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

Sweden's Bioenergy Success Story

Tildy Bayar, Associate Editor, Renewable Energy World
March 13, 2013  |  30 Comments

Print

Sweden's Bioenergy Pyrogrot demonstration project was recently awarded part of a €1.2 billion award from the EU's New Entrants' Reserve (NER)300 program, which acts as a vehicle for demonstrating environmentally safe carbon capture and storage (CCS) and new European renewable energy technologies at a pre-commercial scale. The projects will be co-financed with revenues obtained from the sale of 200 million emission allowances from the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).

Pyrogrot will use forest residues as feedstock, which will produce 160,000 tons per year of pyrolysis oil with the energy content estimated at about 750 GWh. The plant will operate at an input processing capacity of 720 tons a day of dry biomass.

Forest residue is the leading bioenergy source in Sweden, and bioenergy is the nation’s leading energy source. Since the 1970s when 70-80 percent of Sweden’s energy mix came from imported oil, the country has transformed its energy system to the point where oil is almost entirely a transport fuel, while bioenergy is used in district heating, industry and electricity production. For nations whose bioenergy industry is emerging or struggling with policy issues, Sweden is an example of how to get it right.

Svebio, the Swedish bioenergy industry association, has issued a short but fact-packed book entitled Bioenergy: The Swedish Experience – how bioenergy became the largest energy source in Sweden - authored by Kjell Andersson, Svebio’s communications director - which goes into detail on each of the bioenergy sectors. It makes an interesting read, showing how the interaction between abundant natural resources, high oil prices, public concern for the environment and strong policy support combined to radically change the nation’s energy mix over a relatively short period.

Contributing factors

Swedish bioenergy use has grown from 40 TWh/year in the 1970s to around 140 TWh in 2012, according to Svebio. Bioenergy steamed past oil in 2009 to become the leading energy source for the nation. And since 2009 bioenergy has made up more of Sweden’s energy mix than hydropower and nuclear power combined. Bioenergy was the leading factor in Sweden’s 9 percent decrease in greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2010, while GNP increased by 50 percent.

According to Svebio, the main reasons for the Swedish bioenergy sector’s phenomenal growth are broad political support and strong incentives such as the CO2 tax introduced in 1991, the green electricity certificates introduced in 2003, and tax exemptions for transport biofuels.

Andersson says bioenergy’s success is also due to Sweden’s long-standing tradition of using its natural forest resources – the nation has more forests than any other EU member state – while also protecting and developing these resources. Sweden’s total forest stock has increased each year despite the rapid expansion in biomass use for energy.

The history of Sweden’s biomass development can be seen in terms of two significant factors: rising prices for imported oil and the nation’s debate over nuclear power. From the 1973 oil crisis, which coincided with an unusually cold Swedish winter, to 1979 when imported oil prices jumped again and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident happened in the U.S., to a 1980 Swedish referendum on nuclear power calling for a phase-out by 2010, the nation has been seeking new and safe energy sources. National research into renewable energy was initiated in the late 1970s.

Heating oil

The most significant jump in Sweden’s use of biofuels arose from the 1991 adoption of a carbon tax across industry, the service sector and households, which raised the cost of fossil fuels and made renewables competitive. Over a number of years the tax was gradually increased until it reached a level where it doubled the price of heating oil, driving oil out of the heating market in both industrial plants and home boilers.

By the end of the 1970s heating oil made up 90 percent of the fuel in district heating plants; by 2010 fossil fuel was only 2 percent of total fuel use in district heating. The plants had largely switched to biomass, which made up 70 percent of district heating fuel in 2010.

In the 1990s combined heat and power (CHP) plants received investment grants to use biomass in electricity production, and in 2003 the green certificate system was introduced to support investment in new renewable power plants, leading to a rapid expansion of bioelectricity production.

Biofuel

Contributing factors to Sweden's biofuel success include its large agricultural surplus and pulp factories that produce ethanol as a by-product. Swedish cars use high-blend biofuels such as E85, which can contain up to 85 percent ethanol, and biogas. Since 2009 all fuel stations have been required to provide an alternative fuel option.

Sweden also imports large quantities of ethanol, mainly from Brazil. However, a broad section of the Swedish public now perceive the ethanol industry as a direct contributor to hunger and the destruction of rainforests. In response to consumer concerns, in 2009 a group of Brazilian ethanol producers signed a deal with Swedish importers to export certified sustainable ethanol.

Public procurement has been key to Sweden's adoption of biofuels. Cities feature ethanol buses, and at the end of 2011 Sweden had more than 200,000 flexi-fuel cars on its roads. Swedish car buyers receive a rebate of SEK10,000 (US$1560) for buying a green car.

Biomass

Biomass for heating accounts for more than half of all space heating in Sweden's housing and service sectors. The predominant type is forest biomass. There are also around 100,000 small-scale pellet heating systems operating in Sweden.

According to Svebio, there are plans for about 4-5 TWh in expanded Swedish biopower production over the next five years: 1 TWh in the forest industry and the rest in district heating. Total biopower production is expected to grow from 12 to 15 TWh.

Biogas, while still a small sector, is growing, and has considerable political support. Total biogas production is around 1.5 TWh per year, and the Swedish Energy Agency says the potential for more biogas production from wet residues and wastes is 3-4 TWh/year.

A qualified success

While Sweden's bioenergy revolution may be seen as a model for other nations, it is arguably due largely to advantages other nations may not have. From its abundant resources and high-growth but non-energy-intensive industry to its small area and population, Sweden is naturally suited to being a big bioenergy market.

But other nations with good biomass resources can learn from Sweden's policies. A "green tax switch" in 2001-2006 raised environmental taxes while compensating by lowering other taxes such as income and labor. Swedes are concerned with the environment as well as low heating, transport and industrial fuel prices and energy independence.

Bioenergy: The Swedish Experience - how bioenergy became the largest energy source in Sweden is available from Svebio at www.svebio.se. 

30 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 25, 2013
Steve, just answering your questions.

But, biomass, or any other combustion, even if made by advanced nuclear that can make fuels from CO2 in air & water, are nowhere near a solution. They are treading water at best.

The point I've repeated over & over is that the carbon cycle has been trashed by about 5000/3 in years. Meaning that carbon must be removed from the environment unnaturally, to make up for the unnatural additions we've made.

No one knows how to do that in the next decade. And, China will be doubling its carbon output over the next 20 years, despite all its efforts in renewables & nuclear. Even the German foolishness re nuclear is peanuts compared to our C deficit and the Chinese/Indian future emissions.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
March 25, 2013
Dr. Alex,
Again I think we should keep on focus and discuss the biomass project that was written about above. And observe that there is no
"silver bullet" technology. No end all, be all, of energy or any other field of endevor. I believe that there is abundant biomass lying around in waste bins and forest floors to fuel a large part of our power needs, and I for one think it is worth using. And with all due respect to your Thorium interest, my guess is that "wood burners" would rather split logs, than split atoms.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 25, 2013
SteveP, glad you watched that video. There are more as well.

You ask the right question of why the molten-salt reactor which was designed & operated in the 1960s in TN wasn't completed and extended to use Thorium.

Just like the keyboards most all of us use, the reason is, politics & ignorance. The QWERTY key array was designed to make it slower and jam less when keyboards were mechanical. The govt. spent $ designing a faster array (the Dvorak) in WWII. Did manufacturers switch?

We can see the same $/politics/ignorance at work all around us.

So, in 1962, President Kennedy asked for a plan for US nuclear future, to eliminate combustion waste of hydrocarbons:
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Then, after the MSR was demonstrated in the '60s, the time came for funding the next step -- using Thorium salt to breed Uranium fuel safely inside the reactors. The Nixon administration and a few Congressional folks made the wrong, expensive choice. Nixon even admits on video that he doesn't understand physics (like some others we know)...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI?=5618117

So now we're simply giving all our R&D away to China, India, Africa, etc. 50 years ago, we were on track to eliminate combustion power by ~2000. Oops. There's more here...
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/4/planId/15025
www.thoriumremix.com/2011

Page 7 here illustrates where we would have been, as the French are today, had we not done our usual Dance of the Idiots...
http://ieee4life.org/2013-03-20Meeting/presentation.pdf
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
March 25, 2013
Dr AlexC,
just watched your very long you tube posted above
here is a short one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qbGZ_Y-xkPM&feature=fvwp

I am NOT a believer in a "silver bullet". That there is some single great and powerful solution to the worlds energy needs, with little or no environmental impact.
I would ask you ; why was Thorium R&D essentially abandoned in 1974, when the 3 Mile Island incident wasn't until 1979?

I do have some hope for Thorium Reactors, but only as a part of a much broader desire for independence. Here's hoping for major utilization of numerous renewable energy programs. Right now I'd be betting on Hydro/Wind/Solar ideas, and as this article points out (lets stay on focus) there is a lot that can be done with waste wood/agra-waste that we already have.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 24, 2013
Steve, we only need look at what TV we watch, whom we elect to Congress, whom those folks actually work for, and so on, to see our plight.

As a retiring House member recently told a reporter asking why Congress is so useless: "No one is the House is appointed. everyone in the House has been elected by constituents."

In other words, all we need do is look in the mirror and ask why our standards for education and political responsibility are so low.

For example, our energy and emissions problems were mostly solved decades ago: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

And then screwed up by politics and ignorant decision making...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI?=5618117

Some environmental groups, like my own Sierra Club & NRDC, contributed to the wrong decisions, and still do.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
March 24, 2013
It has always amazed me that we (the USA )stays so far behind on the energy development curve than nations like those in Scandinavia / Japan / Germany etc. Does it seem interesting (or possible ) to anyone else that we could merge the Dept. of Defense, with the Dept. of Energy, and in a short while our huge Defense spending conglomerate could be profiting in the field of making us energy independent. Imagine for a moment, if you will, that we spent 5% or even 10% of our defense budget (for the last 10 or 20 years) on energy independence. Would we have one to war in Iraq? Would we have created thousands of domestic, green jobs? Would we have exported billions less dollars to OPEC nations? Isn't that defense?
Erik Hoffner
Erik Hoffner
March 20, 2013
LennartLjungblom: your assertion that more trees are growing in Sweden now could actually be true but consider the cost. As I note above in comment #6, research shows that the age of the Swedish forest is rapidly shrinking as more and more of the old trees are felled. For the report linked above, I interviewed Johanna From, chief forester of the southern Svea Region for the Swedish Forest Agency (SFA)and asked her if these figures were true and she said yes, and that it's a big problem. My question to you is would you rather have old forests rich in biodiversity and berries or fields of saplings all of one species? While it's true that you can go to many forests and still pick berries, those areas are shrinking. Here's a video interview I did with a distressed fellow who'd just lost his favorite berry patch in Jamtland to Stora Enso's logging operation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e9Jh6z0HPAI
Lennart Ljungblom
Lennart Ljungblom
March 19, 2013
This discussion is somewhat strange. There have never been more wood in standing trees in the forests in Sweden than today. Stump harvesting in Sweden is also very rare. Most people like to walk in the Swedish forests. You can freely go anywhere to pick berries or just listen to the birds.

The more energy efficient we get and the more we circulate material the less new raw material is needed. As a result there is a lot of bio resources available in Sweden as elsewhere waiting to do something about the total domination from the fossil fuel industry in the transport sector.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
March 17, 2013
Erik, I had no idea that Sweden was NOT the ulitmate in good forestry- I really did think that, not having gone there, due to that nation's good reputation in so many things. I find it dissapointing but I suppose I shouldn't be- forestry has been dissapointing me for 40 years here in Mass.- where it's still legal for a licensed forester to high grade. I really do appreicate learning the truth on Swedish forestry.

Regarding the forestry problems here- now the table is turned--- I think you may underestimate the problems- the gigantic clearcuts on state land caused the controversy. The forestry establishment denied it was a problem- they bragged about their FSC certification, but when the battle was over they lost that certification. The clearcuts were too large and very messy (see my video on that: http://vimeo.com/2090043)- but they still say large clearcuts are necessary and push the idea to private owners claiming an urgency to do so for wildlife biodiversity- of course we need some early succession habitat, but that's not really in short supply- what is in short supply is old growth and the wildlife that likes such wild areas- something timber harvesters of course find less interesting. :)

Also, I have seen some pretty ugly rutts here too- it's not a common problem, but it can happen.

A last comment- the forestry world is loaded with propaganda- I think it hurts more than helps. I'm not sure if it's just pure lies or stupidity or both.

ultimately then, we both agree much forestry is poorly done- but, I have seen some good biomass harvesting (links in previous message) and I'd hate to think there is no place for it becaus it can result in very fine forestry indeed.
Erik Hoffner
Erik Hoffner
March 16, 2013
Joe, agreed that the ruts are sloppy work. However, it's not the exception in Sweden, it's the rule. Used to be that -- before the four biggest forestry companies came to employ tens of thousands of employees each and with their own chipping plants and mills plus shareholders to answer to -- logging was done when the ground was frozen, in part to avoid such damage. It was also largely selective logging. Nowadays, even an hour of down time at the mill means cranky investors losing money, so it's nearly 100% clearcuts @ 365 days a year, and that means, in 2/3 of the country w/ taiga as the main forest type, boggy soils easily rutted by all sorts of equipment, which fill knee deep with water and breed mosquitoes but don't regenerate to forest. Read my Yale piece to understand how the 'freedom w/ responsibility' forestry framework the Swedish captains of industry promote so happily allows this to happen.

Happy to email you more images of what I saw, send a msg via my website. If you're a critic of certifications and are interested to hear how FSC is not working in Sweden, watch the video at the bottom of the Sweden page on my site: http://erikhoffner.com/gallery6.html

I also live in Mass (western) and recall the row over the logging practices. Happily, we have it much easier here than Sweden. The small clearcuts we see here regenerate pretty fast, rut free, thanks to a solid substrate below.

I think what we can learn from Sweden is how *not* to do forestry, ironically. The greenest country in the world isn't, so much, when it comes to its #1 resource, trees. But don't just take an American's word on it, there are plenty of critical Swedes to consult. Check out www.protecttheforest.se for one.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
March 16, 2013
Erik Hoffner, I should think that all discussions on this renewable energy web site are really meant to inform us about examples of what's going on out there but that we should compare and contrast with similar projects elsewhere without extrapolating conclusions from one location to the world at large.

That photo of deep rutts really doesn't look like what you see from modern logging equipment when done carefully. Rutts like that just don't have to happen- that only represents sloppy work. Feller-bunchers and cut-to-length machinery have tank treads so they can't make such rutts- the rutts are created by skidders used to drag out the wood to the log header- if the operator is working when the ground is wet. I should think in Sweden, much of the year the ground is frozen- and that's when this work should be done. So, though such bad logging occurs sometimes in Sweden for biomass harvesting- bad logging also occurs all over the world for all types of timber harvesting- so, the rutts shouldn't be a negative regarding biomass harvesting but a negative regarding all careless, sloppy work. I have seen hundreds of logging jobs in my 40 years as a forester and very few rutts like those- even using old fashioned cable skidders.

As for the Yale e360 web site- it's one of my favorites, I read it every day- but, I think that we need to be careful about drawing conclusions.

Here in Massachusetts- such sloppy logging occured on state land in the past decade- precipitating a public backlash- which resulted in a state sponsored "vision process" which I participated in- as a critic.

I happen to be one of the biggest critics of forestry on this planet-having fired off thousands of emails to state and regional forestry establishments because they cover up such poor work. I'm also a critic of certification schemes which I believe to be a fraud. What I am for is excellent forestry and I think there is a place for biomass energy- preferably thermal and CHP.
Erik Hoffner
Erik Hoffner
March 16, 2013
Thanks, Joe Z, but again, this discussion is about what's happening in Sweden, not the US. About your contention that we should have confidence in Swedes, that "Those modern harvesting machines actually do little soil damage," I have to refer you to the gallery of images accompanying my investigative piece for Yale e360:

http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/swedens_green_veneer_hides_unsustainable_logging/32/2/

Check the depth of those tracks. Remember that Sweden's forests are largely taiga and so these things become water filled ponds which are not going to revert to forest floor that welcome seedling trees any time soon, and there's no program that forestry companies use to remediate them. I saw tracks like this everywhere I went.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
March 16, 2013
Eric Hoffner, I agree that pulling stumps in Sweden is too much, but forestry in the US does not result in pulling stumps- not gonna happen. But, I think we should have a bit more confidence in the Swedes- they love their land too, I doubt they're going to tolerate erosion. Those modern harvesting machines actually do little soil damage.

DrAlexC, regarding your relatives land in NJ being stripped down to sand- of course doing that will be essentially permanent damage, but you can't compare that to CAREFUL logging practices. I appreciate the problem of stripping down to sand because that's what the solar farm in my neighborhood did before installing 15,000 solar panels- it's a desert covered with metal and glass- reprehensible (fully supported by the state's environmental groups). Regarding the carbon cycle- been there done that- here in Mass., the state funded the Manomet Report which delved into that subject as deep as possible- but relating the carbon cycle to forestry practices is still more art than science. I read that report 3 times- it's not definitive science- the subject is too complex.

To get a sense of what good biomass harvesting can be like in the US Northeast, check out the facebook page of my colleague Mike Leonard: https://www.facebook.com/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos_albums?ref=hl and my video of a biomass harvest at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE

I do agree there is a net carbon emission from biomass harvesting- but the forest recaptures the carbon- the carbon already in the carbon cycle, it's not the same as fossil fuel releasing geologic carbon.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
March 15, 2013
h
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 15, 2013
JoeZ, Removal does "not result in much of a drop in nutrients" -- "not much"? Over how many years.

Being from the Eastern US and having relatives still there in forested lands, the rocky soils, as in Sweden, haven't much tolerance to loss, especially from erosion via mechanical 'harvesting' of timber or what you consider "wastes".

My folks acreage in NJ had some topsoil stripped in 1948, down to Ice Age sand. It's still sitting lower than adjacent, undisturbed soil.

But, bottom line, burning anything for power is exceedingly inefficient thermodynamically, despite being profitable for a few, monetarily.

And, given that the Carbon Cycle has been overwhelmed with ~500Gtons of our emitted C, while only naturally handling ~.25Gtons/year, burning anything is insane.

If you want some refs on that issue, check out the DePaolo Planetary Sciences group's papers, starting here...
http://energyseminar.stanford.edu/node/461
http://melts.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/abs/425365a.html

Then Google "ocean acidification". We have a problem, and it's not simply climate & sea rise.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
March 15, 2013
robhilbun,

The continued rapid expansion of some 'growth' cities does put questions into my head. Why this expansion? More taxes out of every square foot of land.

Well, it came to me at 0300 hours today. It is no different than the 1%
'ers in New York, London, Zurich, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing.
And the answer is quite HORRIBLE!

It is all about big developers, rich realtors, wealthy lawyers, large
cement companies, large contractors that want the ever-more large-ess. While 99% of the people 'left' to live amongst
these mucky changes.

Instead of saying: "You can build a new detached,
but if that is what came out, that is what must go in, no change", we
would not be fighting for more sewers, more fresh water, more transit,
poorer style homes, boxes with a small deck, like a pig or chicken in
a cage. So more energies are required. Stop pop. growth. Soonest!

Even the lawyers and judges, and court rules, are against the average
person: the costs so high to get justice, the delays so long...always favoring the cops' overtime, the lawyers fees, and the number of judges, 'crowns', sheriffs, etc.

So it is there for the 1%. There seems no other justification!
Erik Hoffner
Erik Hoffner
March 15, 2013
joe z: that research you cite may be a reality on the ground in some places, but back to the issue at hand, the stump-and-all biomass harvest I saw in places in 2011 in Sweden is the opposite of that vision.
Robert Hilbun
Robert Hilbun
March 15, 2013
Oh oh Cliff Claven, I have really spoke up too soon without knowing all the data, please excuse my ignorance on the bigger picture........ I really believe we are doomed on this planet to live in inclosed cites where everything is controlled by robots and machines because nature has been so altered it will not function, and yeah humans will be alive eating processed pellets or whatever and doing what they are told. Pretty much like now with just less everything natural like alive rivers and oceans. Please I hope I am as wrong about this as everything else.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
March 15, 2013
DrAlexC said, "Taking 'forest residues' from forests depletes the forests' ability to provide nutrients for future growth."

Not necessarily- many researchers have shown that leaving a fair (1/3-1/2) amount of the slash will be sufficient to not result in much of a drop in nutrients. Residues usually also include poor quality trees with no other market but energy. Also, even if all the slash was removed- if this is only done once every 2-3 decades, the nutrient loss is pretty low. Many fine forests have grown in on highly disturbed soils. There is an old gravel pit near my house- they removed sand and gravel without restoring the topsoil- white pine grew in just as fast as on rich soils, with no topsoil at all. Last year the entire old gravel pit (18 acres) was striped again down to bare sand, with no restoration of the top soil, and a 3 MW solar "farm" was built on it- certainly the nutrient loss now is 100%, not just some very small amount which would occur with a careful harvest of some wood for energy- so any pretense that solar is always green is false too. Most other solar farms I've seen here in Massachusetts are also built on packed gravel or cement- way less green than a managed forest.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 15, 2013
Even the Swedes make mistakes: "...forest residues as feedstock, which will produce 160,000 tons per year of pyrolysis oil with the energy content estimated at about 750 GWh. The plant will operate at an input processing capacity of 720 tons a day of dry biomass."

Taking "forest residues" from forests depletes the forests' ability to provide nutrients for future growth.

Pyrolytically making oil from from biomass wastes energy and produces a product that when used for engine/generator fuel, wastes over 50% of the fuel's energy content.

The Swedes know about thermodynamics, so $ must be the lubricant for making a bad choice here.

Amazing how easy it is to come up with wasteful 'solutions' by pretending they're 'green'. But, hey. we did it in the US with corn ethanol, which netted less than 1% of the input solar energy to the corn.
;]

PS: 750GWHr = .086 of 1/2 of what a typical power plant produces per year. Wow.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
March 15, 2013
To Frank Heller: Your comment:

"The real market opportunity is in urban green waste management. This will be the feedstock for urban organic waste to energy bio-refineries".

SO ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Oh how it hurts to see, or watch on TV,
wooden buildings coming down and the material not separated,
sorted, and recycled. Older wood always superior.

Every state and provincial entities should mandate that recycling
into tight laws for same.

Kwh
Frank Heller
Frank Heller
March 15, 2013
Maine's forests were logged off in the mid 1800's, and subsequently replanted approx. every 25 years. From the air it appears like a giant lawnscape, broken by lakes and an occasional giant tree.

Forest owners have both preserved, protected and cultivated their forests for well over a century....there are rare and endangered areas but they are in private hands and probably best left there.

It is mostly pulp, but with the demise of newsprint the demand is way down; so other species are being planted.

There is some move toward afforestation to mitigate CO2 buildup; and a growing recognition that the N.Forests are increasing in biomass as a result of the warming and CO2; and with the reduction in logging. I personally led a forestation project two years ago which gradually built out a forest bordering hayed trust farm fields. Land Trusts usually 'inherit' farms with large fields as farming declines, esp. dairy and large crop farming.

There have been a number of expensive projects to take either 'black liquor' or cellulose and convert it into a liquid fuel. As far as I can see, Mascoma has cornered the market on enzymes.

The real boom is in hiqh quality wood pellets for overseas shipment. There is some interest in gassifiers and even sterling engines, that use the pellets as fuel.

Logging is a dying business; making collection of forest residue problematic and chipping operations don't leave much residue.

The real market opportunity is in urban green waste management. This will be the feedstock for urban organic waste to energy bio-refineries.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
March 15, 2013
DO NOT WASTE BIOMASS FOR ELECTRICITY OR MASS-HEATING. THERE IS A
BETTER WAY:

Tar sands? OUT OF DATE?. FINITO? Move to 'gas' is everywhere!

Also of course, the entire Arctic Ocean seabed, and all of it's 'residing-seas'
around it's perimeter, are full of methane clathrates, which, with thaw, will
and are, coming upward in huge ocean boils. The Russians are observing
this aboard their nuclear icebreakers every year. I have a Victoria friend
who is ice pilot on those and Canadian-Arctic passages of those ships,
who discusses same with me annually. Siberia itself also has them beneath
it's frozen surface. The Alberta projects are to me, "Old fashion", for those
clathrates are/will become hydrates, for removal, very soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/global/japan-says-it-is-first-to-tap-methane-hydrate-deposit.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130313&pagewanted=print

and:

http://gcaptain.com/japan-confirms-first-ever-gas-production-from-methane-hydrate-deposits/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 15, 2013
Sobering. It gets worse if you look into pyrolysis oil. 300+ separate random organic compounds, super acidic, full of oxygen and water, short shelf-life before it polymerizes into a solid, too nasty to feed into a normal petroleum refinery. Byproduct "bio-char" is charcoal by another name and is an explosive and inhalation-hazard disposal problem more than a monetizable co-product, and only can ameliorate 1/5th of the soil acidity caused by artificially fertilizing the feedstock in the first place. Pyrogrot mentioned above and Cool Planet currently suckering Google and others for cash are going nowhere. The taxpayers and investors are paying folks to find more and more creative ways to burn down our forests and industrialize our wilderness areas and trash our ancient living carbon sinks. Insanity.
Erik Hoffner
Erik Hoffner
March 15, 2013
In 2011 I investigated claims by the Swedish forestry sector of being the most sustainable in the world, and a model for others to follow. What I saw there was very sobering, and not a model that seemed successful. Rather, there's a mass conversion of forests to monocultures happening and biodiversity is plummeting. Clearcuts are the rule everywhere, borders between cuts and waterways are tiny, and the trend is to replace cut forests of native pine, birch, and spruce with monocultures of lodgepole pine, an alien from North America, since it grows fastest for the pulp mills. My findings are here:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/swedens_green_veneer_hides_unsustainable_logging_practices/2472/

Biomass is another factor in the forest-to-farm field look of much of northern Sweden these days (plowing furrows for replanting is also common). I saw whole areas that were first clearcut and then all the stumps yanked out for biomass, windrows hundreds feet long and piled 30 feet high on landings awaiting transport to chipping plants. How will tracts like this recover in the sub Arctic climate to be productive forestland again? Unclear. The "Forest residue" the author of this piece mentions was usually formerly productive forest.

Overall the biggest problem is that the age of the country's forest stock is declining fast: 25% of the total productive forest is less than 25 y.o. and a third is less than 60, and those numbers are growing yearly. At this latitude, trees of this age are really quite small. No wonder the biologist I interviewed told me he was terrified about what's happening in the nation's forests, as all the oldest tracts fall to make way for lines of pines.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
March 15, 2013
Cliff, I agree that there are strong motivations for clearcutting. In far northern forests such as Sweden- there were few tree species to begin with so it may make sense to use clearcutting and planting for some but not all their land. What would help the biodiversity issue is to keep the clearcuts small and to leave some patches as reserves and to just thin other stands. I think if they really decided to do this- it could be done with no economic loss. In more southerly forests with a greater mix of species, especially hardwoods, clearcutting isn't the best silviculture, in my opinion, for economic and ecological reasons. I have been a forester for 40 years.
Joe
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 15, 2013
@Joe: I agree what you say is possible from a silviculture point of view, but the tyranny of power density and economics drives mono-cultures and clear-cutting. Bringing in heavy equipment to harvest only a fraction of trees is not cost-effective. In a 20-30 year maturity pulpwood stand, it is only feasible to do one thinning harvest at the 10-15 year halfway point, and then a final full harvest at the 20-30 year point. Fertilizer application is also only feasible at the beginning, and is another driver for clear cutting. Coppicing and more complex selective harvesting techniques only increase the amount of acreage that must be managed to output the same BTUs. It's a catch-22. The irony that more and more environmentalists are starting to appreciate is that oil and gas have the smallest environmental footprint of all our energy sources. Fracking disturbs the same amount of land as wind farms, but for less time and then the hardware is pulled out and the damage can be ameliorated. Even open-pit coal mines in the west are restoring the land behind them as the move across the landscape. Every form of energy has an environmental impact, but the highest power density forms have the smallest impact per unit of energy service delivered. Solar, wind, and wood are the worst--except for biofuels which are in a league of their own. As the developing world is trying graduate upward from the terrible air quality of burning wood in their villages and indoor stoves, we are trying to force ourselves back into the caveman era. Look what it is doing to Sweden, with one of the largest proportional forests and one of the least energy-intensive economies.
Joe Zorzin
Joe Zorzin
March 15, 2013
Cliff, good point about the monoculture forestry in Sweden-- but, forests don't have to be managed that way. Instead, with periodic thinnings, you can develop forests that are uneven aged and with many species. Those monoculture forests may be good for paper production or common construction lumber, but if you want high value hardwoods, you'll need to have more complex forests- which can contribute energy with trees with no other commercial value. You say "biomass is the most destructive option available"- I doubt that. As for CO2, it will be produced by using wood for energy- but the article did say that, "Sweden's total forest stock has increased each year despite the rapid expansion in biomass use for energy", so the forests there, overall, are not a net producer of carbon emissions. The Swedish foresters just now need to come up with better silvicultural methods to retain biodiversity.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
March 15, 2013
Here is the Swedish reality of a retro world where we cut down forests for firewood (From the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation)

"Even though forests cover practically half of Sweden's land mass there is a biodiversity crisis in the Swedish forests. Since the 1950's the Swedish forestry industry has turned enormous areas of pristine forests into vast oceans of production landscapes and today, more than 90 per cent of the productive forests are affected by forest management. Despite the fact that only 5 percent of the natural old growth forests with very high conservation values, known as core sites, remain below the montane region, natural forests with great importance for nature conservation are being clear felled at an alarming rate, even by companies holding a certification that promises sustainable forestry. For four years, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation has documented the Swedish forestry model in practice. The result is very discouraging; forests with documented high biodiversity values are being slated for logging and often clear felled, as are forests with Woodland Key Habitat Structures. We have documented violations of the, so called, environmental certifications as well as the Forestry Act, together with destroyed biotopes for red listed species. Despite this, Sweden is considered to be prominent in the forestry sector, with a good reputation for what is perceived as a sustainable forestry. The Swedish forestry model is in reality contributing to growing monoculture in the forests, with clear cutting as the default method, soil scarification and the use of non-native species.
The Swedish Red List of Species continues to grow."

Sweden is turning its beautiful biodiverse forests into an industrialized pulpwood monoculture. Not the world I want for my kids. Biomass as fuel is the most destructive option available. We have demonized CO2 and are sacrificing the Earth at the altar of global warming alarmism.
Robert Hilbun
Robert Hilbun
March 15, 2013
love it

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Tildy Bayar

Tildy Bayar

Associate Editor, Renewable Energy World magazine
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Renewable Energy World Magazine

With over 57,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed decision makers...

  • Archives
  • About
  • subscribe
  • advertise
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

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

Most Commented

  • 6
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 4
    Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit
  • 4
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

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