Tag Archives: european
Reaching For Sustainability
By Chris Hanson | September 23, 2013 U.S. pellet producers, land owners and other forestry organizations are heeding the call of international customers and local citizens to demonstrate how the pellet industry is addressing sustainable land management concerns. “Biomass-fired renewable energy is endorsed by environmentalists, utilities and governments as a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels,” says Seth Ginther, executive director of the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association. “Here in the U.S., biomass from forests in the Southeast has unified elected officials from both parties who see the economic and environmental value of working forests.” Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal is one of those officials. In a letter to the U.K.’s Department of Energy & Climate Change, which recently published a favorable report on proposals to enhance the sustainability criteria for biomass feedstocks, Deal credits the state’s regulations, sustainable forest management practices and existing infrastructure as being responsible for Georgia growing 30 percent more wood annually than what is being harvested. Although the surge in the demand for biomass feedstocks overseas is still relatively recent, sustainable practices have been in place much longer. “It’s important to note that best management practices have been established by the forest industry and these have been in place for decades,” Ginther says. “Common forest management practices of thinning and sustainable rotational harvesting mean there is a continuous cycle of new growth in the forest. Bioenergy, specifically wood pellets, uses the same standards as every other product coming from U.S. forests.” With the rising demand and a robust market, woody biomass production can become a way to sustain working forests. “Strong markets for forest products keep working forests working, providing essential environmental and economic benefits to society,” says Gretchen Schaefer, vice president of communications for the National Alliance of Forest Owners. “In addition to the standards the forestry industry has in place,” Ginther says, “pellet producers ensure that their product is sustainable and emissions are low during sourcing, production and transport. Every step from the forest to the furnace is environmentally friendly.” By demonstrating sustainable pellet production and forestry management, the woody biomass industry can only strengthen its cause and role in the energy marketplace. Ginther says although current laws, such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, are already ensuring sustainable methods are used, many USIPA producers are also certified by internationally recognized forest certification programs, such as the Forest Stewardship Council, Green Gold Label and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Demonstrating Sustainability At the core of the SFI system are 14 principles, including: provisions for forest productivity and health, protection of water resources and biological diversity, managing aesthetics and recreation, protection of any ecologically or culturally special sites, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, public involvement in sustainable forestry, and more. Forest Management Planning Expanding upon those principles are 20 objectives that use indicators or performance measures to show compliance. Under Forest Management Planning, for example, the indicators include documents showing a long-term resource analysis, periodic forest inventory, land classification and soils inventory, recommended sustainable harvest levels and a review of nontimber issues such as recreation or tourism. The planning objectives also call for documentation of annual harvest trends and a method to calculate growth and yield, plus a system to recalculate planned harvests that can account for productivity changes due to factors such as long-term drought, fertilization, climate change, land ownership changes or improved data. Reforestation, best management practices, use of trained loggers, water quality monitoring, and more, are also detailed. In the 123-page document, the SFI also lays out a chain-of-custody system to track wood fiber through the stages of production, enabling the use of material from certified and uncertified forest and specifying how to calculate certified content percentages. The appendices offer additional resources, plus specifications on how to use the label and seal that come with SFI certification. “The SFI standard and the requirements apply regardless of the final product that is produced from that forest, whether it’s building materials, pellets or paper,” says Nadine Block, SFI vice president of government affairs. To certify sustainable forest products, SFI utilizes third-party audits to assess a land owner’s forest management practices or a company’s supply chain. The process begins with submitting a participation application to SFI. If approved, SFI then contacts one of 10 certification entities to begin the audit. The forest owner must demonstrate that the SFI’s principles and objectives have been implemented into his operation. To determine SFI standard conformance, the auditor examines operating procedures and other forestry practice materials, monitors field performance onsite, interviews employees and contractors and contacts other interested parties such as government agencies, community groups and conservation organizations. If a minor nonconformity is discovered, a conformance certificate can be issued, but only after the lead auditor approves an action plan to address the issue within a set time not to exceed a year. More serious infractions result in the denial of the conformance certificate until approved corrective action has been implemented and a possible site revisit completed. Maintaining Certification If a site is approved, the certified participant provides SFI with a summary report from the auditor to post on the company’s website for public review. The audit report includes a description of the audit process, a general description of the participant’s forest land and manufacturing operations, name of the certification body, dates the audit was conducted, summary of the findings and the certification decision. To maintain certification, SFI requires participants to complete annual surveillance audits in addition to recertification every three years. Although the process may sound intimidating to some producers, the benefits may have a strong impact on its business and customers. For instance, during the audit, a certifying auditor might be able to validate more than one standard, saving both time and money for the producer. One challenge in demonstrating sustainable wood procurement and production may lie with smaller, private forest owners. Steven Meyers, procurement manager for Fram Renewable Fuels LLC, says less than 20 percent of forest land in the Southeast is certified. Of that percentage, a notable portion is held by large forestry companies, he says, whereas small land owners may not have the market incentive or capital to become certified. “There really needs to be something done at the state level,” Meyers says. Some states have even addressed the issue by developing certification programs for small private land owners at low cost and providing the manpower to run the program, he says. By promoting sustainable forest practices through certification standards and working together, pellet producers may see themselves in a beneficial position to address growing demand and sustainability concerns from their international and domestic customers. “Our standard is in a good position to help pellet manufacturers demonstrate their sustainability and demonstrate how they are meeting European sustainability requirements,” Block says. “What we’ve seen is a lot of pellet manufacturers are certified to the SFI standard and that is being driven primarily by demand from Europe.” UK, EU Approval “The United Kingdom and European Union recognize that bioenergy is a vital part of the energy mix that is helping them meet its climate change commitments and renewable energy targets,” Ginther says. Wood pellets are the only readily available renewable energy alternative capable of providing consistent energy to meet consumer demands. It is a complementary technology intended to work alongside other energy sources like wind and solar to balance the grid. “It is with this in mind that the regulatory bodies in the U.K. and EU approach the use of wood pellets. While we can’t predict what the future holds, European regulators have expressed to us they are comfortable with the U.S. regulations, laws and oversight that govern our forests—they are some of the most robust internationally. We expect the industry to continue to grow and thrive in the coming years.” Looking toward Europe’s expanding markets, the U.S. pellet industry got some good news in August when the U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change released its report addressing feedstock sustainability requirements for power producers to meet the country’s renewables obligation using solid biomass and biogas fuel sources. The response was crafted using input from 73 respondents, including Sustainable Forestry Initiative Inc., the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association and Drax Power Ltd. It indicates the DECC still considers biomass an attractive fossil fuel replacement and addresses the government’s desire to manage sustainability concerns in addition to curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. The new DECC criteria, to be finalized later this year, are based on the U.K. timber procurement policy (UK-TPP), considered by forest industry respondents to be a better concept to follow than the current system that focuses more on sustainable agriculture than forest land use. Additionally, the UK-TPP already recognizes certification strategies that meet its principles and builds upon existing U.K. guidelines to promote consistency, while avoiding costs for both wood producers and customers. The DECC states the policy’s criteria can be met by using certified wood from an approved forest that has been approved by the Forest Stewardship Council or the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification methods, or the equivalent. DECC also responded to calls for policy stability, and says there will be no unilateral changes to the policy until 2027, although it reserves the option to make changes as biomass power generation improves after April 2019 or to comply with EU or international regulations. Author: Chris Hanson Staff Writer, Pellet Mill Magazine chanson@bbiinternational.com 701-738-4970 Continue reading
New Markets Call for New Management Practices
By Michael DeBonis | September 23, 2013 For several centuries, America’s forests served as one of the single largest sources of energy for this growing nation. Wood heated homes and fired the boilers of America’s industrial revolution. With the discovery of fossil fuels, however, and more efficient ways to extract and transport them to population centers, the use of wood as a source of energy rapidly declined. This new source of energy, fossil fuels, took pressure off America’s forests, allowing them to grow back to the forests we see today. America’s forests are once again being seen as an energy source as both the U.S. and Europe begin working to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The difference between today’s use of wood as an energy source and the past is that new technologies allow for much more efficient means of extracting valuable Btu from every ton of wood harvested. From heating single homes, to firing boilers in hospitals, to 20,000-ton cargo ships bound for European electric generating facilities, the use of wood for energy is resurging. In just five years, the U.S. has seen wood pellet and other woody biomass production climb from 1.8 million tons in 2008 to nearly 6 million tons in 2012. Dramatic growth of pellet and woody biomass facilities in the U.S. Southeast will bring even greater increases as more facilities come on line by 2015. The U.S. Forest Service forecasts forest bioenergy harvesting can increase anywhere from 54 to 113 percent by 2050. This emerging industry could not have come at a better time. With reductions in production demands and capacities in the pulp and paper and sawmill industries brought on by the still-lingering global recession, the new surge in pellet production has been a shot in the arm to rural forest-based economies and forest owners. New Markets, Challenges With the recent improvements in catalytic converter technologies, both New England and the Pacific Northwest are seeing increases in residential wood stove heating. Simultaneously, those regions are witnessing an increase in heating conversions at large municipal facilities such as hospitals and prisons as they add pellets and chips to their energy menu. The Southeast has found new markets filling European demand for wood pellets as an alternative to fossil fuels in electricity generation. U.K. electricity generating facilities are substituting pellets for coal in order to meet the U.K. Renewable Energy Directive, which calls for substituting 20 percent of current fossil fuel use with renewable sources by 2020. The European Union 2020 RED demands much the same from other member countries. While forest-based economies can benefit from new demand for wood, this presents a new set of challenges. In many cases, biomass harvesting techniques vary little from other traditional harvesting techniques. Nevertheless, these quickly emerging markets have the capability of causing ecological degradation, if not handled properly. The woody biomass industry is new in the U.S. compared to traditional forestry industries such sawmilling, pulp and paper, and even oriented-strand board. For the past several decades, these industries have operated their forest harvesting practices in accordance with best management practices (BMPs) designed by state forestry agencies to help maintain the quality of our lakes, streams and waterways. The woody biomass industry, however, postdates these BMPs. It may be some time before state forestry agencies will be able to address biomass harvesting and amend their BMPs, if they so choose, thereby leaving potential gaps in existing BMPs. Forest Biomass Guide Recognizing this gap, the Forest Guild, a U.S. nonprofit organization of nearly 1,000 foresters, has published a set of voluntary biomass harvesting guidelines (BHGs) for several regions of the country: New England, the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast. Titled “Forest Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines,” the goal is to identify how expanding markets for forest bioenergy can enhance forests while at the same time meeting the economic and social needs of today’s population. The guidelines were developed to assist several audiences—foresters, landowners, harvesters and biomass facilities—demonstrate to their communities their commitment to the importance of forest sustainability. While developing the guidelines, the guild recognized that harvest technologies and biomass markets will change over time. With that in mind, the guidelines take a precautionary tack in order to avoid future issues that may arise around woody biomass removal. Also, the guild does not present guidelines as static targets to be maintained at all times in all places, but rather as guideposts for foresters, companies, harvesters and landowners concerned with sustaining their communities’ forests. Ecological Value Commercially, woody biomass has had little economic value in the U.S. This is changing. With the world’s concern regarding fossil fuel carbon in our atmosphere, technologies are changing, making wood a preferred source of energy. Ecologically speaking, downed woody material plays a critical role in the forest. For instance, downed and dead wood can play an essential role in wildlife habitat, acting as the home for nearly 55 mammal species, 20 bird species and numerous reptilian and amphibian species just in the Southeast. It also serves as seedbeds for tree and other plant species, and slash has been found to be beneficial to seedling regeneration after harvest. Downed and dead woody material is just as valuable with regard to soil productivity and water quality. It helps prevent soil erosion by impairing and reducing surface water flow and substantially improves water-holding capacity. Additionally, downed and dead wood represents a large pool of nutrients, functioning as a significant contributor to soil organic matter. A significant attribute of the guild’s voluntary retention and harvest guidelines is taking the guesswork out of how much woody biomass to retain. Synthesizing a large body of existing science and research, the voluntary guidelines provide foresters, landowners and harvesters tools to retain the right amount of standing dead trees and woody material on the forest floor. The guidelines include quantitative guidance charts for region forest types for snag (standing dead or dying trees) retention and downed woody biomass in tons per acre. This helps take a lot of the guesswork out of adequate retention rates. The accompanying tables show retention goals for both snags and downed woody material by forest type in the Southeast and Northeast. The Forest Guild’s “Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines” offer several benefits to foresters, landowners, harvesters and pellet manufacturing facilities. First, because the current wood-to-energy, biomass harvesting taking place today postdates state BMPs and forest certification criteria, these guidelines can bridge that gap until state forestry agencies and certification systems decide to address this harvest activity. Second, the guild’s voluntary BHGs take the guesswork out of how much post-harvest woody debris retention is enough. The guidelines’ charts provide scientifically based volumes to aim for. Third, woody biomass harvesting, especially post-harvest retention, is coming under the scrutiny of national, regional and local stakeholders and raising the public’s concern over long-term soil fertility and productivity. If adopted and properly implemented, these guidelines can go a long way toward addressing these concerns. Fourth, the guidelines dovetail with existing third-party forest certification systems. Most certification systems require adequate retention of snags and dead wood, but do not provide specific bench marks. The guild guidelines fill this gap. Finally, the Forest Guild’s “Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines,” carries the benefit of being developed by third-party experts using best available science. This can carry a great deal of weight and credibility with the public, conservation groups and legislators. Author: Michael DeBonis President and Executive Director, Forest Guild mike@forestguild.org 505-983-8992 Continue reading
Examining Thoughts On Germany’s Clean Energy Push
by Breakthrough Institute Germany’s renewable energy transition, the “Energiewende,” has long been a subject of scorn among conservatives, who have argued that it is a massive ratepayer-subsidized boondoggle that has harmed Germany’s economy and imposed significant regressive costs on poor and working class energy consumers. But the last several months have seen growing skepticism about the Energiewende from the center-left as well. Both Der Spiegel and Slate have published lengthy investigative pieces raising troubling questions about the costs and the environmental benefits of Germany’s headlong pursuit of an all-renewable energy future. Salon recently published an article criticizing Germany’s transition from nuclear to coal. Even left-leaning Dissent Magazine recently published a long expose about the failure of the Energiewende to reduce carbon emissions, concluding that Germany’s enormous investments in renewables, together with plans to phase out its nuclear fleet, would cost the nation a generation in the fight against global warming. At stake are not simply public perceptions of the Energiewende, but the future of efforts to rapidly expand deployment of wind and solar power elsewhere. Environmentalists and renewables advocates have long held up Germany’s example as one that the United States and other nations ought to emulate. To the degree to which the Energiewende is instead perceived as a cautionary tale, efforts elsewhere to expand subsidies and deployment mandates for renewable energy, and to dismantle the present day utility sector in favor of a much more decentralized electrical sector are clearly at risk. It is a measure of just how serious the new center-left criticisms of the Energiewende have been, and how threatening they are to the long-standing green climate and energy agenda, that prominent clean-tech thought leader Hal Harvey, long a powerful behind-the-scenes player in efforts to expand deployment subsidies for wind and solar power and transform the utility sector, has stepped out publicly and issued an extended defense of the Energiewende against its growing chorus of environmentally minded critics. image via Shutterstock As the head of the Energy Foundation and Climate Works and the director of the Hewlett Foundation’s climate and energy programs, Harvey aggregated and spent more money on climate and clean energy policy development and advocacy than any other philanthropic institution over the last two decades – between 2008 and 2010 alone, Climate Works and affiliated philanthropic institutions spent over a half billion dollars on climate and energy policy and advocacy according to one recent study. America’s overlapping mash of renewables subsidies, deployment mandates, and regional cap and trade programs is arguably as much Harvey’s legacy as anyone else’s. For this reason, Harvey’s defense of the Energiewende is revealing, both for what it acknowledges about the real costs and slow progress and for what it attempts to deny and downplay. Harvey acknowledges the enormous costs at which renewables innovation has been achieved in Germany, writing that escalating costs of the Energiewende “need to be controlled” and that Germany’s large direct subsidies for renewables represent only a portion of their total cost. “One still has to pay for transmission and distribution, for taxes, and for system resources to balance the variability of solar output,” he notes. And he recognizes the enormous challenges that still must be overcome in order for a transition from fossil energy to renewables to begin in earnest. “There is no doubt that the accelerated phase-out of nuclear power combined with the strong carbon targets for the utility sector make for a complex transition,” he concludes. “Germany will have to reinvent power markets, build more transmission lines, and think deeply about a new business model for its utilities.” But he also obfuscates many inconvenient facts, particularly those that suggest that current problems facing the Energiewende represent more than temporary setbacks, associated with a cold winter, rising natural gas prices, and the nation’s decision to accelerate the phase out of it’s aging nuclear fleet, and rather are likely to represent endemic and persistent problems associated with efforts to achieve high penetrations of intermittent renewable energy sources given present day technologies in Germany and beyond. A basic reality check on Harvey’s claim follows: Harvey claims that most of the impressive sounding 24 percent share of electricity that Germany generates from renewables comes from wind and solar. But in fact only about half does. The rest comes from hydropower, biomass, and trash incinerators. As The Economist recently reported , “the largest so-called renewable fuel used in Europe is wood.” Biomass has proven to be an increasingly dubious source of carbon-free energy before even considering the broader environmental implications for forests and habitat of returning to burning wood for energy at significant scale. The situation in Germany is not as bad as in some other European nations. But like the rest of Europe, Germany has relied heavily upon burning trees and trash in order to meet its renewables targets, a fact that is rarely mentioned by Energiewende boosters. Harvey is no exception in this regard. Of Harvey’s 24 percent, wind and solar represent about 5 and 7 percentage points, respectively, leaving less popular forms of renewable power to carry fully half the lift of the Energiewende. Harvey claims repeatedly that Germany has successfully decarbonized its electricity sector through the Energiewende. In fact, the carbon intensity of Germany’s economy has seen little change since 2000, when the nation embarked on the Energiewende. More recently, emissions have been rising. As the latest numbers from Germany’s BdeW utility consortium show, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.6 percent in 2012, the increase mostly coming from carbon dioxide emissions by coal-burning power plants. Anthracite coal carbon emissions rose 3.4 percent, while emissions from lignite rose 5.1 percent. Emissions are projected to rise again in 2013 . Harvey claims that Germany’s nuclear phase-out has not resulted in increased coal burning, but the evidence he cites contradict the claim. To support his claim, Harvey argues that no new coal plants have been approved since Germany announced plans to accelerate its nuclear phase-out after the Fukushima accident. Harvey is correct when he states that Germany’s current coal building binge has been long planned. But so has its nuclear phase-out, which was initiated over a decade ago. One can reasonably surmise that the long planned expansion of coal facilities has been, at least in some part, in anticipation of the long planned phase-out of aging nuclear facilities. Harvey chooses not to entertain this possibility. Harvey claims that recent increases in emissions from coal plants are temporary phenomena, relying entirely on analysis lifted whole cloth from a recent blog post by Amory Lovins to suggest that rising emissions were the product of a cold winter and rising natural gas prices. In fact, they are in significant part a direct result of renewables policies. German policy mandates that the grid take renewable energy first and fossil energy second. This results in what is known as the merit order effect. As more intermittent renewable energy enters the grid, it displaces the most costly type of fossil power generation, natural gas. As a result, natural gas generation decreased last year while coal’s share of electricity rose from 43.1 percent to 44.7 percent. And lignite – the dirtiest form of coal – increased from 24.6 percent to 25.6 percent. Moreover, as the Energiewende continues, carbon emissions from coal will likely continue to rise. The confluence of a priority grid access for renewables and a low European carbon price have squeezed flexible natural gas out of the market, adding to the gains coal has taken from nuclear power. In 2012 Germany commissioned 2.9 GW of new coal-fired power capacity. According to BdeW , Germany will add another 4.6 GW of coal power in 2013. Of a planned 42.5 GW of major power plants to be built by 2020, two thirds will be new coal and gas generators. Harvey claims that Germany’s low wholesale electricity prices, due to increasing competition from renewables, cancel out much of the cost of the renewable energy surcharge that retail customers pay to underwrite Germany’s feed in tariffs. Yet his own numbers belie this claim. Harvey acknowledges that the renewable energy surcharge constitutes one sixth of the retail electricity rate, adding approximately five cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of retail electricity. He then cites German government estimates that higher renewables penetrations have driven wholesale electricity prices down one cent per kilo-watt hour, saving ratepayers about $5 billion Euro per year. At best, then, lower wholesale prices mitigate less than a quarter the cost of the renewables surcharge. While lower wholesale rates will save ratepayers about $5 billion in 2013, Financial Times reported recently that in 2013 the feed-in tariffs will cost ratepayers €20.4 billion ($27 billion). Continue reading
