BURNING WOOD IS NOT RENEWABLE BY A LONG SHOT

Pro-logging interests use “Burning Wood is Renewable” as a slogan, a mantra, to assure others all is benign, because it helps save the world, fight global warming, are part of the “solution”, and thus deserves to get subsidies via the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act.

 

This article will show burning wood is not anywhere near renewable, if the following is accounted for:

 

1) The A-to-Z sources of CO2

2) Decay of belowground biomass after harvesting

3) Decay of aboveground biomass after harvesting

 

Sources of CO2 of Logging Sector

 

All of us need to be on the same page regarding the A-to-Z sources of CO2. Here is a list.

 

1) Before logging, the logging sector has to be set up, operated, maintained and renewed, which emits CO2, about 3%

2) A wood-burning plant has to be built, which emits CO2; about 2%

3) The logging process includes maintaining the woodlot, culling, harvesting, chipping, and transport to user, which emits CO2, about 8%

4) Operating the plant requires electricity, diesel fuel etc., which emits CO2, about 8%

5) The combustion process emits CO2; in fact, emits more lb/million Btu than coal, about 56%

Coal power plants are up to 44% efficient, New England wood-burning plants about 25%

6) The combustion process emits sub-micron particulates, which requires electricity for air pollution control systems, which emits CO2, about 3%

7) Delivering the heat and electricity to users requires electricity, which emits CO2, about 2%.

8) CO2 is released from:

 

- Dead wood, 24/7/365; dead wood increased 26.5% in Vermont from 1990 - 2015

- Forest floor litter, 24/7/365,

- Increased decay of belowground biomass, after logging; in cold-climate New England for about 80 - 100 years

- Increased decay of slash, aboveground tree trunks, etc., after logging; in cold-climate NE for about 80 - 100 years

 

9) Dismantling the old wood-burning plant and replacing it with a new one, 4%

 

Combustion CO2, about 56% + Decay CO2, about 14%, equals about 70% of all CO2, on an A - Z basis.

 

The 70% has the possibility of being partially renewable, if the forest were left undisturbed for many decades. See next section.

 

The other 30% is like all other CO2, i.e., not renewable. That percentage is almost never mentioned by logging proponents, mainly because it would create confusion and dilute the mantra: “Wood Burning is Renewable”.

 

Here is an explanation regarding Item 8:

 

Most people are familiar with the logging industry claim, we harvest low value trees for burning, i.e., misshapen, diseased trees, standing deadwood, etc., called net available low grade, NALG, whereas, in fact, that is often not true, based on satellite and drone photos of clearcutting on harvested areas.

 

Regarding table 1, people may argue about the percentages of each category, but not about the existence of each category.

 

Table 1		Renewable	Renewable
		Proponents	Real World
Sources of CO2		%	%
Item 1	Industry set-up, upkeep	3
Item 2	Plant construction, upkeep	2
Item 3	Logging process, including soil damage, etc.	8
Item 4	Plant operation	8
Item 5	Combustion	56	5.6
Item 6	Air cleaning	3
Item 7	Energy delivery to users	2
Item 8	Increased biomass decay	14	1.4
Item 9	Plant replacement, upkeep	4
Total		100	7

 

Wood-Burning is NOT Renewable by a Long Shot

 

The logging industry claim is "wood burning is renewable", and therefore the combustionCO2 should not be counted.

The EPA and IPCC are proponents of this fallacy. They pretend there is no other CO2.

 

I have written extensively on the CO2 released by decay of belowground biomass, which starts almost immediately after harvesting.

Table 1 shows there are various other sources of biomass decay.

 

This article has 5 examples of CO2 released by only underground decay

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

 

CO2 Release Over Time

 

In northern climates, it takes about 35 years for the CO2 to get back to neutral after harvesting

The initial CO2 release, due to belowground biomass decay, is very high.

The decay CO2 quantity decreases according to standard decay functions, in NE for a period of about 80 to 100 years. 

 

Initially, the decay CO2 far exceeds any CO2 absorbed by biomass regrowth on OUR harvested area.

In NE, the debit balance continues for about 17 years, i.e., the harvested area is a source of CO2

 

But to offset that debit balance, and get back to neutral, regrowth on OUR harvested area needs to take place for another 17 to 18 years

 

Note, the decay CO2 is entirely independent from 1) combustion CO2, and 2) CO2 other than combustion. See above list and table 1.

 

- Combustion CO2 of year 1 would have to wait for 35 years to start being absorbed by regrowth on OUR harvested area, which takes about 80 - 100 years.

 

- All other categories of CO2, due to: 1) logging, 2) chipping, 3) transport, 4) in-plant processing, and 5) plant operations other than combustion, etc., is no different from all other CO2.

 

CO2 Absorption Cycle

Combustion CO2 is absorbed, under NE conditions, in about 80 to 100 years.

However, the combustion is not absorbed until after about 35 years, the C-neutrality period.

The the entire cycle is about 115 to 135 years!!

 

Year 1 is the combustion year. See URL for C-neutrality explanation.

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

 

When a woodlot is logged, some belowground biomass is killed (clear cutting kills all of it), because it is no longer needed by the trees that were cut. It decays and emits CO2.

The decay process, start to completion, under NE conditions, takes about 80 to 100 years.

 

While the decay takes place, any new tree growth on OUR harvested areas would offset more and more of the decay CO2, until the new tree growth has completely offset the decay CO2, which, under NE conditions, takes about 35 years.  

 

After the C-neutrality period, the combustion CO2 of Year 1 (and ongoing decay CO2) would start to be absorbed by the new tree growth on OUR harvested areas.

 

Interrupting the CO2 Absorption Cycle.

 

In the real world, the new trees on OUR harvested areas would be cut well before they have had a chance to absorb all the combustion CO2 of Year 1 (and ongoing decay CO2).

 

In the real world, a logger would come along, would see OUR 40 to 45-year-old trees, and would harvest them; veni, vidi, vici.

Those trees had barely started to absorb OUR combustion CO2!!

 

There ends the fantasy of “burning wood is renewable”, because there is no spare forest for “our remaining combustion CO2 (and ongoing decay CO2)”. Other forests already are busy absorbing CO2.

 

Renewability

 

OUR combustion CO2 has to be absorbed on OUR harvested areas to be called renewable.

 

The OTHER CO2, not related to combustion, is similar to any other CO2, for accounting purposes.

The atmosphere, the oceans, and other CO2 sinks would absorb a part of “our remaining combustion CO2” (and ongoing decay CO2)”, as well “our OTHER CO2”.

 

That absorption would not be by OUR harvested area, and thus not be “renewable”.

 

The combustion CO2 absorption process, in effect from Year 35 to about Year 45, about 10 years, was ended by the subsequent logging.

 

The logging industry continues to claim, without blushing: "Burning wood is renewable".

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-forests-and-co2...

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

 

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

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

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

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-s-planned-bio...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-produces-e...

 

Particulates from Wood Burning

 

The wood burning sector is major cause of combustion CO2 and other CO2 in NE, plus sub-micron particulates.
Gas, hydro and nuclear have nearly none of such particulates.

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-produces-e...

APPENDIX 1

VT-CEP Target: 35% of Vermont’s Thermal Energy Demand with Wood Heating by 2030.

 

Based on the most recent year (2014) of US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data available, wood fuels (both traditional and advanced wood heating, AWH) met an estimated 21% of building heating demand in Vermont in 2014. Going to 35% by 2030 would not only displace oil, but also very-clean-burning propane and to some extent, very-clean-burning natural gas.

 

More specifically, the 2016 CEP calls for doubling the use of wood heating in Vermont by 2050

See pages 3 and 4 of URL

http://www.revermont.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-2030-Wood-Heat-Ro...

 

If wood heating were to increase from 2.5 million MWh of annual thermal energy generation in 2016 to 4.3 million MWh in 2030, significantly more AWH systems and pellet stoves would need to be installed across the residential, commercial, and institutional building market sectors.

 

The 35% target by 2030 would need the additional installation of:

 

- 38,905 wood pellet stoves (or about 30% of all single-family homes)

- 10,519 bulk pellet fueled boilers (or about 16% of all single-family homes with

centralized hydronic heat distribution networks)

- 2,574 pellet boilers in small commercial buildings (or about 6% of that market

segment)

- 221 woodchip boilers in larger commercial/institutional buildings and district heating

plants (or about 4% of that market segment).

 

Where is that wood going to come from?

 

Presently, Vermont obtains all of its annual harvest from about 2.2 million AVAILABLE acres, even though VT has 4.5 million acres of timberland. The rest is unavailable for many reasons.

 

The ANNUAL biomass growth on the 2.2 million acres is about equal to Vermont’s ANNUAL harvests; i.e., VT harvesting is maxed out!!!

 

However, Vermont’s national and state forests, heretofore mostly OFF LIMITS, are now going to be harvested big time, according to plans on file with the US Forest Service. Here are some websites for your information.

 

Government bureaucrats and logging proponents often claim there is little clearcutting in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

That is not true, based on-site inspections, and satellite and drone surveillance.

Just Google and you will find plenty of clearcutting all over the place, including in national and state forests.

 

APPENDIX 2

Widespread Clearcutting Disastrous for Forests

 

Vermont Clearcutting

 

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in Vermont, before the proposed logging and clearcutting of the Green Mountain National Forest, GMNF.

http://www.maforests.org/VERMONTCLEARCUTTING.pdf

 

As you look through the plans, at the list of proposed acreage of each logging type, in each plan, it is worth noting “group selection” in USFS timberspeak, is simply a bunch of “smaller” one to two football field sized clearcuts, not in any sense what people think of when they think of “selective” logging.  An example can be seen on page 15 of URL

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108977_FSPLT3_5339483.pdf

 

Also, the 15-year GMNF plan is set to expire in 2021. GMNF is pushing these long-term, “programmatic” projects to essentially tie its own hands, before it gets around to revising its Forest Plan. These projects have the real danger of pre-allocating lands to active management (including portions of inventoried roadless areas) before the forest goes through a proper Forest Plan revision process.

GMNF is rushing to get these projects done while the current administration is in office. See URL

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmfl/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FS...

 

New Hampshire Clearcutting

 

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in the White Mountain National Forest, in NH, similar to what is planned now for the GMNF, though the plans for GMNF appear got be even more aggressive.  

http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

For a view of what the logging will look like, see the identical “vegetation treatments” in White Mountain National Forest in NH

http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

Massachusetts Clearcutting

 

Much of Maine has already been heavily cutover, and I don’t have any images of that, but in this report, the green areas show forests with greater biomass (i.e., larger trees), where much new logging is being targeted 

http://www.maforests.org/DFW.pdf

 

Lots of Clearcutting Coming to GMNF 

 

15,000 acres, 12,000 acres of it is clearcutting

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108891_FSPLT3_4658907.pdf

 

About 6700 acres more logging in GMNF

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/97348_FSPLT3_2363593.pdf

 

Thousands more acres here

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/103699_FSPLT3_3987566.pdf

 

Look at the logging on just this one "project":

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/97348_FSPLT3_3032534.pdf

 

Burning Wood is NOT Clean

 

Regarding the "cleanliness" of wood...

http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollution-2

 

High Asthma Rates in Vermont

 

Vermont already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country

https://learn.uvm.edu/blog/blog-health/asthma-rates-in-vermont

 

Oregon, the Paragon of Clearcutting

 

And for twice the fun, for anyone interested just to see how bad an unchecked logging industry can get, see this video from Oregon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0j_Msmz44M