The Battle for Biomass
Bioenergy and carbon sequestration, two major strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will transform the way we manage our forests. No matter what strategy dominates, our forests will likely experience a significant shift in species composition, density, and biodiversity.
The mood in the air was high at the Florida Forestry Association's Forests and Energy Summit. Despite the housing market crash and the faltering paper mill industry, a growing demand for biomass by utility companies and pellet manufacturers has foresters seeing green. The summit covered a range of biomass energy (bioenergy) topics, but the main theme was how can the forest industry grow and harvest biomass more efficiently in preparation for the increasing demand.
Florida is becoming a hotbed for bioenergy. The state already hosts GreenCircle, the largest wood pellet manufacturer in the world, and joint ventures are gearing up to build the first commercial scale cellulosic ethanol plant and a 50 MW biomass energy plant (here and here). A number of foresters have already found markets for their wood in the European Union, which is chasing after a 12% renewable energy standard by 2010. Still more demand will arrive with the passage of the U.S. Climate Bill, which is proposing a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of 20% by 2020. These standards require that utilities derive a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources of energy - woody biomass is one of them.
For me, one of the bigger questions that emerged at the conference was how will the demand for bioenergy and biological carbon sequestration (biosequestration) change the face of our forests. Both bioenergy and biosequestration are important solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere. Converting part of our energy supply to bioenergy means that we would burn less fossil fuels overall, whereas biosequestration would lock carbon up in plant tissue.
The two forest management models, however, are diametrically opposed. For bioenergy, foresters get paid by the ton of wood produced. Thus, they want to maximize the amount of biomass or woody matter in the shortest amount of time. They will likely choose tree species that grow quickly so they can be cut quickly. These short rotation woody crops (SRTC) come in many forms: willow, eucalyptus, loblolly pine, etc.
On the other hand, foresters who choose biosequestration will get paid by the amount of carbon stored in their trees. This payment will come in the form of a carbon credit transaction. They will ultimately choose strategies that maximize the amount of carbon on their land, which is achieved by choosing species that are the most effective at storing carbon and lengthening the rotation of their stands.
While both models are quite different, both provide incentives to boost the amount of biomass per acre. As was highlighted at the conference, the main ways to achieve more are through plantations and biotechnology. While you may not welcome monocultures and frankentrees, I think some of these changes in forestry will be necessary to transition our economy to domestic and clean sources of energy. Although I do not see them as long term solutions, they can buy us some time as we try to wean off fossil fuels and minimize the damage of extreme climate change events.
