Biomass Industry Reveals Plans to Turn U.S. into European Resource Colony

Bio­mass Indus­try Reveals Plans to Turn U.S. into Euro­pean Resource Colony

Think the days of Europe exploit­ing the U.S. as a resource colony are behind us? Wel­come back to the 18th century. 

A July Bio­mass Mag­a­zine and Pel­let Mill Mag­a­zine webi­nar series, “Sat­is­fy­ing Europe’s Grow­ing Appetite for Amer­i­can Wood Pel­lets,” lays out the bio­mass industry’s dis­turb­ing plans to con­vert North Amer­i­can forests into wood pel­lets to fuel Euro­pean bio­mass incinerators—further deplet­ing U.S. forests, soils, and water­sheds, while has­ten­ing run­away cli­mate change. 

Tim Portz of BBI Inter­na­tion­al host­ed the indus­try webi­nar, joined by guest speak­ers Seth Ginther of the U.S. Indus­tri­al Pel­let Asso­ci­a­tion, and Dave Ten­ny of the Nation­al Alliance of For­est Own­ers, a U.S.-based tim­ber indus­try front group.

In 2012, the Euro­pean Union (E.U.) burned 4.36 mil­lion met­ric tons of wood pel­lets for elec­tric­i­ty, accord­ing to U.S. Indus­tri­al Pellet’s Seth Ginther. The U.K.’s por­tion was 30%, the Nether­lands at 24%, Bel­gium at 16%, Den­mark at 9%, and the rest shared by Swe­den, Italy, Poland and a few oth­er nations.

The E.U.’s 2012 demands were up sig­nif­i­cant­ly from 3.23 mil­lion tons in 2011, 2.62 mil­lion tons in 2010, and 1.77 mil­lion tons in 2009.

Pro­ject­ed E.U. con­sump­tion for 2020 ranges from 25–70 mil­lion tons per year, though Ginther believes the “true num­ber is 40–50 mil­lion” tons.

Once its third boil­er is con­vert­ed from coal to bio­mass, the U.K.’s Drax Pow­er Sta­tion alone would incin­er­ate 6.5–7 mil­lion tons of pel­lets annu­al­ly, requir­ing 4,600 square miles of for­est every year, an area equiv­a­lent to 83% of Con­necti­cut, accord­ing to Ginther. The Drax facil­i­ty alone would con­sume the equiv­a­lent of two-thirds of “Europe’s entire bio­mass ener­gy con­sump­tion in 2010.”

While the U.K. has claimed — and is like­ly to con­tin­ue claim­ing — the lion’s share of wood pel­lets from over­seas, the Nether­lands has plans to pro­duce up to 9% of their elec­tric­i­ty from bio­mass, adding up to 6 mil­lion tons annually.

Den­mark and Bel­gium are devel­op­ing more of an appetite as well, with the lat­ter coun­try prepar­ing 80 megawatt, 180 megawatt, and 608 megawatt (co-fir­ing) facil­i­ties. Ger­many is weigh­ing the fea­si­bil­i­ty of replac­ing its nuclear reac­tors with bio­mass incin­er­a­tors, while Italy’s demand is most­ly for res­i­den­tial heating.

36% of the 4.36 mil­lion tons of pel­lets burned in the E.U. last year were plun­dered from Unit­ed States’ forests, which in 2012 sur­passed Cana­da (34%) as the E.U.’s pri­ma­ry for­est resource colony, a trend that Ginther expects to continue.

So why all this bio­mass demand all of a sud­den? Recent Euro­pean Union pol­i­cy dic­tates that 20% of their ener­gy be pro­duced by “renew­ables” by 2020, the broad def­i­n­i­tion lump­ing bio­mass incin­er­a­tion in with solar, wind, tidal and geot­her­mal. Each nation state is left to its own devices to fig­ure out its “renew­able” port­fo­lio, and four­teen of them are turn­ing to bio­mass ener­gy, accord­ing to Ginther.

Oth­er com­po­nents of this per­fect storm include U.K. mar­ket pol­i­cy dri­vers, incen­tives and tar­iffs, Renew­able Oblig­a­tion Cer­tifi­cates (ROC), and direct sub­si­dies for bio­mass ener­gy. Addi­tion­al­ly, an increas­ing car­bon price floor “incen­tivizes bio­mass” by mak­ing coal “uneco­nom­ic in the next few years,” said Ginther.

The U.K. takes the biggest bite out of the U.S. wood bas­ket because the major­i­ty of its enor­mous facil­i­ties co-fire bio­mass along with coal, with pro­jec­tions of 200 mil­lion tons by 2017 for the island nation.

Since RWE’s Tilbury Pow­er Sta­tion — the largest bio­mass pow­er incin­er­a­tor in the world — has recent­ly gone under, the pro­ject­ed demand will come from Drax’s con­ver­sion of three 660 megawatt units, Egg­bor­ough Pow­er which “may” con­vert four of its 500 megawatt units, IP/Mitsui at Ruge­ley which “may” con­vert two 500 megawatt units, and E.ON Iron­bridge which plans to “tem­porar­i­ly” con­vert its 440 megawatt unit.

So how exact­ly does the E.U. expect to extract this much wood from U.S. forests on top of cur­rent demand from the U.S. bio­mass, tim­ber, and pulp and paper indus­tries? While fast-grow­ing tree plan­ta­tions, such as genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered euca­lyp­tus, are part of the bio­mass industry’s future fuel source, wild, nat­ur­al forests are like­ly to be the main ingre­di­ent in Euro­pean wood pellets.

Europe’s co-fir­ing bio­mass incin­er­a­tors are “old pow­er sta­tions built for burn­ing coal and burn­ing coal is chem­i­cal­ly very dif­fer­ent from bio­mass,” accord­ing to Almuth Ern­st­ing of Bio­fu­el­watch, based in the U.K. and the U.S. “Burn­ing bio­mass releas­es chem­i­cals (alka­li salts) that cor­rode, i.e. ulti­mate­ly destroy, the boil­ers. The only type of bio­mass found to not be too cor­ro­sive for those pow­er sta­tions is pel­lets made from wood from slow grow­ing trees with lit­tle bark.”

Why tar­get U.S. forests when there’s an entire world of trees to gob­ble up? Ginther’s expla­na­tion for the arbo­re­al inva­sion is due to U.S. “sus­tain­able forestry prac­tices” and a “sta­ble polit­i­cal climate.”

Crit­ics con­tend that the U.S. is chock full of weak indus­try cer­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­grams that green­wash unsus­tain­able log­ging prac­tices — includ­ing clearcut­ting and tox­ic her­bi­cide spray­ing — such as Forestry Stew­ard­ship Coun­cil (FSC)Sus­tain­able Forestry Ini­tia­tive (SFI), and Amer­i­can Tree Farm. The biggest imped­i­ment to the wood pel­let indus­try right now, accord­ing to Ginther, is a need for “uni­form sus­tain­abil­i­ty cri­te­ria” because cur­rent cer­ti­fi­ca­tion stan­dards are designed for forestry, not ener­gy. Europe is cur­rent­ly fig­ur­ing out how to “plug that gap,” assured Ginther.

By “sta­ble polit­i­cal cli­mate,” Ginther is like­ly refer­ring to the many U.S. politi­cians and gov­ern­ment agen­cies that have shown them­selves will­ing to spend exor­bi­tant sums of tax­pay­er mon­ey to sub­si­dize the bio­mass indus­try and oth­er cor­po­rate pol­luters in the name of “clean energy.”

Tim Portz of BBI Inter­na­tion­al focused his pre­sen­ta­tion on the over­seas ship­ping of wood pel­lets and the gar­gan­tu­an Drax Pow­er Sta­tion, which in his mind “almost sounds like a Dr. Seuss char­ac­ter.” [the anti-Lorax?] Portz brags that the facil­i­ty, sit­ed in the heart of the U.K. in the vil­lage of Drax, York­shire, is so mas­sive you have to back up pret­ty far to “take in its enormity.”

26,000 tons of pel­lets per ocean lin­er set out on a ten day jour­ney across the Atlantic from ports in Way­cross and Port of Brunswick, Geor­gia, arriv­ing at Port of Hull, Port of Grims­by, Port of Tyne, and oth­er U.K. ports, all of which are “being brought into ser­vice to feed Drax.”

Drax’s demand alone is “spurring mas­sive invest­ment in pro­duc­tion and export capac­i­ty in the Unit­ed States.”

Portz admit­ted that the facil­i­ty is “the U.K.’s sin­gle largest source of car­bon diox­ide,” going on to men­tion Drax’s plan to “dri­ve car­bon out of its pro­duc­tion pro­file” by burn­ing more car­bon-inten­sive bio­mass and using yet-unde­vel­oped car­bon cap­ture and stor­age tech­nol­o­gy. When refer­ring to car­bon cap­ture and stor­age, Portz vague­ly men­tioned that they’d sequester the car­bon “some­where,” pos­si­bly in deplet­ed oil and gas fields, but “they don’t exact­ly know.”

Portz also touched upon bio­mass oppo­nents who “use imagery to shape per­cep­tion,” refer­ring to the use of pho­tographs — some from Drax’s own web­site — that show plumes com­ing out of smoke­stacks, which give a “neg­a­tive pic­ture of car­bon dioxide.”

In order to dis­pel Drax’s “crit­ics and doubters,” the com­pa­ny plans to work with “cred­it­ed bod­ies” to pro­vide cer­ti­fi­ca­tion and “sus­tain­abil­i­ty standards.”

Portz acknowl­edged “some wrin­kles” in the trans­porta­tion of bio­mass, with the “biggest con­cern” being dust, which they “work hard on con­trol­ling.” He allud­ed to a mas­sive fire that ripped through a stor­age facil­i­ty for wood pel­lets at Port of Tyne in Octo­ber 2011, the pel­lets des­tined for the Drax bio­mass incin­er­a­tor. The fire, which took fire­fight­ers twelve hours to extin­guish, is thought to have been caused by spon­ta­neous com­bus­tion fol­low­ing a chem­i­cal reac­tion inside the stor­age unit.

Anoth­er mas­sive fire raged inside wood pel­let silos for RWE’s Tilbury Pow­er Sta­tion in Essex, in Feb­ru­ary 2012. RWE claims no sin­gle cause can be attrib­uted to the fire, but sus­pects that smol­der­ing wood pel­lets trig­gered the dust fire.

Dave Ten­ny from the Nation­al Alliance of For­est Own­ers, a mouth­piece for the U.S. tim­ber indus­try, pre­sent­ed “For­est Bioen­er­gy Mar­kets and the Sus­tain­abil­i­ty of US Forests.” Ten­ny led off by recit­ing the dic­tio­nary def­i­n­i­tion of sus­tain­able, “of, relat­ing to, or being a method of har­vest­ing or using a resource so that the resource is not deplet­ed or per­ma­nent­ly dam­aged,” nev­er address­ing the fact that inten­sive log­ging can, has, and will deplete for­est ecosystems.

Ten­ny appeared to con­fuse the con­cept of sus­tain­abil­i­ty with the indus­try term “sus­tain­able yield,” which sim­ply refers to keep­ing up with demand for lum­ber while ignor­ing for­est ecosys­tem ser­vices of clean air and water, car­bon stor­age, flood­ing and ero­sion con­trol, fish and wildlife habi­tat, recre­ation and tourism.

When Ten­ny brought up a slide about threats to U.S. forests, he admit­ted he “could talk to you about water, crit­ters, soil,” but then did not. Instead he repeat­ed the cus­tom­ary log­ging indus­try threat that if indus­try isn’t allowed to over­ex­ploit and degrade forests, they will sell those lands off for development.

Ten­ny acknowl­edged that the “cen­tral ques­tion is car­bon” when it comes to log­ging for bio­mass. 800 mil­lion met­ric tons of CO2 is absorbed by U.S. forests every year, 12% of the nations’ entire car­bon emis­sions, said Ten­ny, “as a result of for­est man­age­ment.” Anoth­er way of look­ing at that sta­tis­tic would be that U.S. forests absorbed this quan­ti­ty of car­bon despite the log­ging industry’s for­est man­age­ment. Many stud­ies have demon­strat­ed that the more inten­sive­ly a for­est is logged, the less car­bon it will sequester.

In response to a ques­tion about why more wood pel­lets weren’t fuel­ing U.S. bio­mass incin­er­a­tors, Ginther explained how most U.S. bio­mass facil­i­ties burn wood chips and pro­pos­als for facil­i­ties that burn pel­lets in the U.S. are “much less than we had been pro­ject­ing a few years ago” because bio­mass incen­tives are “not that great” in the Renew­able Port­fo­lio Stan­dards for U.S. states. Pel­lets are “very expen­sive,” said Ginther, and the ener­gy-inten­sive process of remov­ing mois­ture is best suit­ed for long dis­tance trans­porta­tion, such as to Europe.

450 bio­mass project have been announced in the U.S. (which would amount to 125 mil­lion tons), though only 293 of them pass basic “via­bil­i­ty screens,” amount­ing to 75 mil­lion tons, said Tenny.


Posted

in

by

Tags:


EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Our Network

Watch Us on YouTube