ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle
for the US Department of Energy
Cellulosic-based biofuels are strengthening rural investment & development in the United States
orOpportunities for wood pellet production
for energy in the Southeast US
This presentation does not contain any proprietary,
confidential, or otherwise restricted information.
Virginia H. Dale ([email protected])
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Keith L. Kline ([email protected]) &
Esther S. Parish ([email protected])
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Sustainable Landscape Management for
Bioenergy and the Bioeconomy
Joint IEA Bioenergy Task 43 & FAO Workshop
October 11-12, 2018, Rome, Italy
US DOE assessment approach is similar to that of FAO
Application to growing US industrial wood pellet trade
Converted power plant, Drax, UK (www.bbc.com)
Parish et al. (2018) Ecology & Society
4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
13
2.0
12
8.4
12
6.4
12
4.3
12
7.9
13
1.7
13
4.1
13
6.2
13
6.0
12
9.8
13
8.5
13
3.8
13
5.6
13
5.8
13
7.2
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.6 2.7 4.2 5.4
11
4.0
11
3.5
11
4.5
11
5.5
11
8.1
12
0.6
11
3.5
10
9.0
83
.6
69
.9
73
.2
76
.8
79
.3
82
.6
84
.3
0
50
100
150
200
250
3002
00
0
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
Re
mo
vals
(gr
ee
n M
T)
Year
Pulpwood Pellets Sawtimber
Dale et al. (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt
Wood based pellets are <3% of
wood products from SE US
?
5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Pellet mills
Trains & shipping
companies
Member nations that use
bioenergy to displace
coal
Stakeholders concerned with parts of supply chain:
Stakeholders with cumulative perspective:
Environmental NGOs
EU policy makers
Feedstock production
Feedstock logistics
Conversion to pellets
Biofuel logistics
End uses
Landowners
Loggers
Saw mills
Pulp mills
Truckers
Stakeholders associated with different parts of wood based pellet production in the SE US
Primary uses of forest lands
Timberland*
Recreation land
Urban land
Conserva-tion land
Forest conditions
Regeneration: planted or natural via
seeds or sprouts
Ownership: mostly private
Stand ages: 0-100 years
Management practices:
none, harvest, thinning, controlled burns, & state
BMPs
Forest composition: pines or mixed hardwoods
Topography: flat or rolling hills & occasional
wetlands
Environmental setting
Prior land use: most forests previously cleared for agriculture
Soils: red clay or sandy
Temperate climate:
hot, humid summers, & cool winters
Disturbances: insect outbreaks,
droughts, fire, ice storms, hurricanes,
& tornados
Pulp-
wood
Round
wood
export
None of
above,
chips
Sawmill
Paper mill
Residues
“Pre-commercial
Thinning”
Market options for forest products (the heavier the arrow the greater the
economic value)
Saw
timber
Feedstock for pellet
mill
Other uses:•Energy for
facility
•Particle board
•Fiberboard
*Timberlands are the only US forest lands currently providing biomass for wood pellet export. The US Forest Service defines
timberland as ‘‘nonreserved forest land capable of
producing at least 20 cubic feet of wood volume per acre per year.”
Influences on SE US export wood pellet production
Rare historical photo of
large trees in SE US
Davis (1996), Varner et al. (2005), Wear &
Greis, (2013), Parish et al. (2017)
Primary uses of forest lands
Timberland*
Recreation land
Urban land
Conserva-tion land
Forest conditions
Regeneration: planted or natural via
seeds or sprouts
Ownership: mostly private
Stand ages: 0-100 years
Management practices:
none, harvest, thinning, controlled burns, & state
BMPs
Forest composition: pines or mixed hardwoods
Topography: flat or rolling hills & occasional
wetlands
Environmental setting
Prior land use: most forests previously cleared for agriculture
Soils: red clay or sandy
Temperate climate:
hot, humid summers, & cool winters
Disturbances: insect outbreaks,
droughts, fire, ice storms, hurricanes,
& tornados
Pulp-
wood
Round
wood
export
None of
above,
chips
Sawmill
Paper mill
Residues
“Pre-commercial
Thinning”
Market options for forest products (the heavier the arrow the greater the
economic value)
Saw
timber
Feedstock for pellet
mill
Other uses:•Energy for
facility
•Particle board
•Fiberboard
*Timberlands are the only US forest lands currently providing biomass for wood pellet export. The US Forest Service defines
timberland as ‘‘nonreserved forest land capable of
producing at least 20 cubic feet of wood volume per acre per year.”
Influences on SE US export wood pellet production
Forest management decisions largely driven by
demand for higher price forest products than pellets
US Housing Starts
www.census.gov/starts
Th
ou
san
ds
of
ho
usi
ng
un
its
2000 2006 2008 2017
Time
1800
1160
200
Primary uses of forest lands
Timberland*
Recreation land
Urban land
Conserva-tion land
Forest conditions
Regeneration: planted or natural via
seeds or sprouts
Ownership: mostly private
Stand ages: 0-100 years
Management practices:
none, harvest, thinning, controlled burns, & state
BMPs
Forest composition: pines or mixed hardwoods
Topography: flat or rolling hills & occasional
wetlands
Environmental setting
Prior land use: most forests previously cleared for agriculture
Soils: red clay or sandy
Temperate climate:
hot, humid summers, & cool winters
Disturbances: insect outbreaks,
droughts, fire, ice storms, hurricanes,
& tornados
Pulp-
wood
Round
wood
export
None of
above,
chips
Sawmill
Paper mill
Residues
“Pre-commercial
Thinning”
Market options for forest products (the heavier the arrow the greater the
economic value)
Saw
timber
Feedstock for pellet
mill
Other uses:•Energy for
facility
•Particle board
•Fiberboard
*Timberlands are the only US forest lands currently providing
biomass for wood pellet export. The US Forest Service defines
timberland as ‘‘nonreserved forest land capable of producing at
least 20 cubic feet of wood volume per acre per year.”
Influences on SE US export wood pellet production
Kline et al. (2018)
9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Biomass stranded without markets (“unloved wood”) • Eventually burns or decays • Reduces incentives to keep private lands forested
Fuelsheds: Counties within
120 km (75 miles) of pellet
mills that supply ports
Considered 2 case study areas supplying wood to 2 major ports:• Savannah: mostly intensively managed pine plantations • Chesapeake (Norfolk): both pine & mixed hardwoods
Each fuelshed area has an area of ~12 million ha.
Dale et al. (2017) Forest Ecology and ManagementHodges et al. (in review)
Analyses
1. Compared forest
conditions before & after
periods when pellets were
produced using the FIA
2. Examined National
Woodland Owner Survey &
conducted survey for these
fuelsheds
11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Results from analysis of FIA data for two fuelsheds
• Significant increases in• GHG sequestration
• Timberland volume in
plantations
• Areas with large trees
• # standing dead trees/ha in
naturally regenerating stands
• Savannah fuelshed had
declines in # standing dead
trees/ha in plantations
Dale et al. (2017) For Ecol & Mgt
12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Based on checklist of indicators identified by McBride et al. (2011)
Among environmental indicators,
our focus now is on biological diversity
13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
(Source: www.fws.gov)
Example: Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) [GT]
• Species of conservation concern
• Keystone species
• 80% of their range overlaps countries that source pellets
14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Compared life-history characteristics of the gopher tortoise
Burrowing/
nesting
Sandy soils
Open canopy
Forage
Understory vegetation
Movement
/Basking
Open canopy
Habitat corridors
Reproduction
Species diversity
Habitat fragmentation
Mortality
Predators
• Birds, mammals, snakes, ants
Disease
• Upper respiratory tract disease (URTD)
Vehicle accidents
Hunting
To management practices for pellets
15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Benefits vs costs to GT of practices associated with pellets production (example)
• Midstory thinning
– Better cover, burrowing sites, & conditions for thermoregulation
– Improved conditions for movement
– Higher survival rates from disease
– Loss of herbaceous vegetation due to equipment traffic
• Removing standing dead trees
– Improved conditions for movement
– Collapse or damage to burrows
– Loss of herbaceous vegetation due to equipment traffic
– Decreased clutch sizes and/or egg quality resulting from low quality forage
– Increase in exposure to predators
(Source: www.srs.fs.usda.gov)
16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Benefits vs costs toGT of practices associated with pellets production (example)
• Midstory thinning
– Better cover, burrowing sites, & conditions for thermoregulation
– Improved conditions for movement
– Higher survival rates from disease
– Loss of herbaceous vegetation due to equipment traffic
• Removing standing dead trees
– Improved conditions for movement
– Collapse or damage to burrows
– Loss of herbaceous vegetation due to equipment traffic
– Decreased clutch sizes and/or egg quality resulting from low quality forage
– Increase in exposure to predators
(Source: www.srs.fs.usda.gov)
17 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Considered categories for indicators of progress toward socioeconomic sustainability
Social well being
External
trade
Energy
security
Profitability
Resource
conservation
Social
acceptability
Based on checklist of indicators identified by Dale et al. (2013)
18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
As pellet production (by capacity) increased, so did jobs & economic output
-50
50
150
250
350
1990 1997 2004 2011 2018
Savannah fuelshed
Capacity (10,000 tons)
Number of jobs
Output ($M)
-50
50
150
250
350
2003 2010 2017
Chesapeake
Source: US Energy Information Agency (EIA) surveys of mills producing
densified biomass (https://www.eia.gov/biofuels/biomass/#table_data)
& Josh et al. (2013) Table 4
fuelshed
19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Consideration of noncorporate forest land owners’ perspectives regarding wood-based energy
Survey of ~900 family forest land owners in eastern US on biomass for energy:
• Concern for the environment is paramount
• Potential impacts on existing industries are a concern
• There was a willingness to support use of biomass for energy as long as
1. Land health is not compromised
2. The price is right
Hodges et al. (2016) based on data from the Forest Service
National Woodland Owner Survey (Butler et al. 2016)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Veryimportant
Important Moderatelyimportant
Of littleimportance
Notimportant
Notapplicable
To enjoy beauty or scenery
To protect nature for biologicaldiversity or wildlife habitat
For land investment
For privacy
To pass land on to my children orother heirs
For timber products**
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Veryimportant
Important Moderatelyimportant
Of littleimportance
Notimportant
Notapplicable
For hunting or other recreationaluse**
For tax benefits
For firewood
For woody biomass for energy otherthan firewood
For NTFP
I have no other higher valued optionfor the land
Number of responses
Recent mail survey reveals diverse reasons that
landowners keep their land in forest in two fuelsheds
Hodges et al. (in review)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
I would be proud to supply wood that could serve as a long-term, renewable energysourceWoody biomass-based energy is a viable alternative to fossil fuels
The use of forest biomass for energy is limited to woody materials that lack othermarketsThe value of my forest is higher than it otherwise would have been because of thegrowing demand for wood pelletsWoody biomass-based energy has more environmental costs than benefits
Num
ber
of re
sponses
Largely neutral forest landowners’ responses regarding
awareness of woody biomass for energyHodges et al. (in review)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Access to nutritious foodGlobal warming
Fossil fuel useFamily members retained in the region
Forest insect outbreaksTree diseases
Potential for wildfireInjuries related to forest harvesting
Water qualityConservation of habitats that support rare species
Air qualitySoil erosion
Abundance of game animalsArea of naturally regenerated forests
US energy securityUse of Best Management Practices
Area of forests in plantationsForest productivity
Regional economic growthJobs
Income for forest owners
Large increase Some increase No effect Some decrease Large decrease
Percent of responses
Diverse landowners’ perspectives regarding potential
effects of bioenergy productionHodges et al. (in review)
Largest increase expected for
• Income for forest owners
• Jobs
• Regional economic growth
• Forest productivity
• Use of best management
practices (BMPs)
23 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
0 20 40 60 80 100
Access to nutritious foodGlobal warming
Fossil fuel useFamily members retained in the region
Forest insect outbreaksTree diseases
Potential for wildfireInjuries related to forest harvesting
Water qualityConservation of habitats that support rare species
Air qualitySoil erosion
Abundance of game animalsArea of naturally regenerated forests
US energy securityUse of Best Management Practices
Area of forests in plantationsForest productivity
Regional economic growthJobs
Income for forest owners
Large increase Some increase No effect Some decrease Large decrease
Percent of responses
Diverse landowners’ perspectives regarding potential
effects of bioenergy production
Factors related to climate change
are largely neutral:
• Fossil fuel use
• Global warming
Hodges et al. (in review)
24 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
0 20 40 60 80 100
Access to nutritious foodGlobal warming
Fossil fuel useFamily members retained in the region
Forest insect outbreaksTree diseases
Potential for wildfireInjuries related to forest harvesting
Water qualityConservation of habitats that support rare species
Air qualitySoil erosion
Abundance of game animalsArea of naturally regenerated forests
US energy securityUse of Best Management Practices
Area of forests in plantationsForest productivity
Regional economic growthJobs
Income for forest owners
Large increase Some increase No effect Some decrease Large decrease
Percent of responses
Diverse landowners’ perspectives regarding potential
effects of bioenergy production
Access to nutritious
food is neutral
Hodges et al. (in review)
0 100
Certification of forestland is not required
Other neighbors harvesting biomass
A landowner cooperative including neighbors that negotiates…
Assurance that forests in owner’s region will not be over-harvested
Assurance that woody biomass for energy will increase our …
Evidence that HWB for energy improves species composition in…
Assurance of no interference with sawtimber production on my…
Nearby markets
Assurance of a long-term market for woody biomass for energy
Assurance of reduced fire and disease risk to the owner’s forest
Technical assistance for HWB in a manner that improves stand…
Woody biomass price as high as pulpwood
Very Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Neutral Somewhat likely Very Likely
Percent of responses
Diverse views on effects of markets & policy on
willingness to sell biomass for energy
(HWB = harvesting woody biomass) Hodges et al. (in review)
26 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Pellet production allows forest owners to conduct
forest management (e.g., thinning) that reduces
risks of fire & insect outbreaks
Parish, Dale, Kline (2017) World Biomass
27 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Benefits of producing wood pellets in the SE US
• Provide rural jobs
• Mitigate climate change• By replacing coal
• By enhancing forest sequestration in forests with improved management
• Reduce inefficiencies
• Improve forest habitat
• Retain forests• As demand for wood increases, net
forest area typically expands
• Decrease risks of • Insect outbreaks & disease
• Destructive wildfire
• Cowie et al. (2013) IEA Bioenergy
• Dale + 34 authors (2017) GCB Bioenergy
• Dale et al (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgt
• Forest2Market (2017)
• Miner et al. (2014) Journal of Forestry
• Parish et al. (2018) Ecology & Society
28 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
https://cbes.ornl.gov/
Thank you!
This research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Bio-Energy Technologies Office and performed at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by
the UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.
29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
References• Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and
state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011-2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p.
• Cowie A, Berndes G, Smith T (2013) On the timing of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of forest based bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy ExCo: 2013:04 www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/on-the-timing-of-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-benefits-of-forest-based-bioenergy.
• Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. (2013). Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26:87-102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014
• Dale VH, KL Kline, ES Parish, AL Cowie, TC Smith, NS Bentsen, G Berndes, et al. (2017). Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12445. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full
• Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 396: 143-149. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V
• Davis MB (editor) (1996) Eastern old growth forests: prospects for discovery and recovery. Island Press, Washington, DC. 383 p.
• Ellefson PV, Moulton RJ, Kilgore MA (2002) An assessment of state agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry 100 (6), 35-41.
• Hewes J, Butler B, Liknes GC, Nelson MD, Snyder SA (2014) Map of distribution of six forest ownership types in the conterminous United States. Res. Map NRS-6. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. [Scale 1: 10,000,000, 1: 34,000,000.] https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/46386
• Hodges DG, Larson EC, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Willcox AS, Gordon JS (2016) Wood bioenergy and private forests: perceptions of owners in the eastern United States. In: Forest Economics and Policy in a Changing Environment: How Market, Policy, and Climate Transformations Affect Forests—Proceedings of the 2016 Meeting of the International Society of Forest Resource Economics. Frey, Gregory E.; Nepal, Prakash, eds. 2016. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-218. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
• Kline Kl, Parish ES, Dale VH (2018) The importance of reference conditions in assessing effects of bioenergy wood pellets produced in the southeastern United States. World Biomass. DCM Productions, United Kingdom.
• McBride, A, VH Dale, L Baskaran, M Downing, L Eaton, RA Efroymson, C Garten, KL Kline, H Jager, P Mulholland, E Parish, P Schweizer, and J Storey. 2011. Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.
• Parish ES, Dale VH, Kline KL, Abt R (2017) Reference scenarios for evaluating wood pellet production in the Southeastern United States. WIRES Energy and Environment.
• Parish ES, Herzberger AJ, Phifer CC, Dale VH (2018) Transatlantic wood pellet trade demonstrates telecoupled benefits. Ecology and Society 23 (1):28. [online] URL: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art28/
• Oswalt SN, Smith WD (2014) US forest resources facts and historical trends. USDA Forest Service FS-1035. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf
• Miner RA, Abt RC, Bowyer JL, et al. (2014) Forest carbon accounting considerations in US bioenergy policy. Journal of Forestry, 112, 591–606.
• Varner JM, Gordon DR, Putz E, Hiers JK (2005) Restoring fire to long-unburned Pinus palustris ecosystems: Novel fire effects and consequences for long-unburned ecosystems. Restoration Ecology, 13, 536-544.
• Wear DN, Coulston JW (2015) From sink to source: Regional variation in US forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518; doi:10.1038/srep16518
• Wear D, Greis J. (2013) The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report Gen. Tech. Pre. SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Research and Development, Southern Research Station, 553 pg.