USDA ANNOUNCES ECONOMIC RECOVERY PROJECTS FOR WOOD-TO-ENERGY GRANTS AND BIOMASS UTILIZATION PROJECTS

[Fledermaus]

McCLELLAN, Calif., June 11, 2009 — Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan today announced projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for Wood-To-Energy and biomass utilization. These 30 projects, funded at $57 million – $49 million for wood-to-energy grants and $8 million for biomass utilization – are located in 14 states, including California.

"These projects will promote the development of biofuels from wood and help private sector businesses to establish renewable energy infrastructure and accelerate availability in the marketplace," said Merrigan. "Additionally, hazardous fuels reduction projects utilize biomass from forested lands that, when left untreated, increase wildland fire risks to communities and natural resources."

In keeping with the Obama Administration's interest in innovative sources for energy, these ARRA funds may help to create markets for small diameter wood and low value trees removed during forest restoration activities. This work will result in increased value of biomass generated during forest restoration projects, the removal of economic barriers to using small diameter trees and woody biomass, and generation of renewable energy from woody biomass. These funds may also help communities and entrepreneurs turn residues from forest restoration activities into marketable energy products. Projects were nominated by Forest Service regional offices and selected nationally through a competitive basis on objective criteria.

Biomass utilization also provides additional opportunities for removal of hazardous fuels on Federal forests and grasslands and on lands owned by State, local governments, private organizations, and individual landowners.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/06/0206.xml

[Teaser]

1. Didn't we used to call "Wood-to-energy"

Fire?


j/k. Interesting stuff.

[rurallib]

2. been doing it for years.

[tabatha]

3. "removed during forest restoration activities"

That is excellent - there is so much non-native vegetation that needs removing --- and converting it to energy is one of the best uses.

[MADem]

4. Pellet stoves? !!!! nt

[madokie]

7. Been using one since the winter of '91-'92

and have saved a ton of money from using an otherwise waste product to keep our asses nice and warm. Feel good about it too.

[MADem]

9. Do they make them with battery backup?

I know the hoppers on 'em need electricity to feed the stove. I was wondering how you solved that problem in a power outage....

[madokie]

11. I bought an inverter

and use the battery from our boat, not needed in the winter, to power it with while I go connect the generator. If it looks like we'll be having a power failure I will connect the inverter and a charger on the battery so as the stove is running using the battery and inverter with the battery being kept charged via the charger. But in all these years we've only had two power failures and neither one lasted more than a few hours.

[MADem]

13. I live in a region where, when we have outages, they can sometimes last for days.

A real pain in the butt, too!

[Fotoware58]

10. Price of pellets?

I've seen where availability of pellets is often spotty and the prices are somewhat high because of demand. If we could increase the amount of raw materials coming from National Forests, where there is an almost endless supply, the prices of pellets could drop dramatically. I understand that emissions from pellet stove are much lower than woodstoves. Do woodstove smoke restrictions also apply to pellet stoves? In many places, winter temperature inversions trap smoke and pollution during the winter.

[madokie]

12. All the pellets stoves I know of pass the Oregon emissions tests

there no smoke coming from them either. I think, without looking it up, that the stove we have is in the lower 90% efficient. We pay 180 dollars for a ton of pellets and will get by the whole winter on less than two tons. We buy in the fall so as to avoid any chance
of the availability being spotty and the high prices that brings with it. The last I read there is still many millions of tons of sawdust that make it to the landfills. The first winter we started using pellets they cost 145 bucks a ton where this last winter it was up to 180 bucks, not much of an increase in 16 some odd years.

[Fotoware58]

14. Lumbermills and Co-Gen plants

Most of today's lumbermills have an adjacent Co-Gen plant to burn wood waste and help power their mills. That is one reason for the volatility in pellet prices and availabilty in some areas. With you being in Oregon, there could be a more dependable supply, although timber harvesting their is radically-depressed right now. They want to produce large pellets to combine with coal to reduce the bad effects of coal-power plants.

I'm definitely considering buying a pellet stove, here in the central Sierra Nevada.

[Fotoware58]

5. Sorry folks

While this looks very good to me, it seems rather premature, at this point.

There ARE many roadblocks to plans like these. First of all, cellulosic ethanol is still as elusive as ever. Also, biofuels to me should really be a short term bridge to cleaner and cheaper ways to power our cars. While the wood supply is vast, it certainly isn't endless. At best, it can merely supplement our gasoline supply.

Second of all, biomass will not pay its way out of the woods by itself. In the Forest Service, biomass is considered to be trees less than 9-10 inches in diameter, as well as logging slash and wood waste. So, you know what THAT means, eh? It means that we would have to cut some bigger trees (not old growth!) to go along with the biomass. Transportation costs for both logs AND biomass are financially-difficult and could get much worse. Lumber mills are much fewer and far apart than they used to be with probably 80% of all mills being closed in the last 20 years. For example, there is only one lumber mill in southern half of California, and none at all in the Los Angeles area. It would make the most sense to site biomass plants next to lumber mills, to take advantage of the wood waste and shorter hauls.

Thirdly, all plans to log timber in National Forests will be subject to litigation. It IS a fact of life in this day and age. Eco-lawyers make fine livings solely off Forest Service lawsuits. Any attempts to streamline processes and laws will again be met with lawsuits from multiple sources. Any attempts to log more timber will also be met with flurries of lawsuits. Any re-writing of Forest Plans will also be met with fierce resistance.

Fourthly, the Waxman-Markey bill will specifically ban the use of Federal biomass as "renewable energy". The changes needed in Congress will probably never come to pass. The schism between eastern and western lawmakers is growing, and the easterners surely have more power to overrule western interests. Massive new Wilderness Areas and no-management areas have been promised by the Democratic Congress. The amount of time needed to educate the public, the courts and the Congress about true forest restoration will be all too long. This Win-Win scenario is all-too-wishful thinking and way too progressive for current-day America. Could this be merely political posturing so that elected officials can say "We tried, but..."???

And I didn't even mention the loss of forests to wildfires.

Sad, but true.

[Fledermaus]

6. latest draft of the Waxman-Markey bill contains a compromise on the definition

Greenwire reports, however, that the latest draft of the Waxman-Markey bill contains a compromise on the definition — one that would allow the use of some non-commercial biomass removed from federally managed forests only in order to prevent forest fires or restore ecosystem health.

It would restrict the use of biomass collected from old-growth stands.

The change could improve the economic feasibility of managing national forests and ultimately help create a market for small-diameter trees, brush and forest slash — materials with little value to the timber industry, said Bill Carlson, a biomass power consultant and former chairman of the Biomass Power Association.


Allowing the collection of biomass for energy production would also extend the value of the $224 million in hazardous fuel reduction grants awarded by the Department of Agriculture, especially in states like Wyoming and Utah, which have vast swaths of federal lands, but haven’t already adopted state renewable energy standards, said Mr. Carlson.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/bill-gives-new-meaning-to-biomass/

[Fotoware58]

8. Even MORE conflicts!

This change in the Federal biomass definition probably muddies the issue even more. Without a standard definition for "old growth stands", lawsuits will continue to fly, splitting hairs over how "old" is "old growth". Or how big is "old growth". The article itself first talks about "non-commercial biomass" and then turns around and talks about "economic feasibility". No one will do it for free, folks! This situation continues to ignore recommendations from the most-respected forest ecologists in our country. With current thinning projects being aggressively litigated, I still see no hope for any help for our forests.

Politics triumphs over science, yet again!!