So the real question is: given that solar, wind, hydro, wave, geothermal, etc... do not really contribute in any significant way to carbon reductions... are these technologies a core climate solution?

That's the question.

In my view, the answer is: no, they are not. They are excessively costly, not very efficient from an energy point of view (no baseloads, no peakloads, reliance on coal and natural gas, etc...). And worse of all: they don't mitigate climate change all that much.

Biochar doesn't work for sequestration.  A new study found that the carbon does not stay in the soil.  It is released as CO2.

The 1/6 of global cropland area is available however, in the ocean.  And algae grows in salt water.  And doing it that way won't increase GHG like growing it on crop land would.

So if the powers that be, favoring gas guzzling in ICEs want to continue onward, let them float their algae/fuel farms.

Of course renewable electricity in plugin hybrids and electric mass transit  will always be much cheaper.  Free markets?  Well I guess the traditional free marketeers who keep us all guzzling oil only believe in free markets when those markets indicate that their favorite solutions are the correct ones.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

But won't you have to first prove CCS viability before you can make claims about the efficacy of biofuels?

- Well in the case of CCS not really, because you are working with carbon-neutral, biogenic CO2 (in contrast to the CO2 when derived from fossil fuels).

So any leakage does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

CCS is in a more advanced stage than CSP, for example.

There are now at least 4 working CCS sites. One of them has been working for over a decade.

- In the case of CCCS, there's not much to prove, we have the archaeological record: carbon from more than 5000 years old stored in soils.

I admit that the estimates of the potential for CCCS differ widely. Lehmann and others think that we can take all CO2 added yearly back out of the atmosphere via CCCS. Others see a smaller potential.

But the mitigation potential of CCCS is far bigger than that of all renewables combined.

The land availability argument also would seem to have a large number of hidden assumptions.

Such as?

I think you mean that the land availability studies by the leading scientists all take into account different scenarios (because several factors, like population growth, can not be predicted exactly; hence, they use projections.)

But this is true for all assessments of the future of technologies.

For example, if it is true that rare earth elements like gallium and indium will be depleted by 2017, then the entire PV industry is doomed. Some say 2017, others don't take it that far.

But even the very low range estimates of the land availability, still show there are several hundred EJ worth producing, under the strict sustainability parameters lined out earlier (no deforestation, 10% conservation, meeting all fiber, fodder, forest products and food needs of growing populations).

Jonas,
Would you please quit assuming that

   1. CCS is viable
   2. Carbon fixation for meaningful periods of times MUST involve burning the carbon you're trying to keep from entering the atmosphere.
   3. That there's even enough biomass to go around
   4. That most biofuels reduce emissions at all, once you factor in their land use change "carbon debt", and N2O emissions.

Greyfalcon, not to be annoying, but from what you write, you show, once again, that you have not understood the basics of carbon-negative bioenergy.

I've been with you over this several times. I'm not going to do the effort again. Please check the earlier comments in which I try to explain the kernel of the concept to you.

Carbon negative bioenergy comes in many forms. Combustion is the single least useful one - and in fact, in many carbon-negative energy concepts, it can't be used at all, because it would precisely ruin the carbon capture option. So clearly, you haven't grasped what we are talking about.

There are many other bioconversion forms.

Google for: "bioconversion".

As far as N2O emissions are concerned: biochar has been shown to lower N2O emissions by 5 to 10 fold in Australian highly weathered oxisols. That's why its being increasingly recognized as a key to sustainable agriculture.

All carbon-negative biofuels obviously take CO2 out of the atmosphere, else they wouldn't be called that way. No biggie, I think. If you (as in CCCS) sequester 50% of the C of a biomass feedstock, and use the other half to replace fossil fuels, you obviously go negative. In CCS you can use entirely decarbonized fuels and sequester all the C, that is 100%.

Solar, wind, hydro etc... all remain carbon positive. They add CO2 to the atmosphere.

The advantage of CCCS is that not only the 'carbon debt' is cancelled out, it also cancels out the carbon debt of non-energy farming.

But anyways, it seems like the concept remains too complex for you, because you still assume, entirely wrongly, that combustion is the core of carbon-negative energy, while the exact opposite is true.

Biochar doesn't work for sequestration.  A new study found that the carbon does not stay in the soil.  It is released as CO2.

Wow, this is news. I think the biochar researchers would be highly interested in seeing this study.

Would you care for a link?

I will forward it at once to the biochar research community, who will be, obviously, shocked if this were to be true.

Thanks.

The fact is, government grants, loans and loan guarantees have played a big role in stimulating the investments in cellulosic ethanol so far.

Yes Ron, and we all appreciate your work on this.

But when will your study on the subsidies for wind and solar appear?

These subsidies and support measures in Europe (and I'm sure in the US too), have been at least as high as those for bioenergy, if not higher.

In Germany, the leading green in the EU, subsidies for wind are 35% higher than those for biomass; subsidies for solar are 100% higher than those for biomass.

When will your report on these subsidies appear?

Why single out biofuels?

I think I must agree with RDMiller: there are fundamentalists out there, who refuse to be tech-neutral. They either have stocks in solar companies, or they are being paid by the oil industry to do everything to boycott biomass, knowing that biofuels are the biggest threat to oil.

Seriously, the selective rage against biofuels sometimes looks pathological.

-I expect a study on the subsidies for wind and solar, as compared to those for biomass

-I expect a study on the sustainability of wind and solar, including the social sustainability and the indirect social costs of mining key minerals (which would point to the 5 million dead people in Congo, which have fallen for these industries - but this is kept under the carpet, perhaps because these are mere French-speaking black people.)

-I expect a full study showing how the reliance on wind has been pushing up coal use because wind doesn't provide baseloads (there are small studies about this, I now demand a full study, including one covering China, where this link would be very apparent)

That would be most welcome.

Correction: the subsidies for wind (35% higher than biomass) and for solar (100% higher than biomass), are only direct subsidies: the feed-in tariff.

We are not even talking about indirect subsidies, which are once again much, much higher for wind and solar, simply because electricity from these technologies is much much costlier.

The cost of a GWh of electricity from solar PV is still 10 to 20 times higher than a GWh from biomass.

The cost of a GW of heat from wind electricity is up to 10 times higher than a GW from direct biomass heating.

But Ron knows the difference between direct and indirect subsidies better than me, so I'll leave him to work on this.

Looking forward to it.

The problem for many who comment on alternative energy possibilities is that it's actually much more difficult to understand the issues behind producing (and utilizing) biomass, in contrast to solar, wind and hydro.

There are many horror stories out there about rainforest destruction, old-growth logging, clearing forests for biofuels and such. This has created a certain justifiable wariness about utilizing wood and similar feedstocks for energy. But it says nothing about the potential to utilize biomass on a sustainable basis (something being done every day by countless companies around the world).

As I said, though, it's harder to understand the mechanisms, costs and issues involved in biomass production than solar or wind, so too many simply grab onto any of the horror stories and use those as a basis to form a negative opinion about biomass. But this is not "truth"... it's simply becoming comfortable with ignorance and playing it safe. This serves no one.

As someone who has spent years in the field producing biomass sustainably, I know it can be done and I know what the costs are. I know how vast the resource is and I know how much larger it can become.

When folks have an agenda, they'll take a position on something that they have no direct experience with, rather than saying "I just don't know how to evaluate this." I encourage GreyFln, Amazingdrx and others here to consider this.

Thank you for the more measured and circumspect response. But I'd appreciate your thoughts on why, if cellulosic ethanol is so economically viable, that it will require a $1.01/gallon federal subsidy (plus generous subsidies provided by many states), that its use needs to be mandated, and that the industry is not willing to see the $0.54/gallon import tariff on Brazilian ethanol expire.

Also, it is not just production costs that matters, but the opportunity costs of the factors used in production. Studies at Iowa State University have shown that cost of growing switchgrass in the corn belt is low. But, as they convincingly argue, farmers in that region will never grow switchgrass if they can grow corn, because the net returns are higher -- i.e., growing corn and soybeans is the highest-value use of that land.

Similarly, it may be cheap to grow trees and turn them into woodchips. But there is a growing demand on wood resources, including for wood-fired electricity, and only so much land available (unless you are advocating encroaching on national parks and other protected areas). I do not think it can be automatically assumed that the price of biomass today is going to remain constant no matter how large a demand is placed on those resources.

These are only my personal opinions.

"...anyone who has ever worked in the sustainable forestry and farming sectors knows the potential for growing and using biomass in harmony with the Earth."

The natural carbon cycle is interupted when biomass, grown on land that naturally would sequester that carbon, is turned into fuel and burned.

It's just that simple.  

On the other hand, biomass that would emit methane into the atmosphere, like manure, sewage, garbage, green crop waste, and cellulose in wetlands exposed to fertilizer or manure run off, turned into biogas and organic fertilizer offsets GHG release by capturing the methane.

This is a plan that will work, you would be better off getting behind it.  Farm, garbage, sewage, biogas/fertilizer production is carbon negative.  Liquid fuel farming is not.

The biogas can be converted into methanol, a liquid fuel, with renewable electricy, but why add the extra inefficiency to the system?  Methane can now be stored with new nano tech storage media at the same denasity and pressure as gasoline.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Ron,

I didn't say cellulosic ethanol is feasible today. I said we're rapidly heading in that direction. But until we get there, subsidies are needed to support research. There are countless examples of this in other areas of energy and elsewhere.

If, instead, we internalized the true costs of burning oil and coal (even nuclear), we probably wouldn't need those subsidies. But this level of intelligence within our government and the powers that be simply doesn't exist.

Whether farmers decide to grow switchgrass, trees or something else instead of food is yet to be seen. Any rational person would hope this doesn't happen. But that's not the point. The point is it's looking like these "crops" can be grown on millions of acres of non-farm land and be profitable. It is this that would be a significant part of the basis for the cellulosic ethanol sector.

While your statement that there is growing demand for woody biomass as a feedstock for energy is true, this demand (today) is only the smallest fraction of supply. One could argue we haven't even dented the supply yet. Of course, it is possible, one day, demand might exceed supply. But this is so far down the road it makes no sense to discuss it now. For the foreseeable future, it is unlikely the cost of delivering energy-grade wood (whether chipped or otherwise) will increase significantly... not when supply exceeds demand by a factor of hundreds (or even thousands... I haven't done the calculation).

Amazingdrx,

Stubborn as ever. Why do you continue to make silly statements that demonstrate your ignorance on specific topics you know little about? Why don't you try... just for a change... saying you're not certain and have a question?

Show me evidence that this statement of yours is true when applied to sustainable forest harvesting practiced under the guidelines of the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)?

"The natural carbon cycle is interrupted when biomass, grown on land that naturally would sequester that carbon, is turned into fuel and burned."

I mean, obviously some kind of natural cycle is interrupted, but I'm assuming you are saying that the effects of the sustainable forestry and energy production process results in a carbon positive problem. Prove this, please.

I'm all for subsidies for R&D. What I was talking about was subsidies for production. That is what producers of cellulosic ethanol will be receiving from the federal government starting 1 January next year: $1.50 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE). And protection from Brazilian ethanol, which is already cheap. And state-level subsidies, and so on.

Nobody here is defending subsidies to nuclear power, coal or oil. And everybody here would agree that the externalities associated with using energy -- of all sorts -- needs to be internalized. But even if one charged, say, a carbon tax of $50 per tonne of CO2-eq on gasoline, that would add only around $0.45 per gallon. If cellulosic ethanol reduced life-cycle CO2 emissions by 85%, its carbon tax would then be around $0.07/GGE. That is a $0.38/GGE difference, not $1.50 (not counting the additional state-level subsidies).

Cellulosic ethanol already has $130 per barrel oil as a benchmark. That won't be enough?

These are only my personal opinions.

"...obviously some kind of natural cycle is interrupted"

The kind of natural cycle?  It is the cycle of biomass turned into GHG, CO2, methane (21x GHG  effect of CO2), nitrous oxide (296x GHG effect of CO2 and so forth, as that biomass either breaks down slowly from biodigestion in the soil or combustion in fires.

And the uptake of these GHG by photosynthesis in plants, that makes more biomass.  In a stable climatic system, the amount of GHG produced and absorbed would be balanced.

In the climate disaster we are now experiencing, human combustion of biomass, in the form of fossil fuels and plant matter and manure, has thrown off the balance.  Furthermore, run off of fertilizer and manure caused by human farming practices has resulted in a rapid bacterial breakdown of carbon stored as biomass in soil and wetlands.

Turning biomass into fuel continues to push the imbalance to the excess GHG side.

Turning biomass, that would release GHG in the form of methane, into biogas and capturing that methane, converting it to an energy source, offsets 20 times the CO2 emission from burning that biogas.

Using organic fertilizer from the biodigestion process to replace nitrous oxide emitting, ever more costly, fossil fuel derived and mined chemical fertilizer, curtails a GHG effect equal to 2/3 of the fertilized crop's GHG uptake.

It's the only carbon negative biomass scheme.  And it's really effective.  Less than 5% of our GHG producing energy coming from biogas derived from waste, would offset the other 95%.  That's a zero carbon footprint.  

Gore's goal for 10 years hence?  It would allow the use of natural gas as a transport fuel.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Amazingdrx,

Not nearly good enough. I'm not interested in your rantings. I'm interested in independent confirmation of your viewpoint.

Prove to me, from any scientifically validated source, that using biomass as a fuel when the biomass was harvested sustainably, is a significant contributor to GHG problems.

If you can't prove this, stop saying it.

Ron,

You seem to be arguing that it's unreasonable to pay substantial subsidies to cellulosic ethanol producers when CE is commercialized and a regular, ongoing production process. I might agree with you, but we're not there yet. Everything happening with CE today is still in the R&D phase, even when we're in the stage of demonstrating that CE is commercially viable. These subsidies are completely appropriate and necessary right now. Down the road, I might well agree with you.

"...harvested sustainably"

In a dialogue one usually reponds to the points made.  My argument does not rest on an appeal to scientific expertise.  Merely on agreement on the nature of the GHG/carbon cycle we are talking about.  You either recognize this as a correct description of the carbon cycle or you don't.

If you don't, explain where this concept is flawed in such a way as to somehow render biomass to liquid fuel conversion carbon neutral.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

is fact, in order to support some negative viewpoint about a potentially sustainable BTL source, only makes an ASS out of U and ME.

RDMiller,

I am interested to hear more about your work.

Please share as you might have time.

Thank you for you insightful posts. Just because there are those here who wish to RAG on BTL, does not mean others buy into their RANTS.

It simply means they have their own agenda and seem almost fearful funding might be lost for their own pet projects.

They may have reason to be afraid, as cost
effective green solutions demand meaningful
numbers as well as facts. National security
and independence is also a factor they somehow seem to MISS.

Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.

Amazingdrx, the article you refer to precisely confirms that biochar works ;-)

Please try to read it again, in conjunction with what you know about biochar. You will find that this article proves the effectiveness of biochar, because it demonstrates that char mineralizes organic matter, which is precisely what we want to achieve.

So your earlier statement that biochar itself mineralizes was incorrect, I'm sure you understand that now.

The key to biochar is that it forms a recalcitrant pool of SOM in nutrient-poor soils and frees up the nutrients for plants. Since you sequester biochar in nutrient-poor soils, the stored C is larger than the mineralizable SOM, which gets freed up and made available as nutrients to crops, which is why they tend to grow so much better.

Do you understand this? The recalcitrance of biochar is undisputed (pools of over 5000 years old have been found), your article does not dispute this either.

In short, I thought you were referring to a new article. The one you point to is of key importance to the biochar community, because it confirms what the researchers in that community have painstakingly found in their field trials in nutrient-poor soils.

Ron, I'm only talking about using biomass for electric cars, because this is obviously much more efficient than using liquid biofuels. Is anyone still talking about liquid biofuels, really? I thought that debate was over.

All my comments to this post are about biofuels in general, that is, including and most importantly, solid biofuels.

Are irrepressible.   Hehey.

logical conclusion time.  If burning biomass is carbon negative, then if all the biomass went up in a firestorm it would actually send us into an ice age.

The more biomass you burn the less CO2 there is in the air, right?  Funny material!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

That'll surely cure GHG climate change, hilarious.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

The forest fires leave carbon behind, no problem right?  It's like a huge scale biochar project.

Burn, baby, burn.  Cure GHG disaster instantly!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

After the fire will trap all the CO2, making it a closed cycle.  Eureka.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Amazingdrx,

The only thing amazing about you is your decision to believe only what you want to believe in the face of compelling information otherwise. Your responses continue to border on the absurd. If this is what I am to expect from Gristmill, I'll not come here often. This is amateur play and it's what gives environmentalists a bad reputation. You serve no one with your responses... especially the Earth.

Amazingdrx, can you please stop ridiculing the debate about renewables and stop making a fool of yourself? It's painful to see you at this.

When a forest burns, it combusts, and leaves behind ash, gas and 1 to 2% char. That's the nature of combustion.

Why else do you think the environmental community is so heavily against the burning of tropical rainforests? Why do you think deforestation through burning is such a big contributor to climate change (20% of all global emissions)?

Biochar exactly halts this phenomenon, because it depends not on wild combustion, but on controlled slow pyrolysis, leaving behind 50% char and gases used to replace fossil fuels.

Now please stop the embarrasing exposure of your ignorance.

Greyfalcon, if you happen to read this, can you please explain this to me:

-what's the 'carbon debt' of a reforestation effort?

-and should all reforestation efforts be banned?

Merely my crude attempts at satire.  Sorry for any offense.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Biomass should not be grown nor should natural vegetation be harvested expressly for energy production.  There is enough biomass in the waste stream along with natural gas (in a transition to 100% renewable energy over 20 years) to backup renewable energy.  The combination substituting for the old baseload power paradigm, relying on  coal and nuclear power.

And by using that waste stream biomass to produce biogas and organic fertilizer, more than 20 times more natural gas use can be offset.  Making a zero carbon footprint possible much sooner, maybe in the 10 year time frame Gore is proposing.

Pyrolysis does not provide fertilizer, it sends vital organic nutrients up the smoke stack to pollute the atmosphere.  It does not offset other combustion related GHG, like biogas can.  

Woodgas from pyrolysis burned to produce energy gives off GHG.  The addition of the char to soil increases organic matter conversion into GHG, canceling the purported offset activity of char.

Biogas from waste prevents methane and nitrous oxide release now occuring due to human intervention in the natural carbon cycle.  Thus offsetting over 20 times the amount of GHG it releases.

Wood gas or biogas or natural gas, it should only be used in solid oxide fuel cell/turbine cogeneration at 70%+ efficiency, that should be an eventual goal.  Replacing present ICE, turbine, and steam turbine power sources, for the grid and vehicles with these fuel cells.

Chemical ag to grow biomass to burn, directly or as fuel is a dangerous diversion from real solutions.

Another great Gore interview on "Meet the Press"!  Al says it, we have to move all our energy use to renewables and renewable electricity, electric vehicles.  

No more fakery from ethanol, biodeisel biofuel farming lobbyists and politicians, bribed by pork barrel industries.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Amazingdrx,

Are you not aware that Mr. Gore is part of two firms that continue to make substantial investments in cellulosic ethanol? Seems he thinks it's a good idea as well. But you fail to mention this.

May I make a friendly suggestion, though? Use "bio-energy" when you are referring to anything but liquid biofuels. I think it would eliminate a lot of confusion in the debate, and unnecessary disagreement. Perhaps people should not use "biofuels" as short for "liquid fuels made from biomass", but must understand that as such. So when you speak of biofuels, but actually mean fuel for power generation, or for producing a combustible gas, people may not actually get where you are coming from.

And in answer to your question, "Is anyone still talking about liquid biofuels, really? I thought that debate was over." Hardly! For one, that is the focus of this string. Second, countries and states such as Louisiana, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are still enacting mandates for liquid biofuels. The interest groups behind these fuels are still very strong!

These are only my personal opinions.

RD Miller writes:

You seem to be arguing that it's unreasonable to pay substantial subsidies to cellulosic ethanol producers when CE is commercialized and a regular, ongoing production process. I might agree with you, but we're not there yet. Everything happening with CE today is still in the R&D phase, even when we're in the stage of demonstrating that CE is commercially viable. These subsidies are completely appropriate and necessary right now. Down the road, I might well agree with you.

First of all, RD, I'm trying to get those who talk up CE to be consistent. At the beginning of this string, you spoke of "the viability of cellulosic ethanol" and about new cellulosic-ethanol facilities "being built at an increasingly faster pace to demonstrate both advancements in the technology, as well as commercial viability."

If one requires large subsidies to build a plant, and then to produce the fuel once the plant is up and running, in my book that is not "demonstrating ... commercial viability." Vinod Khosla talks about cellulosic ethanol as if it will be commercially viable by next year.

Cellulosic ethanol is no different, chemically, than corn ethanol or sugar ethanol, and needs no help from government to show that it can be used as a fuel. (That was demonstrated by Henry Ford a long time ago.) So what, other than meaning price competitive with gasoline, do you all mean by "commercially viable"?

So, basically, what will be demonstrated is that if you throw enough money at a technology, you will produce something. Gee.

I come back to my earlier question: if cellulosic ethanol was viable in February 2007 (when the DOE grants were given for most of the current demonstration plants) at $70 barrel oil and an excise tax credit of $0.51/gallon, why, only a bit more than a year later, when the price of a barrel of crude oil is $130 does it need a subsidy of $1.01/gallon?

Other countries that have provided subsidies for cellulosic ethanol, like Canada, have at least scheduled their subsidy rate to decline over time, have limited the total amount that can be provided over the life of the program, and have included a formula to reduce the per-unit subsidy rate if the price of crude oil rises.

The U.S. federal subsidy for cellulosic ethanol has none of those characteristics. So is $1.01/gallon exactly the right level, in your opinion? If the price of crude oil rises to $200 per barrel will it still be exactly the right level?

And when do you expect the subsidy will no longer be needed?

NB: corn ethanol has continued to be subsidized, without interruption, for 30 years.

These are only my personal opinions.

Here's a dose of reality about biomass as a replacement for oil, coal and gas (and even nuclear): it's here now and growing. Why? Because it's available, it's inexpensive, the technology is known, the potential is vast, it can be carbon neutral (or even negative), and when done well, serves forests and rural communities in ways no other alternative energy technology can.

It may well turn out that cellulosic ethanol is best used as a replacement for oil in the production of virtually all the products we now get from oil... plastic, in particular. It may well turn out that ultimately, solar and wind are better sources for electricity than direct burning of biomass. And certainly, it will almost never be the case that conversion of rainforests, productive farmland, or even many grasslands over to "energy plantations" is a good thing. But we're not going to get from HERE to THERE in the short term.

In the short term, CE will be used to offset transportation fuels, because it's better to use biomass for this than oil. When cars get converted to electric technology, this use for CE will end.

In the short term, biomass will be directly burned to produce electricity and space heating. When solar, wind and other sources are pervasive throughout the U.S. and can produce electric power for these applications at a cheaper cost, biomass will phase out of this application and be used otherwise.

These are realities, and if folks like Amazingdrx don't understand this, then nothing they say can be taken seriously. Short term alternatives to oil and coal are necessary. Sustainably-harvested biomass is one of those.

Ron,

The issue with cellulosic ethanol right now is that there are at least 10 different approaches to producing it, and no one knows for certain which will work and which will work best. This is the primary reasons subsidies are needed. This kind of research needs to take place. Everyone will be ultimately well served by it. But it is very risky (and expensive) for investors. They won't take these risks without help from the government.

Once one or two processes are shown to work well, I believe the subsidies should be (and will be) phased out fairly quickly.

I've skimmed a number of these emails - sometime later I'll print them out and go though them more carefully - but for now it's obvious that RDMiller & Jonas etc. are rather fundamentally ignorant of biodiversity fundamentals as they claim their opponents to be about some other things. Their normative statements about biodiversity and their echoing of the stunningly stupid 'healthy forests' rhetoric of the US timber industry shows us that they've got a lot of learning to do.

e.g.

The target of conserving 10% of the planet's surface as 'natural' in order to conserve wild biodiversity (a target set by some conservation organisations many years ago) is nowhere near sufficient to do that job. We need far, far more. ML Rosenzweig and others demonstrated this a long time ago. Before you carry on making asses of yourselves by saying we have enough land to produce biofuels and all the other stuff we need as well as conserve the world's wild species, do yourselves a favour and get a rudimentary understanding of island biogeography, species-area curves and so on into your heads. Hint: Start with figuring out the concept of 'zombie species'. Once you've done that, we can have a sensible discussion.

Have you guys even vaguely thought about the value of crop and timber 'waste' in terms of sustainable agriculture/forestry? Do you have the foggiest clue what it does to soil systems to remove all this stuff from the cycle, or change it's form before putting it back? Again, once you've demonstrated that you do - and you haven't - we can talk further.

Dead, bent, diseased and otherwise 'unhealthy' trees have huge and very important roles to play in just about every ecosystem, and not just because they give certain saprophytic fungi something to do. A study I've seen shows bird diversity dropping by about a third in sample plots in African savannas from which all dead wood was removed. Get beyond Pinchot - he had no real understanding of biodiversity.

Forests are not the only ecosystems that matter. One of the major loopholes in the EU 'sustainability standards' for biofuels is that they play into the public perceptions that ploughing up grasslands and semi-arid areas and so on is OK (unless they've been identified as being special or conserved as national parks - which in many countries will not happen) because you're not knocking down big trees. Many non-forest ecosystems are in bigger trouble than forests.

Think beyond the carbon cycle, please!

Whiskerfish

RD,

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but you still have not answered my question why, in February 2007, when crude oil was selling at $70 per barrel and the tax credit was $0.51/gallon, these plants went ahaead, but in May 2008, when crude oil was selling at above $120 per barrel, Congress thought it necessary to boost that subsidy by an additional $0.50, to a total of $1.01/gallon.

That is pertinent to your comment that:

Once one or two processes are shown to work well, I believe the subsidies should be (and will be) phased out fairly quickly. [My emphasis]

Where is your evidence to provide us with any degree of confidence that will be the case?

Again, I offer as counter-evidence: corn ethanol has been subsidized for 30 years. In 2006, when the price of oil was $60/barrel, the industry was crowing that it didn't need subsidies and could in fact compete with gasoline at $40/barrel. Now we are at $130/barrel, evidence is everywhere that biofuels are a major, if not the main factor contributing to the rise in the prices of food grains and oilseeds, and at the most Congress was willing to do was reduce the subsidy (starting next year) from $0.51 to $0.46 per gallon, and then only so that it could find money to boost the subsidy for cellulosic ethanol.

With a track record like that, can you blame people for being skeptical?

These are only my personal opinions.

Ron,

I hear your frustration with the subsidy situation. Government supports have been all over the place over the years regarding many alternative energy endeavors, as well as other non-energy ventures. I share a lot of your frustration and agree "fairness" and appropriateness don't seem to be part of the equation.

We'll just have to see what happens.

Ron, I've probably made the argument here before that I expect subsidies for corn ethanol to grow.  Once the industry grows to the point that we become dependent on their production then they can make the case that they need more support should the economics of production, blending and transportation become even less profitable than it is now.  

Rapidly escalating prices for production inputs already place corn ethanol in an economic squeeze even with the subsidies.  These prices could easily spiral out of control reducing the profitability of corn growers as well as the ethanol plants.  Many planned ethanol projects were dropped this year with the rising corn prices as well as higher prices for steel and other construction materials.  

Also, we may have dodged a bullet with the midwest floods that have lowered production somewhat.  But in the event of a major drought in the Midwest that could greatly lower production then the corn ethanol industry would basically have to shut their doors for at least a year.  I imagine Congress would foot the bill for a major bailout should something like this happen.  

Corn ethanol will continue to "farm the government" for a long time to come.  They have their hat in the ring as a transition to cellulosic and they will hang on this to the end. That giant sucking noise we hear is right out my front window (and I have to admit, in my freaking fuel tanks).  

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that burning biofuels instead of fossil fuels lowers CO2 emissions one bit.  Every fuel burned emits CO2 at BEST; in other words, anything else it emits is more directly toxic.  An official in the California Air Resources Board told me that the agency agrees with this, as do the EPA and all other bodies that have commented on it.  That was one of the big issues between California and D.C. when California tried to implement GHG reductions in cars: the only way to do so in internal combustion engines is to increase gas mileage, because there is no technology known that will allow a reduction otherwise.

All this crap about biofuels being a solution to global warming is just propaganda.  Re the transportation aspect of global warming, the only solution is to drive a lot less, ship a lot less, and change the remaining vehicles to electric ones that are powered by solar cells and wind generators.  This is again why I and some others have said ad nauseam that without reducing consumption, none of these ecological problems can be solved.

Wolverine,

When cellulosic ethanol from sustainably harvested, locally-managed, forests is available in a couple of years and you get to choose between using that or using imported oil, it's unfortunate to hear you say you'll just keep burning the oil.. cause, heck... it's all the same, as you say. What a brilliant fellow you are.

RD,

First, I don't own a car, so I don't burn anything, though I realize that the buses and trains I use when I'm not walking or biking consume and burn fossil fuels in some form.

Second, I never said fossil fuels and plant-based fuels were the same.  Biofuels are actually WORSE ecologically, unless their source is waste material like kitchen grease.  You're claiming that killing trees in order to keep spoiled Americans in their cars is a good thing?  Sorry, but you should only kill what you eat, and people don't eat trees.  Moreover, there's no such thing as a sustainably managed forest; there are only sustainably managed tree farms, and even those are few and far between.  The vast majority of logging is highly ecologically destructive, and I have no doubt that logging for ethanol or any other resource would be no different.

Third, ethanol is a big scam.  Its emissions are little better than those of petroleum products, its production is causing far more harm than good, and its subsidies are nothing but tax payer ripoffs in order to benefit agribusiness.  And I'll say it one last time: every fuel burned emits carbon dioxide at best.  So, how would burning any type of biofuel reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions?

390M gals of gasoline being used per day now, while we are still importing more than that to cover all the current needs.

YES conservation, however even with the current prices consumption is only down 10.5M gals per day. Could that be reduced by 100M gals per day?

Perhaps over time. To be sure it will require better MPG and less travel.

Keep in mind the largest demand comes for our NATIONAL SECURITY DEMANDS WHICH ARE REAL, something I have attempted to point out, however LOST that issue seems to be here.

LF is required regardless and BTL is but one potential attractive solution.

Solar and hydrogen are coming on via HONDA, however I have no idea if that idea will take hold or not because you are talking about major national fueling demands which are also REAL.

With regard to Ethanol. If you may recall the underground storage tanks were leaking and what was the potential danger to the water table, do you remember? The real why and how of ethanol came about because of this most important environmental remediation issue.

What was that cost for UST clean up, any guess?

SOLAR, WIND, Electric cars, fine. BUT What about real horse power needs. And what about mobility demands.

If solar, wind, electric cars can reduce current gasoline use to 200M gals per day, I say great, bring it on. IN FACT what are you waiting for.

Ecosystems empowerment for the rural poor.

The Sierra Club would tend to be opposed to any forest harvesting that did not conform to FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) guidelines (such as some of the logging taking place in National Forests), and I'd tend to be in agreement with them. Without conformity to these guidelines, there's no assurance the logging was done in a sustainable manner.

Note that there are some large forests certified to FSC standards in Canada, though still very much the minority.

We can get all the biomass we need for the purpose of replacing oil, natural gas and coal from forests harvested to FSC standards. I'm not saying there's anywhere near enough certified forest yet in the US, but we can get there.

Some of you may come from other blogging traditions, but here at Gristmill, politeness and respect dictates avoiding calling people names.

For example, you may accuse somebody of making a ignorant comment, but not that they themselves are ignorant.

On with the debate.

These are only my personal opinions.

You are very much on the right track when you talk about using organic wastes as a source for biofuels but there is a bigger picture to examine.

Consider that 2/3 of the raw tonnage of material that goes into a landfill is organic.

That represents a huge amount of raw material for organic decomposition for biofuel.

With the growing trend towards mandatory composting and the ability to cooperatively cross couple several types of biofuels production into one overall system the level of fuel and energy production which can be produce from organic waste material already available is massive.

Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.

Why waste the time and energy AKA expense and eco damage to harvest new material when there is a massive amount of readily available organic material being thrown away every single day in every nation in the world.

Organic wastes from trash, sewage and other sources can produce an immense amount of energy in way that is clean, safe, efficient, profitable and truly renewable.

Consider this: How many millions of tons of sewage are disposed of every year and how many cubic yards of methane (~"natural gas") can be produced per ton?

As long as there are living things there will be organic waste.

Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.

First, I'll apologize to Wolverine for calling him ignorant.

After using that phrase, I reflected back on a time in my earlier days... I was around 21-22... went I was a Psychology major in college and boarding with a student majoring in Forestry. Coming from an upbringing in which I had had no exposure to logging and forestry work... and seeking to live a "least impact possible, vegetarian, spiritual seeker" lifestyle... I tended to argue with this fellow daily about the merits of cutting trees. To me, it seemed unnecessary, even brutal and barbaric.

Of course, I was ignorant (or my thinking was ignorant... however you want to put it, Ron). I was totally disconnected from the fact that I loved (and depended on) wooden things in my life... furniture, wood flooring, wall paneling, newspapers and books, rayon clothes, cereal boxes, toothpaste, baseball bats, and many of the other 5,000 or so products that come from trees.

I hadn't worked a day in my life in the woods. I had had no exposure to cultures that lived in intimate harmony with forests, using trees to sustain their lives while carefully managing those forests... cultures like the Swedes, Norwegians, and Germans... you know, rather intelligent people.

As fate would have it, after graduating from college, I went out into the deep forests of Vermont to build a community of like-minded people. I wanted to build my own home (a log cabin), completely disconnected from the grid, in the middle of a forest along a beaver pond. I bought a chain saw, determined to do this on my own with a few friends... but knowing nothing about what I was doing. I cut my first tree... and completely fell in love with working in the woods.

The next 30 years were spent learning what it means to work with forests in a sustainable manner... learning what it takes to make sure everyone else who fully enjoys the benefits of using wood in their lives can be sure that someone took the time to harvest those trees with the most respect and care they could.

I also quickly learned that tremendous volumes of trees were being cut every day by others who were in it just for the money... who saw forests as simply a resource to be mined. I saw it could be done differently and set about to provide wood products that were harvested with care and respect.

At a certain point, everyone gets to choose if they're going to live in a cave (which is a fair choice) or out in the world at large. If you're in the modern world, you're using wood. If you care about your impact on the environment, then you need to support those who supply wood products which reduce impact on the environment. It's that simple.

But it's also more complex, because so many of the products we use are dependent on oil... like the plastics that make up your computer (Wolverine). I'd much rather know that this plastic came from a renewable tree harvested sustainably than from another gallon of oil. And soon I'll be able to make that choice.

Fact is, 99% of US forests have been cut at one time or another. There are essentially no "virgin" forests left in the US. Mankind has left its mark on forests everywhere, and in many cases, the harvesting of the past was not done sustainably. We have a chance now to undo some of that damage... to help forests become more productive and more complex, while growing better soil and producing more diverse habitat. And... we can still get the benefits of having large volumes of wood products available for many kinds of important products.

Think about all the things in your life that originate from forests... then think about all the products you use that come from non-renewable sources. Which would you prefer to support?

Backcut,

Here are a few reasons for the FSC. This applies primarily to US forests. There are other critical issues that apply in other regions.

Because despite any regulations you might think are in place by national or local governments, unrestrained clearcutting and high-grading (cutting only the biggest and best trees) still takes place everyday across forests of the U.S. Do you wish to buy wood products that came from these? I don't. Buying products with an FSC label assures you and me that proper care was applied.

Because under standard timber industry guidelines, you can still take a diverse forest of hardwoods and softwoods (with all the biodiversity it contains) and clear it, completely, then replant it to a monoculture of fast-growing softwoods (often applying copious amounts of pesticides) which support a fraction of the original biodiversity. This is where most of our structural housing material comes from. But there's a different, more sustainable, approach that can give us the same building materials... albeit, perhaps with a small price premium (under 5%). I prefer the latter.

Because even in California (which has strict harvesting guidelines), if we open up millions of acres of forests to thinning procedures to reduce fire damage, there aren't adequate safeguards in place to make sure a certain percentage of very mature, high-quality trees won't be removed as part of the thinning process when these trees really could (and should) be left standing. Why is this? Because like I said, different people see forests in different ways. Some want to mine it; some want to work sustainably with it. We've cut enough old growth. I want to know systems are in place to protect the remaining old growth, and the FSC helps to assure that.

In what context?  In the context of 9 billion people on earth?  In a rapidly growing technocratic civilization?  Most likely not.  Sustainable for a generation maybe.  But sustainability to me implies tens of generations and practices which enrich and not diminish the wildness of the earth and which do not take more and more of the earth's primary productivity for the ends of man.  "Sustainability" in the Big Man/Small Nature worldview should be tempered with a huge question mark.  

Justlou,

I understand your concerns.

What I suggest you do is visit a sustainably managed forest and decide for yourself once you've actually seen and felt what this means. Restrain judgment until then. I'd be happy to suggest such a forest within reach of you if you wish to visit one. They can be found throughout the US and Canada.

I understand and do respect the efforts of those who are properly managing their forests including the Menominee Nation in Wisconsin. I have seen it. But, much of that "sustainability" comes only because of the reliance on unsustainable inputs from a very unsustainable civilization.  The base of our system is agriculture but how sustainable is it?  We can all point to pieces here and there that might fit the needs of a better system, but attempting to patch those pieces into this cluster*#@% and call it sustainable is just delusional.  I just don't see anything being sustainable with the prospects of 9 billion people on earth and man's intent to transform more of the wild to fill the needs of a growing population.

I don't think we have a chance unless there is a radical transformation of worldviews that humbles man and greatly diminishes his numbers on earth.  I don't expect this to happen.  We are shuffling the cards in a game called the big fall.  Very sad, but most likely true.    

Justlou,

Now we're getting somewhere. I think we share a common frustration regarding the huge lack of sustainability throughout the world across the board of a wide range of activities. It can certainly seem as though there's little hope in finding a solution to the increasing demands of a rising population and the lack of care so many have about how their lives impact the Earth. It is certainly questionable how much longer we can go on the path we're currently on.

The Menominee Nation is a great example of sustainable forestry, but what they do is not common practice. It should be and it can be, but it isn't. How do we get from where we are to where we need to get to?

There's only so much any one person can do. Environmental activism or work within an environmental business are great and worthy endeavors. But even these, in the end, are no replacement for the "consciousness raising" work we each need to do on our own. Whether or not the overall consciousness of people will rise quickly enough is the question of the day. But I believe it starts with each one of us, and I have found that too many in the environmental community prefer to preach personal agendas to others before doing their own inner work (I'm not speaking about you personally, Justlou).

It all seems overwhelming at times. However, there is still time and there is still hope. And as long as that's the case, I'll do everything I can to create a better world. I trust each of you will do the same.

"How many millions of tons of sewage are disposed of every year and how many cubic yards of methane (~"natural gas") can be produced per ton?"

That's it ecotech, if manure, crop waste, sewage, garbage, industrial organic waste like wood, paper making, beer making waste (this is in operation in several breweries that convert the biogas to electricity using solid oxode fuel cell cogeneration) is converted to biogas it also yeilds organic fertilizer.

Offsetting over 20 times the GHG produced when it is burned.  No other use of biomass can match this carbon offset.  So add in 20 times the natural gas for a net zero carbon footprint backup power source for transportation and power generation.  Garbage trucks run on landfill gas in a few places already.

Tractors could run on farm biogas saving farms from bankruptcy due to high fuel and fertilizer costs.

(This seems to really annoy some other biofuel advocates, hehey.)

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Amazingdrx,

I have no argument with what you are saying. Fine. Do it. But it's not nearly enough. That's the point you just don't seem to get.

OK... "your" idea is great. Congratulations. What else can I say? It's just not enough. Do the math.

Ha ha!

you know you've really got a point when your questions are ducked that profoundly!

RDMiller - I refer you back to my earlier post. Try again! Or confess that you have no idea about extinction rates and how they are tied to area, conservation planning, the land requirements of such etc. Your evocation of the Saintly Orders of Big Conservation is a huge mistake: Having worked for some of them, analysed policy, written on the massive myopia within the FSC guidelines (which, inter alia, have for years given a nearly-free ride to timber plantations established on incredibly fragile non-forest land) I'm not about to be inaccurately told that my views contradict theirs, and not about to make it into a problem if they do.

Stupenduously narrow-minded and unscientific stuff gets churned out by Big Conservation every day by people who know less than nothing about simple diversity - the diversity of species, and the diversity of ecosystems. Fund-raising, not science, is the main driver of much their activity. Your evocation of the decades-out-of-date 10% of the planet for conservation land is proof that you're talking way out of your depth. 10% was a thumbsuck, a marketing tool, long since discredited by even its inventors.

Once you've answered my points -- one by one, carefully, not running away from them -- give me a per-hectare yield of your mythical sustainably forest-derived cellulosic ethanol, tell me how you're going to produce the stuff vaguely efficiently without clear-cutting or wrecking a forest's biodiversity/nutrient cycling over time, and how on earth, if cellulosic e turns out to be genuinely cheap and eco-friendly, you'll deal with runaway demand driving truly astonishing land-use change and wildland destruction (hint: It's called Jevons Paradox, it's not really a paradox, and it's real).

As for Backcut - oh dear! - fires are ALWAYS bad in forests? Again, basic ecological ignorance - nothing more. A single essentialised piece of nonsense like that, unwithdrawn, and we can safely write you off as a serious participant in this conversation.

Whiskerfish

Backcut,

First of all, one of the main reasons clearcuts are no longer allowed in most US Forest Service forests is because of the FSC and the work of the environmental community. I was there in the midst of that fight in the late 80's and I know this for a fact. Pressure from numerous big wood users who wanted to stop the boycotts led them to help force an end to the mess of that earlier time. But you probably know that.

With respect to my statements about clearcutting and conversion of diverse forests to plantations, I didn't say this a big problem on public lands. But it remains a big problem on private lands, and the great majority of US forests lie in private hands.

With respect to the issue of cutting larger trees in thinning projects, I understand very much the challenge you folks face. It has been hard to do these necessary thinning projects and make them commercially viable without adding in a few big, mature trees here and there. But it is this piece which still causes the tension, because there's too much variability in what one forester might want to include in a stand cut (in terms of how many, and which, mature trees to mark for sale) versus another forester. There's also not enough of a thorough inspection process to make sure the loggers then remove only the designated trees. Until this tension is resolved, many of these (needed) thinnings won't take place.

The solution is to use an INDEPENDENT body, like an FSC certification agent, to oversee the harvest. This gives the environmental community the comfort it needs to support the thinnings.

But something much more important is now taking place, and it's something most foresters just don't quite understand yet. Because of the dramatic increase in the price of energy, the value of trees which should be removed as part of a thinning has now risen DRAMATICALLY... more than enough to offset a reduction in the harvesting of mature timber while still making the harvest very profitable... more profitable than ever before. The problem is, there's still a disconnect between the value of using this wood to offset oil and coal as energy, versus the value of this wood as a conventional forest product. Until that connection is made, this wood will be greatly under-valued, leading to tension and a lack of progress on conducting the necessary thinnings. But it'll be figured out before long, and when it is, I think you'll find resolution to many of the challenges at hand.

Whiskerfish,

You're way out of your league, so be careful. It's obvious to me you are a "know it all." You are clearly saying you know more than all the folks behind the FSC, the hundreds of thousands of landowners around the world practicing sustainable forestry for decades (and even centuries in some cases), and the dozens of mainstream environmental groups which started the FSC and support it. You really think anyone should take your positions seriously?

As far as specific numbers are concerned, here's a starter for you.

Start with the assumption a typical forest in the US contains 50-100 tons of standing biomass. Keep in mind EVERY ONE of these forests has either been harvested numerous times already or has regrown from open land (which was previously forest)... so we're not talking about any virgin forest and we are assuming much of the original biodiversity is gone.

A so-called "improvement cut" should be limited to about 1/3 of the standing trees (but this is very variable, depending on the forest). If this harvest is focused on thinning out over-crowded, diseased and less desirable trees, the forest left behind will increase in productivity AND health. In other words, 10-20 years down the road there would be MORE biomass there and better quality trees. Let's leave the "word" arguments aside for now (such as whether any given tree is better or worse than another).

If this harvest is done correctly, extra care would be taken to leave a percentage of woody material on the ground to increase soil health and improve habitat. Again, let's not argue on this point because we know, from hundreds of studies, that this can be the case. The Menominee Nation's forests are one example.

Now do the numbers. For the sake of a discussion, let's say we do this on 400 million acres of forests... about half of the forest land in the US. That gives us the potential to sustainably harvest 8 billion tons of biomass (400 million acres x 20 tons per acre). Now we're talking about a one time harvest here. We can discuss what an ongoing level of sustainably-harvested biomass might look like over a period of 100 years in another discussion.

The cellulosic ethanol guys are telling us we're now up to being able to produce around 100 gallons of gasoline per ton of wood. So this 8 billion tons of biomass gives us 800 billion gallons of gasoline... or something like 6 years worth of all the imported gasoline used in the US.

It would take someone with a lot more economic skills than me to figure out the positive economic values we could realize by shutting off all oil imports (for gasoline usage) for a period of six years, PLUS plowing all this money back into rural communities and private (and public) landowners... and employing hundreds of thousands of people to carry this out... and improving forests across the US.

This nice six year window might even give us enough time to bring electric vehicles on board, all the while dramatically reducing the CO2 impact from all the oil not used (because the biomass will all grow back).

Now add to this the ongoing annual regrowth of biomass to sustain this program indefinitely. Then add on the huge amount of biomass we can get from dedicated energy plantations of switchgrass and hybrid poplars and willows grown on marginal lands.

There's your picture, Whiskerfish.

Now I am NOT saying we should use this biomass for cellulosic ethanol to replace oil. A case can be made we're better off burning lots of it for heat and/or electricity, or displacing oil-based products (like plastic) with this cellulosic ethanol. I'm simply demonstrating the potential to grow and harvest forests sustainably and produce biomass to displace oil and coal.

Whiskerfish... if I was to bring you to a typical forest where 1/3 of the biomass was removed in a respectful, careful manner.. and then brought you back ten years later... I believe you'd be impressed with the results. I can bring you to many such forests I have harvested myself anytime you want to pay me a visit in Vermont.

Amazingdrx,

Your concerns about what is "sustainable forestry" and what isn't is very much a fair and important discussion. And I have no doubt too much of what is happening in Wisconsin is NOT sustainable forestry. And you should be concerned with this.

This is exactly why the FSC was created... and created by (as I've said several times already) leading environmental groups (along with many others). We need independent bodies to certify the kind of forestry taking place. Otherwise, we have nothing to assure it is taking place... and too many in the forest products industry will revert back to "timber mining" and worse.

It's the same as with organic food. We have independent certifiers who MUST certify any claims of "organic". I'm not buying organic food unless I KNOW it is produced organically. The claim of the manufacturer itself isn't good enough for me.

So demand that any biomass used for energy be grown and harvested according to FSC standards. It's the only assurance we have that forests will increase in health... not decline.

Measuring quantity of biomass is one thing, a very problematic endeavor in itself, but using it to define "sustainable" forestry is impossible.

The quality of the forest eco-system and all it's species can't be described simply by the mass of the biomass harvested and produced.  

This approach is fatally flawed.  In fact it is the same flaw our whole human culture has when dealing with the natural world we live in.  It is seen as a numbers game, a quantifiable resource for human exploitation.

We have to get to a value system based on quality of life, all life on the planet, operating in symbiosis, rather than a bottomline, mechanistic, linear, engineering point of view.  

These are tools humanity has been given, logical mechanistic thought and perception, not the end all of human ethical, artistic, and spiritual values.  If we don't end the hegemony of corporatist political/economic structure driven by this linear/bottomline thinking, it could be the literal end of all life as we know it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Amazingdrx,

Man, you are tough to get through to. For some reason, you keep ignoring the deeper sentiment I've clearly put forward... the places where we both connect and share values... and instead focus on stating my position as something I've clearly described otherwise. I give up. Think what you wish.

I could even visit the native american forest land you mentioned.  It's something to advocate for at forestry policy meetings open to the public.

I see modern low impact forestry machinery, mainly developing in scandanaivia, as a better technolgy for forest eco-systems and safety for loggers.  Logging is even more dangerous than mining.

I would like to see some of the grant money for wood to biodiesel plants diverted to university/industry colaboration on better equipment and biodigestion systems to use wood waste at great fire risk.  Use the lumber and pulp wood yes, that sequesters carbon, but use all the "slash" too.

Then return soil ammendment/organic fertilizer from the digestor to help forest soil maintain moisture and increase biomass and fertility.  old style hand tree planting replaced with machine planting that places seedlings in a random pattern, rather than in tree farm monocultural fashion.

Seedlings that are sprouted from selected seed from healthy trees, instead of genetically modified forest mono-crops.  Each seedling with an injection of soil ammendment around it to hold moisture and improve viability.

Think of all those good forestry jobs, that would really restore the sagging logging country economy.  Here in northern Wisconsin and the UP, independent loggers and truckers can't afford to buy the fuel to stay in business.

Why not put these people to work fixing our devestated forests and save their families from bankruptcy?  And stimulate the economy and get a good clean, carbon offsetting, backup energy source for a wind and solar and wave powered grid.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Not a contest you win, lose, or draw.  It goes on and on, repeating arguments in different frames, that can be frustrating for anyone.

A little humor goes a long way in dispelling that inevitable frustration (invective tends to increase it, hehey).   I suspect we would agree out on the trail, viewing different forests we have passed through time and time again.

I run or bike or ski past trees marked for cutting, slash piles, tree farms from the 30s, and trash left by loggers almost daily.   But I mainly get to run past natural forest with little trace left of human devestation, I am thankfull for that.

When will it pass the 50% point?  Half slash piles and logging trash, half natural forest?  With biodiesel from trees that could happen in a few short years.  We can both agree that would not be a desirable outcome.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

RDMiller

you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the FSC is and who controls it.

It is NOT 'independent', i.e. not independent of the major timber/pulp companies. They are an integral part of it, along with some conservation organisations. There is huge tension within the FSC,  as many of the wood corps spend lots of time trying to water its mandate down, and often succeed.

As I and others have documented, the FSC has given its label to millions of hectares of monocultural tree farms that have been established on extremely fragile wildlands in various parts of the world. For example, in South Africa, FSC-certified plantations have wrecked grasslands, contributed to species extinctions, and dried up major rivers that hundreds of thousands of people and much wildlife depend on. If you doubt what I say, read for yourself what Sappi and Mondi have done to the grasslands of the Mpumalanga escarpment, and the rivers that flow down it.

The FSC also certifies paper that is only partly sourced from certified sources, thus giving 'cover' to unsustainably-sourced pulp all over the world. I can buy paper in the store down the road from my house that carries an FSC label yet is almost half made of old-growth or unsustainably harvested forest in the former Soviet Union. The other pulp comes from the aforementioned South African 'green death' tree farms.

The world's forests may (or may not) be better off for the existence of the FSC, but it's a deeply flawed organisation. Your reification of it betrays a major misunderstanding of how it operates and what it is capable of - or perhaps you just work there?

If even a 'respectable' organisation such as the FSC provides cover for so many harmful shenanigans, how on earth do you expect US forests to be safe from abuse once the cellulosic ethanol plants go up?

Whiskerfish

Whiskerfish,

I don't think I have any misunderstanding of the FSC, as I am one of the original very small group of founders. I know exactly what it's about and the tensions within it. I should point out I have not been directly associated with the FSC for the past 7-8 years, so this does not reflect any personal ongoing connection I have with it.

The FSC is not perfect... just as you most certainly are not. It is learning as it goes, just as you are. However, the principles of sustainable forestry underlying the FSC are the best we have in the world today, as far as trying to find a balance between protecting forests and the requirements of industry to produce large volume of product at affordable prices. This is a very difficult balance to maintain.

One thing is certain and that is that the presence of the FSC has dramatically shifted the way forest harvesting has been done over the past 17 years toward something much more sustainable than it was. This has resulted in hundreds of millions of acres of forest being harvested in a more respectful, careful manner. This is certainly a good thing.

With respect to the issue of certified paper, I share your concern and have spoken out strongly to the FSC about it. I hope we'll see a change in policy before long.

To describe the FSC as a "deeply flawed organization" is unproductive and silly, and simply shows immaturity on your part. Have you done better or more than the FSC? If so, please tell us of your long list of accomplishments. I'm all ears.

Backcut,

As usual, California is ahead of the curve. What you're working on sounds great.

But the statement of yours that no one will buy the logging slash because other biomass is available for free, simply means that the powers that be in California, as well as the energy producers in that area, haven't figured out how to connect the value of that waste biomass with the energy needs of local energy users. But I can assure you it is a cheaper source of energy than oil, coal, electric, nuclear and natural gas... and sooner or later, someone will figure that out. Until then, it's a shame to see it truly wasted.

John (amazingdrx),

There's far more in this post of yours that I agree with, than disagree with. We're probably much closer on this topic than our debating might seem to show.

I'm happy to leave it at that.. for now, anyway.

Richard

"...no one in California will buy that logging slash"

It won't be a commercial enterprise at first anyway, government needs to step in and fund the rehabilitation of the mess that profit based logging has left in it's short sighted wake.

It should be chipped and digested not burned.  burning it for energy is scarcely better than forest fire, from a GHG stand point.

Transporting and harvesting the wood waste with diesel fuel will not be a good idea either.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

And yes...do visit the Menominee Nation's forests. It's really quite amazing to see a fully productive, bio-diverse working forest. They demonstrate the viability of sustainable forestry every day. I encourage anyone who can visit them to see what these folks have been doing for the past 140 years or so.

That is agreeable to me too.  I would like to continue the debate with more information.

It would be really great to talk about these issues while walking along in our beloved forests.  With all the bloggers here present.

Maybe someday.  Get on that Grist!  A nice forestry conference at bio-d's favorite forest location?  Hehey, I know he wouldn't want us trampling in it though.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Well, John... we WERE getting more on track together. But why do you say this when it's just silly:

"burning it for energy is scarcely better than forest fire, from a GHG stand point."

If you burn it for energy, you MUST factor in the oil or coal that is displaced. This means you're reducing the GHG contribution by roughly 1/2! To say this is "scarcely better" is silly.

But what if biogas offsets 20 times that?  That's why I exagerated by using  "barely".  

But you are right it is much more than "barely" better than a forest fire, or using coal for backup power.  Point taken.  Hehey.  

Politeness, it rocks.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

What is the total GHG release possible in a major western firestorm in drought/disease dead wood?

How much energy is there in that resource?  It's well worth researching.  Meanwhile I will try to estimate how much high nitrogen waste could be obtained from the waste stream for biogas production.

Are both of these paths practical?  Biodigestion and combustion of waste wood?  I would like to look into solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generators for the waste wood, instead of combustion.  Hooked up to the grid, maybe portable as backct suggests, moved from forest region to region as crews work on collecting the dead wood.

Very interesting research areas Rich!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

John,

I would be very interested in learning more about any advanced methods for utilizing biomass that are more energy efficient and better at addressing GHG issues. I've never been stuck on pushing one method over another. Let's go for the best possible way to produce energy and offset non-renewables through biomass utilization... as well as the tightest restrictions on forest harvesting to best assure the health of forests.

RDMiller

again - you tell me I'm a know-it-all in way beyond my depth - but I'm just repeating your words back to you! My bull-in-a-china-shop approach has led you to underestimate me and overstate your case. This is good - the holes in your underwear are gaping wide, and we're getting a good look at the stuff that matters.

As always, the devil is in the details (especially the details of basic definitions) and if we go into the underpinnings of your ideas things start to look really wobbly...

e.g. 1) You said "The solution is to use an INDEPENDENT body, like an FSC certification agent, to oversee the harvest. This gives the environmental community the comfort it needs to support the thinnings."

2) Then you admit that the FSC is, in fact, not independent of Big Timber. By extension, their certification agents aren't, either, since their job is to ascertain whether people are conforming to the FSC requirements (determined, in part, by Big Timber).

But let's, for fun, take it further:

3) Actually, there are more serious problems with the system than this: The certification agents are worse than not independent - they operate in a competitive market, and thus have a powerful incentive to overlook all sorts of infractions on behalf of their clients. In a typical market there are anywhere upwards of half-a-dozen FSC certification agents vying for business. If you were a less than scrupulous forest or plantation cutter, would you pay the guy who gives you a clean bill of health? Or the one who tells you to buck up, spend money, and comply with the FSC regs? Go figure. And if I'm a journalist that wants to see a certification agent's report on a particular operation? Oops - sorry - it's confidential. So no one who is actually independent can verify a damn thing.

When I (wearing my journalist hat) investigated this system in South Africa I was told by the big certification agents that they kept themselves honest because they represented big companies with big reputations to uphold. They refused to walk me through the certification process (intellectual property reasons, apparently) and refused to tell me how many infractions they had noted in the previous year. In short, they were thoroughly untransparent. I could not stop the word 'Enron' appearing in my dreams.

That's why I say the FSC is a deeply flawed organisation. The mechanism that underpins enforcement is open to abuse and incentivises evasion. Your involvement in its formulation seems to have blinded you to these fundamental flaws. Parents are so often biased towards their children, huh?

If the FSC's the model you're proposing to regulate biomass harvesting, your scheme is in big trouble. This is not a trivial point: You've not addressed the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, aka Jevons Paradox. Without effective regulation, your brilliant idea will end up driving the degradation of millions of hectares of forestland.

I repeat: If cellulosic ethanol production from forest-sourced biomass does prove to be cheap and efficient, it will unleash huge energy consumption and runaway demand, ESPECIALLY if the machines that will burn this ethanol are highly efficient. This is already happening with first-gen liquid transport biofuels. Khazzoom-Brookes shows that efficiency drives increased use, not decreased use, given certain circumstances. These circumstances apply to liquid fuel use for the forseeable future.

Efficiently-produced liquid biofuel will drive more, and more unethical, forest destruction - not save forests. It's extremely dangerous to be looking for more excuses to use more biomass and land for more things. You're willing an evil genie out of a very small bottle into which it will not want to return.

Whiskerfish

Whiskerfish:

I'll not go into each of your points individually, because you've demonstrated you can't debate a point without distorting what others say.

That said, I've made it unquestionably clear in my last response to you that the FSC is not perfect. In fact, I was one of the loudest critics early on, demanding a higher level of independence for the FSC and its agents, as well as tougher inspections. The FSC still has some growing to do... and it does need to do that rather quickly. Time will tell if it succeeds at this. If not, something better will come along, because those in the marketplace (like yourself) will demand a higher level of quality from any certification brand which seeks to label wood products as "sustainably harvested".

The matter of what the impact could be to forests if, and when, the use of forest biomass for energy substantially increases, is something of great concern to me. So in this respect, I share your warnings and concerns. It could get out of hand... no question about it.

But here's the thing: there's not a lot that can be done to stop the increased use of biomass for energy, because it's available, cheap, distributed and uses known technology (not including cellulosic ethanol, which is not quite proven yet). So rather than sitting on the sidelines complaining about it, I suggest doing something NOW to avoid the worst impacts and create the best.

I am aggressively moving ahead with my own plans to establish a biomass-based energy business I think you would be comfortable with. I'll tell you that the standards my business will use to ensure sustainable forestry will be at the upper end of what the FSC supports. And if the FSC can't get its act together to independently certify what I do... and do so with enough integrity that competitors can't slip by with significantly lower performance... I'll be devoting a good part of my time to creating a competitor to the FSC. Because your concerns are valid, and when energy use drives forest harvesting, the impacts could potentially dwarf what the FSC is currently doing with respect to standard wood products.

We definitely don't want that evil genie to leave the bottle.

Idea Rich, not to monopolize the thread, hehey.

Along the lines of backcut's portable distributed wood waste powered grid generation.  Forestry machinery to cut, chip, and haul the recycled wood could run on woodgas produced in the portable power station.

Diesel engines would be easy to convert.  It would save using oil for the harvesting energy.  Solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generation could provide waste heat to cook the chips to produce the gas and it would run in the machinery and in the fuel cell.  

The charcoal would be left over.  Perhaps sold for water and air pollution filtration use, that sequesters the carbon too.  And it's very green, with decent profits.

Now there's a research project for the UW engineering students.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin