The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

US Biomass: Where Do All the Wood Pellets Go?

Bruce Dorminey, Contributor
June 14, 2012  |  27 Comments

Print

Europe is usually the last place on one's mind when riding through miles of surprisingly desolate pine forests, stretching from the Alabama line to Georgia's marshy coast. But, in an unlikely convergence of European eco-policy and Southeastern pines, a Georgia wood pellet plant is now supplying a German-based utility with a steady stream of carbon-neutral energy.

For over a year now, Georgia Biomass, L.L.C., a wholly owned subsidiary of RWE Innogy, Inc., has overseen the production of 750,000 metric tons of wood pellets per year.  After a 100-mile rail trip from its Waycross, Ga. plant to the port of Savannah, the pellets are received as cargo bound for Europe where they are co-fired in coal-burning plants.

If not for the largesse of European utilities required to meet government carbon emissions standards for their coal-burning plants, however, the U.S. pellet export industry would arguably not exist.  Such emission standards have yet to reach the federal level here in the U.S. 

Even so, pellet exports from the U.S. to Europe currently average over 2 million metric tons per year, which converts to about 450 MWs of electrical capacity solely from combusted pellets.  But that’s still a tiny fraction of Europe’s energy needs — thus, there’s room for growth as a number of coal-fired power plants switch from coal to pellets.  By 2020, Europe may annually import as much as 40 million metric tons of pellets from all sources, up from today’s 3.5 million metric tons of total pellet imports, says bio-energy consultant William Strauss.

“As long as the wood used to make these things comes from certified sustainable sources, then the Europeans quantify it as carbon neutral,” said Strauss, president of the Maine-based FutureMetrics.  “Even though it costs more to burn wood pellets than coal, it’s still cheaper than the carbon tax.” 

Neither Georgia Biomass, L.L.C. or RWE Innogy, Inc., responded to requests for comment. But Nathan McClure, a certified forester with the Georgia Forestry Commission who is very familiar with their local operations, said that Georgia Biomass processes roughly the equivalent of the annual growth on 230,000 acres of forests — mostly Slash and Loblolly pines, ideally within a 50-mile radius of the plant. 

When the wood is brought in it’s roughly 50 percent moisture, says McClure, so to meet its production capacity of 750,000 metric tons of pellets per year, Georgia Biomass needs almost double the amount in unprocessed wood chips or timber.  McClure says most of that wood will come from thinning forests that have been planted with 500 to 700 trees per acre. 

Georgia Biomass, L.L.C, procures wood from pine forests grown on land that has been certified as sustainable, thus meeting one requirement of their product’s carbon-neutrality. 

Raw timber that arrives at pellet plants from these sustainable forests is first debarked and chipped.  Sawmill residues are also included as a raw material for the pellet production.  The residues and timber chips are dried and hammer-milled to a fine, flour-like consistency.  They are then pelletized before being shipped to Europe as dry bulk cargo in loads of 30 to 40,000 tons each. 

“It’s cheaper to produce electricity from chipped logging residues than from pelletized wood,” said McClure.  “But if you’re shipping them long distances, compression removes [most of the moisture] so they become more energy dense.”

Georgia annually grows at least 30 percent more wood than it consumes.  In fact, McClure says the state could export more than double its current amount of some million metric tons of pellets annually and still be able to certify its forests as sustainable. 

Current rates for a ton of pulpwood delivered to a Georgia mill averages $27 per metric ton.  Because of such low rates, almost all pellets exported to Europe originate in the Southeast.  However, by the time the manufactured pellets hit the local docks for shipment to Europe, their current cost to the European utility is some $165 per metric ton.  That still doesn’t include insurance or shipping costs. 

And what would happen to the pellet prices if the currently depressed saw timber market finally comes back?

“Counter-intuitively, it would be good for the pellet industry,” said McClure.  “We have a ‘wall of wood’ in Georgia due to a tremendous amount of tree planting that occurred here in the 1980s and 1990s.  And we have a tremendous amount of wood now approaching saw timber size.” 

That’s in part because a better saw timber market equals more residue.  When a log goes into a sawmill, McClure says that as much as half of that log ends up as saw chip residue, which is a readily available resource for wood pellet plants.

Currently, more than a half dozen major European utilities are now buying some 2 million metric tons of U.S.-made wood pellets annually. 

German Pellets Texas, L.L.C. is planning to build a 500,000 metric ton capacity plant on the site of a former wood-chip mill in east Texas.  Claudia Roehr, a spokesperson for German Pellets GmbH, a partner in the Texas L.L.C., confirms that their company is in the final stages of coordinating the building phase of the new plant, whose pellets will also be exported to Europe, but Roehr would offer no other details. 

And 60 miles north of the deep-water port of Panama City, Florida, Green Circle Bio Energy, Inc., in operation since 2008, has been producing 560,000 metric tons of pellets per year for European export.  Morten Nerass, Green Circle’s CEO, says his company is continuing to look for near-term opportunities to expand its sales to large European utilities. 

Strauss says that conventional white wood pellets have the potential energy density of some 19 gigajoules per metric ton.  But torrefied pellets, black pellets baked in ovens to remove their water and sugars, are more energy dense and contain the equivalent of between 21 to 23 gigajoules per metric ton.  

Black pellets also have the added advantage of being extremely water resistant.  In contrast, conventional pellets tend to turn to sawdust mush when wet.  But as yet, black pellets are not being produced on industrial scales.  However, Strauss says the transition to a fully black pellet market of what he terms “bio-coal” is likely to happen within the next five years.  

Whether this existing European export market will continue expanding, however, is not at all certain.  Why? 

In three to five years, industry sources say, European pellet imports from Africa, South America, Russia and Asia are going to be cheaper than those from the American Southeast or Canada. 

And these same sources say that with natural gas prices at record lows and regulatory pressure currently off the U.S. Congress in this election year, U.S. utilities aren’t under Federal pressure to incorporate biomass into their energy mix.  

Although there’s a growing pellet market for U.S. domestic heating units, what would make the pellet market viable on an industrial scale here in the U.S.?  

Fossil fuels and natural gas will have to become a lot more expensive, says Nerass, and regulations that put a cost on carbon would have to be imposed.

As Seth Ginther, the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association’s executive director, notes:  “Mandatory [regulations] at the federal level with biomass included as a renewable energy product would be a game changer.” 

Image: Pile of wood pellets via Shutterstock

27 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 22, 2012
Indeed, anaerobic digestion solves some key municipal & agricultural problems. Ron Bacardi in Puerto Rico has long used digestors to ha\ndle their rum-making wastes. Even US cities are starting to catch up with European and other municipalities on that. the key is whether digestion is efficient for power or not, waste hauling is eliminated and methane is burned, even if no power is extracted. In this local example, we expect to power >1000 homes with the community's sewage & organic waste digestion... http://www.pagreenenergy.org/ DisneyWorld is an example of such an effort for an even larger community.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 22, 2012
You spent time on those links, Scotto! So: 'Germany is committed to a carbon neutral, nuclear free, 100% renewable energy supply by 2050' -- the point is that their stated policies would cause excess emissions from 2023 to 2050. There's no need for them to turn off any nukes. Turning off any before their de-commissioning dates increases net global emissions. That's the fact. 'This isn't just a good idea, it's the law' -- remember what our own Will Rogers had to say about his jokes vs Congress's 'laws'? Germany has had many 'laws' over their history, as have we. Not all 'laws', whether instigated by labs or politicos are good or wise. After all, our own combustion industry has been grandly supported by 'laws'. The bottom line is that German nukes have been impeccably safe. Turning any off without equivalent replacement is an arrogant affront to all those around the world being affected by all the megatons of previous German emissions. So, rather than succumb to the expediency of current scare politics, it would be better 'law' if German politicians actually assume responsibility. On the wise side, the Japanese have now turned two of their nukes back on. Go figure what 2GWe of avoided emissions means. Some reading for thought... 'The Melting North' and 'Boundary Conditions', The Economist, 16 June. www.huffingtonpost.com/sigourney-weaver/ocean-acidification-monitoring_b_1613160.html
Scott Otterson
Scott Otterson
June 22, 2012
DrAlexC, Germany is committed to a carbon neutral, nuclear free, 100% renewable energy supply by 2050. The plan's details have been worked out by several federal labs, and the German Environment Agency. This isn't just a good idea, it's the law: Parts of the plan kicked in immediately in 2012, and there are mandatory targets in 2020. So far, German emission =decreases= track the plan -- and that's =after= they shut down eight nuclear plants. This comment system makes text with links painful to read. Nevertheless, here are responses to your article links: REUTERS, IEEE and RT.COM articles: They don't say that German emissions will increase. WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS: An obvious nuclear industry lobbying piece, but I would still like to see their emissions analysis; there is none, except for a reference to an unnamed Deutsche Bank report that I can't find. POINTCARBON: Says the nuclear phaseout =could= increase emissions, with no explanation. It's also out of date, as it says that the Germans are not compensating for lost nuclear capacity with increased renewable energy targets. But they have famously done exactly that: http://www.mondaq.com/x/157962/Energy+Law/The+German+Renewable+Energy+Act+Of+2012 http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/05/energiewende-road-to-2020/ Finally, The German 2050 plan (for 100% renewables) is officially described here: http://www.uba.de/uba-info-medien/3997.html (there's an English executive summary, and a vast, complete version in German). Here's a separate, more detailed English explanation of the plan: http://www.umweltrat.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/02_Special_Reports/2011_01__Pathways_Chapter10_ProvisionalTranslation.pdf;jsessionid=869C2B62788E08E8D5A4926EE26D9D31.1_cid135?__blob=publicationFil
ulrich krauskopf
ulrich krauskopf
June 22, 2012
Aenerobic digesters have wide efficiency (and reliability)swings, have a bad net energy output and leave you with most of your waste, just nastier. biomass energy must attempt to solve both enery extraction and waste disposal issues to be successful. just because the methane route looks easier is not a good enough reason.
Daniel Allouche
Daniel Allouche
June 22, 2012
Combustion is not the way to go.Biomass digestions for methane production is.Farmers are probably the best suited to do this as they produce major amounts of organic waste.20 years ago I found an report on a farmer with a vision.Within a few years his equipment was amortized and he had turned manure into cash.Not only was he producing methane but also ethenal from surplus grain due to the simple fact that digested biomass is 5% richer in nitrogen.Today biomass digesters are more sophisticated.Today a farmer in New Brunswick Canada grosses $250,000 per year at $00.10 per KW.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 19, 2012
Erich, right, wasting hydrocarbons via combustion has long been a problem to scientists around the world. It was one motivation behind the 1962 report requested by JFK (http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa), which, if Nixon had followed through with, would have eliminated US combustion power by 2000. You might look for papers on biochar by Dominic Woolf at Cornell U.
erich knight
erich knight
June 18, 2012
I speak for the carbon, since it's value is externalized. Why not just burned the Hydro–carbon oils&Gas? Total Combustion, however clean, robes us of the elemental plant cellular carbon, the utility of which allows total integration of nutrient management, thermal energy, electrical power and transportation fuels. Beyond these basic services are the very high values that biomass carbon has for a vast array of heavy metals and toxic agents in Brownfields and mine scarred lands and waterways. All this plus building soil fertility through carbon sequestration. The Australians, Europeans and Japanese use Biochar as a compost bulking agent, in-process, adsorbing 50-74% of the NH3 normally lost to the atmosphere, as a 1-5% feed ration for enteric health in livestock and aquaculture, reducing methane belching and doubling the size of fish clams and shrimp. DuPont & ORNL Bioscience division have pilot studies in Waynesboro showing a 95% reduction of mercury traveling up the food chain, the Japanese are even processing tsunami waste through their pyrolytic reactors (designed for electronic waste processing) to concentrate cesium. After following biochar systems for six years I'm most impressed with CoolPlanet Biofuels, and in the past few months GE, Google, BP & Conoco have concurred. If interested, read this short brief where I summarized the current state of this agricultural biofuel technology, What we can do now with "off the shelf" technology, I proposed at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, to the EPA chiefs of North America. The most cited soil scientist in the world, Dr. Rattan Lal at OSU, was impressed with this talk, commending me on conceptualizing & articulating the concept. A Report on my talk at CEC, and complete text & links are here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-policy/message/3233 The Establishment of Soil Carbon as the Universal Measure of Sustainability
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 18, 2012
As Ian says, the way wood is used in a fire makes all the difference. If you want some real r&D results, look at work by Larry Baxter at Brigham Young U. The size of chips makes them poor, even pellets are too big for optimal results in coal co-fired boilers -- a great deal of bad expensive chemistry can ruin boilers if the wood isn't of the right content for moisture & nitrogen, etc. And, co-firing only works to reduce emissions at low wood fractions.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 18, 2012
Scotto, only know what I read. You have something newer? Send it... www.pointcarbon.com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1552105 (extra emissions) www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/us-siemens-energy-idUSTRE80G10920120117 http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/siemens-says-germany-nuclear-phase-out-to-cost-trillions/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=011912 www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_renewable_revolution_2301121.html?utm_so http://rt.com/news/germany-reactors-cold-weather-927/comments/?d=1? www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-23/utilities-plan-79-billion-of-power-plants-in-germany-bdew-says.html "...29 gas- fired stations, 17 coal..." -- make a bit of CO2,eh? Presently, the Swiss, claiming they shut their nukes, buy nuke power from France at night, use it to pump water up into reservoirs, then drain in the am through hydro to sell juice to the Italians. Work out that inefficiency! Politics is our problem, our perennial problem.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
June 18, 2012
Again, I'm skeptical about using wood as a fuel source in this matter due to concerns associated with burning wood other than CO2 emissions and the carbon footprint of harvesting, drying and shipping the material long distances, but Ulrich's comment got me thinking that they could use solar thermal to dry the wood, which would be a start??? Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Scott Otterson
Scott Otterson
June 18, 2012
DrAlexC, you claimed that the German nuclear shutdown will cause them to emit 50 megatons of C02 each year. But nothing in their projections show that this will happen, and so far, nothing in their actual C02 performance does either.
ulrich krauskopf
ulrich krauskopf
June 18, 2012
blindly going for wood without looking for alternative combinations is using the same blinders we are used to by the fossile industry. there is technology available to dry wood waste efficiently which also allows material to be blended with high btu waste streams like manure, sewage sludge etc so we approach our future energy demand more intelligently than we did the last time
ian smith
ian smith
June 18, 2012
Neil Barnard - pellets may be more efficient than chips for co-firing but unless the electricity is being generated in a cogeneration plant, the overall efficiency is still very poor - typically less than 36%. It is better to use the biomass to produce heat with over twice this efficiency displacing gas which can be used for electricity generation at efficiencies of over 55%.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
To Erich on biochar, you might check the 15 June Stanford GCEP discussions Karlsson (Biorecro), Moreira (U. of Sao Paulo) & Koornneef (Ecofys). Biochar is very sensitive to target soil and may be either Carbon neutral or negative, depending on factors including particle sizes. Note too that molten-salt reactors run at temps suited for making biochar, as well as for making fuels directly from CO2 & water.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
JohnH, yes indeed, we need to return to the seas with nuke shipping, as we tried with the Savannah... http://gcaptain.com/the-worlds-first-nuclear-merchant-ship-ns-savannah/ The fuel used now is highly polluting and when a ship fails with a spill, it's a big, sticky problem. FreeW, glad you 'agree' (don't want to push it). You and others may be interested in "Managing Bioenergy Agro-Ecosystems for Negative Carbon Emissions", by S. Davis. U. of Illinois. Essentially, any forest exploitation beyond 17% of continued removal becomes a carbon source. 10% removal rates stimulate some grow and assure a negative emissions behavior, especially if lumber & scraps are used for construction products, as Europeans are doing well. They use their forests efficiently, but some over there apparently want to burn ours. ;]
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
Christopher, sorry if my frankness sounded "polemical" to you. Your questions might have been addressed just this week at a conference here at Stanford GCEP -- http://gcep.stanford.edu/ The topics included what "biomass" uses actually might accomplish negative carbon emissions, and shipping pelletized southern forests to German boilers didn't achieve a good result. The fundamental reality is that if you have some biomass that meets combustion boiler constraints (moisture, etc) then burn it with powdered coal in standard plants that achieve high efficiency. Cutting & chipping wood for such purposes, or even for pure biomass boiler firing, makes no sense & is a net CO2 emitter, as well as other defects related to nitrogen, sulfur and other content. "Carbon-Negative CO2 Management Options" by L. Baxter might be useful to you. www.sustainablees.com/
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 17, 2012
re Scott saying German emissions dropped 2% in 2011, imagine the drop if they were continuing and expanding their very safe nuclear operations. Kind of like having another donut because one lost a little of the 50lbs the doctor said to lose, eh? ;]
erich knight
erich knight
June 15, 2012
I have a solution for Dr. Alex, and to add to his list of unaccounted for costs is the lost value of the combusted carbon it self. CoolPlanet's biofuels This technology is directed to the small farm scale all the way up to the industrial. Guided by Google's ethos and other big corporations, GE, BP & Conoco providing credibility, I just can't imagine a better convergence of technology and support. An advanced biochar from biomass producing carbon negative gasoline. Please see their CEO talking about this to Google at; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o This biochar acts as a great soil amendment to improve marginal soils and it helps hold water, nutrients etc. The more you drive a car powered by CoolPlanet's biofuels, the more CO2 will be pulled out of the air and sequestered in the soil. CoolPlaneti's cool far beyond the $1.25 per gallon production cost, because; There is no fuel blending wall, the more you blend, the lower the C-foot print. Is it fossil fuel ?...or is it biofuel? ... only your radiocarbon isotope tester knows for sure. Starting out with 25 tons/acre FREEDOM Mississippi giant Miscanthus, http://www.repreverenewables.com/ , (the highest I've ever seen, of any biomass crop hybrid) they can produce 3000 gallons bio-gasoline per acre. The perennial beauty of miscanthus is in the land use issues, out-year gains in SOC and soil structure with reduced compaction, erosion and nutrient use.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
June 15, 2012
Will wonders never cease? I actually kind of agree with DrAlex!!!! Actually, "agree" might be too strong a word, but as I read the article, I questioned some of the issues that DrAex brought up. What about other emissions other than C02 and the emissions attached to harvesting and transporting the wood over long distances. I also am a bit skeptical over the use of the word, "sustainable" as it relates to forestry. Not that I don't trust the Koch brothers, but I don't trust the Koch brothers! Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
John Hartshorn
John Hartshorn
June 15, 2012
CO2 emissions per ton/mile are around .015 pounds for ocean shipping and .02 for rail; roughly 80 pounds per ton for these pellets. I hope the German energy efficiency accountants are factoring this in to their calculations but somehow I doubt it. Converting large ocean freighters to nuclear power, currently under study by Lloyd's Register, the international standards organization for the classification and design of ships, would eliminate this source of emissions which currently accounts for about 4% of global anthropogenic CO2.
Jim Warden
Jim Warden
June 15, 2012
What if we used the same size areas to create GreenNH3 It would be better than carbon neutral and the fuel an be created without spewing carbon from machines..
niel barnard
niel barnard
June 15, 2012
A number of factual inaccuracies in the otherwise good article i.e. Pellet mills use a mixture of sawmill and harvest residues and pulp logs; definitely not lumber. Its is not universally true that its cheaper to produce electricity from chips than from pellets. e.g. pellets are used for co firing in PF fuel boilers is much more efficient than chips. A number of developers of large scale dedicated projects in EU have changed from woodchips to pellets as preferred fuel. Pellet imports from SE USA, N Eastern USA was closer to 1 million tonnes last year ( official stats acknowledged around 300 K tonnes). Demand prospects for imported pellets in EU for heat and power is estimated at between 10 and 15 million tonnes by 2015 however total capacity expansion that is currently taking place is 4 million tonnes tops so I expect some fire works
Scott Otterson
Scott Otterson
June 15, 2012
DrAlexC: Actually, Germany's C02 emissions are decreasing. In 2011, even after having shut down 8 nuclear plants, and even in a roaring manufacturing economy, Germany's GHG emissions dropped by 2%, and it also remained a net electricity exporter.
Christopher Lee
Christopher Lee
June 15, 2012
It would be better to keep this site (reasonably...) polemic-free, DrAlexC. It would be reasonable to argue that renewables subsidies should be fixed in such a way that there isn't too much temptation to transport the fuels thousands of miles just because that's business. There must be better ways of ensuring fair worldwide competition. One thing I've commented on before is that every renewables topic tends to be treated in isolation, because the subject really is difficult. V-bruce-stenswick-62270 discusses another use for wood waste; you could add some other things such as cement production. Possible more importantly, it would be nice to be able to read some medium-term projections on the balance between burning and biofuel production (gas and liquid), because large-scale cellulose use seems to be forever just around the corner.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 15, 2012
What an intriguing approach: a) defame your exploitee -- "miles of surprisingly desolate pine forests"; b) locate a 'John' -- a "German-based utility"; c) make your exploitee attractive -- "pellets"; d) deliver the goods so the customer can use it -- burn pellets for electricity"; e) collect the $. Then, tell the environmental watchdogs the story that it's "carbon neutral". Really? The Japanese tried to burn our NW forests with balloons carrying incendiary bombs in WWII. Now we just let some dudes here chip our SE forests & sell 'em to the Germans to burn? Really? Let's see, lumbering machinery, chipping machinery, ships & trucks to haul pellets to German fires are "carbon-neutral? Really? Soil depletion, water consumption -- all 'green'? Really? Not, of course, counting the unnatural emissions of Sulfur and Nitrogen compounds from the burning. All this to allow a few politicized Germans to foolishly shut down their safe nuclear plants. They don't care that doing so will emit 50 megatons of new CO2 each year. Each year this German naivete will cause emissions larger than the emissions produced by all aircraft on all sides in all theatres in all the years of WWII. Oops, forgot, someone here is making $ burning our forests in Germany while worsening global warming & ocean acidification for the majority of the world's people who had little to do with our accumulated emissions in the first place. Silly me!
V. Bruce Stenswick
V. Bruce Stenswick
June 15, 2012
I do not think it is a good idea to burn biomass for electricity. As a temporary measure it is OK, but the efficiency is not very good. I do think we need policies that encourage biomass for heat. A carbon tax would probably be the best--I prefer a progressive tax, $1 per ton per year for 3 years, $2 per ton per year for 3 years, $3 per ton per year for 3 years, etc.
Nathan McClure
Nathan McClure
June 14, 2012
Bruce - nice job on the article! A point of clarification: The Georgia Biomass plant processes the equivilent of the "growth" on 230,000 acres of forest each year. The mill does not use an amount to the entire forest biomass or wood on 230,000 acres -- only the growth. Thanks!

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Bruce Dorminey

Bruce Dorminey

Bruce Dorminey is an award-winning science journalist who is a former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine and a former Paris-based technology correspondent for the Financial Times newspaper. However, he...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 3
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet
  • 1
    Renewable Energy Investments Shift to Developing Nations

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • Natural Power
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Green Power Conferences
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Rotork plc
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information