VERMONT FORESTS AND CO2 ABSORPTION
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: 539
Comment
-
Comment by Sherwin Start on March 4, 2020 at 9:40pm
-
WE all need to start PLANTING TREES - on a WORLD-WIDE SCALE - Both DECIDUOUS & Coniferous and STOP CUTTING TREES on the same scale!
-
-
Wood burning is of value- it produces NITROGEN and POTASH which ALL VEGATATIVE /ORGANIC Matter needs to grow (BASIC SOIL NUTRIENTS)!
-
-
CLIMATOLOGISTS all over the WORLD have all pretty much agreed that even with the WORLD'S forests at their EXISTING standing- that the WORLD DOES NOT HAVE nearly enough trees to mitigate the affects of the pollution that is in this EARTH'S Atmosphere as it exists today - so why are you worried about the little c02 sequestration of only a few million acres of the North Eastern corner of the UNTED STATES??
-
Comment by Penny Gray on March 4, 2020 at 12:29pm
-
Thank you for posting this, Willem Post, this is a subject that deserves a lot more attention.
-
-
Sherwin,
See Appendix 5
-
-
I have some more BAD News for the residents of this STATE, Country, and this planet - the WORLDS FRESH WATER SUPPLY is DWINDLING at an incredible rate (that's the water you drink-by the way) ! One the reasons why this is happening is that the HUMAN RACE is cutting down the FORESTS for any number of reasons- in short we are DEFORESTING the Land and as a result the tree ROOTS That hold the water in the soil along with the tree CANOPY that provides shade that shields the ground from the evaporative rays of the sun -are in FACT driving the MOISTURE(h2o) further into the ground and drying up the surface of the land(s). It is absolutely VITAL that we not CLEAR -CUT our Forests & Lands such as taking place in INDIA and BRASIL and other locations on this planet.
The ONLY except to this rule would be to control the SPREAD of PESTULANCE or A Forest Fire ..
Clear cutting Forests for any reason other than those is one of the most destructive ACTS that MANKIND can inflict upon this Planet-IN MY OPINION ...
Sherwin Start Ph.D. Env. Sci.
-
Comment by Long Islander on March 3, 2020 at 12:00am
-
The pdf at the following link is now a few years old and perhaps some of the numbers have changed. But conceptually it's still valid: Maine's forest cover is huge compared to its CO2 output and while wind power would make an almost imperceptible change in Maine's CO2 ouput, it would make a sweeping change on its landscapes. Maine is doing more than its fair share in the carbon department without having to scar itself with a useless power source.
-
-
Thanks, Dan. I thought that's where we are as pertains to carbon.
-
-
I have some news for all those that want to cut LIVING TREES -IRREGARDLESS where they are - BEFORE man appeared on this PLANET the forests were MANAGING themselves and they (the FORESTS) did just fine for millons of years - in fact they thrived and left us a layer of CARBONACEOUS LIGUID that we use in our Cars & trucks to this day ! MAn will NEVER-EVER be free of its dependence on FOSSIL FUELS or any of its Duratives/by-products..
FUrther more I would ike to know just how these so-called "EXPERTS" calculate the CARBON ABSORPTION rate of ANY Type of Foilage - irrespective of its nature ??
Sherwin Start Ph.D.
-
-
TELL -whats wrong with just letting ALL trees just die of/from old age and crumble to the ground and nurture the soil and start new regenerate new growth? When a tree DIES and becomes a "HEALTH HAZARD" to humans & other trees in the FOREST - THEN & only then cut it down - trying to minimizing its detrimental damage to other living trees . I realize that "FORESTERS" have to make a living by "MANAGING" the FORESTS and that "WOOD-LOT Owners" need to HAve wood for their wood stoves or sell wood for income - but lately I have seen CLEAR CUTS of 200 acres or more -Is this contributing to the "CARBON ABSORPTION" ?? I ask you -WHEN there is absolutely nothing left but the BARE GROUND - tell me how that keeps this PLANET cool nd retain the water n the soil & the water table ?
Sherwin Start Ph.D.
health
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!
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/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
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