton and will be turned into plywood, cabinets and veneer. In a second woodpile, there’s new money. Limbs and leafy treetops are stacked alongside trees as big as 16 inches across. They cannot be sold as saw logs because they’re forked or knotty, crooked or hollow. This pile will be fed into a chipper and milled at an Ahoskie factory that makes 1,000 tons, every day, of a minor American fuel product suddenly in hot demand on the other side of the Atlantic: wood pellets. Two years ago, everything in this second pile would have been left on the ground to rot, said David Jennette, a Windsor forester who is managing this timber harvest. Now it brings $2 to $8 a ton. “When you’re talking about 50 to 75 tons of chips to the acre, and maybe more, that’s a significant amount of money going back to the landowner that we weren’t able to get before,” Jennette said. The wood pellet industry is enjoying a speedy, zero-to-60 growth surge across the southeastern United States. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in factories – some of them converted from old lumber mills – in coastal plain forests from Virginia to Louisiana. They are serving a market created, almost overnight, by paradoxical environmental policies that are driving European electric utilities to burn imported wood in their boilers instead of coal. Maryland-based Enviva LP , the nation’s biggest pellet maker, opened its Ahoskie mill in 2011 and a second one in Northampton County this year. Together, they produce 865,000 tons of pellets annually to be shipped out of the port at Chesapeake, Va. In 2015, Enviva expects to start exporting an additional million tons from a planned $40 million terminal at the Wilmington port. The company is scouting sites for two new pellet mills in southeastern North Carolina, one of them in Sampson County. At the same time, California-based International WoodFuels has said it will produce 285,000 tons a year from a planned pellet mill in Wilson County and a new export terminal at the Morehead City port. The pellet industry is founded on a climate-friendly, carbon-neutral rationale. Our forests use photosynthesis to soak up carbon dioxide, enough to compensate for 14 percent of all emissions in the United States. This stored-up carbon is released into the air when wood pellets are burned, but wood is called a renewable fuel because that carbon eventually is recaptured by new trees that grow in place of the old ones. Conservationists are attacking the pellet industry’s green-energy luster on two fronts. They worry that the booming market for pellets will encourage industrial logging and sully the sensitive ecosystems of bottomland hardwood forests. And they counter European government carbon-cycle calculations with their own assessment that burning trees is, in the words of a British environmental group’s campaign, even “ dirtier than coal .” “It just doesn’t make sense that we’re logging the world’s forest … burning it into the atmosphere and calling it clean, green, renewable energy,” said Danna Smith of the Asheville-based Dogwood Alliance , a network of Southern conservation groups. A push toward pellets The European Union and Great Britain have adopted aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. They have created incentives for electric utilities to cut back on their use of coal and will require renewable sources to provide 20 percent of all energy by 2020. Wind and solar power are expected to meet only a small share of that demand. Power companies are looking to close the gap with biomass – primarily with imported wood pellets. Biomass use in Great Britain, 3 million tons last year, is expected to grow tenfold over the next five years. Britain’s biggest carbon emitter is the Drax Group, a Yorkshire utility that operates the largest power plant in western Europe. Drax is converting half its plant from coal to wood pellets. Coal is one-third the price of pellets, but Drax CEO Dorothy Thompson said her company is responding to renewable-energy credits and a British carbon tax, introduced this year at $7 a ton, that will grow by 2020 to more than $60 a ton. “And that is very substantial,” Thompson told a BBC-TV interviewer in July. “When we burn biomass, we don’t pay that. Because biomass is carbon-neutral. When we burn coal, the cost is very high.” With coastal forests close to its seaports, the South has become the top pellet source for Drax and other European utilities. Pellet makers also are taking advantage of declines in the region’s pulp and paper industry, which uses some of the same low-grade wood. Loggers in northeastern North Carolina lost their main buyer for hardwood pulpwood a few years ago when International Paper closed a mill in Franklin, Va. “We generally fill that void that was historically used by the pulp and paper industry,” Thomas Meth, Enviva’s executive vice president and co-founder, said during a tour of the Ahoskie mill. “We generally site our locations where we’ve had a lot of plant closings, to avoid most of the competition.” Enviva built on the site of a Georgia Pacific sawmill that closed in 2005. Residents of a nearby Ahoskie neighborhood say they never had problems with Georgia Pacific, but they are complaining now about noise and occasional clouds of sawdust wafting from Enviva’s pellet mill. Anne Williams, a retired hospital aide in her 70s, said she sweeps her porch once or twice a day to clean off the fine, dark sawdust that blows from Enviva across a tobacco field to her comfortable manufactured home. Dust coats cars and clogs air-conditioners in the neighborhood, she said. She keeps her windows closed. “They claim it won’t hurt you,” Williams said. “But the way it sticks to everything out there, you know it’s got to be sticking to your lungs.” Meth said Enviva has reduced the dust problem and hopes to eliminate it later this year. “We have always been within our permitted limits,” Meth said. “But in order to have a good relationship with the neighbors, we’ll take an extra step and build some extra dust protection.” Pellet makers won’t bid against sawmills for valuable timber that has higher uses, Meth said. He guided visitors through a woodlot stacked 20 feet high with treetops and whole trees, many with crooked or diseased trunks that he said make them unsuitable for saw timber. “We use by-products of the normal harvesting process in wood fiber,” Meth said. “And residues, in the broadest sense. There’s a lot misperception as to what we actually use. The value of what we take is 10, 20 percent of the whole harvest.” Carbon calculations Enviva gives delivery truck drivers a flier explaining that the company won’t accept valuable saw logs, and it rejects logs wider than 26 inches at the base. Critics say the company uses big trees that cannot be considered mere “residue.” “Their yard was not filled with log waste,” said Debbie Hammel of the Natural Resources Defense Council , looking at photos taken by environmentalists at the Enviva site earlier this year. “It was filled with whole trees. It meant that their sourcing activity has a bad carbon profile associated with it.” The carbon calculations are complicated. After the pellets from a single tree are burned, Hammel and the Dogwood Alliance’s Smith said, it takes 50 years for a replacement tree to absorb enough carbon to offset the pollution. But some economists and foresters look at this differently. They argue that a healthy demand for lumber encourages woodland owners to keep planting more trees, which will absorb more carbon from the air. A landowner unhappy with the economic return from forestry is more likely to cut down the trees and divert the land to farming or urban development. “Losing timberland to agriculture is a worse carbon story than the cycling of trees that probably would have been harvested anyway,” said Bob Abt, a forestry professor at N.C. State University. “The carbon accounting is messier than saying that the tree is going to take 50 years to replace.” Enviva said switching from coal to wood pellets reduces carbon emissions by more than 74 percent. British government standards say that pellet makers must draw only on environmentally sustainable logging sources. But Abt said he agrees with environmentalists who say “the wording there is vague.” Meth said Enviva meets the sustainable forestry standards set by professional certification organizations, including the Forest Stewardship Council. British officials say they are taking a closer look at their pellet policies. Ed Davey, the British energy secretary, recently called biomass an interim solution. “Making electricity from biomass based on imported wood is not a long-term answer to our energy needs,” Davey told the BBC. Jennette, the Windsor forester, said the new pellet market brings both economic and environmental benefits. Enviva accepts more of the logging leftovers than the hardwood paper mills did in the old days, he said. “The whole tree goes to Enviva,” Jennette said. “And the tonnage goes way up when you start doing tops and limbs and everything else.” It can be enough money to make a difference in the profitability, and the timing, of a timber sale. Jennette’s Hertford County client expects to clear about $1,000 an acre – most of it from valuable saw timber, but somewhere between $150 and $300 for those chips. Replanting will be easier, too, he said. “As clean as this site will be, we’re able to reforest for less money,” Jennette said. “As long as we reforest what we cut and we do a good job of the sustainability piece of it, we’ll never stop.” Continue reading
Sharif upset over border clashes, calls for peace
Sharif upset over border clashes, calls for peace (IANS) / 9 August 2013 Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif expressed “sadness” on Thursday over the border clashes in Kashmir, and said India and Pakistan must take “effective steps” to restore normalcy on the frontier. Sharif told foreign ministry officials here that he was sad over the incidents involving Pakistani and Indian troops along the Line of Control (LoC) that divides Jammu and Kashmir between the two countries. ‘The prime minister said it was imperative for both India and Pakistan to take effective steps to ensure and restore ceasefire on the LoC,’ a foreign ministry statement quoted him as saying. Sharif’s comments came as Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony earlier in the day formally accused the Pakistan Army of killing the five soldiers in Indian territory early Tuesday. Antony’s previous statement blaming ‘heavily armed terrorists’ and others in Pakistani military uniform led to a storm, with the opposition accusing him of trying to take away the blame from the Pakistan Army. Without referring to the death of the Indian soldiers, the statement said the clashes – two Pakistani soldiers were later wounded by Indians – had flared up tensions between India and Pakistan leading to ‘loss of precious human lives’. Sharif, who took power in June, emphasised that existing military-to-military channels could be more optimally used to prevent misunderstanding between the two neighbours. The present crisis, he said, should not be allowed to escalate. ‘Pakistan … is prepared to discuss steps with India for further strengthening of existing mechanisms both at the political and military levels,’ the statement quoted him as saying. This is the first major diplomatic crisis Sharif is facing and it comes ahead of a planned meeting between him and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September. Sharif said it was incumbent upon the leaders of India and Pakistan ‘not to allow the situation to drift and to take steps to improve the atmosphere by engaging constructively with a view to building trust and confidence’. He said he looked forward to his meeting with Manmohan Singh in New York, where he hoped to ‘discuss steps to further build trust and consolidate this relationship’. The prime minister reiterated Pakistan’s resolve to persist in its efforts to improve relations with India ‘through a constructive dialogue on all issues’. Those present at Sharif’s meeting included Information Minister Pervez Rashid and Advisor to the prime minister on National Security Sartaj Aziz. The Tuesday killings of Indian soldiers and the wounding of a sixth have led to calls in India that further talks with Pakistan must be called off. Continue reading
Carbon Capture and Storage: Is There a Future?
And is it all about the money? M.J. Huijbers LLM EHS Consultant Enhesa Carbon dioxide emission reduction is moving to the forefront of priorities in many jurisdictions to combat climate change and maintain environmental stability. In the European Union, the major goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% compared to the 1990 levels in all 28 Member States by 2050. In the European Commission’s view, it is not enough that industries reduce their greenhouse gas (including carbon) emissions to achieve this aim. The Commission is stressing that carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) should also be used as a mechanism. What is CCS? CCS is a process that allows carbon dioxide from large point source installations to be captured, compressed and injected into and stored underground in geological formations to prevent it from being released into the atmosphere. Currently, CCS is not actively taking place in the European Union. Many reasons like social acceptability, cost and infrastructural needs that are not yet in place cause overall scepticism. Therefore, there is a concern for the future for carbon capture and storage in Europe. The following will discuss the issues around CCS and whether it is an appropriate way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Europe. Problems that CCS is facing Finance Cost is the initial problem. Currently, it is more profitable for companies to buy emission allowances under the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which cost approximately €3 per tonne of CO2, while for CCS the price is approximately €30-100 per tonne of CO2. In addition, the funding provided under the New Entrance Reserve 300 (NER300) and the European Energy Programme (EEPR) needs the co-funding of public authorities in order to launch CCS demonstration projects. No such projects have started yet. Further, as CCS has not yet started in the European Union, no infrastructure is yet in place. Social Another problem is public opposition against carbon dioxide storage onshore. A good example is the Dutch Barendrecht case, where storage of CO2 under land would take place, was not carried out, as it was not socially accepted. The reason the project did not take place, was that civilians felt uncomfortable about having carbon stored under their land and the dangers linked to this storage. Still the decision was taken to store carbon under the land of these civilians and they felt that the decision was taken without them. In addition, scientists did not agree on whether carbon storage under land was considered to be safe and the local government opposed against the project while the national government was in favour of the project. Policies and legislation The final problem relates to current policies and legislation already in place. Under Directive 2009/31/EC on CCS, the storage company is, at least for 20 years, responsible for this storage. After those 20 years, once the CO2 storage is stable, the Member State government will take over this responsibility. However, storage companies do not want to be responsible for 20 years, because of the extensive period with which they will be liable. It should be noted that companies that capture and transport the carbon dioxide are exempted from this responsibility. Also, under the London Protocol, carbon dioxide cannot be stored underwater, because it is classified as waste. This further limits the availability of storage facilities and hinders the CCS movement. . Incentives for CCS When looking at these problems it would appear that CCS does not have a future, but this is not necessarily true. CCS also has some advantages and is an essential part of reaching the 2050 low-carbon economy goal. Some examples of CCS incentives are: – a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Modelling undertaken by the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that CCS could contribute to a reduction of 19% of total global greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050. This includes reductions from coal and natural gas-fired power plants, as well as all other sources. The overall goal is a reduction of 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 1990 levels; – the oil and gas industry will get more oil and gas by injecting carbon dioxide. This is achieved by the technique of enhanced oil/gas recovery. For example, carbon dioxide is injected and this leads to an extraction of 30 to 60% or more of the reservoir’s original oil can be extracted, compared with 20 to 40% using primary and secondary recovery. (In the primary recovery phase natural pressure within the oil drives the oil towards the production wells and, with the help of pumps or other mechanisms, to the surface. In the secondary recovery phase water is injected into an oil reservoir to increase the pressure and again drive the oil towards the production wells.); – the creation of many more jobs, which is a very desirable development in times of a high EU unemployment rate. For example, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) states that CCS could create 100,000 jobs across the United Kingdom by 2030. This would contribute to £6.5 billion to the economy of the United Kingdom. Future of CCS? When looking at the problems and incentives of CCS it is difficult to say whether CCS has a future. Despite the financial problems, another major problem is that CCS is not yet socially accepted. Within the European Union, people do not yet fully understand why carbon dioxide should be stored under the ground and they want to see proof that health will not be negatively affected. The European Union public believes that carbon dioxide emissions have negative health effects, but this is something that will always be there to a certain amount. This is the complete opposite of Norway, where the public also finds that carbon dioxide emissions have negative health effects, but carbon dioxide emissions should be completely avoided. More specifically, in 2000, the Norwegian government resigned over the proposed construction of two gas power plants, which would lead to an increase of carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, applying CCS is seen as a very positive development as carbon dioxide emissions are reduced and as mentioned above the good thing is more oil and gas is retrieved. However, it should be noted that storage of carbon dioxide is within the EU a major issue as the EU does not have as much storage place under the sea as Norway. Therefore, storage under land will be a necessity. In conclusion, the European Commission, together with the governments of the 28 Member States and CCS scientists should cooperate to bring the same message across, namely CCS is a bridging technology that is necessary to obtain a low-carbon economy by 2050. (See also statement of the European Commission in the Consultative Communication on The Future of Carbon Capture and Storage in Europe, COM (2013), 180 final of 27 March 2013, page 22: “CCS is at present one of the key available technologies that can help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the power generation sector”.) In addition, having more projects in place which show that CCS works, and is not dangerous (living on a natural gas well is more dangerous) and brings people something (such as jobs), then CCS has a bright future. M.J. Huijbers LLM is EHS Consultant for NL and partially EU for Enhesa. Continue reading