Property Devaluation From Biomass Plants

8/14/2019 Property Devaluation From Biomass Plants

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/property-devaluation-from-biomass-plants 1/11

Don’t Log the Forests For the FueL:A Position PAPer on the PotentiAL environmentAL

AnD economic imPActs oF the ceLLuLosicethAnoL inDustry in the southern uniteD stAtes

By Scot Quaranda

Research Assistance by Mollie Petersen, Siara Cowan and Kathryne Crane

A report by the Dogwood Alliance

POB 7645, Asheville, NC, 28802

www.dogwoodalliance.org



W e live in a rapidly changing world in which the cumulative impacts o 200 years o industrialization and population growth are catching up with us in the orm o global climate change. Add

to this our ever growing need or energy to support our Western liestyle and the continuously growingglobal population and we are setting ourselves up or an ecological nightmare unless dramatic changes aremade in the short-term.

As oil prices climb and global demand threatens to overwhelm supply, we ail in the dark or alternativesto ossil uels that will allow us to sustain current and growing levels o energy demand and keep the globaleconomy humming. Te list o solutions grows daily, with inventors and investors hoping to nd the silverbullet. Some solutions seem hopeul and others do not. Add to that growing list a second generationbiouel, called cellulosic ethanol, which when looked at under close scrutiny is at minimum a alse solutionand, in the worst case scenario, a disaster or our orests that will exacerbate global climate change ratherthan combat it. Cellulosic ethanol is made by breaking down woody ber and converting the byproduct

into uel. We certainly are not suggesting that our current reliance on ossil uels is a viable alternative. However,based on the ineciency o the current production technology and its reliance on ossil uels in productioncombined with the environmental and community impacts that will be outlined below make cellulosicethanol a alse solution. It should be set aside in avor o more positive solutions. Biouel has served as adistraction and diverted unding which could have been utilized or more proven or promising technologiesin the area o conservation and eciency, solar, wind and hydrogen technology, and more.

Te orests o the Southern U.S. are a global treasure. Tese orests house amazing levels o animal andplant biodiversity, provide unique locales ound nowhere else in the world, comprise a large percentageo total US wetlands and store millions o tons o CO2 as plant based carbon. From the Appalachians to

the Ozarks and rom the coastal swamplands to the majestic upland hardwood orests o the CumberlandPlateau these orests have the potential to support a sustainable combination o wood products companies,orest-based tourism, and cultural resources or local communities or generations to come.

Tat potential has already been degraded by the massive ootprinto the Southern paper industry and traditional industrial orestry methods. Now these orests stand on the brink o disaster. Tey areacing an energy industry that sees our orests as uel rather than asthe important communities that make up our biological and culturalheritage. Tis could push them over the edge.

Cellulosic ethanol, a product that will primarily be produced romthe orests o the Southern US, is a short-sighted solution andshould be avoided on a large-scale at all costs because the risks aroutweigh the benets. Not only will the cellulosic ethanol industry compete with an already unsustainable pulp and paper industry inthe Southern US which is already rmly entrenched and hasmadehuge capital investments in the region, it will also cause irreparableharm to the orests and communities o the region. Tis harm willcome in the orm o more orest destruction, unsustainable levelso water use in an already drought-stricken region, loss o critically



important carbon sinks, competition or land better served or ood production, and opening the door tountested technologies with potential untold consequences.

In this paper, we will rst provide a denition o cellulosic and other second generation biouels andcompare them to both ossil uels and rst generation biouels like corn ethanol. We will then draw theconnection between these uels and orests and outline the potentially devastating environmental impactsincluding orest and habitat loss and degradation, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and the impactson water quality and quantity. We will then take a closer look at community impacts including bothincreased competition with the pulp and paper industry and the impact on local quality o lie. Next we will take a look at the economic impacts including bloated government subsidies. And we will conclude with a nal analysis and potential solutions.

WhAt is bioFueLAnD ceLLuLosic ethAnoL?Biouel, agrouel, alternative uel, biomass uels… we have all heard so many names or seemingly thesame thing: uels meant to lighten our dependence on oreign oil and signicantly reduce greenhousegas emissions. In this early stage o the search or alternative uels there are many diferent competingtechnologies and uels. It is important to begin by clearly dening the uels most closely connected toorests: biouel and cellulosic ethanol.

Fiber rom crops and other organic material is used to make a wide variety o uels. According to theCenter or International Policy, “Agrouels are combustible uels made rom organic material—plants oranimal by products,” while “Biodiesel is made o palm, soybeans, canola, or other plant oils; and cellulosicethanol is made by breaking down ber rom grasses or almost any other kind o plants.” (Carlsen, L,2007) Cellulosic ethanol is made using either thermal or enzymatic processes.

Currently, in the United States the leading biouel in production by volume is the heavily subsidized cornethanol. (Koplow, D, 2007) U.S. armers planted 8.8 million acres o corn to produce 2.9 billion gallonso ethanol in 2004. Tat equaled two percent o our total annual gasoline consumption (Pimentel andPatzek, 2005). Corn ethanol is still mixed with petroleum and harvested by tractors that must use gas, notto mention the use o 4-5 gallons o water or every 1 gallon o ethanol produced and pesticides on thecrops, ethanol actually has a carbon debt o 93 years on land cleared specically or planting. (Johnson, A, 2007) Abandoned cropland, according to a study in Science , has a carbon debt o about 48 years. So,instead o producing a 20% savings, corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over thirty years and increases greenhouse gases or 167 years. (Righelato, R and Spracklen, D, 2007)

While corn was the rst crop to be tested and grown or producing ethanol on a large-scale in the UnitedStates, it wasn’t dicult to determine that corn is a net energy and carbon loser. Now scientists havebroadened their base o crops rom corn and sugar, a crop widely used or uel in Brazil, to what they call second generation biouels that do not compete or ood. Te new ethanol eedstocks include algae,switchgrass, trees, and jatropha.

Research and development is ocused on creating cellulosic ethanol rom potentially any kind o organicmaterial, although the main ocus is currently on woody material and switchgrass. Te technologicalchallenge or cellulosic ethanol is the diculty in separating out the carbohydrates (sugars) to be ermentedto produce ethanol.



imPAct on Forests AnD WiLDLiFe

Currently, the Southern US is the largest paper producingregion in the world, providing nearly 15% o the world’spaper supply. (Wear, D and Greis, J, 2002) Te prices ourorests have paid rom a generation o paper productionhave been severe.

According to the US Forest Service, nearly six million acreso orests are clear-cut every year or paper production.(Wear, D and Greis, J, 2002) Included in that mix aresome o our region’s last remaining endangered orests.Unsustainable orestry has already pushed 14 orest community types to less than 2% o their originalrange. (Wear, D and Greis, J, 2002)

Additionally, nearly 43 million acres o our orests are sterile pine plantations (U.S. Forest Service, 2008)and countless pounds o ertilizers, pesticides and herbicides have been dumped on these plantationsharming human health, wildlie and water quality. In act there has been an 800% increase in the use o

chemical ertilizers in plantations since 1990. (Wear, D and Greis, J, 2002)

Te Southern US has the highest concentration o endangered species in the nation. Many o these speciesare orest dependent. Should we continue to expand orestry operations like clear-cutting and conversiono natural orests to plantations we will lose more habitats and thereore more species. According toHarvard biologist E.O. Wilson, a pine plantation is 90-95% less diverse than a natural orest. (Williams,, 2000)

According to a recent piece by ormer EPA scientist John Laumer, “Because natural orests contain thehighest amount o cellulose per hectare, and because the inrastructure and labor orce needed or loggingand chipping exists where signicant harvests are already underway, regions already known or their orestproducts are likely to dominate initially in [Cellulosic ethanol] eedstock provision.” (Laumer, J, 2007)

Imagine this already unsustainable level o orest management or the pulp and paper industry wascombined with large-scale consumption or use in the production o cellulosic ethanol. Clear-cutting willincrease well beyond current levels, threatening more o our already endangered orests. A greater level o conversion will occur, including the loss o natural orests to become ast growing tree plantations or usein production. More chemicals will be used and wildlie habitat will be lost at a much aster pace. Can wereally aford to implement this alse solution?

greenhouse gAs emissions

A common misperception in the energy world is that ethanol does more good or the environment than

bad. However, producing biouel afects more than simply crops available or ood. Besides destroyingthe habitats o thousands o animals, clear cutting orests releases thousands o pounds o carbon dioxideper year. According to a recent article in Science , the carbon sequestered by retaining existing orests andrestoring degraded orests is greater than the emissions avoided by the use o cellulosic biouels (Righelatoand Spracklen, 2007).

Although biouel producing companies claim that they are environmentally riendly and they will replanttrees ater they cut many down, the amount o carbon released outweighs the benets. Te amount o carbonabsorbed by the young trees planted in place o those cut down is only a small raction o the amount the



older orests can hold. Tis means that the amount o carbon released rom cutting a natural, older orestis much higher than what will be absorbed later. I we are serious about mitigating climate change we arebetter served by saving and restoring orests than by using those orests to produce transportation uels.

Te transition to using biouels is said to potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. I you countonly the immediate carbon costs o planting and processing biouels, they appear to reduce greenhousegases. When you look at the total impacts, you nd they cause more warming than petroleum. (Monbiot,G, 2007) In the case o our orests, this is due to the vast amount o carbon released rom southern orestclear-cuts and all o the associated emissions rom extraction and production.

According to the Science study cited above, global warming pollution could be reduced two to nine times more by conserving or restoring orests and grasslands than by razing them and turning them into biouelsplantations -- even i we continue to use ossil uels as our main source o energy. (Righelato, R andSpracklen, D, 2007) Tat’s because those orests and grasslands act as the lungs o the planet and theirdense vegetation sucks up ar more carbon dioxide and breathes out ar more oxygen than any biouel cropever could.

When you destroy that wilderness, much o the carbon stored in its living matter is either burned or

otherwise oxidized -- which is why the destruction o tropical orests accounts or more than 20 percento global greenhouse-gas emissions (more than China produces). (Righelato, R and Spracklen, D, 2007)Meanwhile, we’d be saving all the creatures that rely on those wildlands or habitat. Te scale is huge:replacing even 10 percent o our gas with biouels would require 43 percent o U.S. arable land. (Righelato,R and Spracklen, D, 2007)

imPActs on WAter QuALity AnD QuAntity

Te Southern US is in the midst o one o the worst droughts in recent recorded history. (O’Driscoll, Pand Copeland, L., 2007) Many states in our region are experiencing water shortages and a number o heavily water-dependent water businesses have had to slow or halt production all together in the ace o

the drought. (Jonsson, P, 2008) Te drain on our water resources, both in the orm o water or growingtree plantations and water or use in cellulosic ethanol reneries could be immense.

According to a study in the International Journal o Agricultural Sustainability on the impact o rstgeneration biouels like corn, “Growing plants or uel will accelerate the already unacceptable levels o topsoil erosion, soil carbon and nutrient depletion, soil compaction, water retention, water depletion, water pollution, air pollution, eutrophication, destruction o sheries, siltation o dams and waterways,salination, loss o biodiversity, and damage to human health” (egtmeier 2004). Te jump rom corn totrees does not signicantly change the results.

In the latest version o Soils and Soil Fertility (6th edition), “Soil erosion is a serious source o water

pollution, since it causes runof o sediments, nutrients, salts, eutrophication, and chemicals that have hadno chance to decompose into streams. Tis increases water treatment costs, increases health costs, kills sh with insecticides that work their way up the ood chain” (roeh 2005).

And in Natural Resources Research, rst generation ethanol plants “generate 13 liters o wastewater orevery liter o ethanol produced.” (Pimentel March 2005). Tis could wreak havoc on our already taxedrivers and impact the availability o clean drinking water. Fity percent o Americans rely on groundwater(Glennon 2002), and in many states, this groundwater is being depleted by agriculture aster than it isbeing recharged. Tis is already threatening current ood supplies (Giampetro 1997).



Energy crops may not be sustainable due to water, ertilizer,and harvesting impacts on the soil (DOE Biomass Plan,2005). Like all other monoculture crops, ultimately yields o energy crops will be reduced due to “pest problems, diseases,and soil degradation” (Giampetro, 1997). In the SouthernUS, this plays out in the orm o more intense Southern pine

beetle inestations, greater occurrence o invasive pests, andshort-rotation orestry impacting our soil quality.

geneticALLy engineereD trees

Cellulosic ethanol is derived rom ermenting the sugary substance once the cellulose and lignin in plant is brokendown. o make this process easier, some scientists aretampering with plant DNA to create a “naturally” lignin-ree or lignin-light plant rom which cellulose would be easy to extract. Unortunately, genetically modiying plants and

other organisms could lead to some unexpected consequences.(Petermann, A, 2007)

Producing trees with less lignin could have disastrous efects i the pollen is released and intermingles with ournatural orests. Low-lignin trees will be lacking in the “bone” structure necessary or keeping a tree healthy and strong. Tis in turn will lead to more trees breaking in heavy wind and ice storms prevalent across theregion. With little resistance to wind, cold, disease or insects, more ertilizers and chemicals will be needed togrow them. Additionally, it could impact the survival and the long-term viability o our orests.

In addition to engineering low-lignin trees, scientists are also seeking to add such traits as herbicideresistance, pesticide resistance, and increasing growth rates. Again all o these could have devastatingimpacts should they mix with our natural orests and also are likely to help speed the development o superpests and diseases such as the Southern Pine Beetle and various other invasive tree diseases. Escape o theselaboratory genes into native orests could devastate orest ecosystems.

And as we have seen in the eld o genetic engineering o crops, genetic engineering o our orests couldhave substantial impacts on private landowners’ rights to own the trees in their orests. Companies likeMonsanto consistently win in court when their genetically engineered crops contaminate a armer’s naturalcrops and traces o the genetically engineered properties are ound in the armer’s crop. In this case, thegenetically engineered seed producing company retains control o the seeds even though they weren’toriginally theirs. I this were to occur in a landowner’s woodlot, the same could potentially occur.

economic imPActsWith the PAPer inDustry

Te Southern US is already the largest paper producing region in the world and as stated above, 43 millionout o 200 million acres o orests are already pine plantations. Tese plantations have cellulosic ethanolcompanies and decision-makers looking to these same plantations to eed their uture mills. Both GovernorSonny Perdue o Georgia and US Congressional Representative Bob Etheridge o North Carolina have



commented that they want their states to be the Saudi Arabia o biouel, using their state’s pine plantationsas the eedstock. (Adams, D, 2007 and Boyum, , 2007)

Te diversion o this timber rom paper pulp to biouels, without an attendant drop in paper consumption, will both compete with the existing paper industry and push some o the current demand or paper pulpelsewhere around the globe resulting in accelerated conversion o native orests into monoculture treeplantations, as well as increased legal and illegal logging o orests worldwide.

Additionally, any proposed gain in jobs in the industry will likely be balanced out by loss o jobs in thepaper industry. Tough there may be some synergies in turning pulp mill waste into uel, mention the words biouel in most paper industry board rooms and it typically strikes ear in their hearts.

current ProPoseD FAciLities

Sixteen new bio-energy projects havebeen announced or the Southern USover the past two years, which will leadto intense competition or wood wasteand eventually chips. Tree o thoseacilities are slated to be biouel acilities– Gul Coast Energy in Mossy Head,FL, Range Fuels in Soperton, GA, andBlueRidgeXethanol in Spring Hope,NC. (imber-Mart South, 2008)

Te Gul Coast Energy mill in Florida isproposing to produce 70 million gallonso biouel using one million tons o woodper year. Te expected opening date o

this acility is unknown. Te Range Fuels acility in Georgia, backed by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla,is expected to open in 2009 and produce 50 million gallons o uel per year using 750,000 tons o wood.Te North Carolina acility, which also does not have a projected start-up date, is small in comparison,producing 5 million gallons o uel using 75,000 tons o wood. (imber-Mart South, 2008)

Tough the Range Fuels acility is likely the rst to be open and these numbers may seem small at rst, themarket is waiting or the rst to succeed in order to begin rapidly investing in uture mills which will havemassive compounding results and devastating impacts or our orests and communities.

Additionally, as noted above, there are also thirteen acilities under consideration or in operation that willburn wood waste, wood chips and residuals or energy. For example, the Green Circle Energy acility in

Florida is already creating wood pellets rom the orests o North Florida and exporting them to Europe inorder or countries o the EU to be able to meet their renewable energy standards.

in the community

Cellulosic ethanol production will not only impact environmental quality, but the associated practicesin the orest and the production processes at the mill will harm local communities and their quality o lie. Beyond just orest destruction, ber production and mill output will impact soils, increase noise anddust pollution, increase hazardous truck trac on rural roads, increase property devaluation, impact localorest-based tourism, deplete water tables and lead to greater water quality degradation.



In addition, local tax money is used to accommodate the acilities. Hundreds o trucks a day will deliverchips and wood waste to the acilities. Because o this increased trac, road improvements and maintenanceare necessary. Not to mention the push rom this industry or tax breaks and subsidies.

bLoAteD government subsiDiesUnortunately, our government is not typically equated with scal responsibility. And with mountingpressure to address the climate crisis, they are looking or any and all solutions that will be a quick x.Right now, our government is pouring billions o dollars into an unproven technology with no oresight tothe potential environmental and community impacts o this technology. Companies across America arelining up to eed at the government trough.

According to a report produced or the International Institute or Sustainable Development, “otalgovernment support or biouels in the United States reached approximately $6.3–$7.7 billion in 2006…otal support is projected to reach around $13 billion in 2008 and almost $16 billion by 2014. Under

existing policies, the industry will, in aggregate, obtain subsidies worth more than $92 billion over the2006–2012 timerame.” (Koplow, D, 2007)

Tose numbers are absolutely staggering and grow every day. aking a small sampling o the current subsidies,it is no wonder so many investors are getting involved. Te ax Relie and Health Care Act o 2006 provideda 50% write of in cellulosic capital investment. Te 2008 Farm Bill added a $1.01/gallon subsidy orcellulosic ethanol produced. Te Department o Energy Biomass and Biorenery research acility received$110 Million in 2006 and will receive close to $400 M/year by 2009. Additionally, the DOE ofered grantstotaling $385 M in 2007, including a $76 M or Range Fuels. And the list goes on and on.

Also note that we are just looking at ederal subsidies, when you add in the additional layers o stateand local subsidies, the numbers become even more bloated. According the International Institute or

Sustainable Development, producers have been able to tap into multiple pots o unding rom local to stateto ederal sources. (Koplow, D, 2007)

All the while government mandates are driving this process. Te Energy Policy Act o 2005 mandated250 million gallons per year by 2013. And two bills under consideration in 2008 raised those numbers toeither 20.3 billion gallons per year by 2030 or a staggering 21 billion gallons per year by 2022.

Finally, the government is setting aside money to pay large landowners to reserve land or biouel, whichon the surace sounds like a conservation-oriented solution. Unortunately, this will instead subsidize thecontinued use o intensive business as usual orestry management like conversion o orests to plantationsand large-scale clearcutting. Te current state o afairs eels like the blind leading the blind and the clif is only a short distance away.

concLusion AnD soLutionSeemingly everyday, we hear new arguments as to why the ull-scale rush to biouels will end our dependenceon oreign oil, create energy independence, and solve the climate crisis. Te most common argumentsrom proponents o biouels include domestic energy security, reduction o greenhouse gases, job creation,environmental protection, and an abundance o renewable resources.



Righelato, R. and Spracklen, D. (August 2007) Carbon Mitigation by Biouels or by Saving and Restoring Forests? In Science 17 August 2007: Vol. 317. no.

5840, p. 902.

egtmeier, E, et al. 2004. External Costs o Agricultural Production in the United States. International Journal o Agricultural Sustainability Vol 2/1

imber-Mart South, 1st Quarter 2008, Volume 13 – 1. “Biouel and Bioenergy,” Te Journal of Southern imber Market News.

roeh, F, et al. 2005. Soils and Soil Fertility, 6th edition. Blackwell Publishing.

U.S. Forest Service data cited in “Activists Chide Yum Over Wrappers,” by John Murawski in the February 13, 2008 edition o the Raleigh News & Observer.

Wear, David N.; Greis, John G. 2002. Southern orest resource assessment: summary report. Gen. ech. Rep. SRS-54. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department o

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2002. Southern orest resource assessment. Gen. ech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department o Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Williams, . “False Forests,” Mother Jones (Magazine). May/June 2000.

For a more in depth view o the impact o agrouels across the globe, read “Te rue Cost o Agrouels,” by the Global Forest Coalition, which can be ound at:

http://www.globalorestcoalition.org/img/userpics/File/publications/ruecostagrouels.pd

sPeciAL thAnks to: Denny hALDemAn, orin LAngeLLe AnD Anne PetermAnn, Dr rAcheL smoLker, DougkoPLoW, mike eWALL, DAviD mickey, Joy ezeLL, the entire DogWooD ALLiAnce stAFF AnD boArD AnD

moLLie, kAthryne, AnD siArA Who ProviDeD greAt insPirAtion, encourAgement AnD suPPort AnD Who

heLPeD mAke this ALL hAPPen.

Property Devaluation From Biomass Plants

Documents

Transcript of Property Devaluation From Biomass Plants