menu-bgimg

What we can offer you

We provide detailed transactional data, cost benchmarks and in-depth analytics for participants in the wood raw materials supply chain.
  • Pricing Data
  • Benchmarks
  • Product Forecasting
  • Advisory Services
  • Analytics
Learn More

SilvaStat360 Platform

  • Price Benchmarks
  • Madison’s Lumber Reporter
  • The Beck Group’s Sawmill TQ
  • Timber Supply Analysis 
  • Global Economic Data

Explore Forest2Market's Interactive Business Intelligence Platform

Learn More

Industries

From biomass suppliers in the Baltics to pulp producers in Brazil and TIMOs in the United States, Forest2Market provides products and services for suppliers, producers and other stakeholders in the global forest products industry.

Learn More
x
 
Blog

With “Friends” Like These…

September 12, 2014
Author: Stan Parton

When I read that the Partnership for Policy Integrity (PFPI) requested the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigate the biomass industry for its claims that biomass produces clean energy, I was befuddled and annoyed. I thought environmental groups existed to solve environmental problems like climate change, not to further problems by attacking viable solutions like bioenergy.  

Environmental groups consistently fail to acknowledge the benefits of above-ground carbon compared to below-ground carbon.  Simple chemistry proves fossil fuels are more energy dense than biomass, so yes, the claim that biomass emits more carbon dioxide per kilowatt of power generated is true.  However, the carbon footprint of wood biomass is one-fifth to one-tenth that of fossil-based fuels.

Furthermore, the carbon in the carbon dioxide emitted from wood biomass combustion is sourced above the ground. It is therefore impossible for it to add to the above-ground carbon inventory, since that is where it came from to begin with. The trees sequestered this carbon into the tree mass. 

The complete opposite can be said for fossil fuels. Sourced from below the ground, all of the carbon emitted from fossil fuel energy is added to the atmosphere. So-called “environmentalists” want to burn fossil fuels and rely on trees to soak it up. Trees do a wonderful job of capturing and storing carbon, so they are well-equipped for the task.

Yet, one CO2 control scheme under investigation - carbon capture and storage (CCS) - takes carbon dioxide from coal fired power plants and attempts to “stuff” it back under ground.  A better solution would be never to remove the below ground sequestered carbon (coal and natural gas) from beneath the ground to begin with.

Using fossil-based carbon is a one-way street. The carbon is released to the atmosphere and stays there until it is removed (trees, CCS systems, etc.).  Using wood biomass, on the other hand, creates a repeatable cycle. Trees serve as a vehicle to collect the sun’s energy which we can then turn into cost effective, baseload electric power.

The PFPI request to the FTC is yet another unfounded claim in a series of biased attacks on the biomass industry.  In its report, the PFPI cited a biomass plant at Madison Paper Industries that was never built.[1]  The claims environmental groups make about corporations “clear-cutting” or “razing” forests are put forth with the seemingly same lack of credible research.

They tell a compelling story. Evil corporations are cutting down all of our trees so Europeans can make electricity. Their story is more fiction than not.  

Anyone who has bothered to perform the most basic of research into the forest supply chain in the United States would know corporations are not cutting down trees. In the US South, most forests are owned by private individuals.[2] The majority of these private landowners fully intend to harvest and replant their forests at some point. 

Wood bioenergy companies are not buying forestlands and cutting down trees. Landowners are harvesting their trees and selling the biomass as a come-along product. Year-to-date, the weighted average price of pine sawtimber is $26.92 per ton, while the price paid for biomass is negligible. Landowners simply do not clear-cut their forests to sell biomass.

If environmental groups are as committed to the environment as they claim, it would serve them well to focus their efforts where it counts. They might start with a look at the detrimental impact mining coal has on the earth. They could work to prevent deforestation where it is actually happening (across Africa, Indonesia, and the Amazon rainforests). And if they want to address a threat to forests at home, then removing residual harvest biomass to reduce the fire threat fuel load would be a great place to start.

At the end of the day, carbon accounting is a complex issue that can be boiled down to a simple message: above ground biogenic carbon is less harmful than below ground fossil carbon. Hopefully, the EPA will issue a favorable ruling on the treatment of biogenic emissions, which will give the states a powerful tool to meet the requirements of its Clean Power Plan.  

 

[1] Ohm, Rachel. 2014, April 4. Study cites nonexistent biomass plant at Madison Paper. Morning Sentinel.

[2] Kinney, Suz-Anne. 2014, January 22. Who Owns the Forest in the US South. F2M Market Watch.

Back to Blog

You May Also be Interested In

January 08, 2020
The Value of Carbon Emission Avoidance with Biopower Generation
Per a recent report published by the National Petroleum Council (NPC)—an advisory committee that represents the...
Continue Reading
October 08, 2019
Wood Bioenergy, Forest Management Key to Combatting Climate Change
Seth Ginther, Executive Director of the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association (USIPA), recently wrote an excellent piece
Continue Reading
August 22, 2019
WSJ’s Incomplete Reporting Perpetuates Misconceptions About Bioenergy
A recent article published in the Wall Street Journal notes that the increased consumption of wood pellets in the...
Continue Reading