CO2 OF BURNING WOOD IS PARTIALLY ABSORBED OVER 40 -100 YEARS

East Europe and the US Southeast still have significant areas with forests. Starting about 2005, major parts of these forests have been harvested by means of clear-cutting. In 2016, about 6.5 million metric ton of wood pellets will be shipped from the US Southeast to Europe for co-firing in coal-fired power plants.

 

The EU has declared these coal plants in compliance with EU CO2/kWh standards, because biomass is renewable and the CO2 of wood burning is not to be counted., and “Burning wood is CO2-neutral”.

 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20912

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wood-pellet-biomass-pollut...

 

Manufacturing pellets requires input energy of about 115 units, and shipping pellets to European coal plants requires about 10 units, for a total of 125 units to have 100 units of pellet energy fed to a coal plant; the CO2 emissions of pellet burning is declared CO2-neutral, and the other 25% of CO2 emissions is not mentioned.

 

Most US states have significant areas covered with forests. As part of renewable energy programs, these forests are seen as useful for producing thermal and electrical energy. By using the mantra “Burning wood is CO2-neutral”, the CO2 from wood burning, and associated activities, is ignored, and thus not included in a state’s overall CO2 emissions.

 

Forests, other biomass and oceans, acting as CO2 sinks, absorb atmospheric CO2 from any source. Those sinks are working at full capacity. As a result, the CO2 they cannot deal with has been building up in the atmosphere for at least the past 100 years.

 

It is irrational to make the claim “burning wood is CO2-neutral, because biomass growth is absorbing the wood-burning CO2”. Such a claim ignores the sinks are working at full capacity. There is no spare forest area reserved for absorbing any increase in wood-burning CO2.

 

CLEAR-CUTTING OF FORESTS

 

Clear-cutting is extremely damaging to soils, because of leaching out of nutrients released by dead underground biomass. When most of the US northeast was clear-cut in the 1800s (Vermont lost 75% of its forests in a few decades), nutrients leached out and soils eroded into streams killing fish spawning habitats.

 

That environmental destruction was followed by acid rain starting around the 1950s, which had a similar effect as clear-cutting regarding nutrients leaching out, such as calcium, a vital nutrient for biomass growth. The regrown forest, with a significant percentage of spindly, sickly trees that have short lives, can be only a pale copy of what was before.

 

With continued logging, it is likely the forests will never be as robust as before, unless forest soils are continuously fertilized by cutting dead/misshapen trees, chipping them and spreading the chips on the forest floor for fertilizer, i.e., remediation.

 

Vermont state government allows clear-cutting “events” of up to 40 acres "without a permit"; there is no statewide annual limit of such events. Considering the various known historical damages of clear-cutting, one would think Vermont would not allow it at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/24/protected-fores... 

 

NOTE: In the 1600s - 1700s, Vermont’s lakes and rivers were teeming with fish, according to settlers’ accounts. Eroded soils damaged/buried most of fish spawning grounds, due to the clear-cutting in the 1800s. A mere semblance of former fish populations is maintained by annual stocking of rivers by state fish hatcheries.

 

NOTE: Traditional biomass includes wood, agricultural by-products and dung. They usually are inefficiently burned for cooking and heating purposes. In developing countries, such as India, traditional biomass is harvested in an unsustainable manner and burned in a highly polluting way. It is mostly traded informally and non-commercially. It was about 8.9% of the world’s total energy consumption in 2014.

http://www.ren21.net/resources/publications/

 

SEQUESTERING COMBUSTION CO2 FROM WOOD BURNING PLANTS TAKES DECADES 

 

Here is some information for those who have been led to believe, or persuaded themselves to believe, wood burning is environmentally friendly.

 

Forests have aboveground and belowground new growth, which absorbs CO2 from the air and carbon, C, from the soil. Removing live trees, low-grade and high-grade, reduces CO2 absorption. In Vermont, about 50% of tree removals is used for high-grade purposes (the C stays sequestered, until some of it is burned); and about 50% is used mostly for burning (the C becomes CO2 and is released to the atmosphere), and a small quantity is used for pulp/paper mills (the C stays sequestered, unless some of it is burned).

 

Wood burning power plants (McNeil, Ryegate in Vermont) emit about 4 times the combustion CO2/kWh of high-efficiency gas turbine power plants.

 

The combustion CO2 of the first year of heating plant or power plant operation would be sequestered by re-growing trees according to an S-curve over a long period (See notes); slowly increasing during the first 1/3, rapidly increasing during the second 1/3, and slowly increasing during the last 1/3 of the period. That would be not much help to prevent the world’s climate from falling off the cliff during the next 20 to 30 years.

 

NOTE: The combustion CO2 of wood burning would be reabsorbed by new tree growth, if:

 

1) Logged forests would have the same acreage (they likely would not)

2) Forests would not further fragmented by roads or developed (they likely would be)

3) Forest CO2 sequestering capability, Mt/acre/y, remains the same (it could be less). See note

 

NOTE: Regarding the time period for sequestering the combustion CO2:

 

- 40 years is a US average. See Note.

- 80 to 100 years in northern climates with short growing seasons, such as northern Vermont and Maine. 

- 40 to 50 years in moderate climates with longer growing seasons, such as New Jersey and North Carolina

- 25 years between harvests of planted, fertilized, and culled forests of fast-growing pines in Georgia. 

https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PFPI-biomass-carbon...

 

NOTE: On an A to Z basis, there would be about 15% of additional CO2 that has nothing to do with combustion, in case of wood chips, or about 20%, in case of wood pellets. This includes non-wood-burning CO2, such as from:

 

- Fuel used for managing wood lots, logging, chipping/pelletizing and transport,

- Energy to run the plant,

- Energy for decommissioning and reuse/landfill of the plant,

- Embodied energy in the A to Z infrastructures

 

NOTE: 

Carbon sequestered per acre of average US 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...

 

Table 1/Region

 Mt of CO2/acre

US forests, per EPA

 0.850

NE forests

1.000

Maine

 1.100

Vermont

 0.976

 

PILING UP THE CO2 YEAR AFTER YEAR

 

Re-growing trees would sequester the combustion CO2 of Year 1 of plant operation over about 80 to 100 years, in New England.

 

The CO2 of Years 2, 3, 4 to Year 40 would be added to the CO2 of Year 1, and be sequestered in a similar manner, except shifted forward by a year.

 

In Year 40, there would be 40 layers of CO2 and 40 forest areas in various stages of regrowth, as a result of cutting trees for burning.

 

Year 40 is assumed to be the last year of plant operation. It is likely that plant would be replaced to repeat the cycle.

 

During Year 41 through 80, there would be 41 to 80 layers of CO2 and 41 to 80 forest areas in various stages of regrowth, as a result of cutting trees for burning.

 

CO2/MWh OF WOOD BURNING POWER PLANTS

 

Wood has much more CO2/kWh and much more other pollutants/kWh, than coal

 

The Vermont McNeal and Ryegate wood-chip power plants have CO2/MWh 4 times greater than a highly efficient, gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbine, CCGT, plant.

 

Example: 3412000 Btu/MWh/0.55 x 117/1000000 = 726 lb CO2/MWh. See table 2

 

The other pollutants of wood per MWh, including particulates, are about 4/2.4 = 67% greater than of coal.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

 

Table 2/Fuel

 lb/million Btu

 Plant efficiency, %

 lb CO2/MWh

CO2 Ratio

Wood chip; McNeal/Ryegate*

213

25

2907

4.0

Wood chip; Denmark

213

30

2423

3.3

Hard coal

206

41

1712

2.4

No. 2 fuel oil

161

35

1572

2.2

Natural gas, CCGT

117

55

726

1.0

*

Plus upstream CO2 (logging, chipping, transport, etc.) of about 5% to 10%, if burning wood chips

Plus upstream CO2 (logging, chipping/pelletizing, transport, etc.) of about 10 to 15 %, if burning wood pellets

CCGT = Combined-cycle, gas turbine plant

 

VEIC/BERC ARE PRO-WOOD BURNING ENTITIES  

 

The Vermont Biomass Energy Research Center, BERC, is a pro-logging think tank, a part of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. It invented a method of calculated CO2 from wood burning plants that has no parallel anywhere else in the academic literature, and is likely not used anywhere else, except by some people in Vermont.

 

BERC Stated: “While the recommended carbon emission factor of 29.58 pounds per million Btu is far from the historic “carbon neutral” stance, when compared to the carbon emissions (165.5 pounds per million Btu) from burning heating oil, it represents an 82% reduction in CO2 emissions’. See table 1A, which is based on BERC data and see URL

https://www.biomasscenter.org/pdfs/veic-carbon-emission-and-modern-...

 

Table 3/BERC data

Wood

Heating oil

 

Lb CO2/million Btu

 

Lb CO2/million Btu

Combustion CO2

206.7

161.0

Other CO2

Logging, chipping, transport

8.1

Extraction, refining, transport

4.5

Total CO2

214.8

 

165.5

Counted

21.48

 

165.5

Total counted CO2 = 8.1 + 21.48

29.58

 

165.5

 

 

 

 

Plant operation

0

Plant operation

0

Embedded

0

Embedded

0

Decommissioning

0

Decommissioning

0

Total

0

0

Total counted CO2

29.58

165.5

Wood has

82

Percent less CO2 than fuel oil

 

The BERC 82% CO2 reduction is based on:

 

“Apply a conservative assumption of the minimum percentage of total wood fuel sourced that is from forest management where the harvested stand’s carbon stores will be regenerated within a 20 - 100 year timeframe”

 

“Use the resulting carbon emission rate to address the remaining 10% not sourced from forest management where full regrowth is achieved within a 20-100 year time frame”

 

Both these statements are a pure invention by BERC that is not supported by any forestry research, such as the above British Columbia example.

 

BERC ignored the CO2 of wood plant operation is significantly greater than of fuel oil plants.

BERC ignored the embedded CO2

BERC ignored the decommissioning/landfill CO2

BERC ignored the “C neutrality period”, which occurs even with managed forests, as in British Columbia.

BERC ignored the efficiency of a fuel oil boiler plant is about 85%, versus wood plant about 75%.

BERC ignored the absorption of the combustion CO2 does not start until after the “C neutrality period”. 

 

BERC should have stated:

 

The combustion CO2 of both fuels is immediate.

The combustion CO2 of fuel oil will be absorbed, or stay in the atmosphere, just as any other CO2

The combustion CO2 of wood chips is not counted, but it would start its absorption after its 35-year C neutrality period and complete its absorption within about 80 to 100 years, in case of heavy cutting and clearcutting.

 

WOOD BURNING PLANTS AND CO2 EMISSIONS

 

A wood chip power plant or heating plant adds CO2 through:

 

1) Logging soil disturbance, vehicle transport, equipment use, refurbishments and replacements, diesel fuel burning

2) Plant construction

3) Plant O & M, refurbishments and replacements

4) Plant decommissioning.

 

Those CO2 emissions would require a forest area up to 15% greater than the wood burning CO2, to be reabsorbed over up to 100 years.

 

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2394110/is-burning-w...

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2392251/wood-for-fue...

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2390703/a-comparison...

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2225851/economics-an...

SEQUESTERING CO2 BY FORESTS

 

EPA: EPA claims 1 acre of average US Forest = 0.29 Mt C/acre/y x (44 CO2/12 C) = 1.06 Mt CO2/acre/y https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculation...

 

Vermont: Vermont CO2 emissions were about 10.19 million Mt/y in 2015

Vermont forests sequestered about 4,390,000 Mt/y*

Vermont claims 4,390,000 Mt CO2/y/4,511,000 forest acres = 0.973 Mt CO2/acre/y in 2015

The remaining 5,610,000 Mt/y becomes an annual addition to the atmosphere.

Vermont forests sequester less than 50% of Vermont CO2, i.e., there is no spare forest area in Vermont, or elsewhere, to sequester any CO2 from wood burning.

 

*About 1,618,565 Mt of CO2 from wood burning in Vermont is not counted, due to the historical myth, “Burning Wood is CO2-neutral".

 

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs80.pdf

http://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_Fore...

 

Maine: Maine claims 0.3 MT C/acre/y x 44/12 = 1.1 Mt CO2/acre/y

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

VERMONT BIOMASS INVENTORY, 1990 - 2015

The inventories are after annual harvests, which are about 1% of live aboveground biomass.

If we assume there were no harvests of live biomass, that biomass would have grown each year, and the total live biomass would have become about 329.5 MMt (compounded growth 1.625%/y), instead of 263.6 MMt (compounded growth of 0.722%/y), in 2015. The spreadsheet is in the Appendix.

 

That means, in New England, a forest left undisturbed would grow at about 1.625%/y, but a forest harvested each year would grow at only 0.722%/y.

 

Table 4/Growth rate of VT Forests

1990

1990

2015

2015

2015-1990

Compounded

US ton, dry

 C, MMt

Wood, MMt

 C, MMt

Wood, MMt

Growth

growth rate

Aboveground biomass

110.1

220.2

131.8

263.6

1.1971

1.00722

Belowground biomass

22.1

44.2

26.4

52.8

1.1946

Dead wood

11.7

23.4

14.8

29.6

1.2650

Litter

29.2

58.4

29.5

59.0

1.0103

Soil

275.7

551.4

277.9

555.8

1.0080

448.9

897.8

480.5

961.0

1.0704

 

IS WOOD BURNING CO2-NEUTRAL?

With heavy cutting and clear cutting, dead wood and litter are taken (for chipping and/or pulping), in addition to all live wood. The belowground biomass dies, because it is no longer needed, and decays over a period of 80 to 100 years.

 

The decay CO2 exceeds the CO2 absorbed by biomass regrowth on the harvested area for about 17 years, in New England, i.e., the area is a source of CO2.

It would take about another 17 years of biomass regrowth on the harvested area to offset the emissions of the first 17 years.

The about 35-y period is called the C-neutrality period.

 

Any burning CO2 released in year 1, would have to wait for 35 years to be absorbed by biomass regrowth on the harvested area; that absorption would take 80 - 100 years.

 

However, in real-life, a forester would come along, see 40-y-old trees on the harvested area, and would cut them (veni, vidi, vici), so the burning CO2 of year 1 was absorbed for only 5 years, i.e., most of it likely would still be floating around in the atmosphere, like any other CO2.

This is called “wood-burning is renewable”, or “wood-burning is CO2-neutral”, or "wood-burning is sustainable", plus it ignores any CO2 of the A to Z wood harvesting to end-use process. See above "VEIC/BERC ARE PRO-WOOD BURNING ENTITIES".

NOTE: Bill McKibben was an early, and articulate supporter of wood-burning at Middlebury College, but has since made a 180-degree turn, and is now against it.

WOOD AND WATER WEIGHTS

 

Table 5 shows the weight of wood, wet and wood, dry.

The average weight of tree truck wood, freshly cut, is about 55 lb/ft3. It floats in water, which weights 62.4 lb/ft3

The fraction of water in wood, freshly cut, is about 45%, after cutting, the other 55% is solid wood.

Wood weight is about 56 x 0.55, wood fraction = 30.8 lb/ft3

The ratio of (56, wet wood weight)/(30.8, dry wood weight) = 1.181; it is useful for converting US ton, dry to US ton, wet, as shown in table 6

 

Table 5/Wood and water weights

Water weight, lb/ft3

 

62.4

Average weight of tree trunk wood, wet, lb/ft3

56

Ratio wood/water

56/62.4

0.9

Fraction of water in wood, freshly cut

0.45

Fraction of wood in wood, freshly cut

0.55

Wood weight, dry, lb/ft3

56 x 0.55

30.8

Weight ratio, wet/dry

56/30.8

1.8182

VERMONT WOOD HARVESTING IS EXCESSIVE

 

In 2015, Vermont had a total forest of 4,511,000 acres, of which timberland was 4,288,000 acres, per USFS

Vermont loggers have access, on a rotating/management/current use basis, to about 2,200,000 acres. See note and URL

The other timberland acreage, 2,088,000 acres, is unavailable for logging for various reasons.

 

Each year, the harvest (971,466 cords, or 2,428,665 US ton, wet, in 2015) is obtained from about 150,000 acres; some acreage is harvested more heavily than others.

 

The 2015 USFS Report shows a harvest of about 1,118,918 US ton, dry, or 2,034,396 US ton wet, which the USFS assumes, takes place on 4,288,000 acres of timberland. As a result, the ratio of Net growth/Harvest is about 2.197. Typical ratios are 1.5 to 2.0.

 

But Vermont had a harvest of 2,428,665 US ton, wet, on only 2.2 million acres. As a result, the ratio of Net growth/Harvest is only 0.944, which is excessive. Vermont is overharvesting on the 2.2 million acres.

 

A comparison of the 2015 and 2016 Vermont USFS Reports shows growth after harvesting (mortality not subtracted) was 2,574,000 US ton, dry, or 1.818 x dry = 4,680,000 US ton, wet, or about 1.09 US ton, wet/a, or about 0.44 cord, wet/acre. See Note.

 

USFS assumes dead trees and forest floor litter would remain on the forest for nutrition.

However, Vermont’s harvests likely include dead trees and forest floor litter, especially in areas with heavier cutting and clear cutting. See Note.

 

NOTE: The 2010 BERC Update report concluded only 1,851,548 acres were available for logging (moderate scenario)

https://www.biomasscenter.org/images/stories/VTWFSSUpdate2010_.pdf

 

NOTE: Often one reads on pro-logging websites “Vermont grows almost 5 million ton of new wood each year and Vermont’s harvests are only 2.5 million ton each year”, i.e., Vermont could be harvesting a lot more.

 

This is gross misrepresentation, because the almost 5 million ton of growth is on 4,288,000 timberland acres, whereas the harvesting takes place on only 2.2 million timberland acres, which have a growth of 2.4 million ton, about equal to the 2015 harvest., i.e., Vermont is harvesting all of its growth, and could not be harvesting a lot more. See table 6

NOTE: Local loggers report taking a lot of dead, dying and other low-value trees, which appears to be true, based on watching chipping operations in my neighborhood for about 30 years. 

Nutrition and habitat benefits to a forest are reduced, if dead wood (mostly cull tops and limbs, and cull boles) is removed.

http://www.maforests.org/Timberspeak-Timber_Industry_Propaganda.pdf

NOTE:

- Harvest for wood burning = mostly low-grade biomass + some dead biomass.

- Dead trees typically are left in the forest for habitat and nutrition.

- In case of clear-cutting (up to 40 acres is allowed without a permit), near zero biomass is left for habitat and nutrition.

- Net growth = gross growth – mortality

Table 6/VT 2015 USFS Report

USFS

BERC

2015 harvest

USFS

USFS

USFS

FOREST

US ton

US ton

US ton

US ton

US ton

Cord

dry

dry

dry

dry/a

wet/a

wet/a

Area

4,511,000

4,511,000

4,511,000

Aboveground biomass

282,016,000

282,016,000

282,016,000

62.52

113.67

45.47

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs80.pdf

TIMBERLAND

Area

4,288,000

4,288,000

4,288,000

Harvested fraction

1.000

0.410

0.488

Harvested area

4,288,000

1,851,548

2,200,000

Aboveground growing stock trees, 2015

266,610,000

115,121,551

136,786,847

62.18

113.05

45.22

Aboveground growing stock trees, 2016

269,184,000

Growth after harvesting (includes mortality)

2,574,000

1,111,447

1,320,616

0.600

1.09

0.44

Growth after harvesting, US ton, wet

4,680,000

2,020,813

2,401,119

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

Gross aboveground growth

3,623,497

1,564,617

1,859,070

Less mortality of growing stock trees

1,165,688

503,341

598,067

0.272

Growth before harvesting

2,457,809

1,061,276

1,261,003

0.573

Harvest

1,118,918

483,146

574,072

0.261

Net growth after harvesting

1,338,891

578,130

686,931

Net growth after harvesting, %

0.5022

0.5022

0.5022

Ratio net growth/Harvest

2.197

2.197

2.197

VERMONT HARVEST 2015

Removals, US cord, wet

971,466

Removals, US ton, wet

2,428,665

Removals, US ton, dry

1,335,766

0.977

Ratio net growth/Removals

0.944

.

US ton, wet/cord

2.5

water

0.45

wood

0.55

carbon, 48% of wood

0.264

.

VT 2015 USFS Report

1000 ft3/y

US ton, dry/1000 ft3

US ton, dry/y

Net growth, live trees

159,598

15.4

2,457,809

Mortality

75,694

15.4

1,165,688

Removals

72,657

15.4

1,118,918

.

Harvest average weight, lb/ft3

30.8

 

*Removals” are estimated by measuring stumps in surveyed plots every 5 - 7 years; the stumps could be of live and dead trees.

* USFS sampling based on 1 plot per 6,000 acres, whereas VT-FPR harvest reports are based on mill surveys, and other, more detailed, information gathering.

 

VERMONT HARVESTS AND CEP

 

The CEP projects Vermont wood burning biomass, including pellets, to increase from 10.730 trillion Btu in 2010 to 14.533 trillion Btu in 2050, about a 35% increase; these are Btu to buildings, i.e., after burning. See pages 126 and 127 of CEP.

 

If burning is at the same average efficiency, the “harvest-for-space heat” increase would be about 0.35 x 886,155 US ton, wet = 310,154 US ton, wet. This increase would be feasible:

 

- If all of the increase were imported from NH, MA and NY. Vermont already imported about 371,691 green ton for wood burning in 2015. Total imports would become 371,691 + 310,154 = 681,845 US ton, wet.

- VT state parks would have increased logging.

- If McNeil and Ryegate were shutdown to make available about 347,342 (in-state) + 371,691 (out-of-state) = 719,033 green ton/y for modern, distributed, efficient, wood burning for space heating, instead of old-fashioned, centralized, inefficient, wood burning for power plants.

 

NOTE: If NH, MA, and NY would also increase wood burning, the wood available to Vermont likely would become less.

 

The below tables are based on data from: The 2016 USFS report (based on 2015 surveys); the 2010 BERC update report (mostly based on pre-2010 data); the 2015 VT-FPR report of the 2014 VT harvest; the 2015 wood burning by McNeil and Ryegate. 

 

BERC 2010 REPORT DATA

BERC 2010 Report, based on pre-2010 data

 acre

US ton, wet

US ton, wet/acre

Forest area, per BERC

4,414,884

481,222,356

109

Accessible, Appropriate, Managed area, per BERC

1,812,097

197,518,573

109

Low-grade inventory of live trees, page 23

 

92,476,639

51.03

 

US ton, wet

US ton, wet/acre

Assumed NALG growth rate (USFS used 1.871 in 2015), %/y

1.900

Net Available Low-grade Growth, page 18, 24; 92476639 x 1.9/100

1,757,056

0.970

VT 2014 wood burning harvest; see below table

1,335,766

0.671

Remaining NALG for burning and pulp

401,290

 

https://blogs.cornell.edu/nesungrant/files/2014/06/sungrant_2007con...

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

 

- NALG wood inventory is 51.03/109 = 46.8% of aboveground low-grade inventory, per BERC criteria.

- Low-grade wood consists of cull tops and limbs; cull boles; growing stock tops and limbs; growing stock boles.

- Vermont wood burning was 1,335,766 green ton (in-state harvest, 2015) + 371,691 green ton (out-of-state harvest, 2015).

- Pulp log uses are for firewood; pulp/paper mills; wood chip power plants; commercial & institutional heating plants.

- VT pulp tonnage to pulp/paper mills has been decreasing in recent years.

 

http://www.biomasscenter.org/images/stories/VTWFSSUpdate2010_.pdf

http://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/Forest_B...

http://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/Forest_B...

 

VERMONT WOOD BURNING

Vermont’s wood burning harvest was 354,462 cords, or 886,155 green ton for firewood + 347,342 green ton for electrical generation = 1,233,497 green ton in 2014. See URL.

http://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/Forest_B...

 

About 347,342/719,033 = 48% of total electrical tonnage was harvested in Vermont. See below table and URLs.

 

Table 8/Wood burning 

VT Harvest

 Space heating

 Electrical

 Electrical

 Total Electrical

Total burning 

 

Fuel

 

In-state

 Out-of-state

 

In Vermont

 

ton

 ton

 ton

 ton

 ton

ton

Wood

1,233,497

 886,155

 347,342

 371,691

 719,033

1,605,188

CO2

1,243,776

893,540

350,237

374,789

725,025

1,618,565

 

McNEAL/RYEGATE WOOD BURNING POWER PLANTS

 

Below are listed the wood tonnage and combustion CO2 tonnage of Vermont’s wood chip burning power plants in 2015.

 

A standard ton of green wood is 45% H2O, and dry wood is 50% carbon. Burning one ton of green wood creates 2000 x (1- 0.45) x 0.5 x (44/12)/2000 = 1.00833 ton of CO2 emissions.

 

Vermont Wood Power Plants

 

 McNeil

Ryegate

 Total

 

 

 ton

ton

ton

Electrical, wood

2015, McNeil

469,190.0

249,843

719,033 

Electrical, wood CO2

EPA, McNeil

473,100.4

251,925

725,025

 

http://www.maforests.org/McNeil Emissions 2015.pdf

http://www.maforests.org/RYEGATE TECHNICAL.pdf

http://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/About_the_Department/Library... 

http://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/Forest_B...

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

 

APPENDIX 1

Here are some URLs regarding wood burning.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-burning-wood-co-2-ne...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wood-for-fuel-logging-i...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-comparison-of-wood-ch...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/more-realistic-energy-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dismal-economics-and-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-wood-burning-carbon-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-claim-burning-wood-...

 

APPENDIX 2

Aboveground biomass growth without harvesting

In New England, a forest left undisturbed would grow at about 1.625%/y, but a forest harvested each year would grow at only 0.722%/y.

 

Table 12/Undisturbed

Year

US ton, dry

1990

1991

1992

1990

220.200

2.202

1.00722

221.790

2.218

2.218

1.00722

223.391

2.234

2.234

2.234

1.00722

225.004

2.250

2.250

2.250

1.00722

226.629

2.266

2.266

2.266

1.00722

228.265

2.283

2.283

2.283

1.00722

229.913

2.299

2.299

2.299

1.00722

231.573

2.316

2.316

2.316

1.00722

233.245

2.332

2.332

2.332

1.00722

234.929

2.349

2.349

2.349

1.00722

2000

236.625

2.366

2.366

2.366

1.00722

238.333

2.383

2.383

2.383

1.00722

240.054

2.401

2.401

2.401

1.00722

241.787

2.418

2.418

2.418

1.00722

243.533

2.435

2.435

2.435

1.00722

245.291

2.453

2.453

2.453

1.00722

247.062

2.471

2.471

2.471

1.00722

248.846

2.488

2.488

2.488

1.00722

250.643

2.506

2.506

2.506

1.00722

252.453

2.525

2.525

2.525

1.00722

2010

254.275

2.543

2.543

2.543

1.00722

256.111

2.561

2.561

2.561

1.00722

257.960

2.580

2.580

2.580

1.00722

259.823

2.598

2.598

2.598

1.00722

261.699

2.617

2.617

2.617

1.00722

2015

263.588

2.636

2.636

2.636

65.897

266.224

268.860

271.496

329.485

329.485/220.200

1.49630

compounded %/y

1.01625

 

Views: 194

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

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!

© 2020   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service