Biomass Sustainability And Carbon Policy Study
Manomet Center for Conservation SciencesJune 2010N at u r a l C ap i ta l In i t i at i v e a t M a nom e tREPNCI-2010-03ORBiomass Sustainabilityand Carbon Policy StudyPrepared for:Commonwealth of MassachusettsDepartment of Energy Resources100 Cambridge StreetBoston, Massachusetts 02114Prepared by:Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences81 Stage Point RoadP.O. Box 1770Manomet, Massachusetts 02345Phone: (508) 224-6521Contributors:Contact Information for Report:Manomet Center for Conservation SciencesNatural Capital Initiative14 Maine Street, Suite 305Brunswick, Maine 04011Phone: 207-721-9040jgunn@manomet.orgThomas Walker, Resource Economist (Study Team Leader)Dr. Peter Cardellichio, Forest EconomistAndrea Colnes, Biomass Energy Resource CenterDr. John Gunn, Manomet Center for Conservation SciencesBrian Kittler, Pinchot Institute for ConservationBob Perschel, Forest GuildChristopher Recchia, Biomass Energy Resource CenterDr. David Saah, Spatial Informatics GroupManomet Center for Conservation Sciences14 Maine Street, Suite 305Brunswick, ME 04011Contact: 207-721-9040, jgunn@manomet.orgT
Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy StudyAcknowledgementsThis report was prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources in response to RFP ENE2010-001.Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions to this study by our AdvisoryPanel: Dr. Clark Binkley (International Forestry InvestmentAdvisors), Dr. David Foster (Harvard Forest), Mr. Paul Lemar,Jr. (Resource Dynamics Corporation), and Dr. Alaric Sample(Pinchot Institute for Conservation).Also, additional staff at team members’ organizations providedvaluable input and technical support: John Hagan and AndrewWhitman (Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences); AdamSherman and Kamalesh Doshi (Biomass Energy Resource Center);Zander Evans (Forest Guild); and Will Price (Pinchot Institutefor Conservation).Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Anne Perschel of GermaneConsulting for skillfully organizing and leading the public meetingon December 17, 2009.Suggested Citation:Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2010. Massachusetts Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study: Reportto the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of EnergyResources. Walker, T. (Ed.). Contributors: Cardellichio, P.,Colnes, A., Gunn, J., Kittler, B., Perschel, R., Recchia, C., Saah,D., and Walker, T. Natural Capital Initiative Report NCI-201003. Brunswick, Maine.Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences2Natural Capital Initiative
Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy StudyContentsExecutive Summary: Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy. 6Introduction.6Summary of Key Findings.6Chapter 1: International and U.S. Forest Biomass Energy Policies . 91.1 Overview.91.2 International Forest Biomass Energy Policies.91.2.1 Historical Context.91.2.2 Policy Instruments.101.2.3 Sustainability Concerns.111.3 U.S. Federal Forest Biomass Energy Policies.131.3.1 Most Significant Federal Programs & Incentives for Biomass Energy.131.3.2 Environmental Protection Agency Position on Biomass Energy and Carbon Accounting . .141.3.3 Pending Federal Climate and Energy Legislation.151.4 Massachusetts Forest Biomass Energy Policies.151.4.1 Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard.161.4.2 Massachusetts RGGI Implementation.161.5 Biomass Energy Policies in Other States . .171.6 Overall State and Federal Policy Drivers for Biomass Power in Massachusetts.17References.18Chapter 2: Technology Pathways.202.1 Introduction to Technology Options. 202.2 Electricity Generation. 202.2.1 Current Sources of Electrical Supply . 202.2.2 Electrical Generation Pathways. 202.3 Thermal Production.212.3.1 Current Sources of Thermal Supply .212.3.2 Thermal Production Pathways.212.4 Combined Heat and Power Options. 222.4.1 CHP Pathways. 222.5 Emerging Technologies. 232.5.1 Emerging Technology Pathways . . 232.6 General Discussion and Summary. 232.6.1 The Future Role of Biomass Under Present Policies. 232.6.2 Efficiency.252.6.3 Carbon Impacts. 272.6.4 Affordable Cost for Biomass Source Material. 28References.29Chapter 3: Forest Biomass Supply. 313.1 Introduction and Major Findings.313.1.1 Conceptual Framework for Forest Biomass Supply Analysis.313.1.2 Major Findings and Conclusions. 343.1.3 Potential Wood Biomass Supplies from Other Sources.353.1.4 Report Organization. 363.2 Biomass Supply from Private Lands in Massachusetts. 363.2.1 Historical Estimates of Timber Harvests on Private Timberland. 363.2.2 Logging Residues. 383.2.3 Low-Price Biomass from Private Timberlands.393.2.4 High-Price Biomass from Private Timberlands.453.2.5 Potential Biomass Supply Based on Forest Growth.513.3 Biomass Supply from Public Lands in Massachusetts.513.3.1 Historical Harvest Estimates.513.3.2 Timber Harvest Projections for 2010—2025.523.3.3 Low-Price Biomass Scenario.53Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences3Natural Capital Initiative
Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study3.3.4 High-Price Biomass Scenario.533.4 Summary of Forest Biomass Supplies in Massachusetts.533.5 Biomass Supply from Non-Forest Sources in Massachusetts. 543.5.1 Land Clearing and Conversion. 543.5.2 Tree Care and Landscaping Sources.553.6 Biomass Supply from Nearby States.553.6.1 Timberland Area and Timber Inventory. 563.6.2 Timber Growth . . 563.6.3 The Forest Products Industry and Regional Harvesting.573.6.4 Landowner Characteristics in the Region. 583.6.5 Summary of Forest Biomass Supply Potential in Border Counties.593.6.6 Inter-regional Trade and Implications for Biomass Supplies for Future Bioenergy Plants in Massachusetts. 60References.61Chapter 4: Forest Sustainability and Biomass Harvesting in Massachusetts. 634.1 Introduction.634.2 Stand-level Impacts to Forest Health Resulting from Increased Biomass Demand.634.2.1. Introduction.634.2.2. Impacts on soils and productivity. 644.2.3 Impacts on Habitat and Biodiversity.674.3 Lessons from Other Initiatives: Protecting Stand Level Ecological Values through Biomass Harvest Guidelines. 684.3.1 Overview of Regulatory Frameworks . 684.3.2 Key Findings from An Assessment of Biomass Harvesting Guidelines (revised).694.3.3 Adequacy of Massachusetts BMPs for Increased Biomass Harvests.704.4 Forest Sustainability Indicators and Landscape Level Effects of Biomass Harvesting.714.4.1 Introduction.714.4.2 Potential Ecological Impacts of Biomass Harvests .714.4.3 Potential Impacts of Biomass Harvests on Landscape Aesthetics . . 724.4.4 Potential Impacts of Biomass Harvesting on Economic Productivity of Forests. 734.4.5 Existing Approaches to Managing Landscape Level Impacts in Massachusetts. 734.5 Recommendations for Addressing Stand and Landscape Level Impacts of Increased Biomass Harvesting.744.5.1 Stand Level Recommendations.744.5.2 Landscape Level Recommendations.76References.78Chapter 5: Forest Carbon Modeling. 825.1 Forest Management and Carbon Sequestration. 825.2 Inventory Data and Forest Carbon Models. 825.3 Model Scenarios.835.4 General Results and Model Evaluation. 845.4.1 General Results. 845.4.2 Cover Type and Ownership Differences in Carbon Accumulation. 885.4.3 Regeneration Contribution to Carbon Accumulation. 895.4.4 Role of Tops and Limbs in Carbon Budget. 895.5 Conclusion . 93References. 93Chapter 6: Carbon Accounting for Forest Biomass Combustion. 956.1 Introduction. 956.1.1 Brief Review of Previous Studies. 956.1.2 Carbon Accounting Framework. 966.1.3 Other Considerations: Landscape or Stand-Level Modeling. 996.2 Technology Scenarios and Modeling Assumptions.1006.2.1 Overview of Technologies and Approach.1006.2.2 Forest Harvest Scenarios. 1016.2.3 Biomass and Fossil Fuel GHG Emissions . 1056.3 Forest Biomass Carbon Accounting Results. 105Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences4Natural Capital Initiative
Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study6.3.1 Introduction. 1056.3.2 Energy Technology and Carbon Debt Recovery. 1056.3.3 Forest Management and Carbon Recovery.1076.3.4 Discussion of Results. 1126.4 Final Considerations. 113References. 114Appendix 1-A: Federal, State and Regional Biomass Energy Policies.115Appendix 2-A: 18 Selected Technology Pathways.126Appendix 2-B: Technology Pathways Summary. 129Appendix 2-C: Affordable Price of Biomass—Calculation Assumptions. 131Appendix 3-A: Review of Previous Studies of Massachusetts Biomass Availability. 132Appendix 3-B: Logging Residue Data and Estimation.134Appendix 3-C: Firewood Data.136Appendix 3-D: A Closer Look at Biomass Potential in Southern New Hampshire. 137Appendix 4-A: Ecology of Dead Wood in the Northeast. 139Appendix 4-B: Revised Assessment of Biomass Harvesting and Retention Guidelines. 150Appendix 4-C: Forest Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines for the Northeast. 169Appendix 5. 177Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences5Natural Capital Initiative
Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Studyforest biomass energy have generally adopted a view of biomassas a carbon neutral energy source because the carbon emissionswere considered part of a natural cycle in which growing forestsover time would re-capture the carbon emitted by wood-burningenergy facilities. Beginning in the 1990s, however, researchers beganconducting studies that reflect a more complex understandingof carbon cycle implications of biomass combustion. Our study,which is based on a comprehensive lifecycle carbon accountingframework, explores this more complex picture in the context ofbiomass energy development in Massachusetts.Executive SummaryBiomass Sustainability andCarbon PolicyIntroductionThis study addresses a wide array of scientific, economic andtechnological issues related to the use of forest biomass for generating energy in Massachusetts. The study team, assembled anddirected by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences,was composed of experts in forest ecosystems management andpolicy; natural resource economics; and energy technology andpolicy. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department ofEnergy Resources (DOER) commissioned and funded the study.The atmospheric greenhouse gas implications of burning forestbiomass for energy vary depending on the characteristics of thebioenergy combustion technology, the fossil fuel technology itreplaces, and the biophysical and forest management characteristicsof the forests from which the biomass is harvested. Forest biomassgenerally emits more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels per unit ofenergy produced. We define these excess emissions as the biomasscarbon debt. Over time, however, re-growth of the harvested forestremoves this carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the carbondebt. After the point at which the debt is paid off, biomass beginsyielding carbon dividends in the form of atmospheric greenhousegas levels that are lower than would have occurred from the use offossil fuels to produce the same amount of energy (Figure 1). Thefull recovery of the biomass carbon debt and the magnitude of thecarbon dividend benefits also depend on future forest managementactions and natural disturbance events allowing that recovery to occur.The study provides analysis of three key energy and environmentalpolicy questions that are being asked as the state develops itspolicies on the use of forest biomass.1. What are the atmospheric greenhouse gas implications ofshifting energy production from fossil fuel sources to forestbiomass?2. How much wood is available from forests to support biomassenergy development in Massachusetts?3. What are the potential ecological impacts of increased biomassharvests on forests in the Commonwealth, and what if anypolicies are needed to ensure these harvests are sustainable?The goal of the report is to inform the development of DOER’sbiomass policies by providing up-to-date information and analysison the scientific and economic issues raised by these questions.We have not been asked to propose specific policies except inthe case where new approaches may be needed to protect theecological functioning of forests. We do not consider non-forestsources of wood biomass (e.g., tree care and landscaping, millresidues, construction debris), which are potentially available insignificant quantities but which have very different greenhousegas (GHG) implications.This Executive Summary highlights key results from our researchand the implications for the development of biomass energypolicies in Massachusetts. While certain of the study’s insightsare broadly applicable across the region (e.g., estimates of excesslifecycle emissions from combustion of biomass compared to fossilfuels), it is also important to recognize that many other conclusions are specific to the situation in Massachusetts—particularlygreenhouse gas accounting outcomes that depend on the forestmanagement practices of the state’s landowne
policies on the use of forest biomass. 1. What are the atmospheric greenhouse gas implications of shifting energy production from fossil fuel sources to forest biomass? 2. How much wood is available from forests to support biomass energy development in Massachusetts? 3. What are the potential ecological impacts of increased biomass
potential production inputs to analyses comparing the viability of biomass crops under various economic scenarios. The modeling and parameterization framework can be expanded to include other biomass crops. Keywords: biomass crop, biomass production potential, biomass resource map, biomass resources, biomass sorghum, energy-
Biomass Biogas Biomass Biogas Biomass Technology Upgrades Maximum Potential Current. Emissions, metric tonnes (10. 3 . Mg for CO2eq) Feedstocks Collection and Transport Conversion Savings-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160. NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq NOX PM CO2eq. Biogas Biomass Biogas Biomass Biogas Biomass Technology .
harvest of biomass energy because the forest industry currently operates at very low levels. NWT Biomass Potential Biomass and Climate Change Biomass is essentially solar energy stored in the mass of trees and plants. When a tree is harvested and burned as biomass energy, it is considered carbon neutral as long as another tree grows in its place.
2 Biomass Resources 19 3 Uses of Biomass 28 . 3.1 Biopower 28 . 3.1.1 Feedstock 28 3.1.2 Electricity Conversion Technologies 30 3.1.3 Emissions Impacts 42 3.1.4 Biopower Conclusions 48 . 3.2 Biomass Derived Transportation Fuels 49 . 3.2.1 Ethanol 53 3.2.2 Compressed Natural Gas 59 . 4 Biomass Scenarios 63 . 4.1 Description of Biomass Scenarios 63
"biomass" and phrase "woody biomass" interchangeably. The reader should realize woody biomass is being discussed specifically in both instances. Woody Biomass Utilization (WBU) is defined as the harvest, sale, offer, trade, and/or use of woody biomass. This utilization results in the production of a full
biomass efficiency (Rosillo-Calle, 2007). The potential for biomass energy is available but the means of concentrating and collecting the energy have to be developed. The future holds two main resources for biomass, waste biomass and biomass produced as an energy carrier. New forest management practices can be a means by which to harvest biomass
Biomass boilers are typically 20 - 50 MW range. The energy in biomass is converted to electricity with a efficiency of about 35% - a typical value of a modern coal-fired power plant. Biomass gasifiers:Operate by heating biomass in an environment where the solid biomass breaks down to form a flammable low calorific gas. The biogas is then
GRADE: K . Strand: READING STANDARDS FOR LITERATURE Cluster 1: Key Ideas and Details STANDARD CODE STANDARD LAFS.K.RL.1.1 With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text. Cognitive Complexity: Level 2: Basic Application of Skills & Concepts LAFS.K.RL.1.2 With prompting and support, retell familiar stories, including key details. Cognitive Complexity: Level 2 .
