USA — Utahs woods are loaded with energy potential that land managers want to tap to create an economic incentive for thinning sick forests.
Trouble is, woody biomass comes up a loser in federal tax and energy policy. That will have to change, analysts say, if burning and refining wood chips are to become effective tools in forest management.
Some kind of subsidy or break is necessary to pull wood even with low-cost coal, University of Idaho forestry policy professor Jay OLaughlin said Tuesday at Utah State Universitys “Restoring the West” conference. But while the economy is sluggish, he predicted, it may be up to states to support biomass projects.
“Uncle Sam is broke,” he said.
At present, Utah isnt helping level the costs for wood and other renewable energy. Surrounding states require that their utilities get 15 percent to 30 percent of their electricity from renewables in the coming decade or two. But conference participants chuckled when they heard Utahs 20 percent goal is a “suggestion.”
“We all know why” Utah has no mandate, state Department of Natural Resources Director Mike Styler said in an interview, “because our Legislature is pro-coal.” Long term, he said, “were going to have to be pro-everything,” and thats why Styler attended in search of biomass ideas.
Many foresters believe thinning the trees is the best hope of slowing beetle attacks that have killed millions of acres of Western woods in the past decade and a half. With few loggers or sawmills working in the Intermountain West, though, the government lacks industry partners to defray costs by selling the product.
Some environmentalists, wary of industrializing wild landscapes, remain unconvinced. At least where southwest Utahs pinyon-juniper forests are concerned, Wild Utah Project Executive Director Jim Catlin said, theres strong evidence that todays relatively crowded forests are just recovering from deforestation.
Government soil surveys indicate that Beaver and Iron counties likely had dense forests much like today before settlers cut them 150 years ago, Catlin said. The pioneers cleared patches around settlements and mines to make fuel charcoal. Today, clearing them favors cattle grazing.
“If we do cut these places,” Catlin said, “it clearly isnt to restore the forest.”
But most conference participants saw thinning as an imperative for restoration, and experts said it will require government guidance.
Using wood chips to fuel electric boilers costs about 10 cents a kilowatt hour, OLaughlin said, compared to 4 cents for coal. Other renewables such as solar and wind enjoy better incentives that help make them competitive. And federal law favors other biofuels, such as ethanol, over kerosene-like liquids that refiners could make from wood.
The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, encouraging renewables, severely handicapped the very biomass that foresters hope to use, OLaughlin said. In mandating the addition of 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to the nations transportation supply by 2022, the act disqualified any coming from federal lands or even private lands that are not in sustainable plantations.
Changing that to support wood use could help battle climate change, OLaughlin said after his presentation. U.S. forests absorb about 10 percent of the nations carbon dioxide output, but they put back another 5 percent through forest fires. Burning some of the wood to offset fossils fuels and reduce fire risk would improve the ratio.
Biomass-derived electricity has advantages among renewable-energy sources, though its not the cheapest, said Daniel Simon, an energy consultant and attorney with Ballard Spahr. Its cheaper than solar, more expensive than wind, and provides a steady supply for times when either of the others is unavailable. But its nearly twice as expensive as using a natural-gas plant.