Friday, February 25, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Biomass policy can have unintended consequences
BRUCE LIPPKE AND ELAINE ONEIL
Sunday, February 20, 2011 - Tacoma, WA
At first glance, it might seem that promoting the burning of wood to generate energy would harm the environment.
Indeed, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners recently adopted a moratorium on generating biomass power, and various groups have opposed biomass energy.
But these well-intentioned concerns are predicated on incomplete analysis that doesn’t withstand serious scrutiny.
Biomass, in fact, is a solar resource and need not have negative environmental consequences compared with fossil sources of energy.
Many believe that burning wood for energy has the same impact on carbon emissions as burning coal. But burning coal releases carbon that was trapped in rock and otherwise would have remained stored. This is not the case with biomass.
Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gases. In sustainably managed forests, harvests do not exceed net new growth. The equal two-way flow of forest carbon means that the impact of harvest on atmospheric carbon is neutral, not 100 years in the future, but on an ongoing basis.
As forests age, tree mortality and decay increase. This limits the amount of carbon that can be stored in the forest.
By removing wood before the growth rate declines, forests can maintain a high rate of carbon removal from the atmosphere.
Biomass energy is produced by burning wood not suitable for building materials. Whether lower-value wood is burned for energy or left to decay, the carbon is ultimately recycled back into the atmosphere.
Leaving wood in the forest to decay results in the same quantity of emissions – without the benefit of using its energy value to reduce the one-way flow of fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
When forests are managed to remain carbon neutral, the sustainable harvest of products and biofuels displaces fossil-intensive materials and fuels, resulting in a net reduction of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Over the past decade, a consortium of scientists has conducted extensive research into the life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of forest products and biofuels.
We found that for every megawatt of energy produced, biomass emits just 4 percent of the greenhouse gases of coal. It is also sustainable and domestic, contributing to energy independence that supports domestic economic activity and jobs.
However, because coal and other fossil fuels are cheap, companies will favor them over renewable sources if biomass emissions are penalized in the same way as fossil emissions. We have found that while using more wood in buildings has the highest leverage in reducing fossil fuel emissions, using waste wood as biofuels is also very effective.
We have also documented that managing federal lands to help control unnatural catastrophic wildlife results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.
By stifling biomass energy development, we can expect the fuel loads in our national forests to increase, more devastating fires, more greenhouse gas emissions, and the transition of some forests from a net sink for carbon storage to a net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
These unintended consequences are not consistent with America’s carbon mitigation objectives. They can only be resolved by a science-based understanding of the implications of proposed policies on the life cycles of all carbon pools.
This can provide a path to a cleaner energy future and put many Americans to work in green energy jobs by using wood as a renewable resource to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and displace fossil intensive emissions.
Bruce Lippke is a professor emeritus and Elaine Oneil is a research scientist in the University of Washington School of Forest Resources in the College of the Environment.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/02/20/v-lite/1552294/biomass-policy-can-have-unintended.html#ixzz1EXzygDEY
The News Tribune
1950 South State Street
Tacoma, WA 98405-2860
Phone: 253-597-8742
Mailing address PO Box 11000 Tacoma, WA 98411-0008
Sunday, February 20, 2011 - Tacoma, WA
At first glance, it might seem that promoting the burning of wood to generate energy would harm the environment.
Indeed, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners recently adopted a moratorium on generating biomass power, and various groups have opposed biomass energy.
But these well-intentioned concerns are predicated on incomplete analysis that doesn’t withstand serious scrutiny.
Biomass, in fact, is a solar resource and need not have negative environmental consequences compared with fossil sources of energy.
Many believe that burning wood for energy has the same impact on carbon emissions as burning coal. But burning coal releases carbon that was trapped in rock and otherwise would have remained stored. This is not the case with biomass.
Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gases. In sustainably managed forests, harvests do not exceed net new growth. The equal two-way flow of forest carbon means that the impact of harvest on atmospheric carbon is neutral, not 100 years in the future, but on an ongoing basis.
As forests age, tree mortality and decay increase. This limits the amount of carbon that can be stored in the forest.
By removing wood before the growth rate declines, forests can maintain a high rate of carbon removal from the atmosphere.
Biomass energy is produced by burning wood not suitable for building materials. Whether lower-value wood is burned for energy or left to decay, the carbon is ultimately recycled back into the atmosphere.
Leaving wood in the forest to decay results in the same quantity of emissions – without the benefit of using its energy value to reduce the one-way flow of fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
When forests are managed to remain carbon neutral, the sustainable harvest of products and biofuels displaces fossil-intensive materials and fuels, resulting in a net reduction of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Over the past decade, a consortium of scientists has conducted extensive research into the life-cycle greenhouse gas impacts of forest products and biofuels.
We found that for every megawatt of energy produced, biomass emits just 4 percent of the greenhouse gases of coal. It is also sustainable and domestic, contributing to energy independence that supports domestic economic activity and jobs.
However, because coal and other fossil fuels are cheap, companies will favor them over renewable sources if biomass emissions are penalized in the same way as fossil emissions. We have found that while using more wood in buildings has the highest leverage in reducing fossil fuel emissions, using waste wood as biofuels is also very effective.
We have also documented that managing federal lands to help control unnatural catastrophic wildlife results in lower greenhouse gas emissions.
By stifling biomass energy development, we can expect the fuel loads in our national forests to increase, more devastating fires, more greenhouse gas emissions, and the transition of some forests from a net sink for carbon storage to a net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
These unintended consequences are not consistent with America’s carbon mitigation objectives. They can only be resolved by a science-based understanding of the implications of proposed policies on the life cycles of all carbon pools.
This can provide a path to a cleaner energy future and put many Americans to work in green energy jobs by using wood as a renewable resource to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and displace fossil intensive emissions.
###
Bruce Lippke is a professor emeritus and Elaine Oneil is a research scientist in the University of Washington School of Forest Resources in the College of the Environment.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/02/20/v-lite/1552294/biomass-policy-can-have-unintended.html#ixzz1EXzygDEY
The News Tribune
1950 South State Street
Tacoma, WA 98405-2860
Phone: 253-597-8742
Mailing address PO Box 11000 Tacoma, WA 98411-0008
Friday, February 18, 2011
Toomer’s Oaks Poisoned
02.17.11
Officials from the Alabama State Pesticide Residue Laboratory have confirmed the live oaks at Toomer’s Corner, landmark icons of the city and the University, have been poisoned and are unlikely to survive.
“It was malicious,” said Gary Keever, professor of horticulture. “There’s no other way to look at it.”
Keever said the trees were poisoned with tebuthiuron, commonly known as Spike 80DF. Horticulture experts reported the lowest amount detected was 0.78 parts per million. Keever said a typical measurement of the substance is taken in parts per billion.
“That gives you some idea of how concentrated it is around Toomer’s Oaks,” Keever said.
The trees, estimated to be more than 130 years old, are not expected to survive such a concentrated dose of the poison.
Soil samples were sent to the lab the day after a caller claimed Jan. 27 on air to have poisoned the trees on the Paul Finebaum radio show out of Birmingham.
“I poisoned the two Toomer’s trees,” said an audibly outraged caller who identified himself only as Al from Dadeville. “I put spike 80DF in them. They’re not dead yet, but they definitely will die. Roll Damn Tide.”
The caller said he poisoned the trees following the Iron Bowl in reaction to Auburn fans allegedly rolling the Toomer’s trees after the death of Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant in 1983 and, more recently, taping the No. 2 Cam Newton jersey to the Bryant statue in Tuscaloosa before the 2010 Iron Bowl.
“That puts it at three months ago,” said Scott McElroy, associate professor of weed science in the College of Agriculture.
McElroy said the effects of the poison will be visible at “greening,” when the tree grows its first leaves of spring.
“We should start seeing them over the next few weeks,” McElroy said. “The trees will drop all of their leaves.”
After several cycles of leaf-shedding, McElroy said the trees will begin to die, but the process could take several years. He did not rule out the possibility of the trees recovering.
“They’re very stressed trees anyway,” McElroy said. “No one really knows how much was taken up by the soil. If they survive, they’re not going to look good.”
Keever said activated charcoal was placed on the trees Wednesday morning and an active transpirent, which will stop the tree from losing water, will be laid down Thursday morning in an attempt to stop the spread of poison.
However, if the trees were indeed poisoned three months ago, Keever said the poison could have spread through the soil to surrounding trees. Keever said samples had been taken at 10-foot increments in a 65-foot radius around the trees.
McElroy said the poison is not harmful to humans in small amounts and said he was not concerned about human harm.
“You would have to eat a pound of stuff for it to kill you and several grams for it to make you sick,” McElroy said.
Keever said the poison was also not harmful to wildlife who nest in the trees.
While the investigation is ongoing, McElroy said he hopes it will not be difficult to determine who purchased the poison.
“This is not something everybody goes out and buys,” McElroy said. “There’s only a small amount of people in the state of Alabama who buy this every year.”
McElroy compared the poisoning of the Oaks to the Treaty Oak in Austin, Texas, which was poisoned by a similar substance in 1989, sparking local outrage. The person responsible was apprehended and sentenced to nine years in prison.
President Jay Gogue urged the Auburn family to use caution before rushing to judgement.
“It is understandable to feel outrage in reaction to a malicious act of vandalism,” Gogue said. “However, we should live up to the example we set in becoming national champions and the beliefs expressed in our Auburn Creed.”
© theplainsman.com 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
