Guest Post by: Pankaj Lal, University of Florida
Bioenergy production has increased significantly in the last decade, and recent legislative efforts in U.S. such as the discussion draft for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 are expected to encourage even more growth. In the quest for energy sources to meet higher energy demand, the policy push for renewable energy, including woody biomass, is gaining momentum. Several other factors are also catapulting woody biomass use for energy. These include growing concerns about energy security and dependence on foreign oil, uncertainty associated with costs for fossil fuels such as petroleum, the possibility to improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk, and the potential to provide socio-economic benefits in the form of additional income from forestlands and new jobs.
Historically, woody biomass used for energy was comprised of waste from the production of lumber, pulp and paper, and other wood products. However, if bioenergy markets become competitive, use of woody biomass from logging residues, stands damaged by natural disturbances such as wildfire, pest outbreaks, storms, small diameter trees from thinning, plantations and other forests, and energy crops such as eucalyptus and poplar is quite possible. Biofuels from woody biomass, commonly called cellulosic or second generation fuels are shown to have advantages over starch-based fuels (corn ethanol for example) by avoiding the food versus fuel debate, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and yielding greater energy input-output ratio. However, several complex issues are influencing the development of these markets in economically efficient and environmentally benign ways. Some of the key issues that stand out are: biomass availability or supply; technology and market competitiveness; monetizing environmental benefits; soil, water and biodiversity impacts and the uncertainty regarding interplay of carbon markets and forest bioenergy.
Large variance in biomass supply estimates makes informed policy making difficult. The available wood biomass supply information is, perhaps, essential to policymakers who establish renewable energy goals and formulate subsidies, credits, trade tariffs, and other interventions to realize those goals. On the bioenergy technology front, there is no emergent favorite technology. Several technologies exist for converting wood biomass to liquid fuels, biopower, and bioproducts. While all technologies are proven to be possible, most of them are not yet economically competitive. Even for supposedly low hanging fruit in the country such as cofiring, there are significant challenges such as ash deposition, corrosion, and feedstock selection. Pubic research dollars are exploring all these technologies further in hopes of commercial success.
Another challenge seems to be the method of green accounting or integrated accounting, wherein social and environmental benefits accruing from woody bioenergy can be incorporated for unit cost analysis. This suggestion is consistent with findings that the public is willing to pay a premium for bioenergy to realize environmental benefits. This accounting approach can help in monetizing the benefits gained through GHG reduction. However, convincing general populace about non-market benefits and accounting still requires concerted efforts.
It is also imperative required that what woody biomass based energy should be sustainable. Bioenergy sustainability concerns regarding soil and water quality, biodiversity etc. range stand true for the whole supply chain — feedstock production, harvesting, transport, conversion, distribution, consumption, waste disposal– as well as those regarding job creation and societal benefit distribution. Several organizations at state (Forestry Departments for example), national (Environmental Protection Agency), and international (Global Bio-Energy Partnership and Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels) are trying to develop guidelines and/or standards to ensure the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of bioenergy markets.
Another factor that influences the bioenergy-GHG emission relationship is the impact of payment for carbon offsets as an incentive for GHG reduction. Carbon offsets are project-based initiatives involving specific activities to reduce, avoid or sequester GHG emissions and are tradable in carbon markets. With a carbon market proposed in future as per provisions of Waxman Markey Bill, it is hypothesized that forest owners can gain carbon credits through ‘additional’ carbon sequestered on their lands. However its viability as project offsets, whereby, needs to be assessed relative to other carbon offset options such as tillage change in agriculture, improving efficiency of power plants, clean coal technologies, timely and important.
It is fair to say that wood based energy markets, if steered appropriately, offer a promise to ensure energy security, promote environmental quality, and realize social benefits. However, several complex issues are influencing the development of these markets. Solutions to these issues would result in winners and losers. Therefore, not surprisingly, stakeholders are increasingly participating and debating these issues. However, it is imperative that each side should respect the positions and arguments of the other and strive to move forward collectively. A sustained dialogue through meaningful partnerships amongst biomass suppliers, biomass users, and representatives of civil society is critical to realize woody bioenergy market potentials.
