Tag Archives: energy
New Markets Call for New Management Practices
By Michael DeBonis | September 23, 2013 For several centuries, America’s forests served as one of the single largest sources of energy for this growing nation. Wood heated homes and fired the boilers of America’s industrial revolution. With the discovery of fossil fuels, however, and more efficient ways to extract and transport them to population centers, the use of wood as a source of energy rapidly declined. This new source of energy, fossil fuels, took pressure off America’s forests, allowing them to grow back to the forests we see today. America’s forests are once again being seen as an energy source as both the U.S. and Europe begin working to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The difference between today’s use of wood as an energy source and the past is that new technologies allow for much more efficient means of extracting valuable Btu from every ton of wood harvested. From heating single homes, to firing boilers in hospitals, to 20,000-ton cargo ships bound for European electric generating facilities, the use of wood for energy is resurging. In just five years, the U.S. has seen wood pellet and other woody biomass production climb from 1.8 million tons in 2008 to nearly 6 million tons in 2012. Dramatic growth of pellet and woody biomass facilities in the U.S. Southeast will bring even greater increases as more facilities come on line by 2015. The U.S. Forest Service forecasts forest bioenergy harvesting can increase anywhere from 54 to 113 percent by 2050. This emerging industry could not have come at a better time. With reductions in production demands and capacities in the pulp and paper and sawmill industries brought on by the still-lingering global recession, the new surge in pellet production has been a shot in the arm to rural forest-based economies and forest owners. New Markets, Challenges With the recent improvements in catalytic converter technologies, both New England and the Pacific Northwest are seeing increases in residential wood stove heating. Simultaneously, those regions are witnessing an increase in heating conversions at large municipal facilities such as hospitals and prisons as they add pellets and chips to their energy menu. The Southeast has found new markets filling European demand for wood pellets as an alternative to fossil fuels in electricity generation. U.K. electricity generating facilities are substituting pellets for coal in order to meet the U.K. Renewable Energy Directive, which calls for substituting 20 percent of current fossil fuel use with renewable sources by 2020. The European Union 2020 RED demands much the same from other member countries. While forest-based economies can benefit from new demand for wood, this presents a new set of challenges. In many cases, biomass harvesting techniques vary little from other traditional harvesting techniques. Nevertheless, these quickly emerging markets have the capability of causing ecological degradation, if not handled properly. The woody biomass industry is new in the U.S. compared to traditional forestry industries such sawmilling, pulp and paper, and even oriented-strand board. For the past several decades, these industries have operated their forest harvesting practices in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) designed by state forestry agencies to help maintain the quality of our lakes, streams and waterways. The woody biomass industry, however, postdates these BMPs. It may be some time before state forestry agencies will be able to address biomass harvesting and amend their BMPs, if they so choose, thereby leaving potential gaps in existing BMPs. Forest Biomass Guide Recognizing this gap, the Forest Guild, a U.S. nonprofit organization of nearly 1,000 foresters, has published a set of voluntary biomass harvesting guidelines (BHGs) for several regions of the country: New England, the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast. Titled “Forest Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines,” the goal is to identify how expanding markets for forest bioenergy can enhance forests while at the same time meeting the economic and social needs of today’s population. The guidelines were developed to assist several audiences—foresters, landowners, harvesters and biomass facilities—demonstrate to their communities their commitment to the importance of forest sustainability. While developing the guidelines, the guild recognized that harvest technologies and biomass markets will change over time. With that in mind, the guidelines take a precautionary tack in order to avoid future issues that may arise around woody biomass removal. Also, the guild does not present guidelines as static targets to be maintained at all times in all places, but rather as guideposts for foresters, companies, harvesters and landowners concerned with sustaining their communities’ forests. Ecological Value Commercially, woody biomass has had little economic value in the U.S. This is changing. With the world’s concern regarding fossil fuel carbon in our atmosphere, technologies are changing, making wood a preferred source of energy. Ecologically speaking, downed woody material plays a critical role in the forest. For instance, downed and dead wood can play an essential role in wildlife habitat, acting as the home for nearly 55 mammal species, 20 bird species and numerous reptilian and amphibian species just in the Southeast. It also serves as seedbeds for tree and other plant species, and slash has been found to be beneficial to seedling regeneration after harvest. Downed and dead woody material is just as valuable with regard to soil productivity and water quality. It helps prevent soil erosion by impairing and reducing surface water flow and substantially improves water-holding capacity. Additionally, downed and dead wood represents a large pool of nutrients, functioning as a significant contributor to soil organic matter. A significant attribute of the guild’s voluntary retention and harvest guidelines is taking the guesswork out of how much woody biomass to retain. Synthesizing a large body of existing science and research, the voluntary guidelines provide foresters, landowners and harvesters tools to retain the right amount of standing dead trees and woody material on the forest floor. The guidelines include quantitative guidance charts for region forest types for snag (standing dead or dying trees) retention and downed woody biomass in tons per acre. This helps take a lot of the guesswork out of adequate retention rates. The accompanying tables show retention goals for both snags and downed woody material by forest type in the Southeast and Northeast. The Forest Guild’s “Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines” offer several benefits to foresters, landowners, harvesters and pellet manufacturing facilities. First, because the current wood-to-energy, biomass harvesting taking place today postdates state BMPs and forest certification criteria, these guidelines can bridge that gap until state forestry agencies and certification systems decide to address this harvest activity. Second, the guild’s voluntary BHGs take the guesswork out of how much post-harvest woody debris retention is enough. The guidelines’ charts provide scientifically based volumes to aim for. Third, woody biomass harvesting, especially post-harvest retention, is coming under the scrutiny of national, regional and local stakeholders and raising the public’s concern over long-term soil fertility and productivity. If adopted and properly implemented, these guidelines can go a long way toward addressing these concerns. Fourth, the guidelines dovetail with existing third-party forest certification systems. Most certification systems require adequate retention of snags and dead wood, but do not provide specific bench marks. The guild guidelines fill this gap. Finally, the Forest Guild’s “Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines,” carries the benefit of being developed by third-party experts using best available science. This can carry a great deal of weight and credibility with the public, conservation groups and legislators. Author: Michael DeBonis President and Executive Director, Forest Guild mike@forestguild.org 505-983-8992 Continue reading
UK Sets Solid Biomass Sustainability Standards
Taylor Scott International News Taylor Scott International Taylor Scott International, Taylor Scott Continue reading
Examining Thoughts On Germany’s Clean Energy Push
by Breakthrough Institute Germany’s renewable energy transition, the “Energiewende,” has long been a subject of scorn among conservatives, who have argued that it is a massive ratepayer-subsidized boondoggle that has harmed Germany’s economy and imposed significant regressive costs on poor and working class energy consumers. But the last several months have seen growing skepticism about the Energiewende from the center-left as well. Both Der Spiegel and Slate have published lengthy investigative pieces raising troubling questions about the costs and the environmental benefits of Germany’s headlong pursuit of an all-renewable energy future. Salon recently published an article criticizing Germany’s transition from nuclear to coal. Even left-leaning Dissent Magazine recently published a long expose about the failure of the Energiewende to reduce carbon emissions, concluding that Germany’s enormous investments in renewables, together with plans to phase out its nuclear fleet, would cost the nation a generation in the fight against global warming. At stake are not simply public perceptions of the Energiewende, but the future of efforts to rapidly expand deployment of wind and solar power elsewhere. Environmentalists and renewables advocates have long held up Germany’s example as one that the United States and other nations ought to emulate. To the degree to which the Energiewende is instead perceived as a cautionary tale, efforts elsewhere to expand subsidies and deployment mandates for renewable energy, and to dismantle the present day utility sector in favor of a much more decentralized electrical sector are clearly at risk. It is a measure of just how serious the new center-left criticisms of the Energiewende have been, and how threatening they are to the long-standing green climate and energy agenda, that prominent clean-tech thought leader Hal Harvey, long a powerful behind-the-scenes player in efforts to expand deployment subsidies for wind and solar power and transform the utility sector, has stepped out publicly and issued an extended defense of the Energiewende against its growing chorus of environmentally minded critics. image via Shutterstock As the head of the Energy Foundation and Climate Works and the director of the Hewlett Foundation’s climate and energy programs, Harvey aggregated and spent more money on climate and clean energy policy development and advocacy than any other philanthropic institution over the last two decades – between 2008 and 2010 alone, Climate Works and affiliated philanthropic institutions spent over a half billion dollars on climate and energy policy and advocacy according to one recent study. America’s overlapping mash of renewables subsidies, deployment mandates, and regional cap and trade programs is arguably as much Harvey’s legacy as anyone else’s. For this reason, Harvey’s defense of the Energiewende is revealing, both for what it acknowledges about the real costs and slow progress and for what it attempts to deny and downplay. Harvey acknowledges the enormous costs at which renewables innovation has been achieved in Germany, writing that escalating costs of the Energiewende “need to be controlled” and that Germany’s large direct subsidies for renewables represent only a portion of their total cost. “One still has to pay for transmission and distribution, for taxes, and for system resources to balance the variability of solar output,” he notes. And he recognizes the enormous challenges that still must be overcome in order for a transition from fossil energy to renewables to begin in earnest. “There is no doubt that the accelerated phase-out of nuclear power combined with the strong carbon targets for the utility sector make for a complex transition,” he concludes. “Germany will have to reinvent power markets, build more transmission lines, and think deeply about a new business model for its utilities.” But he also obfuscates many inconvenient facts, particularly those that suggest that current problems facing the Energiewende represent more than temporary setbacks, associated with a cold winter, rising natural gas prices, and the nation’s decision to accelerate the phase out of it’s aging nuclear fleet, and rather are likely to represent endemic and persistent problems associated with efforts to achieve high penetrations of intermittent renewable energy sources given present day technologies in Germany and beyond. A basic reality check on Harvey’s claim follows: Harvey claims that most of the impressive sounding 24 percent share of electricity that Germany generates from renewables comes from wind and solar. But in fact only about half does. The rest comes from hydropower, biomass, and trash incinerators. As The Economist recently reported , “the largest so-called renewable fuel used in Europe is wood.” Biomass has proven to be an increasingly dubious source of carbon-free energy before even considering the broader environmental implications for forests and habitat of returning to burning wood for energy at significant scale. The situation in Germany is not as bad as in some other European nations. But like the rest of Europe, Germany has relied heavily upon burning trees and trash in order to meet its renewables targets, a fact that is rarely mentioned by Energiewende boosters. Harvey is no exception in this regard. Of Harvey’s 24 percent, wind and solar represent about 5 and 7 percentage points, respectively, leaving less popular forms of renewable power to carry fully half the lift of the Energiewende. Harvey claims repeatedly that Germany has successfully decarbonized its electricity sector through the Energiewende. In fact, the carbon intensity of Germany’s economy has seen little change since 2000, when the nation embarked on the Energiewende. More recently, emissions have been rising. As the latest numbers from Germany’s BdeW utility consortium show, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.6 percent in 2012, the increase mostly coming from carbon dioxide emissions by coal-burning power plants. Anthracite coal carbon emissions rose 3.4 percent, while emissions from lignite rose 5.1 percent. Emissions are projected to rise again in 2013 . Harvey claims that Germany’s nuclear phase-out has not resulted in increased coal burning, but the evidence he cites contradict the claim. To support his claim, Harvey argues that no new coal plants have been approved since Germany announced plans to accelerate its nuclear phase-out after the Fukushima accident. Harvey is correct when he states that Germany’s current coal building binge has been long planned. But so has its nuclear phase-out, which was initiated over a decade ago. One can reasonably surmise that the long planned expansion of coal facilities has been, at least in some part, in anticipation of the long planned phase-out of aging nuclear facilities. Harvey chooses not to entertain this possibility. Harvey claims that recent increases in emissions from coal plants are temporary phenomena, relying entirely on analysis lifted whole cloth from a recent blog post by Amory Lovins to suggest that rising emissions were the product of a cold winter and rising natural gas prices. In fact, they are in significant part a direct result of renewables policies. German policy mandates that the grid take renewable energy first and fossil energy second. This results in what is known as the merit order effect. As more intermittent renewable energy enters the grid, it displaces the most costly type of fossil power generation, natural gas. As a result, natural gas generation decreased last year while coal’s share of electricity rose from 43.1 percent to 44.7 percent. And lignite – the dirtiest form of coal – increased from 24.6 percent to 25.6 percent. Moreover, as the Energiewende continues, carbon emissions from coal will likely continue to rise. The confluence of a priority grid access for renewables and a low European carbon price have squeezed flexible natural gas out of the market, adding to the gains coal has taken from nuclear power. In 2012 Germany commissioned 2.9 GW of new coal-fired power capacity. According to BdeW , Germany will add another 4.6 GW of coal power in 2013. Of a planned 42.5 GW of major power plants to be built by 2020, two thirds will be new coal and gas generators. Harvey claims that Germany’s low wholesale electricity prices, due to increasing competition from renewables, cancel out much of the cost of the renewable energy surcharge that retail customers pay to underwrite Germany’s feed in tariffs. Yet his own numbers belie this claim. Harvey acknowledges that the renewable energy surcharge constitutes one sixth of the retail electricity rate, adding approximately five cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of retail electricity. He then cites German government estimates that higher renewables penetrations have driven wholesale electricity prices down one cent per kilo-watt hour, saving ratepayers about $5 billion Euro per year. At best, then, lower wholesale prices mitigate less than a quarter the cost of the renewables surcharge. While lower wholesale rates will save ratepayers about $5 billion in 2013, Financial Times reported recently that in 2013 the feed-in tariffs will cost ratepayers €20.4 billion ($27 billion). Continue reading
