The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 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
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming 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

Massachusetts Finalizes Strict Regulations on Biomass Plants

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
August 21, 2012  |  162 Comments

The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) finalized the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard Class I regulations for biomass eligibility yesterday after more than two years of evaluation and heated debate.

The final standards require all woody biomass plants to generate power at minimum 50 percent efficiency to receive one half of a renewable energy credit (REC), and 60 percent efficiency to receive one full REC. Previously plants were required to operate at 25 percent efficiency. All plants must also achieve a 50 percent reduction in lifecycle emissions over 20 years.

These new standards are expected to shake up the industry, and some fear that they will influence regulation throughout the country. If these standards were applied nationally, almost 50 percent of the biomass power plants in operation would be considered non-renewable, according to Bob Cleaves, CEO of the Biomass Power Association.

In addition to these strict measures, Massachusetts will also requires a Forest Impact Assessment every five years to determine the industry’s influence on the environment and ensure its preservation. The state will aslo create a special category of biomass units deemed to be advancing the technology that will be eligible for half-RECs at an efficiency of 40 percent.

The final standards have been influenced by the 2010 Manomet Center for Conversion Sciences study that determined biomass energy is not carbon neutral and does not cut greenhouse gasses. The study states that burning biomass creates an even larger carbon debt and releases more CO2 for every kilowatt of energy produced than some fossil fuels.  

The Monomet findings have been debated extensively, with some analysts claiming that the study failed to account for the use of waste wood — burning dead, rotting material from the forest floor, which can promote new growth and carbon absorption — and the selective harvesting method. This method states that carbon released from harvesting a certain number of trees in a set system is offset by carbon accumulation from the entire remaining system.

Despite the ongoing arguments, DOER believes that these regulations will ultimately help Massachusetts reach its carbon reduction goals — the Commonwealth must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, according to the Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) set in 2008.

“The adoption of this revised regulation and guidelines demonstrates the Patrick-Murray Administration’s commitment to advancing the Commonwealth’s clean energy goals and greenhouse gas reduction commitments based on sound science and prudent policy,” said DOER Commissioner Mark Sylvia in a release.  “Through this regulation and other initiatives, DOER believes there is a role for biomass energy in the Commonwealth focused on high efficiency use of the limited sustainable wood resource.”

Lead image: Gavel via Shuterstock

162 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 11, 2012
Coal -- as Cliff says, careful what you get your mouth around.
;]
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 11, 2012
Careful, Coal, don't drink the wood alcohol--you'll go blind.
Coal War
Coal War
September 10, 2012
@DrAlexC -'Whatever you're smoking' Only thing I'm smoking is your ego, dude. I drink my bourbon three fingers and three cubes and only from Kentucky. Find better manners and I might even offer you a taste. We're going to make Kentucky Bourbon using wood too, grown right here in our hometowns. We'll be gaining grid steadily with projects well off your radar as you search for big buckets of money to put together grid scale projects. I suspect we'll be contracting the Amish to do the fieldwork and Veterans to plant the trees, to distil the worlds finest alcohol and whatever else goes with it. If you haven't understood my ramblings by now, I suggest you try Old Grand Dad 114, it'll sweeten your disposition and change your attitude: heck, we might even end up on the same team It'll certainly ease the pain you must be feeling, knowing that at least in your life time, wood's going to replace more coal, natural gas, oil, for more uses in more places than you ever imagined. Wood is what we've got. It's here to stay and I'd wager a bottle of aged single barrel Buffalo Trace on it Harold. I bet your honeypot that Massachusetts biomass regulations will become almost as distant a memory as thorium.
erich knight
erich knight
September 10, 2012
The Synchrotron Light Source of Lawrence Berkeley along with several other advanced light source imagery centers are opening new doors in genetic hybridization of plants and microbiology, Prions as Epigenetic Elements;
http://www.nature.com/news/prions-and-chaperones-outside-the-fold-1.10026
and,
Tobacco Juice Biofuel;
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/02/29/hemingways-cats-and-tobacco-road/,
to see inter cellular processes, electron transfers, muscle fibers to photosynthesis, this mapping of biologic environmental functioning is amazing to watch unfold.
Even astrophysicist can now map the cascade of high-energy particles which have direct effect on the initiation of lightning http://scitechdaily.com/h-e-s-s-ii-telescope-starts-operation-and-detects-its-very-first-images/
and challenging how ions influence each other's behavior in a dense plasma;
http://scitechdaily.com/lcls-measurements-challenge-plasma-theories/

Almost always in a Awe,

Erich
erich knight
erich knight
September 10, 2012
To the subject, biomass and generally Forest stewardship, a whole new metric, ring of life, or monkeywrench has been thrown into the works.

Fungal Potassium Aerosols
So many new players are being found in the Tropospheric Opera.
Potassium, as cloud nucleation catalyst, another ecological service delivered by the fungal kingdom.
The Rainmaker of all rain makers. Now we know what March conspires, to call April showers, that bring the May flowers.
Yeast Fermentation also takes up Potassium proportional to the amount of sugars added, as soon as carbon dioxide production starts the potassium is liberated

"the amount of potassium particles released from microscopic fungi in the lab was indeed enough to account for the concentration of potassium they observed" and then they go on to say, for confirmation, lacking a demonstration, to wrap trees in plastic bags?, Certainly I hope Paul Stamits, Dr. "Mike" Amaranthus and the Mycologist community will be chiming in here

They found three kinds of organic nano-sized aerosol particles, with potassium at the core in all of them, looking for carbon, oxygen and nitrogen contents of the organic materials and found 20 percent potassium playing an important role in the oxidation and condensation of the organic gas molecules, in which various chemical phases such as mist or cloud liquid water and gel-like organic substances are involved.
Plus the collection area for the samples just happened to be the Brazilian rainforest north of Manaus, I wonder if they realize the unknown bias Terra Preta soils may present?.

How Fungi May Create the Amazon's Clouds
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/sep/04-mushroom-cloud

This carbon crucible of catalyst, structure and life orchestrations of beckoning the rain, such a beautiful world.
Oh to be a fly on the wall as Dr. Lovelock reads this work,
or
Dr. Hansen at NASA. as the implications for 100 GtC of afforestation are plugged into his climate forcing models
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 10, 2012
@onegreenday: True, but most of the OECD nations have large financial sectors that perform similar leveraging activities. GDP is also inflated by Government deficit spending and Keynesian "stimulus" spending that has no real substance behind it. We're not atypical in that category either, though, so GDP probably still remains a good relative metric, if not a good absolute one.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 10, 2012
Coal --"Maybe you should get a new abacus or stop investing in fossil fuels in order to fund your renewable energy work. If you want to protect others from misinformation stop spreading it for your own illicit purpose."

Whatever you're smoking, maybe you should share, so we might understand your ramblings?
;]
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 10, 2012
@Cliff G: BP is not the source of the GDP information, that is from 2010 IEA data. BP, however is the source of annually compiled and widely respected energy statistics that many academics and economists reference. I was referring you to a chart on energy intensity they built that is informative and useful. My antennae are alert to propaganda as well, but their annual reports and outlooks are pretty empirical stuff that anyone in the energy field should at least keep up with rather than just dismiss or ignore. There is value in them.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 10, 2012
USA GDP can be misleading since a lot of it is profit from financial transactions and not 'domestic production' of material goods.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
September 10, 2012
Cliff C, thanks, but I tend not to use oil company propaganda to formulate my views on the future of energy.

Regardless, the statistics you cite support my point - 23% of the world's energy being consumed by 5% of the population. Our impressive GDP does not make this imbalance in anyway acceptable because we've sent much of our manufacturing offshore. In other words, our actual energy use is much higher, but under BP's accounting that energy is hung on the exporting nation. Do you suppose BP's motivation is to reduce the guilt so we will continue burning their products?

Hopefully third and second-world nations will avoid the glutenous trap the US has fallen into and can boost their standards of living based on renewable technologies. BP's worst nightmare.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 9, 2012
@Cliff G: Look at the BP Outlook 2030 booklet page 48. There is a chart that shows the industrialization/deindustrialization progress of 10 major nations. China and India are still on the upslope, the US is on the downslope and is typical, not unique. (British Petroleum. "Energy Outlook 2030." January 2012. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037134&contentId=7068677 ). We are often painted as the gluttons of the world. In 2010 the US consumed 23% of the world's energy. But it also had 23% of the world's GDP. Because of technology, the 5% of the world's population that live in the US are also among the worlds most productive. We emitted 18% of the world's CO2 in 2009 (latest data I could find), and are actually in the lowest tier of CO2 emissions per $ of GDP. We produce and consume a lot, but we do it as efficiently as the best in the world, and partly that is due to the fact that we import much of the big, industrial stuff and manufacture smaller, higher-tech stuff and export less tangible things like software and intellectual capital.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
September 9, 2012
Cliff C, you wrote, "Industry is now only 20% of GDP." That's the US, and that was only possible because we have sent our manufacturing offshore. We are consuming at a higher rate than ever and products are now needing replacement more frequently. I do not see any trends to support your theory. Nor do I see the energy embodied in renewable technologies as undeserved or inappropriate. Their EROI is short and thereafter they keep on keeping on.

I wish you were right about AGW being overstated, but the bulk of scientific opinion suggests those predictions are materializing and we are headed to a new climate reality whether we like it or not and regardless of how much it is going to cost.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 9, 2012
@Cliff G: Let me clarify what I meant about post-industrial economy. In 1945, after increasing for a century and a half, the industrial fraction of the US economy crossed over from being a majority to a minority of GDP. Industry is now only 20% of GDP. As you probably know, this pattern of increasing then decreasing industrialization happens to all developed nations as every household gets saturated with electrification and appliances and cars, and growing efficiencies in production and energy supply begin to overtake growth in demand. In the next 50 years it might be possible for the great majority of people in undeveloped nations to achieve sufficient progress in development to get their economies past the same hump we hit in 1945, so that global energy intensity might be declining rather than increasing. There will always be an industrial fraction to the global economy. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions will continue to increase until the bulk of the world's civilization approaches that crossover. Even if we go all-in on solar and nuclear and hydro, the up-front CO2 bill to be paid for manufacturing these power plants will carry forward into this period, so I see no prospect for reducing CO2 emissions for at least 50 years, and that will begin from a much higher level than today, and the climate effects from that CO2 will take at least another century to fully manifest themselves. Is that gloomy or is that just being realistic? I personally don't think it's gloomy because I believe the global warming doomsaying is over-stated. Warming is not progressing as steeply as the models and the alarmists initially predicted, and I think the weight of scientific opinion is becoming more moderate in prognosis. The Earth has more negative feedback loops and stabilizing forces than we give it credit for. We are also 19,000 years into an inter-glacial warming period that usually only last about 10,000 years. We are still more passengers than drivers.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 9, 2012
It's a good thing to bring 'efficiency' into the renewable equation and debate. You said before we want a level playing field for all energy concerns. Forcing biomass generators to meet a standard means we can require it of other generators. Full life cycle, cradle to grave viewpoint. What's the cost/benefit to the Earth. What are the polluters and where are the sequesters.
Coal War
Coal War
September 9, 2012
Why bother... Why reward them with the benefits for being so gullible. Why not offer the technology in places receptive to it, like most other places.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 9, 2012
One good thing about the new Mass regulations is that somebody in Mass might get the ball rolling on a biochar/bio-oil/gasoline pyrolysis unit and get an example working and some solid carbon capture figures and renewable fuels for policy makers to consider. I can see CoolPlanet qualifying in Massachusetts with their system
Coal War
Coal War
September 9, 2012
I do believe. Yes.
And I should have elaborated about the specific "new" contract between China and American Coal producers. As America cuts back on usage, conserves, and works toward a solution, the coal industry and the power producers simply shift the pattern of transport and the market they work in. The recent move made by a German owned American Power Company to toss 300,000 annual tons of wood into a coal boiler and suggest that it reduced their Carbon footprint by 1% is ridiculous and irresponsible. I see a path. Maybe if I showed it to you we'd both see it. Or maybe you'd convince me I was wrong and I could pretend that I didn't see it. I think we're all stuck in the conversation that has to do with what the end goal is to be. I agree that the CO2 problem is tied to population but I disagree that the problem is too large. We can all agree that there is a very large problem and that continues to bring us to the table to offer the solutions that might overcome the large problem, together. I just wonder if we're all going to ignore the arithmetic by focusing on the science. The really good solutions are too close to the ground for some so far out in the tree and the finance community doesn't find that very sexy. But the coal companies sure know how to turn that to their advantage. IE stupid misinformed regulations in a tiny state, a show for the finance community.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
September 9, 2012
Cliff C, While I share some of your gloom, I see any and all shifts to renewables as a step in the right direction as long as the technology has a respectable EROI. I think your vision of a "the whole of human civilization" becoming a services-based economy is unrealistic. The key to an altered but stable planet is displacing all fossil fuel use - easier said then done, but not impossible.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 9, 2012
China's getting their coal from a lot of places--it's a global commodity--but mostly from Australia. The question is who pays the carbon tax, Australia or China? China refuses. Australia is the producer, not the consumer. Anyway, carbon taxes are just a wealth transfer scam anyway that are not stopping Germany and Eastern Europe from increasing use of coal in general and lignite in particular. My best estimate, after reviewing several conflicting sources, is that annual global warming emissions are at least 9 gigatons of carbon = 33 GT gigatons of CO2 equivalent (about 25% of the total is N2O and CH4 from agricultural emissions—the fastest growing part BTW). The OECD nations had been decreasing their CO2e outputs until recent months when Germany and Japan's cutbacks on nuclear power basically erased all those reductions, however increasing emissions in non-OECD nations have been rising inexorably. As a very genuine question, does anyone here really believe and have a rational concept of any path to stop, let alone reverse, the growth of man-made atmospheric CO2? As discussed before, just leveling off the growth would require 1GW a week of world power to miraculously become zero emissions. However, building 1GW of solar or wind or nuclear or biofuels produces a colossal plume of CO2 (and is freighted with gigatons of temporary and permanent-impact environmental damage as well). Until the whole of human civilization has passed into the post-industrial, services-based phase of its economy, which is at least another 50 years, it seems to me we are along for the ride on CO2 emissions, and there is no way to capture, let alone store all this CO2. The scale of the problem is simply too large and the causes to fundamental. CO2 is the exhalation of civilization. It grows as civilization grows.
Coal War
Coal War
September 9, 2012
Just to be clear Alex, China and India are expanding their coal consumption because Americans are uncapping the Appalachian Mountains and selling them by the ton to China and India. If you can't count the simplest practical emissions reductions why would we believe you could handle the big complicated ones? Maybe you should get a new abacus or stop investing in fossil fuels in order to fund your renewable energy work. If you want to protect others from misinformation stop spreading it for your own illicit purpose.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 8, 2012
Someone said CO2 emissions are 10, or 50 tons per year? It's more like 35 billion metric tons -- almost 40Gt and rising, as China & India keep burning stuff.

The goal, set in Oct 2009, is 1 ton/capita/year by 2050 (that's 100 gal of gasoline) -- lots of luck!

These refs may be useful...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 8, 2012
Coal, just to be fair, it's not what you think that matters to me. It only matters that others don't get misled by misinformation.
Coal War
Coal War
September 8, 2012
And there you go. Thanks for the preview Cliff.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 7, 2012
Tennant, exactly right -- CC is renewable. not CCS. So, with DG solar, efficient EVs & storage, plus advanced nuclear, one can kill combustion, as JFK intended in 1962, and make truly C-neutral fuels from CO2 & water, whether from air or water. And, of course, desalination is also a key need met by waste heat from nuclear.

This is one reason wht the Saudis, Abu Dhabi, UAE... are having many new nukes built, so they can take our $ for their oil.
;]

One easy read is: http://thoriumforum.com/new-book-thorium-energy-cheaper-coal

Which also reflects what the Chinese and others are doing to reduce both combustion and present nuke waste/cost.
R TENNANT
R TENNANT
September 7, 2012
OnegreenDay - Certainly CCS is imperative but I can't see that the use of fossil fuels can be reduced with any intermittent renewable plant unless it is first stored and densified for sale as firm blocks of capacity..

Dr.A. - Would CCS not be 'energy-wasting' if surplus renewable and/or nuke was available?

and perhaps there are many 'non-injection' storage sites and carbon reclaim methods/markets which deserve to be considered more thoroughly? - including temporary storage in sealed/abandoned mine tunnels and in seabed-only structures for near term market use - i.e for EOR or compressed gas industries, as food for microalgae manufacture of chemicals/fuel, solidification/manufacture of artificial minerals/soils/biochar, reclaim/re-mix with hydrogen...

..and perhaps more all-electric transport is laudable but also dictates very heavy increase in consumption of costly copper/aluminum and is hardly more convenient or reliable over liquid fueled transport - including LH2-hydrogen ICE vehicles?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 7, 2012
OneGreen -- unfortunately, CCS is an expensive, energy-wasting fantasy, not even able to handle 60% of present N. American emissions in all of the suitable N. American sequestration sites deemed safe.

If we thought corn ethanol was a wasteful, subsidized fool's errand, CCS easily tops that.

The Stanford symposium recently covered that -- especially note the Benson research...

http://gcep.stanford.edu/events/workshops_negemissions2012.html

And, the absurdity of sequestering Oxygen along with Carbon just adds to the naivete of the concept. But, BP & Halliburton would be happy to handle all those deep, very high-pressure wells that must remain sealed for millennia, right?
;]
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 7, 2012
The imperative for CO2 sequestering is without doubt and solar,wind,tidal, while all good, only reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Ocean acidification may cause the death of phytoplankton which is a major source of our oxygen on Earth. Here's a link.
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-scientists-acid-alarm-plankton.html
Scientists sound acid alarm for plankton
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 7, 2012
Nice try, Tony, but Silicon wafers are not the only solar PV and so little material is used per kW that the impact of PV manufacturing is now lower than making a kid's wagon, per panel. Not to mention the decades of life from the product.

Best to study the impacts of other systems that unlike DG PV, require land & transport, like yours, to get a fair comparison.
anthony arand
anthony arand
September 7, 2012
Coal. Because as a taxpayer I think its wrong to subsidize a particular "commercial" technology with my tax dollars. We designed a system that doesn't neet subsidy to be profitable, and it meets all the enviornomental regulations. So if we can do it, they can too. Low impact solar? Excuse me but the manufacturing of solar panels, especially the refinement of grade 4 or 6 silicon to grade 9 is an environmental nightmare. The impact may not be in the use of the panel, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact that is by far worse than biomass....
Coal War
Coal War
September 7, 2012
I'm sorry. Did you say something?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 7, 2012
Coal & Cliff, sorry to have given you too much or too little to yak to yourselves about! Kept you off the street & out of the bars, right?

But, this is all a serious set of issues, remember?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 6, 2012
Indeed, Coal, everything is subsidized, including these blog exchanges, which now amount to emissions equal to driving a Hummer around the block.

The hard questions are not what folks in the business of exploiting subsidies want to address. That's why we see odd avoidance of subsidized, but not-for-profit research that says, for example, biochar ain't the solution. It has place, perhaps a permanent place, but it's no solution in comparison to low-impact sources like local solar, electric transport, or advanced nuclear.
Coal War
Coal War
September 6, 2012
@anthony-arand-68396 Well said. I'll be happy to show you. But first I have to ask you this. Why, in order to be viable, does any renewable energy have to stand the litmus test of being subsidy free. The Coal industry doesn't operate that way. Neither does the Wind or Solar Industry. The Oil industry certainly doesn't. Name me one early stage technology or strategy that doesn't make use of SBIR/STTR funding. Landing a probe on Mars is an R&D subsidy for the mining of Helium 3. We've undergone massive subsidy for the nuclear industry since WWII including oversight, clean up, and regulation. When the energy industry stops regarding the world as it's privately owned playground and relinquishes control of the wealth associated with classicist resource manipulation to farmers, miners, and communities, I'll build it in your front yard, put a bow on it and pay the interconnection fees. I say the most fundamentally important power source we have as a nation is our people. Is it really fair to ask the farmers to convert to a new best practice and suffer a cash flow gap for the good of the nation without offering to help? Should a coal miner retrain himself? Why shouldn't communities receive an energy check instead of an energy bill? I mean if you live in Alaska, you get an oil revenue check. When is the Coal industry going to pay us the American people back for all the coal they've taken, and the clean up we do for them, and the research and development money we give them. It's not trickling down in the form of cheaper utility bills. It just keeps mounting. And while the coal industry bombards the public with subsidized messages about how renewable energy is going to raise the price of consumer energy, they throw a wall of our own money at policy shift to discourage investment. Show me the pool of money willing to risk the $10MM nut to get the $100MM fix and I'll show you liquid money and carbon reduction at a scale you've never encountered, without subsidy.
erich knight
erich knight
September 6, 2012
Carl Sagan's human connection to stardust leaves out a critical stage. We are stardust, but only stardust transformed by life. Every time I look at an SEMs of Char, it strikes me, the perfect preservation of the base structures of life, a fractal vision, how life creates the greatest surface area with the least amount of material. The preservation of this structure, for return to the lowest order of life, seems almost a religious act. A perfect cradle to cradle recycling, biotic carbon should never be combusted and destroyed, but revered, as life is revered, be returned to the cradle of terrestrial life the Soil. .

This view of biologic carbon has led me to compose several paraphrases; "That Terra Preta prayer",;Our carbon who art in heaven, "The soil carbon Commandments"; Thou shall not have any molecule before me, and the "Soil Carbon Dream"; I have a dream that one day we live in a nation where progress will not be judged by the production yields of our fields, but by the color of their soils and by the Carbon content of their character. Google them to read the rest.
erich knight
erich knight
September 6, 2012
Peanuts?..Really?
Total anthropogenic carbon emissions are about 10 Gt C, so 20% is peanuts?
The perennial beauty of biomass crops like giant miscanthus is that they build soil carbon by the sugars exuded by their perennial roots system. Other biomass crops like Agave, grown on marginal lands, without irrigation or fertilizer have been estimated, that in the Southwest, could produce an additional 1.6 Gt of biomass harvests.
1.6 Gtons here & 1.6 billion G tons there, pretty soon you're talking about a lot of carbon.

Thermodynamics; Carbonization is an exothermic reaction, the general LCA, or energy in over energy out is 1:9. Please explain exactly how this is violating entropy.

The best way to save the seas is to build good soils, rectifying the nitrogen cycle reduces the dead zones, sucking down carbon photosynthetically and locking it in soil, saves the seas from having to do that job.
anthony arand
anthony arand
September 6, 2012
Something that has been missed guys is this discussion...commercial viability. Great ideas technically, but show me a funcitoning facility that is economically viable that does not require subsidy from Government, and you have something to really talk about. What the commonwealth did here is to try and kill an industry, not unlike many who have a golden goose technology or environmental religion. The hardest part of engineering isn't quoting laws of thermodynamics, its applying them in a fashion that is legal, commercial viable, and safe to operate. Energy solutions require integration of all of our resources, not just any one that is the political flavor of the day.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
September 6, 2012
Coal,Yes, I know the risks, but the excitement of repeat performance of his "Thorium uber alles" skit was too much to bear.
Coal War
Coal War
September 6, 2012
Careful @Cliff_Goudey.........he has the "Honeypot" and a bucket of white paint. It could be serious.
Coal War
Coal War
September 6, 2012
Gee Alex, I'm all a quiver. You're absolutely right, I don't know (or care)what a honeypot is. Must be something you baked up at Menlo. Maybe you should have used wood to give it a nice even burn. And thanks for the offer, but I don't think I'll be bending over any time soon for you or any other California espionologist quacks over what I look up on google.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
September 6, 2012
Alex writes, "Only one power source does those in environmentally sound ways." Finally....finally after two weeks we are going to learn why the good doctor is here and why perfectly sound renewable energy choices pale in comparison to the anointed option. Come on Alex, don't tease us any longer.
R TENNANT
R TENNANT
September 6, 2012
@sam-c-weaver

RE; choice NO.3 - shouldn't you have included bulk storage of intermmittent renewables and/or carbon-controlled fossil fuels?

and how about to capture-store-reclaim 'burned' carbon for re-mix with hydrogen as needed for fuel or food purposes?
Sam C Weaver
Sam C Weaver
September 6, 2012
The choices for the planet are simple:

(1) Fossil Fuels until they run out with all the subsequent damage.
(2) Nuclear if we recycle and bury the high level waste.
(3) Renewables:
Wind: discontinuous
Solar: discontinuous
Biomass: continuous
We need all three renewables if we are going to make a serious transition. To choose only one will guarantee that we will continue to use the fossil fuels as long as they last. Solar can't do it alone. Wind can't do it alone. Biomass could do it alone but it would be foolish to not use the wind and solar where they are prevalent.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 6, 2012
Erich, you still miss 2 key facts: a) 1-2Gtons of CO2 reduction is peanuts, especially when the environmental effects of the 'farming' are included; b) biofuels aren't exempt from thermodynamic reality -- very low efficiency for anything but heating. So being in a biofuel business may cause one to think one is 'green', but biological & physical realities of Nature demonstrate biofuels are anything but 'green'. The reality of climate warming, sea rise and ocean acidification mean that we need stop burning anything ASAP. Yet, even if we did, we're decades late and the CO2 inventory will continue to acidify seas, bringing tragic consequences sooner than will sea rise or perhaps even climate change. The only wise use of liquid fuels is for aircraft and other irreplaceable purposes. And, production of those fuels must be done via high-temperature, non-emitting sources, consuming the existing CO2 inventory, even while desalinating water and generating electricity as efficiently as our best combustion plants. Only one power source does those in environmentally sound ways.
erich knight
erich knight
September 5, 2012
Thanks Dr. Alex,
I had missed that Stanford conference.
As I went through the presentations I was very glad to see Dominic Wolf representing the Biochar platform. His work with co-author James Amonette, "Sustainable Biochar to Mitigate Global Climate Change," a few years ago demonstrated that with just waste biomass, ag residue that is presently burned, etc., not considering dedicated biomass crops, that 1- 2 gigatons Carbon per year could be sequestered. That is a pretty big climate wedge for just one bio energy platform.
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/4080/beyond--the--hype/

Now, with better and more efficient thermal conversion technologies that number can be pushed up quite a bit. While the cost is brought down, I believe that the nano structured catalyst that CoolPlanet Biofuels has not released their patent on, must have those cost savings to generate $1.20/gallon bio gasoline.
I tend to trust that this electron manipulating, quantum well catalyst has passed the muster chemical engineers at General electric, British Petroleum and Conoco Phillips.

I think this is a safe assumption.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 5, 2012
Coal -- "Wow, that's alot coming from an engineer who's creative genius is to paint things white. It's exactly the buckshot that's needed,"

Yes indeed, Coal, bend over! Do you know what a "honeypot" is in security or espionage?

Thought not. If you did, you'd not have been suckered by what you find out about me (or others) on the web.
;]
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
September 5, 2012
So, back on the subject of 'Massachusetts Finalizes Strict Regulations on Biomass Plants'- what will be the impact of the state's regs on other states' biomass laws and rules and regs, if any? Joe
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 5, 2012
Good points Tennant. It seems Erich hasn't really studied the whole of bio-this, bio-that fuelling. Here you go, Erich, a good recent summary to start with... http://gcep.stanford.edu/events/workshops_negemissions2012.html
R TENNANT
R TENNANT
September 5, 2012
@ Erich - my understanding is that

1), the big problem with catlysts are that they are too-easily poisoned by carbon, that cleaning syngas of siloxanes is also no easy feat, and, that 'fractionating' bio fuels generally reguires signicant hydrogen input...

2) steam recovery/distillation of VOC's is quick and relatively simple, and, eliminates any economic or technical need for composting or related costly source-separating/transport of organics..

3), mixing biochar with an obsolete compost process is likely as highly polluting and inefficient ss other types of low temperature thermal oxidizers-incinerators or 'fractionator' processes which cannot make use of waste heat, capture/control air emissions or otherwise compete against steam processing of a disposable carbon filter..
erich knight
erich knight
September 4, 2012
So here are Jim Lane's numbers from Biofuel Digest;
" A ton of miscanthus contains 940 pounds of carbon, a gallon of gasoline contains 5.2 pounds of carbon – so theoretical maximum is around 180 gallons of gasoline from a ton of miscanthus. 160 gallons of gasoline? That's 88 percent of theoretical – so, you need to access all of the carbon, and make no CO2 along the way."
The way Cool does this is by breaking as few chemical bonds as necessary to liberate the hydro-carbon molecules.

Cool Planet's systems are based on a series of reactions:
A carrousel of fractionating discs on an oval track heating biomass into a gas, pass over a catalyst, cool into a soup of liquid molecules, pull off the ones you need (e.g. the gasoline-range molecules); then repeat the process numerous times, with different temperatures and pressures at each reactor "station" and unique catalysts, until you have converted all the volatile gases into gasoline-range molecules. You are left with a residual bio-char,

Key points in the patent;
The process;
" is scalable in that it can be expanded in two dimensions to any practical working throughput while retaining a constant thickness for heat treatment of incoming materials."

Three catalyst; a dehydration catalyst, an aromatization catalyst, a gas-upgrading catalyst,

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/03/05/ll-cool-planet-rocks-the-bells/



Riding the Carrousel of Carbon,
Erich
erich knight
erich knight
September 4, 2012
@ Dr. Alex; 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.

@tenant;
Industrial scale living biofuel systems have a lot of infrastructure to pay for. Plus living systems are very finicky, efficiency falls as product builds up in the living environment, separating out these products whether they be oil, algae, hydrogen, is difficult and expensive. Biosystems using synthetic genomics, and genetic hybridization for selected traits can certainly overcome some of these living barriers to high-efficiency fuel production.
Hemingway's Cats and Tobacco Road
Dr. Jansson's research team believes that an acre of tobacco could produce as much as 1,000 gallons of drop-in, hydrocarbon fuels.
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/02/29/hemingways-cats-and-tobacco-road/

Cool Planet's Patents,
Getting the Glomalin going, or, How CoolPlanet treates their Biomass Fractionator Char (BMF Char).

Method for enhancing soil growth using bio-char
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8236085.PN.&OS=PN/8236085&RS=PN/8236085

"Effect of Nutrient Washing

"fungi, archaea and bacteria, which supply nutrients to plants symbiotically. The microorganisms may be introduced in a number of different ways, including mixing the BMF char with compost and water, adding compost tea to the BMF char, blending the latter with compost, or blending the BMF char with potting soil. In embodiments using a compost tea, the product may be purchased at suppliers such as Bu's Brew Biodynamic Tea.RTM. (Malibu Compost Inc, Santa Monica, Calif.), Nature's Solution. Compost Tea.RTM. (Nature's Technologies International LLC, Novato, Calif.) or MycoGrow.RTM. (Fungi Perfecti, Inc., Olympia, Wash.)."
R TENNANT
R TENNANT
September 4, 2012
Erich- Questions

Presumably, the biochar/bioliquids fuel tachnology you are talking about is based on steam process and/or bioprocess -to-catalyst production of syngas?

How about a technology platform that recycles all wastes-nitrates/phosphorous through a disposable coal filter with a portion of the coal filter to be direct-burned in a power plant that is also equipped for CHP/CCS/steam gasification?

How about a technology platform that is algae-based for producing biodiesel/jetfuel/biochemicals/biochar, with algae grown in C02 gas-enriched closed-cycle-land-contained aquaculture environs?
Coal War
Coal War
September 4, 2012
Wow, that's alot coming from an engineer who's creative genius is to paint things white. It's exactly the buckshot that's needed, Mr solar guy.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 4, 2012
Erich, your "numbers" don't mean anything, since they avoid the realities of both the production and environmental costs and the unavoidable, extreme thermodynamic costs.

One can't biochar or biofuel one's way around physics.

But, Nature doesn't care how foolish we are.
erich knight
erich knight
September 4, 2012
So, Dr. Alex is not arguing with my numbers, I guess the potential for 120 billion gallons of bio gasoline just leaves him unimpressed.
At a dollar 20 a gallon, no subsidies required.

He's not arguing with Dr Mario Molina, or Dr. Hansen.

Accounting for their other ecological services; the 02,the carbohydrate sugars they pump into the soil, the CO2 they clean from the atmosphere, Plant efficiency looks a little more balanced.

Biochar is no silver bullet, but please point me to another energy platform that deals with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles for the sea's sake, the carbon cycle for the Atmosphere's & Soil's sake, nutrient dense foods for our stomachs sake and in situ remediation of toxic agents for the sake of the general environment. Such a tool, that allows husbandry of the soil microbiom makes nature do the heavy lifting to solve our many dilemmas.

Actually, more like Silver Buckshot.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 4, 2012
I see Erich accused me way up there of "hrping" on efficiency, or rather the very real and extreme inefficiency of any biofuels.

Reality is a bitch, Erich. The Biofuel Age didn't end because of lack of biofuels. It ended for lack of subsidy to its less than 1% efficiency in using sunlight to do anything, while local solar PV continued its efficiency growth beyond 20%, storage continues to improve, and EVs make liquid fuel combustion only relevant to aircraft, and for a time, shipping.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
September 3, 2012
Back from a trip and see some real insanity developing: "we may have to kill the forests to save the planet"

Why not kill all the people who add more than 1 ton of CO2/year to the atmosphere instead?

That's the limit set for a population of 9 billion by the analyses presented to the Copenhagen meeting in Oct. 2009.

Biochar is no magic bullet. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean already will within a decade have devastating effects on sea life and the billions of folks depe3nding on sea life for food.

If someone's enamored of gimmicks like biochar, at least study the ref I passed on here to the Stanford GCEP symposium on carbon-negative options a few months back.

There are no easy solutions via messing with plants.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 3, 2012
If Wal-mart and Toys-R-Us linked up, they could form WAL-RUS. That sounds environmentally friendly. (at least better than WAL-CHAR)
Coal War
Coal War
September 3, 2012
Well now that Walmart is involved I feel so much better. And Dupont, well, who can you trust to safeguard our interests more that Dupont. Oh glorious day! Maybe now I can retire from renewable energy and finally move on to Swiss and Swedish oil exploration in confidence that they have it all under control. I mean after all, after George Bush said switchgrass I should have taken up crochet and made better use of my time. If only I had met the great thinkers back then, just look at all the blankets and sweaters I could have made.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 2, 2012
@coalw: "Swedish Oil" investing was meant to be a joke in line with the preceding banter. Didn't think anyone would take that seriously. Now Swiss Oil, that's were the money is.
erich knight
erich knight
September 2, 2012
Dear coal,

Your farcical romp prompts me to reply.

The subject of your parity is really old-school, at corporations across America, yes, there is green-washing, however review the Sustainability Indexing Program in force now for over two years at Walmart. By all reports, mostly from the vendors returning from Bentonville, they no longer beat them with rubber hoses for the lowest price alone. Now they require complete life-cycle analysis (LCA) of every product they consider. Gathering this data they are now composing carbon footprint pricing labels. So the consumer can compare the cheaper but more carbon intensive products made overseas compared to more expensive but environmentally cheaper products made here at home.

Self-interest is a powerful force, the sustainability directors at these corporations more than see the writing on the wall. They know their customers, as their customers change they must change with them. The ability to gather massive amounts of data about customers allows the customers tails to wag the largest of corporate dogs.

I have actually caught the ear of the directors of sustainability both at Walmart and DuPont, advising them that the first carbon negative product they could offer will be bags of WalChar.

You can't green-wash Mother Nature.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 2, 2012
http://www.repreverenewables.com/docs/FreedomGeneral%20Info-GI1010d.pdf
Giant Miscanthus for up to 20-25 tons biomass per acre.
Coal War
Coal War
September 2, 2012
http://india.1hnews.com/latest/coal-war-mired-in-government/

This would be a good title for those shiny new regs in Massachusetts. I wouldn't mind getting mired if the divorce didn't cost so much.
Coal War
Coal War
September 2, 2012
@ onegreenday if one Coal miner managed two hundred acres of willow he would retire without black lung, his children would be assured that he would come home at night so you can leave the light on in the bathroom, and he would clear $80K annual income. That would make a happy Labor Day. @anthony-arand-68396 A consumer walks into a car dealership and asks for an electric Cadillac. He drives to the hypothetical electric filling station and fills it with ZVolt his new favorite green fuel. After a microwave dinner frozen and shipped from 500 miles away, he falls asleep in front of his 60 inch tv and doesn't wake up until his digital alarm tells him to 8 hours later. He wakes feeling better about himself because he has contributed to the green evolution. After the car brand sold 50,000 cars they anticipate the annual sales volume and plan for the increase in consumption. They make another call and exercise mineral rights on the next quadrant of Bryce Canyon. They take the subsidy check,open a hole and pay their diesel transport bill. They go home to a big chicken dinner with the oil execs to discuss who to sue next and laugh about how gullible the American green consumer is. Every component in his new ride is made using coal and shipped with diesel. The only green thing associated with it are the paint job and the customers attitude and his perception of his actions. He probably drove home and gave himself a break by eliminating his recycling bin. But he's in luck. On his commute to work, a farmer hung an extension cord on a fence with a sign that reads "Loco-Watt" .10/KW made right here. He steps out back while he gets charged up and walks a half mile loop carved into corridors of 20 foot tall willow trees. He grabs a fresh wood baked croissant and a steamy cup of joe, which he spills because the car manufacturer didn't want to add the extra weight. He mutters "Stupid car manufacturers." but nobody dies in WV and the sun still rises over Bryce. No Coal, No Oil.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 2, 2012
If 44 million Americans manage 1 acre of forest/field for biochar/fuels we can eliminate the nasty gasoline monkey and the money we spend won't go to oil drilling. And the jobs. Happy Labor Day!
anthony arand
anthony arand
September 1, 2012
Coal-war, Sometimes you have to let people fail so that they can learn first hand what not to do next time. That is the basis of my comment on the Common Wealth. People like yourself mean well, but you are missing the point. Energy independence from foreign oil is essential if our Country is to survive and prosper. Biomass energy is only a small part of the whole picture, but its an important one. You guys are hung up on fighting over table scraps with these other ideas of "forcing" your will upon others to accept your way to address what you think are the environmental issues. In short, you may be sitting at the table, but you are missing dinner. This is what big oil wants to see happen. As an environmentalist, I am considered pretty hard core because we have proved that "it" can be done if you really want to accomplish "it", but "it" may not be accomplished by the means you were thinking of. We went to the extreme position to develop new technology for a renewable waste to energy facility that is so clean that you could put it in the middle of town and never know it was there. Why do this? Because it was the only way to meet all the environmental rules of today's world, address the waste issues we have in our Country, provide environmentally sound long term stable employment, produce renewable energy and reduce our nations need for imported oil. Thats what the discussion should be about, protecting our coutnry AND following the laws we have on our books. If you have technology that works, show me.
Coal War
Coal War
September 1, 2012
Thanks @joe-zorzin. When the last ice storm rolled through western KY I counted at least four instances where the state expended diesel to collect debris, thousands of tons,15-20 thousand tons of hardwood at four regional collection sites. The debris lay in the open until it dried a little and then they threw a match to it. 80 thousand tons, enough biomass to eliminate the annual energy budget in four or five schools and hundreds of homes in their district. The suggestion we would destroy standing forests is at least as ridiculous as stripping organic matter from fields already stripped of most of their bio matter. On one end of the industry there are businesses enhancing genetics for a crop that grows abundantly and regenerates at an astounding rate. At the other end there is a growing fear of crops we haven't even grown yet that might not be enough to reverse nonexistent global warming with a population standing around with their thumbs up their bums, waiting for something to do. Is it so hard to conceive that growing fast growing native trees for local consumption is a better idea than clearing wood debris for convenience and then dumping it into the air in abject ignorance? Is open season burning of yard waste somehow preferable to harnessing the btu's from it in a controlled manner? Anyone want to count the number of leaf and trash piles burning every day and factor in the carbon release from combat operations, continuously burning underground mine fires, and forest fires that could have been avoided through better silviculture and try to tell me I shouldn't grow a hundred acres of willow and yearly chip half of it into a woodstove that makes electricity 24 hours a day.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 1, 2012
we may have to kill the forests to save the planet. we need to have the maximum biomass growth (not forests)to sequester (biochar) the maximum amount of CO2 to save the Earth. When we get the balance back we'll regrow the forests. CO2 sequestering is an Earth imperative and forests are a luxury (sorry to say) Try getting this passed in government. Imagine the President telling us we all had to sequester CO2 to save the planet.haha like the space program in reverse.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
September 1, 2012
Anthony said, 'If the regulators in the Commonwealth want this..then the people who elected them can enjoy the wisdom of their decisions...it will get settled in the courts as it should be...' the regulators now want solar, wind, geothermal and above all, cheap fracked natural gas- a new 400 MW gas power plant is being built or has been built in Westfield- many solar and wind 'farms' are being built- these 'farms' destroy the natural landscape- one 18 acre solar 'farm' was built behind my house in a rural/residential zone, converting the landscape into a lifeless desert-- I like solar on roofs and parking lots and other dead zones, but not on the landscape. Be sure to watch a truly mind blowing video of the construction of a wind farm in the Berkshires, of western Mass. at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6quIrIjEbg&feature=plcp
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
September 1, 2012
coal-war, in Mass., anyone can burn their brush but only during the winter and spring, after getting a local permit from the fire dept., which can call off any burning if conditions aren't good for burning
Coal War
Coal War
September 1, 2012
@anthony-arand-68396 maybe we're holding commercialization cards that aren't in your deck because you haven't signed the nda and we haven't shared with you the length and breadth of our discoveries. Maybe you're too busy looking at economies of scale that you miss the point,and while that makes you late to the party it doesn't mean the rest of us are delusional.
anthony arand
anthony arand
September 1, 2012
Harry, Sorry for the delay...yes our system likes to eat coal fines..I have watched this whole discussion over the last few days and have to tell the environmentalist guys that you are missing the point. Do you have any, and I say this with all sincerity, any idea how much time, money and effort it takes to introduce a new technology into the electrical market? To so casually brush aside viable and commercialized technology for bio-char and mandates to match gasoline sales is amazing to me. You do not live in a communist country, well, if Obama gets elected again, that may change...but for now, people, and companies have choices. If the regulators in the Commonwealth want this..then the people who elected them can enjoy the wisdom of thier decisions...it will get settled in the courts as it should be...
Coal War
Coal War
September 1, 2012
Understanding that the thread is about Mass. it is in response to the damage that could be done elsewhere if these misconceptions go unchallenged. And where else is the discussion to take place really. The entire renewable energy finance industry seems to be in and around Boston. Where better for extractive industry to drive a wedge between reaction and action. Just curious, is everyone in Mass, required to compost their leaves, branches and clippings or do people still burn them when local regulations allow?
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
September 1, 2012
I think the long term solution to this energy crisis is fusion- it will happen eventually and put the rest out of business. I know this was said of fission and that fusion is "always 30 years out", but it's gonna happen....
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
September 1, 2012
Harry, at least here in Mass., the biomass regs, which were too tough for anyone to build a biomass facility, also had regs for the forestry end of it- which are very, very tough, requring a long term forestry plan for each property to be harvest (to get renewable credits), the harvest must be managed by a licensed forester, a large amount of 'coarse woody debris' must be retained even if the job is a whole tree chipping job, and with existing forestry regs, wetlands and rare species are protected, roadside buffers must be created, buffers to neighbors' properties, neighbors must be informed, plans sent to the conservation commissions and state, etc. This thread is suppossed to be about the Mass. biomass regs, but has gone off the rails to other subjects, so I try to keep bringing it back. The issue of carbon emissions is of course still being debated. A new study, sort of a Manomet II, has been done for the Southeast: 'Biomass Supply and Carbon Accounting for Southeastern Forests' by some of the same authors- which goes further in this research to clarify some of the issues. Joe
heb intn
heb intn
September 1, 2012
@Joe I watched your video and must admit Mitch did a fine job. I have to agree that IF biomass could be harvested in such a manner it would be worthwhile. Sadly, you and Mitch are probably rare breeds. What I have seen a thousand miles south of you is incredible destruction caused by ruthless clear cutting. If laws are written that opens forests to this type of logging then the industry would have to be extremely tightly controlled, with inspections, and huge fines for companies who wreck the forests. Of course, you have the people who take the approach, "It's my land and I'll clear cut if I want to." What do you do about them. The sad truth is that many don't have the same values as you and I... to them only dollars matter.

At any rate, even temporary abuse of the forests is far better than the devastation of the land that mountaintop removal, and other surface, coal mining does. Even after clear cutting, the forest will eventually recover. But, after turning a mountain upside down with the topsoil under hundreds of feet of rock there is no hope for recovery. The destruction of streams with valley fills is irreparable. The leaching of toxic, mercury, arsenic, selenium, etc, into surface water from rock that used to be hundreds of feet down cannot be remediated. That human health in these areas is in jeopardy is a documented fact in peer reviewed science. If you're new to MTR, just google mountaintop removal images, but have a barf bucket nearby.

Just as in the past we have relied on multiple sources of energy, mostly fossil in source, the future will require multiple sources of energy, solar, wind, geothermal and, yes, biomass. I'm a believer that there IS pie in the sky, and that there is yet to be discovered clean energy wealth. But, I'm a realist also. The energy waste that I see around me is disgusting. Until we institute driving forces to conserve the energy we have, I see little hope that the future is bright, even with clean energy.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 1, 2012
I calculate (rough) using 4,000 gallons per acre (w/natural gas)
it would take 44,000,000 acres to displace the gasoline used in 2006
174,930 (million gallons) About 30 percent of the 2.3 billion acres of land area (745 million acres) in the U.S. is forest today. So 44,000,000
out of the 745 million available is all we need. Never mind the new forests we are to plant... It was a billion acres of forest in 1630.
Coal War
Coal War
September 1, 2012
@cliff_Goudey That's a little like a zooplankton talking to a phytoplankton just before the last population doubling. One man's mitigation is another man's new job and the fortification of small economies lies in the balance. All extractive industry should be required to reduce output and consumption for every renewable KW, BTU, and calorie brought on line to replace it. If we were more concerned about what we can do now to replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure, we would be replacing coal kilowatts as fast as walmart drops a new turd in our community, extending our fossil fuel resources long into the future. Extractive industry spends millions of dollars with pr firms to make sure that we are bogged down with the argument over how to proceed. So much money that we are gripped by the fear of moving forward as a renewable energy industry and remain fractured components of a failing system. I say we exhaust all available land and plant it now as we plan for a future and before we project that it will all be gone, we begin planting it as we plan it for best use practice. Replacing a corn crop that hardly ever produces with a native crop that hardly ever fails is a good first step. Changing land use practice for corn crops on the flood plains of major rivers to willow agriculture for closed loop distributed generation CHP reduces agricultural oil use and subsequent subsidy and crop insurance payments for a crop that hardly ever reaches the market. It fortifies the riparian buffer holding topsoil higher in the drainage. It's roots act as a trap for nitrates that would otherwise flow into the gulf. And most importantly, it stimulates thousands of small farm owners to increase efficiency and reduce operating cost by reducing oil from their daily habit. Hyper reductions of hydrocarbon use and emissions output through appropriate technology and the efficiency of one resource: a tree so native and simple that even I can plant and harvest it and use it.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
September 1, 2012
onegreenday said, 'Our work is in the forest now. That's where the jobs are. We don't manufacture anymore but we can plant trees, gather wood, make fuels/elec/char and we can take care/replenish our mother in her old age, while we clean our air. Seems worthwhile.' right on! back to the forests and the farms--- by the way, we can make many products out of wood now made with plastic, cement, metals, etc. and using less energy too
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
September 1, 2012
Onegreenday, you asked, "where's the law that says every fossil fuel maker needs to make some char or plant a forest for every gallon of old world gasoline they sell?" Good question and a brilliant concept. We require this in some other extractive industries and to mitigate some of the obvious ills of "progress." But obviously the plan should apply to all fossil fuel extraction that is intended for combustion, and not just gasoline. Unfortunately, at the present rate of use, I suspect the mitigation would have exhausted all available land in a couple decades. Then what?
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 1, 2012
and where's the law that says every fossil fuel maker needs to make some char or plant a forest for every gallon of old world gasoline they sell.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 1, 2012
Our work is in the forest now. That's where the jobs are. We don't manufacture anymore but we can plant trees, gather wood, make fuels/elec/char and we can take care/replenish our mother in her old age, while we clean our air. Seems worthwhile.
Coal War
Coal War
August 31, 2012
@Cliff-Claven Sorry, I don't do oil dude. I'm going to stick with ladders that save lives rather than
"Pie in the Sky" oil scams. Besides didn't Sweden replace 20% of their coal using Willow? Yeah. I'll just stick with what I know. Lemme know how it works out for you though. Maybe we can analyze the data for future generations, if we have any.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 31, 2012
add to the list...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/11/482682/nasa-study-finds-new-methane-emission-source-amplifying-feedback-the-arctic-ocean/?mobile=nc

NASA Study Finds Surprising New Methane Emission Source And Possible Amplifying Feedback: The Arctic Ocean
Study Finds Surprising Arctic Methane Emission Source

The fragile and rapidly changing Arctic is home to large reservoirs of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As Earth's climate warms, that methane is vulnerable to possible release into the atmosphere, where it can add to global warming.

Researchers have known for years that large amounts of methane are frozen in Arctic tundra soils and in marine sediments (including gas hydrates). But now a multi-institutional study led by Eric Kort of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has uncovered a surprising and potentially important new source of methane: the Arctic Ocean itself.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 30, 2012
@CoalW: Let's pool our capital and invest in Swedish oil. Much better prospects for positive monetary and energy ROI than German solar or Dutch wind farms or Indonesian peat or Massachusetts wood chips.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 30, 2012
Right-on Erich. We can turn the peat bogs into biomass producers by adding biochar and cut their CO2 release. Here's how Sweden produces 25% of energy from biomass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R3rQTksa8M&feature=related

The Swedish forestry model: Environmental atlas of Europe
erich knight
erich knight
August 29, 2012
Even with Dr. Alex harping on the low efficiency of photosynthesis, when I extrapolate the numbers they seem to speak for themselves:
Wee-Beastie Real estate, The Rosiest Scenario;

Total Biomass Harvest in the US; 1.6 Gts

If All was processed by CoolPlanet Biofuels the Yield would be;

120 Billion Gallons of tank ready fuel,(US uses 150 Billion gal/yr)
0.3 Gts Tons of Biochar, with a Surface Area of 600 m2/gram,
One Ton has a surface area of 148,000 Acres! 148K Ac is equal to 230 square miles!!
300 Million Tons of Biochar equals 69 Billion Square Miles, or 348 times the Entire Surface of the Earth.

Costs; The field to wheel analysis is $1.20/gallon!

Biochar can even accelerate Dr Hansen's new plan for 100 GtC of afforestation, through utilizing this substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr and Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, (living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
"The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future".
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf

From the Savior of the Ozone and Nobel Laureate, Dr Mario Molina, PNAS Report on Reducing abrupt climate change;
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0902568106.full.pdf+html

Carbon has high value to recapitalize our soils. Yielding nutrient dense foods and Biofuels, paying premiums of pollution abatement and toxic remediation and the growing dividends created by the increasing biomass of a thriving soil community

The Stone Age did not end for a lack of stones as well the Combustion Age will not end for lack of fossil fuels. Nanotechnology and Terra Preta Technology has thrust The Diamond Age upon us, with it, the rectification of the Carbon Cycle, this train is leaving the station, either get on board or be left in the combusted soot and CO2 pollution of history
Coal War
Coal War
August 29, 2012
@Cliffhaven Perhaps you'd rather take an equity position in the Coal War Cafe'.
Coal War
Coal War
August 29, 2012
@cliffclaven Hey thanks for the support dude. Maybe we should skip all the red tape and you can just send a check!
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 29, 2012
@Coal-War: 'Cornhole Boards and Tsunami Ladders.' I believe your well-conceived project deserves a generous government grant. I just need you to get the ballots of 1,000 felons or dead people or illegal aliens into my ballot box in November with the appropriate name checked. Call it our 'all of the above' strategy.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 29, 2012
DrAlexC wrote "I just told my relatives in VT why I was walking into their 250-acre forest with a lit match -- Cliff told me it'd burn up! They looked at me as if nuts."

Talk about nuts.... that's a nutty statement- burning wood in a biomass facility is NOT equivelent to burning down a forest. Saying it is is childish and doesn't contribute to a mature discussion of this issue. Look at my video of a biomass harvest which has IMPROVED the forest by removing mostly white pine severely damaged by the white pine weevil, leaving a nice forest of healthy, high value hardwoods:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE&feature=plcp
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 29, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/10/bc-haze-russian-forest-fire.html

Hazy B.C. skies caused by Russian forest fires....
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 29, 2012
We have struck the iceberg......we need a solid plan to control
manage greenhouse gases.
.
1. Forest floor debris (improves tree growth) & control forest fires.
2. Russian exposed peat beads.
3. Deforestation (O2 depletion) and animal husbandry (methane gas)
4. Permafrost thaw & methane gas

Add your own to this list of work to be done for our Earth Mother.

Study finds permafrost thaw, glacier melt releasing methane
By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska | Tue May 22, 2012 4:52am BST

(Reuters) - Methane from underground reservoirs is streaming from thawing permafrost and receding glaciers, contributing to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere, a study led by scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has found.

The study, published online on Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first to document leakage of deep geologic methane from warming permafrost and receding glaciers, said its lead author, Katey Walter Anthony.

Release of methane into the atmosphere from any source is troubling because methane has far more potent greenhouse powers than carbon dioxide, climate scientists say. Methane has more than 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide, University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-usa-glaciers-alaska-idUKBRE84L04Q20120522
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
Sorry, CliffC, missed the decimal point! You're exactly right. And, corn ethanol is liquor, so must be denatured at the distillery, usually by adding gasoline, tanked in from a refinery.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 28, 2012
@DrAlex: You missed the decimal point (I should have included the leading zero). I quoted 0.315 W/m2 for corn ethanol. Anybody can duplicate that math by using 500 bbl ethanol per acre-yr (the most optimistic projection of ethanol proponents). Photosynthesis converts less than 2% of insolation energy into biomass. The vast majority of the energy goes into evapo-transpiration and the mechanical work of lifting nutrients against gravity up the xylem and through the phloem of green plants. I think we are mostly in agreement to this point. I know sufficient math and physics, and especially the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I can and have traced the hydrogen mass balance across the various pathways of biofuels, from algae stoichiometry to bio-oil pyrolysis, and there is no free lunch. The hydrogen energy carriers in the end product alcohols or oils or lipids come mostly from fossil fuel injects. And I know how to calculate GHG contributions from nitrous oxide (298 times worse than CO2) released by creating and applying artificial fertilizer that must be used to generate the per-acre-yr yields promised in biofuels start-up investment brochures. I am opposed to all cultivated biofuels because they fail on six counts that matter: negative energy balance, poor power density, increased GHG emissions, increased environmental damage from land use change and nitrates and loss of biodiversity, competition with food, and competition for water.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
OMG, Cliff, I forgot a hardwood forest was so easy to burn in, well, er, one or two weeks in October?

Why haven't they all burned already!?

Remeber, you can burn anything you want, except the fatcs, Cliff. Though you do try.
;]
Steve Frazer
Steve Frazer
August 28, 2012
Both of my grandfathers planted tens of thousands of trees through out their lives (1890's-1980's) - fruit trees, nut trees, various trees for wood and thousands of holiday trees. None of these trees were ever watered or fertilized (beyond the cattle that roamed their fields and forests). Most of these trees continue to be sustainable resources for my cousins, their families and their communities. Today my Team and I are planting hundreds of millions of trees for sustainable resources and we are using natural fertilizer from horse and cattle ranches and dairies rather than petroleum sourced chemistry. Cliff-C continues to make comments with such a strong prejudice against what he has labeled 'modern agriculture' - basically the conversion of petroleum to foods and bio-energy. We agree, based on the petroleum era 'think' of accelerating and maximizing yields with petroleum sourced fertilizers, this recipe is no longer viable. That is not to suggest we need to ignore the opportunity of these much needed resources, rather we simply need to return to a time when yields were lower and maturation was longer. The balance between economics and environment will drive the winning solution and legislation will ultimately embrace that soon-to-be reality.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 28, 2012
Alex,

Being far more clever than you, I am confident that Native Americans knew when it was the dry season. You see, unlike your relatives, they lacked lighter fluid.

By the way, my stake in this is a Jotul F 100 Nordic QT wood stove in which I burn approximately one cord of wood per year and save a bundle on heating.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
And CliffC -- whatever your motive, your numbers are wrong. Photosynthesis is at best 7% efficient in converting sunlight to carbohydrate combustion energy. Sunlight is 1kW/sq meter at the surface, thus carbos in plants at most could deliver 70W/sqm, not your 315.

And, the already-known absurdity of corn ethanol and other fermented plant fuels is below 1% efficiency in combustion generation -- <10W/sq meter.

Since local solar PV is 20% efficient, from sun to electricty, and solar DG needs no land, 200W/sq meter part of a day is far superior to the few Watts derived from burning biofuels. And that's not even counting land usurpation, nutrient depletion, erosion, water consumption, GHGs, etc.

Plus, solar PV has an efficiency doubling or two left, as its technology improves.

Subsidies are great at distorting reasl;ities.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
There you go again, Cliff -- presenting small website evidence for something you can't prove, while ignoring the history & science of reality!

When Washinton walked the length of PA to prove his mettle for the Brit officer appointement he was hoping for, he trudged through forests and wrote about it. When the folks set out across the Northeast, they found forests to the Great Plains.

We realize you have personal gain to mislead others with, but that's your business to live with. Reality is all I'm concerned with, not what you think without study.

I just told my relatives in VT why I was walking into their 250-acre forest with a lit match -- Cliff told me it'd burn up! They looked at me as if nuts.

Tried the same at our NJ relatives' small forest -- they laughed too and asked who this Cliff nutcase was.

Now, in Calif., when I'm back, won't take any match to the woods because the rfainy season ended in MArch and the fire season is well on. Yes, the Ohlone and other CA natives used fire to control brush and competitors with oaks, whose acorns they harvested. But oaks don't burn in grass fires. So again, your myth of massive forest burning across the Americas is just that.

What you think you accomplish with such silly unrealities only you know.

Keep trying, Cliff. But do study up on some physics & chemistry.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 28, 2012
Cliff C, you wrote, "modern GM corn furnished with 150 lb/acre anhydrous ammonia fertilizer and a good dose of pesticide and herbicide is the current champion" Please keep that in mind for the next article on corn-based fuel or biomass and I'll probably agree. For now we are talking about managing forests.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 28, 2012
and now, the only biomass plant in Mass. is threatened:
http://www.wbjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120806/PRINTEDITION/120809954/1038/PRINTEDITIONDATES
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 28, 2012
@ClilffG: If forests are harvested of biomass at the rate it is generated by only the sun and rain, the power per acre output is terribly low. After a quick initial yield from scavenging any accumulated debris from the forest floor, you get about one harvest every 30 years with a much smaller thinning harvest at about the 15-yr midpoint. Pulpwood forests are commonly fertilized and treated with pesticides if not herbicides (all from petroleum) to accelerate the yield. This improves the power density a bit, but lowers the EROI. For generating biomass in a hurry at high density, modern GM corn furnished with 150 lb/acre anhydrous ammonia fertilizer and a good dose of pesticide and herbicide is the current champion from what I have found in my literature research. But the power density out including ethanol and DDGS is .315 W/m2 = .816 MW/mi2 (only 1/6 that of wind and 1/16 that of solar). I just can't see how any of these is a path toward putting meaningful amounts of energy on the grid without astronomically large and damaging environmental footprints from land use change and agri-chemicals.
Coal War
Coal War
August 28, 2012
Let me put this clearly. I'm going to build cornhole boards and Tsunami Ladders on 300 acres managed as an organic dairy training center for jobless vets who want to become farmers. I'm going to give the ladders to communities in need and the cornhole boards to schools as art history teaching aids and fundraising tools. I'm going to build them with 3 phase power from a wood stove with a simple generator located in a small building with a roof shed solar drying kiln and a certified kitchen and run it all using hand cut willow chips transported by ox. The entire facility will certify organic and employ local labor at living wages.I'll feed the workers organic wood fired pizza and pasties from food grown among the rows and the entire property will act as a bio filter for source point nutrient pollution from large scale corn agriculture before it hits the Mississippi and creates a dead spot in the Gulf. The landscape will be an invitation for the community to walk, bike, eat, work and play in a fossil fuel free environment. I will never again suffer 375% spikes in the cost of natural gas after the next natural man made disaster. I will never again lay off workers because the heat bill spiked with the price of oil, although the electricity made by my morning shift will net peak value in the coming gloom of hysterical fuel market collapse. I don't care if you don't like my widget. I don't care if you don't like my method. You can retire 250 kilowatts of coal power from the grid for me . Please add to that the seasonal savings of not passing over 300 acres seven times in a season with a hundred horse tractor, and factor in the transportation savings of not transporting the BTUs in trains, trucks and barges. Scale by 20 years, paste next to your efficiency reports and stuff your LCAs. I'm tired of paying your R&D bill. Small projects, big rewards, restored communities. This report is propaganda to kill sound renewable energy investment, deadweight in the lexicon of energy.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 28, 2012
Alex, let me know if you need more.

References on the American Indian use of fire in ecosystems
http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/biblio_indianfire.htm

Native Use of Fire
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/native_fire.htm

Early Americans tinkered with the forests by wielding the most powerful tool they had available: fire.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/native-americans-carbon-emissions.html

Native American use of fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
Good old Cliff, with helpful advice about postings being public! Cliff says forests the indigenous folks gave us weren't "pristine".

Wow, now that's public, Cliff. And your inference is that all the cutting our Euro ancestors did was possible because why? Having gown up in NYNJ area, just been visiting relatives in VT & MA & PA, I wonder then whyt we called some of these states things like "Penn's Woods", "The Green Mountain State"...

Are you so desperate to protect your interests in burning forests for inefficient power but some $ that you really think you can float the absurdity of indigenous folks in the Americas having alreadfy burned over our forests many times? Fly down and ask the Yanomanos about it (they gave up cannibalism recently).
;]

You're getting desperate in the rest of you comment to me above too, Cliff. Are the facts so threatening?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
Just one addition to 1GreenDay's comment -- The Stanford GCEP symposium on Carbon-Negative systems, from biofuels to biochar to coal-firing reduction, included papers from around the world. The overall commonality was not encouraging for those thinking we can grow & burn our way to carbon neutrality. Biochar, for instance, has very limited positive effect and is very dependent on existing soil composition. Biofuels have extreme nutrient and management-energy downsides, etc. The reports should be available at Stanford GCEP's website.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 28, 2012
Having a computer for a minute or so, I see you folks have been busy bees! But the same political-trash-talk terms seem to abound: "knee jerk", "academics"...

Sort of like being at a TEA Party brewfest.

One of the best bits of fluff above is JoeZ's: "James Hansen..." supposedly leading the way on exposing dangers of climate change. I've met & corresponded with Hansen. He was quite late to the party.

We can all go back to the Steam Age, when engineers were concerned with mining & burning so much English & Euro coal. Arrhenius even wrote relevant papers from 1896 on. And, our own US scientists reported repeatedly to Congress in the mid-20th Century on what to do -- "plant 1 trillion trees/year..."

In 1962, President Kennedy asked for and got a report on what to do to eliminate combustion power by 2000. The work started, progressed and then was derailed by the Nixon administration.

All of that well before Hansen. And, Hansen, like most, was also unaware of those plans.

The amount of mis-information sloshing back and forth in the 'renewables' biz is formidable. It's only matched by the subsidies involved.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 28, 2012
Cliff-Goudey said, 'Joe, it sounds like someone in the state chose the wrong organization to do the study, either out of stupidity or to intentionally skew the findings. There are enough competent forestry departments both in the Commonwealth and in neighboring states that some real expertise could have been brought to bear.' The state was pushed by the enviro groups to NOT have any traditional forestry organization do the work. Manomet calls itself a 'Center for Conservation Services'. For anyone who wants to dig into the Manomet Report, go to http://www.manomet.org/manomet-study-woody-biomass-energy. The team working on the report including people from the Forest Guild, the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, the Biomass Energy Resource Center, a forest economist and others- what appears to be a high powered group. When it was announced that this group would be doing the study- the critics thought it was a sell out- that this group would be very pro biomass. I give them credit for trying to answer the questions the state wanted to know- mainly, should biomass for electric power be part of the RPS program given the fact that the state's 2008 'global warming act' calls for a drastic drop in carbon emissions by 2050. But, it's too big a problem to be resolved by this group in a short time- they've merely come up with a model and other scientists dissagree with the basic assumption of a carbon debt. Joe
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 28, 2012
Cliff C, I think it's important to understand the difference between cultivated cover crops and the topic at hand. I am not aware of massive amounts of fossil-fuel based fertilizers being used in forestry. Plus a well-managed forest serves many other uses besides renewable energy.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 28, 2012
Manomet is only one of many studies that, taking a more thorough look, have come to find that cultivated biofuels are neither clean nor green, and counterproductive to slowing global warming. Here's a few for consideration. 1. Crutzen, P.J., A.R. Mosier, K.A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter. 'N2O Release from Agro-biofuel Production Negates Global Warming Reduction by Replacing Fossil Fuels.' Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 7, no. 4 (2007): 11191–11205. 2. Jaeger, William K., and Thorsten M. Egelkraut. 'Biofuel Economics in a Setting of Multiple Objectives and Unintended Consequences.' Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, no. 9 (December 2011): 4320–4333. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129123255.htm. 3. Lewis, Jonathan. Leaping Before They Looked: Lessons from Europe's Experience with the 2003 Biofuels Directive. Boston: Clean Air Task Force, October 2007. 4. Righelato, Renton, and Dominick V. Spracklen. 'Carbon Mitigation by Biofuels or by Saving and Restoring Forests?' Science 317, no. 5840 (2007): 902. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5840/902.short. - Simpson, Sarah. 'Nitrogen Fertilizer: Agricultural Breakthrough--And Environmental Bane.' Scientific American, March 20, 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nitrogen-fertilizer-anniversary.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 28, 2012
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/covercrop_ip.pdf

Our estimates of the life-cycle GHG emissions of biofuels made from cover crop biomass show an extremely wide
potential range of emissions. The best-case scenario results in an 81 percent reduction in GHGs compared to gasoline. But
the worst-case scenario results in a 115 percent increase in GHGs. The impacts on the yield of the primary summer crop is
the most important factor, but assessments of the life-cycle environmental performance of cover cropping systems must also
consider any resulting increases in fertilizer use (especially nitrogen), water use, and impacts on soil organic matter.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 28, 2012
Joe, it sounds like someone in the state chose the wrong organization to do the study, either out of stupidity or to intentionally skew the findings. There are enough competent forestry departments both in the Commonwealth and in neighboring states that some real expertise could have been brought to bear. Maybe things will clarify for me once I have time to read your link. Thanks.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 28, 2012
http://www.wetlands.org/News/Pressreleases/tabid/60/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2357/Russias-fires-worsened-by-peatland-drainage.aspx On Russian fires, peatlands and CO2. It's obvious we have to manage the World's forests and peat bogs to have a chance of managing CO2 levels. The biochar seems like a great way to "green the deserts" to produce more Oxygen and its a jobs maker if the government (fossil fuel suppliers) will invest $$$$ in their management. We take the downed and poor developing trees (improving forest growth) and turn them into gasoline/diesel to deliver the biochar to the deserts and for "greening" and some to the forest floor for growth. A British study suggests reduced cattle farming and more biomass farming. We know animal husbandry is part of the problem of deforestation and methane gas production. Many things at play here but exiting job opportunities working for Mother Nature's best interest in the forest and re-greening the Earth. It is in our own interest also.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 28, 2012
Cliff, the Manomet Report was funded by the state. A series of forestry policy battles had occured regarding the state's poor forestry work on state owned land. Then a number of firms prepared plans to build biomass plants- several that would be about 50 MW. The state considered biomass to be part of its renewable energy credit system. Then a few people decided biomass was a terrible thing and they threatened a ballot question. To avoid that, the state funded the Manomet Report. If you want to read the dark side of the report, read the following blog article: http://www.farmfieldforest.org/2011/05/environmental-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html. After the report came out, a fierce debate happened between the pros and the cons. In my opinion, it's clear that the Manomet Report is not defnitive science- it's a model trying to understand an extremely complex subject. It's more of a "literature review" than anything else. It's a first approximation at best- but the state apparently, for political reasons, decided that it's scripture- so the regs they just came out with are impossibly difficult to meet- not only the biomass burner but also on forest sustainability, requiring a great deal of "woody debris" to be left on the site, more than is really needed, IMHO. Meanwhile, the hypocrisy is mind blowing because the state currenlty allows high grading and large scale clearcutting. Be sure to read that blog article, where you'll see the influence of the fossil fuel industry in this battle.
Joe
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 27, 2012
Joe, do you know who funded the Manomet report? I'm genuinely curious.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 27, 2012
Cliff, the battle over biomass in Mass. was ferocious. The current consensus is that there will never be a new biomass facility here that is just electric power because it can't happen without the state's RPS. The state is now considering some sort of renewable energy credits for thermal and CHP. Of course the dirt cheap price of natural gas will slow down the development of even this kind of biomass. The Manomet Report pretty much slammed biomass for electric power but not so bad for thermal and CHP, which have a much faster payoff of the carbon debt. There will be many small such plants and this more modest market for low grade wood will benefit greatly the Mass. forestry community and those who consume the energy from those facilities. I know many people are concerned that the Manomet Report will severely hurt the biomass industry, at least in New England, but so far that hasn't happened. A 70 MW biomass power plant is being built in NH and there are several smaller ones active at this time. I doubt that there will be any impact outside New England. One way or the other- heavily forested regions of the nation will build biomass facilities of one sort or another- and hopefully they will use the most advanced engineering and be highly efficient- and, they will obtain their wood only from sustainably managed forests.
Joe Zorzin
MA Licensed Forester
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE&feature=plcp
the above is my amateur video of my first biomass harvest in north central Mass.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 27, 2012
Thank you Joe, excellent point. It is interesting to see otherwise bright people oppose things simply because it's not their idea or it competes with their personal technology du jour. McKibben and Hansen are technology agnostic as long as it offers an improvement to the status quo trajectory. Replacing fossil fuels in a timely manner will require us to consider every possible renewable source. Some of the bickering displayed here is thoroughly counterproductive.
erich knight
erich knight
August 27, 2012
To tennant-r-343986?
Biochar (Charcoal intended for soil) is Concentrated biotic Carbon, the elemental carbon in the lignin and cellulose, preserved in the shape of the plant cell structure.
Soil organic content is a mix of different recalcitrant humic substances, the micro & macrobiome flora and Fauna, and the most recalcitrant of humic substances Glomalins. Green organic material and composted organic material amendments turnover in years, fungal derived Glomalins hundreds of years, Biochar, which fosters growth of these more recalcitrant humic substances, last for thousands of years.

Coal has some humic substance in it but lacks fractal graphene carbon structure believed responsible for massively increasing Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) in soils.

The best value chain in utilizing Biochar is as a bulking agent in the composting process itself. Not only does it accelerate the community of Wee-Beasties that produce humus from biomass, it also retains the nitrogen(NH3)that is normally excreted by the biology to the atmosphere. Biochar/Compost can close the nutrient loop, holding the nitrogen in plant available forms, and when spread on the fields is not lost as nitrous oxide(N2O)to either air or stream.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 27, 2012
Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, likes the small biomass plant built on the Middlebury College campus, where he teaches.

And, James Hansen, one of the first scientists to warn of global warming once said the following: ""Well-planned sustainable biomass power plants are a viable source of clean renewable electricity, and thus are helpful for the task of phasing out coal-fired power plants. Knee-jerk opposition to all biomass projects has no sound scientific basis and is harmful to attempts to stabilize climate for the sake of our children, grandchildren, and future generations. In my opinion, the proposed 100 MW Gainesville Renewable Energy Center deserves support and is a useful step toward the essential task of phasing out coal emissions."

The obvious point being that if these 2 can support certain biomass facilities- biomass can't be all that bad- it's all about how you do it and where you get the wood.
R TENNANT
R TENNANT
August 27, 2012
RE; Erich--Question; If 'biochar' is basically concentrated carbon then, why bother going thru the expense of producing it in order to upgrade 'carbon-depleted' soils when all you really need to do is to source a 'naturally high-carbon material', including pulverized coal and/or forestry waste, to add-mix in whatever proportions are deemed necessary to safely grow biomass,trees, etc?
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
August 27, 2012
First step in the right direction. All contenders for primary energy sources and secondary fuels should be evaluated on a level playing field that considers the full lifecycle and all "externalities." Biofuels have been getting a huge pass on GHG (CO2 and especially N2O from fertilizer) based on false assumptions. Their true nature as parasites of fossil fuels is only now becoming recognized. The huge EROI and emissions gulf between true waste energy and cultivated biomass energy is also only now starting to become common knowledge through studies such as this one and the recent report from the German National Academy of Sciences that recommends that Europe abandon all biofuel mandates (Bioenergy - Chances and Limits. Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften - Leopoldina, 2012. http://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/?publication[publication]=433 ).
heb intn
heb intn
August 26, 2012
Anthony - As much as I hate coal I do recognize our dependence on it for a few more years. And, I'm OK with that as long as it is deep mined coal. I cannot condone any version of surface mined coal in the Appalachian mountains. The utter destruction in its path is unpardonable. All you have to do is fly over E. Kentucky and W. West Virginia on Google Earth and you can easily see the millions of acres of surface that have been destroyed. Something close to 40% of the land area of Martin County KY is now worthless. Fortunately, the coal that is surface mined is coming more and more from Wyoming and Montana. Those areas I believe can be "reclaimed" by pushing back the overburden and seeding it with the grass that was there before. In the Appalachians the mountains cannot be rebuilt and the attempts produce sterile land that is worthless where there was once vibrant mesophytic forests with abundant wildlife and fish. These statements are my emotional reaction to coal and the havoc it causes from extraction to processing, to transport, to combustion to byproduct and waste treatment. I haven't talked about the long term, the impact on climate, but that's another post.

One more point. One of the big negative of coal is the resultant toxic sludge ponds at the processing plants. This material is highly carbonaceous. Can your system cleanly burn this crap? If you can this seems like a business opportunity for you. Everybody wins, you sell your product, the sludge is "detoxified", and the environment is better for it all. Think about the billions of tons of waste that has been pumped back into abandoned deep mines that is finding its way into our water.
erich knight
erich knight
August 26, 2012
OneGreenDay…
I badgered Cool Planet Energy Systems (CPES) to attend the Sonoma conference. CoolPlanet arrived with two bio-gasoline cars, and stole the oxygen from every room they were in. I chided them about their over-the-top "4000 gallons per acre" PR. They explained that rosiest of rosy scenarios was based on the highest recorded record yield of the University of Mississippi's genetically hybridized "Pioneer" Miscanthus of 25 tons per acre. They also failed to mention that they add natural gas to the process for additional hydrogen, with that additional H2 they can convert every single molecule of carbon to bio-gasoline forsaking Biochar production. I'm sure that is why the big oil guys have gotten on board, given the low price of natural gas, what better way to increase it's value.
When run on biomass only mode, one ton can produce 75 gallons and 1/3 ton char. They plan to run reactors in three different modes; Biomass only, at stranded natural gas wells, Wind & solar sites and at nuclear plants making hydrogen from three cents per kilowatt off-peak power. They say a year from now the assembly-line to build skid mounted farm and village scale units will open its doors with a planned total production of 100,000 reactors.

They pay attention to the Biology & nutrient charging. The first company I've seen talking about Glomalin,the aggregating glue for soil particles.
Method for enhancing soil growth using bio-char;
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8236085.PN.&OS=PN/8236085&RS=PN/8236085

In his presentation,(below) Cool's VP, Mike Rocke reports;
Field trials with up to 40% Biochar to desert sand soil yielding 5X growth with lettuce.
A 50K gallon/yr Demonstration Plant.
A Pilot Plant under construction, to produce 2M gal/yr
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9295729/CraigSamsCoolPlanet.MP3.
anthony arand
anthony arand
August 26, 2012
Onegreenday...great answer. Harry, environmental stuardship is our generations charge, so that we can clean up the mistakes of previous generations. Coal isn't going away as a fuel. We have a system that can combust it, or its waste products, cleanly, and help to address the issues of prior use. Thats not a bad thing. My family roots are Mennonite and Amish..I get your point on the mountains. We can take the CO2 from coal combustion and turn it back into petroleum products, and to answer the Doctors doubt, it does take a good part of the power output of the plant to put that genie back in the bottle, but its worth about 5 times what selling electricity is worth, so economically it makes sense. It does take about 2 btu's in to get 1 btu out of petroleum, so the "efficiency" calcluation is wierd, but we thought it was better than our kids going over seas and getting killed so that enviornmentalist can put gas in thier cars made from middle eastern oil and drive to meetings to protest biomass plants using domestic feed stocks for fuel...enough said. Make this a great day.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 26, 2012
Eric, a rebuttal to CoolPlanet Energy Systems claims on gasoline from an acre of Miscanthus:

Under the most optimal conditions, Miscanthus can yield about 11metric tons of dry biomass per (US) acre.
- The total energy content of this biomass BEFORE any conversion is approximately 192,000 MJ (Miscanthus dry mass contains about 17.5 MJ/kg).
- Gasoline has an energy content of approx. 134 MJ/gallon.
- Thus to make 4,000 gallons of Gasoline, you would need AT LEAST (4000 x 134) 536,000 MJ in one form or another in your feedstock.

So under the MOST OPTIMAL conditions, an acre of miscanthus could theoretically produce the NET energy equivalent of about 1,430 gallons of gasoline. And that is before the 40-60% energy-loss due to any conversion process.
heb intn
heb intn
August 26, 2012
Anthony, I totally agree with the concept of waste to energy. I have to get some clarification however. You mention wood, landfills, and coal and inputs to your system. Certainly mining landfills is a huge opportunity. Wood is not necessarily waste, but I could go along with strictly controlled harvesting of pulpwood. BUT, coal is not IMHO in any stretch of the imagination waste. I'm proud to say I'm an Appalachian. I have seen my mountains destroyed to gouge out coal in ways that destroy irreplaceable mountains, streams and lives.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 26, 2012
Alex, One person with a match can destroy many acres of forest even before the first responder gets there. Native Americans had to use flint or rub stick together to accomplish their more practical goals of clearing land. The point is a minor one and brought up in response to your absurd suggestion that prior to the arrival of Europeans the North American forests were pristine. Isn't is about time to do your usual - try to turn the conversation around to your favorite energy source? I'm beginning to sense that your only promotional strategy is to try and tear down perfectly fine alternatives. You do know that your posting history is public knowledge, right?
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 26, 2012
DrAlexC said, "Just noticed "silviculture" is "great forectry" from JoeZ.

"Banal" & "exploitive" come to mind. But, the scientific fact avoidance is breathtaking!"

To clarify- most logging worldwide is NOT forestry as proper silviculture is not used. Here in Mass., the new biomass regs, in addition to very high standards for the biomass burner, also require very high standards for forestry. The wood can't come from just any high grading logging job. The harvest must be based on proper silviculture, which is a science. The property from which the wood comes from must have a long term forest mgt. plan. The harvest must be directed by a licensed forester. Harvesting for biomass as part of a long term mgt. of the forest really does improve the forest because biomass creates a market for wood that otherwise has no market, in most parts of the world.
erich knight
erich knight
August 26, 2012
Biochar soil technology can be the common ground, the base of an uncomfortable marriage between chemical and organic schools of soil science. Both agree char is a powerful tool to increase soil biodiversity and synthetic nitrogen efficiency.
The Agricultural chemical elephant in the room can not ignored, show them the data and their hearts and minds and wallets will follow. All political persuasions agree building soil carbon is good.

This important paper, verifying with modern NMR techniques the role of char in total organic content of both Terra Preta soils and US Prairie soils, 40 to 50% of all organic content and capable of accounting for all CEC;

Abundant and Stable Char Residues in Soils: Implications for Soil Fertility and Carbon Sequestration
J.-D. Mao, R. L. Johnson, J. Lehmann, D. C. Olk, E. G. Neves, M. L. Thompson and K. Schmidt-Rohr
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es301107c
Publication Date (Web): August 20, 2012
Copyright © 2012, American Chemical Society
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es301107c

Modern Agriculture has evolved in the ability to remove the limitations to plant growth, from burning forest for ash fertilizers, to bison bones, to Guano islands, then in 1913, to crafty Germans figuring out how to suck nitrogen from the air to now with natural gas derived fertilizers. These chemical fertilizers have over come nutrient limits to growth for 100 years.

NPK and the "Green Revolution" in genetics have brought us to where we are, all made possible by basically mining soil carbon stocks. So we have now hit a carbon limit in two distinct ways. The first is continued loss of soil carbon content, the second is fossil carbon energy cost. The present farming system spends ten cents of fossil energy delivering one cent of food energy.
We can not go back, but we can go forward with our newly acquired wisdom.
Sam C Weaver
Sam C Weaver
August 26, 2012
It is not about irresponsibly burning the forests for dollars, it's about responsibly taking care of the environment by processing the waste. We have been doing fire suppression for 100 years resulting in incredible fires with loss of life and a national forest floor that is pouring out methane and nitrous oxides.

The world demand for energy is increasing because we are only supplying about 20% of the world energy demand thus resulting in a median income on the planet of $850/yr. That demand gap is going to be filled with some technology. It will be fossil fuels if we don't select a better path. Wind and solar can do some but not all. The only existing carbon negative technology, if done responsibly, is biomass.

If we reject that opportunity, we will get to see the end result of the fossil fuel experiment on the planet. Lots of CO2 and increasing costs of fossil fuels until we run out. I, for one, am hoping for a better outcome.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 25, 2012
Anthony, sure, when I return to CA, I'll email you to get the accurate scoop on what you claim.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 25, 2012
Just read the rationalizations from Cliff & Sam about forest being destroyed by the 7 million max Native Americans, rebuilt by Europeans and emitting net Methane NxOy, etc.

So, let's burn baby burn our forests!

Such BS.

The reason CO2 decreases every N. hemisphere growing season is because of oceanic plankton and forests. There's kless foirest opresent in N. American and S. America now than when the Coquistadors or Pilgrims arrived. That's one reason there are now so many more deer in our US Northereast.

If you want to cut & burn trees for $, just say so. But don't try wimpy justifications by blaming Native Americans, etc. Our Calif. redwoods and sequoias are thousands of years old, except for those many that were cut by builders reconstructing San Francisco after 1906.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 25, 2012
Just noticed "silviculture" is "great forectry" from JoeZ.

"Banal" & "exploitive" come to mind. But, the scientific fact avoidance is breathtaking!
anthony arand
anthony arand
August 25, 2012
Harry, Looks like you stirred up the academics, good job sir...Dr Alex, before you tell us that our equipment doesn't do what it does, I have some homework for you...please go back and read up on the properties or radiant ceramics in the 1950F range.....look at what 2 micron energy can do to chemical bonds in a combustion process. Also, look up what happens when you combust in the presence of hydrogen, and what kind of scrubbing technology is used. Next, look at the properties of CO2 and water at 750F and about 500 mpa in the presence of a catalyst. Thirdly, please go back and read what I wrote for your misquoting me makes a conversation with you difficult. 350F was a stack temperature for an incinerator, not a CO2 processing temp. If you would like to talk about this off line, email me at tony@envirepel.com

Discussions of issues is always the best way to address all those concerned. Good Job sirs.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 25, 2012
Harry, good question. Look up the Carnot Cycle for the best thermal-conversion efficiecny, which is (1 - Tcold/Thot). Temps are in Kelvin.

Electromechanical efficiencies are easy -- just output power / input power.

Thermal conversion to those creates large losses, per the thermodynamic equation above, so a combustion engine rarely can be built to exceed 33% efficiency. This is why special, multi-stage, high-temperature turbine systems are designed to try and extract as much energy from the combustion as possible. But, only in space is Tcold near 0. And Thot depends directly on what materials we have that will last in the combustion environment.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 25, 2012
re Anthony's claim of 98% thermal efficiency -- that's what a good gas furnace for a home can do, via condensation of emitted water vapor.

However, the claim of 50% for electromechanical energy out from thermal energy in is beyond reality, except for combined-cycle and advanced, hi-temp turbine generators.

And the claim of removing CO2 from exhaust without wasting considerable power, and doing so at 350C is false. Temps on the order of 650C and above are necessary to just begin converting CO2 & water vapor to carbon-neutral fuels. This is what advanced reactors can do, but not what biofuel burners can do.

The energy taken to extract, compress and store CO2 is formidable, in any event, and appears to be ignored in what Anthony says. After all, the basic physical chemistry reality is that the making of the CO2 bond via combustion released the energy available from that point on. The claims above are on the par with 'perpetual motion' machines.
;]
anthony arand
anthony arand
August 25, 2012
Harry, As a basic manufacturer of low emissions biomass and waste to energy combustion systems, let me try to help Cliff's answer. Go to youtube and look up Envirepel Energy, you can watch ours run. Our combustion system is 98% efficient in converting wood waste, refuse derived fuel (sorted garbage), coal, sludge or anything else with carbon in it to heat. We have no char in our ash, only minerals giving us a very high thermal conversion rate. Thermal loss in heating the structure is the only thing we face, and its about 2% by the time the heat gets to the steam generator. Hence the prior comments about combined heat and power (CHP) being the most efficient use of bimass. Steam systems are by default 50% efficient getting the energy into KiloWatts so we are by default 98% x 50% = 49% overall system efficiency from a energy in to energy out evaluation if you just make electricity. The trick to higher overall system efficiency with a steam system is to do something else with the waste heat, and the carbon in the exhuast which can be recovered. After we condense water out of our exhaust, its about 85F, not hot enough to do much with, but other traditional incinerator designs exhaust temps are up around 350F, which gives them much lower effciencies, but they have the ability with retrofits to improve upon this if they can modify thier permits. What our company did was to capture the carbon in our exhaust, which is by design devoid of most pollutants so that we can recover the water, and the CO2 to produce both natural gas and biofuels. Waste to Energy in this fashion could supply the liquid fuel needs of our Country from the garbage that is buried in our landfills each year.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 25, 2012
Harry, one would assume that is the method. Energy in compared to energy out. Scott (above, post #2) indicates that the energy out is measured as heat and the metric does not have to include the unavoidable inefficiencies associated with conversion to electricity. I've not seen the regulations and can not verify that. Even so, and as I indicated above, this is a slippery slope and probably motivated for all the wrong reasons.
heb intn
heb intn
August 25, 2012
Gonna ask a stupid question, please don't slap me around too badly. How is efficiency calculated? If you can explain it in a short post fine otherwise just point me in the right direction. It seems to me it should have at a basis, energy in vs energy out. What little I've read seems to get all entangled with CO2. That's good as an end point, but to compare different methods of converting energy it seems to me we must first get back to basics... energy. It's like so many things, we end up comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
erich knight
erich knight
August 25, 2012
Beyond Rectifying the Carbon Cycle:
Biochar systems Integrate nutrient management, serving the same healing function for the Nitrogen Cycle and Phosphorous Cycle.

A 50% - 74% reduction of NH3 loss when composting [4], Ag manure char absorbs phosphorus for nutrient credit income, CHP, Biomass Crop & energy grants. When carbon comes to account, as Carbon Farming in Australia has, another big credit. In southwestern Ohio, A facility will be drying 45K tons of dairy manure per year, producing 3K tons of High Phosphorus Biochar via oxygen-starved gasification. The equipment for this project is being installed as we speak, and the facility should be fully operational in October.

Biochar feed supplements attend to the Carbon "Hoof, Paw & Fin Prints". The fostering of enteric Wee-Beasties leads to improved husbandry metrics that run the gamut; less mortality, increased feed conversion rates, general health and product quality In Aquaculture, with species of indeterminate growth, in shrimp, fish & clams, a doubling in size. Switzerland has 50,000 chickens and thousands of cows under carbon feed protocol, eliminating chronic botulism and manure odors. A cascading use of Biochar from silage, to cow, to compost, to field, closing the loop of nutrient management while building soil carbon.

Working to integrate the many applications of Biochar for enteric health in animal husbandry, for mine scarred lands, as an in situ bioremediation for a host of toxic agents and pesticides, in addition to carbon negative energy and transportation fuels, has been the most rewarding work of my life, I have networked and collaborated with a host of organizations across the globe. My goal is total symbiotic integration of nutrients, carbon and energy by the husbandry of whole new orders and kingdoms of microbial life. To recruit the Wee-Beasties from numerous biomes allows nature to do the heavy lifting, to solve many dilemmas in our macro world. There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom
Sam C Weaver
Sam C Weaver
August 25, 2012
The Carbon Debt argument is a false argument achieved by assuming time zero is when the tree (forest) is fully grown. If you assume time zero to be when the tree is planted you always have a carbon credit no matter when you cut down the tree. Neither argument is accurate as a managed forest has the mix. If you use a syngas process that produces a biochar as a co-product the process is always carbon negative. If you let the tree die at the end of life it gives off methane and nitrous oxides both of which are worse than any biomass processing. Processing of waste biomass improves the environment and is the environmentally responsible step.

In addition, syngas power generation is the enabling technology for wind and solar, both of which are discontinuous energy sources. These should be complementary, not competitive technologies.

To the extent environmental lobbies crush renewables, expect to see it made up with fossil fuels. That is what is going on in Germany now, previously a leader in clean technologies is shutting down nuclear and increasing coal.

We need to be working together to achieve a better, cleaner environment, not picking a technology to ride to the detriment of others. There is room for all the environmentally responsible technologies. Biomass technologies can be leaders of the environmentally responsible energy sources. The new regulations of Massachusetts are a significant step backwards.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 24, 2012
Alex asked, "Wonder how all those forests survived before the White Man!?" Not as well as you might imagine. Note the last sentence:

"the modification of the American continent by fire at the hands of Asian immigrants [now called American Indians, Native Americans, or First Nations/People] was the result of repeated, controlled, surface burns on a cycle of one to three years, broken by occasional holocausts from escape fires and periodic conflagrations during times of drought. Even under ideal circumstances, accidents occurred: signal fires escaped and campfires spread, with the result that valuable range was untimely scorched, buffalo driven away, and villages threatened. Burned corpses on the prairie were far from rare. So extensive were the cumulative effects of these modifications that it may be said that the general consequence of the Indian occupation of the New World was to replace forested land with grassland or savannah, or, where the forest persisted, to open it up and free it from underbrush. Most of the impenetrable woods encountered by explorers were in bogs or swamps from which fire was excluded; naturally drained landscape was nearly everywhere burned. Conversely, almost wherever the European went, forests followed. The Great American Forest may be more a product of settlement than a victim of it (Pyne 1982: 79-80).

http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/biblio_indianfire.htm
erich knight
erich knight
August 24, 2012
Forests survive because the forest were managed, the white man just did not notice the predominance of nut trees, the rich black soil of the Midwest as artifacts of forest & fire management.This important paper, verifying with modern NMR techniques the role of char in total organic content of both Terra Preta soils and US Prairie soils, 40 to 50% of all organic content and capable of accounting for all CEC;

Abundant and Stable Char Residues in Soils: Implications for Soil Fertility and Carbon Sequestration
J.-D. Mao, R. L. Johnson, J. Lehmann, D. C. Olk, E. G. Neves, M. L. Thompson and K. Schmidt-Rohr
Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
DOI: 10.1021/es301107c
Publication Date (Web): August 20, 2012
Copyright © 2012, American Chemical Society
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es301107c
Ed Mahoney
Ed Mahoney
August 24, 2012
I have to agree with Mass's findings which is rare for having grown up in the Commonwealth. Here's and additional thought - Would you accept a natural gas fired plant to operate at 50% or less efficiency? I THINK NOT.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 24, 2012
DrAlexC,

Oh, the forests survived just fine- but when 7 billion people want wood for many purposes, we need to manage the forests as well as scientifically possible and that includes a need to harvest low value wood to allow better trees to grow. Biomass is a great market for that purpose. As for "folks wanting $ from others by not understanding points 1-3, or by simply lying to themselves and others for subsidy from us all", you'll have to look hard to find any industry, profession, enterprise of any sort that doesn't receive some sort of subsidy- so that argument doesn't hold much water. As for carbon emissions, the Manomet report does say that after some period of time, forests harvested for biomass will recover the carbon- going from a debt to a dividend. One of the authors of that report told me privately that they didn't really prove the numbers- it was all estimates but nonetheless, there is eventually a dividend. The dividend depends on what sort of biomass facility - for electricity only, it's certainly several decades- that is, if you accept the basic assumption of the debt-dividen model used by Manomet. For thermal or CHP biomass, the dividend comes much faster- so those who pronounce that biomass is always a net emitter of carbon can't back it up even with the Manomet Report. The solution that we'll be seeing even here in Mass. is a push for thermal and CHP biomass with or without renewable credits and that will be great for forestry- and home grown energy. To see what a good biomass harvest looks like, go to my YouTube video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE&feature=plcp. Though the carbon issue will continue to be debated- the silviculture debate is over- biomass harvesting is great forestry.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 24, 2012
Wonder how all those forests survived before the White Man!?
;]
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 24, 2012
Alex, that's because not all commenters have credibility. You are forgetting that the forests and wood lots have many other useful functions besides converting sunlight into stored energy. Tree cutting is an important aspect of their management and how those harvests are used ought to be the owners business, not yours. As Anthony pointed out above, one alternate approach is to allow fire to periodically rewind the growing cycle. We are seeing that in spades this year. Another approach, and in the absence of fire, is to let things fall and rot. Either approach adds CO2 and particulated to the atmosphere as well as generating useless heat. There are those who would like to narrow the definition of renewable to suit their own selfish purposes.
Steve Frazer
Steve Frazer
August 24, 2012
@DrAlexC - Exactly. We are at a loss to understand why there continues to be such disputes regarding biomass energy conversion. While there may be the occasional secondary argument for burning biomass - it does not make sense as a sustainable model for moving forward.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 24, 2012
From some of the comments above,it seems not much reading of prior comments has been done.

The relevant points again:

1) Local solar PV/hot-water meet all peak daytime needs without land consumption. This is because >2% of all land is covered by human structures. This means that on-structure solar is all that's needed -- distributed generation (DG).

2) Present, DG solar PV is 20% efficient -- ~3x that of photosynthesis. This means no plant sources are competitive, even if a 100%-efficient thermal power cycle were possible.

3) Thermal cycles cannot exceed Carnot efficiency, so net biomass efficiency will always be less than 7%.

4) There are always folks wanting $ from others by not understanding points 1-3, or by simply lying to themselves and others for subsidy from us all.

Biomass burning for power is a poster-child for point 4.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 24, 2012
onegreenday said, 'Joe, if solar panels are mounted on poles & use trackers the understory can be managed for low growing biomass and achieve the environmentals you desire.' at least in Mass. that's not how it's done- the ones I've seen have gravel between the rows regarding the Manomet study- an expose on the subject can be read at; http://www.farmfieldforest.org/2011/05/environmental-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html as for the new regs being based on work by birdwatchers, in fact, the Mass. Audubon led the charge: http://web.massaudubon.org/site/DocServer/Joint_final_biomass_regs_PR_8-2012.pdf?docID=5202&autologin=true
erich knight
erich knight
August 24, 2012
At the third US Biochar conference, 2012 Sonoma Biochar Conference 2012 US Biochar Conference | Building Soil - Redirecting Carbon http://www.2012.biochar.us.com/ .....New catalytic technologies make biomass one third carbon negative. The new use of Biochar as a feed ration for livestock also closes the nutrient loop on the farm eliminating the odor of manure..... My talk and slides 'Carbon Conservation for Home, Health, Energy & Climate' http://2012.biochar.us.com/299/2012-us-biochar-conference-presentations ..... If you are tantalized by the Biochar platform for biofuels, the cutting edge Big dog, Elephant in the room, at the Sonoma Biochar conference was CoolPlanet Energy Systems. In a nutshell, they have such control over carbon bonding in their thermal conversion process, they can squeeze out 75 gallons of bio- gasoline and 1/3 ton of Biochar from one ton of biomass. Their tag line; 'The more you Drive? The Cleaner the Atmosphere'. They state their production cost at $1.25/gallon, they turn a dial and can produce $2/gallon jet fuel. I can hear you saying this is too good to be true, however Google, GE, BP and Conoco believe it is true. CoolPlanet Biofuel's CEO Explains his energy cycle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYVlZ9v_0o .....Cool's demonstration plant producing 50,000 gallons per year is up and running, under construction a 2,000,000 gallon per year pilot plant. ...This all leaves me very optimistic, for the CEO and Google share the same ethos, farm scale skid mounted reactors will be the first to production next year, they plan to produce 100,000 units. This farmer friendly, scalable reactor, they plan to deploy at the village scale in the Third World and at the farmer scale here. ....I believe this technology will allow the American public to have their carbon free energy lunch without paying a premium for it. If it's good enough for Google....It's Good enough for me! ..Cheers, ... Erich
anthony arand
anthony arand
August 24, 2012
The Study used by the State makes some very broad assumptions as to the true environmental impacts from wood combustion. The previous comment that this is a slippery slope is accurate. It would appear that the document was written with intent to favor other forms of energy production namely wind, coal, solar and petroleum by resrticting wood fired units. It is interesting that the study ignored the role of waste to energy in biomass energy entirely. They also ignored the pollution impacts of fires. Historically these types of restrictions aimed at the wood industry come from an effort by environmental agencies to address concerns of cancer risk from Hazardous Air Pollutants that are thought to be present in the exhaust of low efficiency wood fired facilities. The hope is that they will not be present in higher efficiency systems that will have additional air pollution control equipment to reduce HAP compounds. For exemple, here in San Diego, they are trying to ban fireplace use in our homes. The funny part is, if they want higher prices for wood to the land owner, it would be simpler to require the installation of thermal oxydizers on wood fired plants instead of this route....
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
August 24, 2012
Joe, if solar panels are mounted on poles & use trackers the
understory can be managed for low growing biomass and achieve the environmentals you desire.
Cliff Goudey
Cliff Goudey
August 24, 2012
Flawed regulations based on a flawed study by birdwatchers. This is a slippery slope and it's curious to see it coming from a state that is otherwise quite progressive in its energy policy. What is next? Will a similar efficiency standard be imposed on PV or wind? It would be interesting to learn the real politics that drove this stupid policy.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
August 24, 2012
When DOER Commissioner Mark Sylvia says, 'Through this regulation and other initiatives, DOER believes there is a role for biomass energy in the Commonwealth focused on high efficiency use of the limited sustainable wood resource'- he fails to acknowledge that solar and wind 'farms' waste a great deal of land which is also a limited resource. A 17 acre solar farm was just built behind my house in a rural/residential zone which has turned a green space into a desert, devoid of any life. That acreage will no longer sequester carbon or produce oxygen. Across the state of Mass. thousands of acres will soon be similar deserts. To think that this desertification is superior to managing forests for energy is ignorant. I don't expect much from state officials, but I do expect more from environmentalists who seem oblivious of this desertification. Put solar on roofs or in existing deserts and lets manage all the forests for multiple purposes including energy. All forms of energy production have some negative impacts- perhaps energy from the forests has the least. Not managing forests is a tremendous waste of one of our most important resources.
Coal War
Coal War
August 24, 2012
I say, shouldn't there be a consideration for the retirement of the coal kilowatt, the balance of emissions reductions and human lives saved to be tallied in favor of biomass energy instead of weighed against it. What a terribly bungled calculation. A preposterous intentional miscalculation meant to undermine renewable energy investment and erode public perception by a gang of New England's finest nit wits. I say up the rebels and what coal industry wonk has manipulated policy now by luring a bunch of scientists into making another climate change snuff film. What Chinese firm funded this nonsense in order to boost the sale of solar panels in a sagging market. In the name of Tomothy Volk, get hold of yourselves! Every Biomass CHP baseload kilowatt equals the retirement of a coal kilowatt permanently. Every coal kilowatt permanently replaced by a fast growing woody perennial saves lives, saves oil, saves clean up, and saves public money from swirling down the toilet of litigation against extractive industry misconduct. This is the coal industry fluffing energy policy groupies written by misguided science geeks to misdirect public opinion and should be ignored.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
August 22, 2012
It's certainly good thermal efficiency is a regulation parameter -- "biomass", a pseudo-scientific term for burning plants, just allows some folks to naively or exploitively think they're doing something 'green'.

Plants didn't evolve to supply us with combustion power -- surprise? So it should be no surprise that photosynthesis is only ~7% efficient in converting sunlight's 1kW/sq meter into combustible material. Nor should it be a surprise that combustion power itself is inherently inefficient because of the natural realities of thermodynamics. And, it should be no surprise that burning plants creates large emissions of oxidized trace elements, all while effectively depleting the soil used & consuming large amounts of water. The net efficiency of corn ethanol used in vehicles is 99% of solar energy falling on field/forest plants burned actually moves anything -- a vehicle or generator.

So, a 60% thermal efficiency standard for a power or thermal plant actually disguises a far lower net solar-input efficiency, and overall efficiency again in the low single digits. This, of course, contains no degradations of the environment due to input depletions & output emissions -- sulfur, nitrogen & trace-element compounds, some of which are GHGs & ozone-layer killers. It should be no surprise that even this good step in biomass burning regulation leaves many faults untouched.

The bottom line is that with >2% of earth's land now covered by human structure & 20%-efficient solar cells now available cheaply, local solar PV & hot water (DG) are all that are needed. There's no need for biomass burning or wind/solar 'farms' for peak power loads.

What there is need for, & what's progressing, is efficient storage & EV rollouts (which gain back ~15% of acceleration energy from braking). Given DG solar's ability to meet peak loads, storage & vehicular efficiency, & advanced nuclear power, there's no need for any other sources, especially not combustion.
ANONYMOUS
August 22, 2012
RE article:: Japanese Company Plans To Convert California Coal Plants to Biomass. I take it the Japanese company is not worried about Biomass regs coming to Cali.
David Dungate
David Dungate
August 22, 2012
I think this article is misleading and oversimplistic to state that the 2010 Manomet study "determined biomass energy is not carbon neutral and does not cut greenhouse gasses."

Carbon in biomass is part of an ongoing cycle of release and absorbtion in the biosphere that typically occurs within a human lifetime whereas whereas carbon released from fossil fuels will take millennia to be reintegrated into geologic formations. Therefore, unless you have a short window for evaluation, replacing fossil fuels with sustainably harvested biomass will reduce net greenhouse gases. The Manoment study acknowledges this fact and says it may take ~30 years for a standing forest to re-absorb the biogenic carbon produced from a 30% efficient electric-only power plant when replacing coal burning.

This new Massachusetts regulation will definately push the biomass industry toward combined heat and power and stand-alone heating applications which can achieve much higher efficiencies and better GHG reductions. Already there are several biomass boiler installations across the U.S. that are achieving 80-90% thermal efficiencies. These installations are typically burning wood residues (e.g. sawdust from lumber mills) and are definately contributing to GHG reductions by displacing fossil fuel use.
heb intn
heb intn
August 22, 2012
It seems to me that biomass energy should have equal to or less CO2 evolution than coal AND have zero impact on forests, especially old growth forests. Is this the intent of the regulation? Or is the intent to restrict biomass utilization so as to favor coal. Can't we grow crops like switch grass that are specifically for energy generation and as I understand are very efficient at converting CO2 to biomass. Area in and around wind/solar farms should grow this weed grass OK.
Scott Hare
Scott Hare
August 22, 2012
Just a clarification, the 50-60% includes heat output, and is not solely electricity production. This target would be unachievable otherwise. The preferential treatment for biomass CHP is quite common here in Europe, but it does elevate the cost of a plant and limits the number of suitable applications. CHP plants are driven primarily by a requirement for the heat; the electricity generated could be viewed as a by-product. Every new hurdle that regulators put on the biomass industry will lead to longer delays, less plant capacity and more fossils on the grid.
Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey
August 21, 2012
This move by Mass. should make anyone who wants to start up a biomass plant in another state to think twice. You may be regulated out of existence since these type of regulations make your cost to generate two to three times higher. What will the standards be 5 years from now and can you factor that into a viable business plan? This is becoming a very risky investment.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Meg Cichon

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Most Commented

  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 9
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 8
    Finland's New Energy Solutions
  • 1
    Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Stoel Rives LLP
  • Rotork plc
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo 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
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
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