After 2015, the method of calculating CO2 absorption by Vermont's forests, etc., was changed to conform with EPA and international standards.

 

As a result, the higher values of the old method were replaced with the lower values of the new method.

For example, 8.23 million metric ton in 2015 (old) became 4.39 million Mt in 2015 (new), about 47% less.

  

If Vermont were to reduce overall CO2 to lower levels, then forests would absorb an increasing percentage of the overall CO2, if we don't trample on the forests, i.e., leave them alone to do their job. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-biomass-boile...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-harvesting-w...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-reconsidering...

 

Clearcutting Holocaust of the 1800s

 

The NE clearcutting holocaust of the 1800s and early 1900s occurred for two reasons:

 

1) Clearing for farming and pasture (haying for cows and horses and for sheep that produced wool)

2) Production of charcoal for iron working.

 

On hilly land, the clearcutting caused erosion of topsoil and nutrients into nearby streams.

The clearcutting released vast quantities of CO2 due to decay of 1) belowground biomass, 2) dead wood, 3) litter, and 4) soil organic carbon.

 

New England was mostly reforested by the 1950s; some farmlands became forests again; some forest area was permanently eliminated by human encroachments.

 

However, the clearcutting had damaged forest soils, which reduced the storage of biomass/acre.

Undisturbed, old forests, on healthy soils, store much more biomass per acre, than young forests on damaged soils.

Acid rain from the 1950s onward has been harmful for forest soil, regrowth and health as well.

 

Forest Fragmentation 

A continuous forest is much healthier and has a greater abundance and diversity of flora and fauna than a fractured forest.

Forest fragmentation is due to human encroachments, such as roads, paths, transmission lines, wind turbines on ridgelines, partial land clearing for development. See URLs

 

https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harva...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-case-against-intens...

1) Forest, plus Other Vegetation CO2 Absorption

 

Forests, plus other vegetation, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into stored biomass by photosynthesis. This process is an important factor when estimating net greenhouse gas emissions, particularly for a heavily forested state, as Vermont.

 

This URL shows Vermont forests, plus other vegetation, sequestered 5.0 million Mt of CO2 in 2016. It was about 5.8 million Mt in 1990.

The reduction was due to: 1) less forest acreage and 2) trees becoming less robust and less healthy (acid rain, pollution, human encroachments, over-harvesting, etc.)

About 50% of Vermont’s forests are classified “low grade”, suitable only for burning and pelletizing, according to forestry/logging people.

However, it would be much better, if those low-grade trees were chipped and spread on the forest floor to provide quicker nutrition to the forest soils. That would allow any new trees to grow up healthier.

 

See URl, figure 18

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

2) Forest CO2 Absorption

 

The 2015 data show Vermont forests absorbed 4.39 million Mt of CO2 in 2015

Each acre of forest land stored 107 Mt of carbon (URL, table 1).

Forest total biomass, above and belowground, increased from 1990 to 2015 (URL, figure 1).

 

Annual CO2 absorption decreased from 4.70 million Mt in 1990, to 4.39 million Mt in 2015 (URL, figure 2).

Even though, there is more biomass per acre, that biomass does not absorb as much CO2 in 2015 as it did in 1990, mostly due to less healthy forests, etc.

 

See URL.

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

3) Vermont Total CO2

 

Vermont total CO2 has increased from 8.65 million Mt in 1990 to 10.19 million Mt in 2015, or 18% more than 1990, despite many energy programs that were supposed to reduce CO2, but did not, i.e., they increased everyone's energy costs, but proved to be dysfunctional, courtesy of Montpelier's self-serving, subsidy-seeking RE cabal. See URL, page 23. 

 

If wood burning CO2 is added, the VT total becomes about 10.19 + 1.91 = 12.10 million Mt in 2015. See URL, page 25

If forest CO2 absorption is subtracted, the VT total becomes 12.10 – 4.39 = 7.71 million Mt in 2015.

Wood burning CO2 estimated from URL, page 25, figure 19.

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

 

Table 1/Year

VT Total

 Wood burning

VT Total

Forest Absorption

VT Net Total

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

CO2

 

 Million Mt

 Million Mt

Million Mt

Million Mt

Million Mt

2015

 10.19

1.91

12.10

4.39

7.71

2016

 9.76

2.24

12.00

4.39

7.61

APPENDIX 1

Maine makes a lot of electricity with tree burning at an efficiency of less than 25%, and the logging of those trees basically is a rape of the forest, that is well known to/condoned by/encourage by Maine State government.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

Some of the New Hampshire plants have closed, because they produce at about 8 to 9 c/kWh. Owners begged for 4 c/kWh subsidies, but Governor Sununu, a Republican, vetoed the bill.

NE wholesale electricity prices have averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2008, 11 years, courtesy of low-cost gas and low-cost nuclear, which provide about 70% of all NE electricity.

Wind/solar folks want you to hate gas and nuclear plants, that produce steady, no-particulate, very-low-CO2 electricity at 4.5 to 5.0 c/kWh

Wind/solar folks want to close them, so they would have the electricity market all to themselves, while riding the subsidy gravy train and shooting New England's economy in the foot with ever higher retail electricity prices.

Northern Maine has almost no grid for connecting wind turbines.

Building the grid for just the wind turbines would lead to an uneconomical 25% capacity factor, the same CF as Maine wind.

The Maine wind owners would like to get the grid for free.

Various RE yo-yos in Disgusta likely would give it to them.

But that would require a significant surcharge on household electric bills, just as it did in Texas.

APPENDIX 2

Maine emits about 4.52 million Mt of carbon/y in 2016; Maine ranks 46th. 

It is likely much higher, because Maine, etc., do not count the CO2 of wood burning and the CO2 resulting from the damage of logging activities.

Maine population was 1.331 million in 2016

Maine carbon was about 3.40 Mt/capita in 2016; Maine ranks 19th

See URLs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine

http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/sequestration_fa...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_b...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

Maine forests absorb about 5.3 million Mt of carbon/y; 0.3 Mt/acre.

Maine forests currently store about 2000 million Mt of carbon.

Maple/Beech/Birch stands have the highest carbon density per acre, storing about 550 million Mt of carbon.

Tree plantations, with 20 to 30 years between harvests, have the lowest carbon density per acre.

Doubling the stocking on the 550,000 acres with poorly stocked stands could increase carbon storage by up to 500 million Mt.

Old Forests Absorb More Carbon per Acre

A 50-year-old forest absorbs 0.8 Mt of carbon/y, on average.

A 65-year-old forest absorbs 1.6 Mt of carbon/y, on average

Doubling the age of the forest in the North Maine Woods could increase carbon storage by more than 1000 million Mt, a 50% increase.

Currently, the age of the forest is decreasing, because of short periods between harvests, aka "prudent forest management practices".

Decreasing Forest Areas

Between 1982 and 2003, about 21 years, changes of land use resulted in the loss of 806,957 acres of forest.

This forever reduced the Maine carbon sink by about 242,000 Mt/y.

This forever removed about 42 million Mt of carbon (equivalent to about 170 million Mt of standing wood) from former forest areas to feed wood burning plants, and to supply wood product makers.

http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/sequestration_fa...

APPENDIX 3

Maine’s Forest Absorb More CO2 Than Maine’s Total CO2 Emissions

 

Maine emitted about 4.52 million Mt of carbon in 2016. See URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine

 

Maine forests absorbed 5.3 million Mt of carbon, according to Maine Forest Ecology; for what year was the data?

http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/sequestration_fa...

 

Maine Better Than Carbon Neutral.

 

The people of Maine do not need to do anything, except make sure the forests stay healthy, and are allowed to grow undisturbed to an average age of at least 100 years before cutting.

 

The people of Maine should concentrate on making their houses as energy-efficient as possible. Such improvements could last a lifetime.

 

All that noise-making and scare-mongering by self-serving, subsidy-seeking RE folks in Disgusta, Maine, and elsewhere, is just to get people aroused, and to get them to act against their own best interests, for the good of the “cause” of the subsidy-seekers.

 

The people of Maine should oppose whatever expensive, irrational, "jobs-creating" schemes, the subsidy-seekers come up with, such as their latest fantasy of expensive, floating, offshore wind turbines, made in Europe. See URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...

https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1494020032?prof...

APPENDIX 4

Carbon sequestered per acre of average U.S. forest/y = 0.23 Mt C/acre/y x (44 units CO2/12 units C) = 0.85 Mt of CO2.

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculato...

 

NOTE: Disturbed, fragmented, less than healthy forests, as in most of New England, sequester about 1.0 Mt of CO2/acre/y, due to:

 

1) Acid rain and pollution from Midwest power plants, etc.,

2) Various encroachments, and

3) Colder climate and short growing season.

 

NOTE:

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources claims 0.976 Mt/acre/y

The Maine Forest Ecology Network claims 1.10 Mt/acre/y

See URLs.

 

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

 

https://fsht.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/maine-forest-carbon-estima...

http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/sequestration_fa...

APPENDIX 5

 

ECONOMICS OF UTILITY-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS FOR DUCK-CURVES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-utility-s...

 

THE VAGARIES OF SOLAR IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

COST SHIFTING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME REGARDING WIND AND SOLAR

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

BURNING WOOD IS NOT RENEWABLE BY A LONG SHOT

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

NEW ENGLAND IS THE LEAST FAVORABLE FOR PV SOLAR, except areas near rainy Seattle

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-is-the-leas...

 

WORLD AND US TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

 

VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

VERMONT IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET REGARDING FOOLISH ENERGY SYSTEMS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hel...

 

THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT A DECADES-LONG BURDEN ON VERMONT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

VERMONT SOLAR MARKET PATHWAYS REPORT BASED ON OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-solar-market-pa...

 

THE PROPER BASIS FOR CALCULATING CO2 OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

 

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-compa...

 

VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF ASHPs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK REPORT TO REDUCE CO2 IN VERMONT

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/response-to-energy-acti...

 

FORTRESS VERMONT, A MULTI-BILLION BOONDOGGLE FOISTED ONTO RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mult...

 

Views: 264

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Dan McKay on March 2, 2020 at 6:45pm

Maine may already be ‘carbon neutral’ but nobody knows, despite Gov. Janet Mills’ policy push

Comment by Willem Post on March 2, 2020 at 6:16pm

Bob,

Maine emitted about 4.52 million Mt of carbon in 2016, according to the URL

Maine forests absorbed 5.3 million Mt of carbon, according to Maine Forest Ecology; for what year was the data?

Maine is better than carbon neutral.

It does not need to do anything, except make sure the forests stay healthy.

All that noise-making and scare-mongering in Disgusta is just to get people to comply/agree with whatever expensive idiot schemes they come up with, such as their latest mania of floating offshore wind turbines from Europe.

Comment by Bob Stone on March 2, 2020 at 1:32pm

So, Maine emits 5.1 mm metric tons/yr.  and  our forest uptakes 5.3 mm metric tons/yr.  Am I reading the Maine Forest Ecology document correctly?

Comment by Penny Gray on March 2, 2020 at 12:33pm

Dan, thank you for that information!  That is priceless.  I'm going to contacty my forester right now and find out why it's so important for me to get my "mature" trees into the mill.  Seems like there should be a day of reckoning for Maine's imperiled forests.

Comment by Willem Post on March 2, 2020 at 10:25am

Dan,

Thank you for your comment.

I added Appendix 2

Comment by Willem Post on March 2, 2020 at 9:20am

Sherwin,

Thank you for your comment.

See Appendix

Comment by Dan McKay on March 2, 2020 at 8:51am

Maine Facts

 

Maine Forests uptake about 5.3 million metric tons of carbon each year (.3 metric tons per acre) and currently store about 2000 million metric tons of carbon.

A fifty-year-old forest on average absorbs .8 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. A 65 year old forest 1.6 metric tons per acre per year.

Doubling the age of the forest in the North Maine Woods could increase carbon storage by more than 1000 million metric tons. Currently, due to management practices, the age of the forest is declining.

Between 1982 and 2003 land changes resulted in the loss of 806,957 acres of forest. This represents a total loss to the carbon sink of about 242,000 metric tons per year and the removal of about 42 million metric tons of carbon.

Maple/Beech/Birch stands have the highest carbon density per acre, storing about 550 million metric tons. Tree plantations have the lowest carbon density per acre.

Doubling the stocking on the 550,000 acres of poorly stocked stands could increase carbon storage by as much as 500 million metric tons.

Maine emits about 5.1 million metric tons of carbon per year. This is about 4.1 metric tons per capita - 14th amongst all states.

From the Maine Forest Ecology Network    http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/sequestration_fa...

Comment by Penny Gray on March 2, 2020 at 8:03am

Vermonts forest acreage is puny compared to Maine's but our management is probably no better, maybe even worse.  It would be very interesting to see the study done by maine.gov

Comment by Bob Stone on March 2, 2020 at 7:31am

Has a similar study been released on Maine CO2 absorption?

Comment by Sherwin Start on March 2, 2020 at 12:37am

ALL forests  all over NEW -ENGLAND  are  being depleted  -BOTH SOFTWOODS for pulp, paper& lumber and HARDWOODS for fire-wood & LUMBER!  IN Maine  PINE is being cut at an unbelievable rate  & the hard-woods for fire wood! THE entire tree is cut and removed from every logging operation with the BRANCHES being chipped for PULP and Pellet production ! THE  "HARVESTORS" Take every thing  of every tree they cut ! ITS TOTAL DEVASTATION IN MY OPINION of our FORESTS & TREES !

Sherwin Start   Ph.D.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service