Production of biofuel from forests will increase greenhouse emissions

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/oct/production-biofuel-forests-will-increase-greenhouse-emissions

Production of biofuel from forests will increase greenhouse emissions

10-24-11

CORVALLIS, Ore. – The largest and most comprehensive study yet done on the effect of biofuel production from West Coast forests has concluded that an emphasis on bioenergy would increase carbon dioxide emissions from these forests at least 14 percent, if the efficiency of such operations is optimal.

The findings are contrary to assumptions and some previous studies that suggest biofuels from this source would be carbon-neutral or even reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In this research, that wasn’t true in any scenario.

The study was published today in http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html">Nature Climate Change, by scientists from the College of Forestry at Oregon State University and other institutions in Germany and France. It was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1264

[wtmusic]

1. But...but...it's renewable nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Yeah, there’s even question about how renewable it is

As the trees grow, they take nutrients from the soil. When they die, and rot, they return nutrients to the soil. That’s renewal.

If the trees are taken away from the forest…

[txlibdem]

3. Is it a net positive to get rid of oil and fossil fuels? I think so.

But there are so many here on DU that seem to love the stinky, poisonous, junk that comes with extracting, refining, and using fossil fuels and will bad mouth any and all bio-fuel efforts at length and ad nauseum.

I'm sure this poster is not one of those but there are many DU'ers who do that and it makes me scratch my head.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I don’t think there are many on the E/E board that are advocates of fossil fuels (of any sort)

Perhaps I’m wrong.

[txlibdem]

5. Please tell me, is it more important to get rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible?

Or is it more important to maintain the balance of the minerals in some forest that was going to be cut down anyway.

Remember, cellulosic ethanol is made from the junk parts that would probably end up in a landfill or something like that.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. The study is not about the use of “junk parts”

(Emphasis added by me.)

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1264.html

Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production

…

Published online | 23 October 2011

Strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions include substitution of fossil fuel with bioenergy from forests¹, where carbon emitted is expected to be recaptured in the growth of new biomass to achieve zero net emissions², and forest thinning to reduce wildfire emissions³. Here, we use forest inventory data to show that fire prevention measures and large-scale bioenergy harvest in US West Coast forests lead to 2–14% (46–405 Tg C) higher emissions compared with current management practices over the next 20 years. We studied 80 forest types in 19 ecoregions, and found that the current carbon sink in 16 of these ecoregions is sufficiently strong that it cannot be matched or exceeded through substitution of fossil fuels by forest bioenergy. If the sink in these ecoregions weakens below its current level by 30–60 g C m^-2 yr^-1 owing to insect infestations, increased fire emissions or reduced primary production, management schemes including bioenergy production may succeed in jointly reducing fire risk and carbon emissions. In the remaining three ecoregions, immediate implementation of fire prevention and biofuel policies may yield net emission savings. Hence, forest policy should consider current forest carbon balance, local forest conditions and ecosystem sustainability in establishing how to decrease emissions.

…

When people talk about “large-scale bioenergy harvest” that’s cutting down trees to use for biofuel.

(Moderators, please note, US government press release—copyright concerns are nil.)
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/research/2007/poplars.html

Trees: A Poplar Source for Biofuels

Media Contact:
Jennifer Martin, CSREES Staff [phone]

October 15, 2007
By Stacy Kish, CSREES Staff

There is no simple solution to the energy problem. Crops, such as corn, compete with the food supply. Poplars and other trees could provide a sustainable alternative for ethanol production; however, they require costly pretreatment before processing into ethanol. Researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) have identified a potential solution to the problem.

Currently, the ethanol industry provides about four billion gallons of ethanol to the fuel market, which is expected to grow. Developing a process that effectively makes ethanol from cellulose derived from different types of plant biomass, particularly wood, remains difficult due to one significant barrier. The barrier is known as lignin.

Lignin is a glue-like polymer in the cell wall of plants that surrounds cellulose to provide strength to fibers and to resist microbial decay. The strength allows trees to stand tall so they can utilize the sun's energy for photosynthesis. Lignin is also second only to cellulose as the largest pool of non-fossil organic carbon, constituting up to a quarter of the dry mass of wood. Unfortunately, lignin is difficult to breakdown for cellulose extraction and requires chemical pretreatment. Chemical pretreatment raises the cost for using plants as the source of cellulose.

Vincent Chiang, co-director of the Forest Biotechnology Group at NCSU, and his colleagues, Ron Sederoff and Hou-min Chang, have identified lignin production genes in fast-growing poplar trees. They have modified the genes to reduce the lignin content of trees by as much as 50 percent. This finding will greatly reduce the expensive pretreatment currently used to extract cellulose.

'We really don't need to create a strong tree for fuel as long as the tree can grow rapidly for a short time,' Chiang said. A reduction in lignin content of 10 to 20 percent would allow much more efficient production of biofuel without impeding the tree's growth.

The scientists are also tackling this problem from another perspective. They are looking at the big picture of how wood is formed during plant growth. By examining how genes, proteins and metabolic pathways work together, the scientists hope to gain a better understanding of how lignin is formed. Understanding the broader context of lignin production may allow the scientists to engineer poplar trees with an altered lignin chemical composition that could more easily decompose during biofuel production.

The scientists believe both processes could significantly improve poplar tree biomass availability for ethanol production in the next five to 10 years. For a large-scale production of fuel from wood, similar work is needed on other tree species, such as pines to provide for the long-term energy needs.

…

[txlibdem]

7. Time will tell which is the best source material for cellulosic ethanol

I have my money on either switch grass or kudzu. How many years does it take to grow a tree versus months to grow an equivalent amount (more acreage admittedly) of switch grass - in order to get the same output of bio-fuel (cellulosic ethanol).

[kristopher]

8. biomass for cellulosic ethanol is a waste for transportation

Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol
J. E. Campbell, et al. Science 324, 1055 (2009);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1168885

The quantity of land available to grow biofuel crops without affecting food prices or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land conversion is limited. Therefore, bioenergy should maximize land-use efficiency when addressing transportation and climate change goals. Biomass could power either internal combustion or electric vehicles, but the relative land-use efficiency of these two energy pathways is not well quantified. Here, we show that bioelectricity outperforms ethanol across a range of feedstocks, conversion technologies, and vehicle classes. Bioelectricity produces an average of 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% more emissions offsets per unit area of cropland than does cellulosic ethanol. These results suggest that alternative bioenergy pathways have large differences in how efficiently they use the available land to achieve transportation and climate goals.


Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online version of this article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5930/1055
Supporting Online Material can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1168885/DC1
A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be found at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5930/1055#related-content
This article cites 25 articles, 3 of which can be accessed for free: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5930/1055#otherarticles
This article has been cited by 1 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5930/1055#otherarticles
This article appears in the following subject collections: Atmospheric Science http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/atmos
Information about obtaining reprints of this article or about obtaining permission to reproduce this article in whole or in part can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl

[txlibdem]

9. Not so for Algae-based biofuels

The aglae farm can be colocated with a coal power plant, using all of the CO2 coming out of the smokestack and the heat as well to grow bio-fuels. The only thing missing is light and that can easily be supplied by the power plant. This could make coal a cleaner source of electricity and help reduce our dependence on oil. Both would be good.

[txlibdem]

10. Sorry, I forgot to mention that ethanol (of any kind) and biofuels of any kind = short term solution

I understand your opposition to bio-fuels and cellulosic ethanol. I am wholly opposed to corn ethanol. But cellulosic uses parts of plants that are not food, and are usually left on the field to rot. Switch grass is an especially good candidate for cellulosic ethanol, IMO, but there are so many different sources for it if any or most of them are found to be a detriment we'll just change over to the ones that do NOT cause whatever harm that the deprecated source does.

By the way, with 140 million gas burning cars on the road. It's going to take decades to replace them all with electric vehicles or other transportation options like light rail, high speed trains, PRT, GM's Envy, etc., so we have to realize that these liquid fuel burners are going to need something to burn. And it cannot be fossil fuels. Period.

[GliderGuider]

11. Look at the costs on both sides of the equation:

Costs of fossil fuels: lots of CO2, NOx, SOx, soot and PAH...
Costs of forest biofuels: loss of biodiversity, reduced soil fertility, increased soil loss, some CO2, NOx, SOx and PAH.

If the net result is the same amount of transportation, a move to biofuels seems to trade off a loss of biodiversity and soil quality/quantity for some reduction in combustion products. If that is the case, the big question is how we assign relative values to biodiversity loss versus climate change.

Why not just drive less and use less electricity? That way, no matter how the equation balances out, it's a win. Here's hoping for less driving places and doing shit.

"Don't just do something, sit there!"