From Duke University and the Department of Obvious Science comes this study partially funded by NASA:
Standing trees better than burning ones for carbon neutrality
DURHAM, N.C. — The search for alternatives to fossil fuels has prompted growing interest in the use of wood, harvested directly from forests, as a carbon-neutral energy source.
But a new study by researchers at Duke and Oregon State universities finds that leaving forests intact so they can continue to store carbon dioxide and keep it from re-entering the atmosphere will do more to curb climate change over the next century than cutting and burning their wood as fuel.
“Substituting woody bioenergy for fossil fuels isn’t an effective method for climate change mitigation,” said Stephen R. Mitchell, a research scientist at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Wood stores only about half the amount of carbon-created energy as an equivalent amount of fossil fuels, he explained, so you have to burn more of it to produce as much energy.
“In most cases, it would take more than 100 years for the amount of energy substituted to equal the amount of carbon storage achieved if we just let the forests grow and not harvest them at all,” he said.
Mitchell is lead author of the study published in the peer-reviewed journal Global Change Biology Bioenergy. Mark E. Harmon and Kari E. O’Connell of Oregon State University co-authored the study.
Using an ecosystem simulation model developed at Oregon State, the team calculated how long it would take to repay the carbon debt – the net reduction in carbon storage – incurred by harvesting forests for wood energy under a variety of different scenarios.
Their model accounted for a broad range of harvesting practices, ecosystem characteristics and land-use histories. It also took into account varying bioenergy conversion efficiencies, which measure the amount of energy that woody biomass gives off using different energy-generating technologies.
“Few of our combinations achieved carbon sequestration parity in less than 100 years, even when we set the bioenergy conversion factor at near-maximal levels,” Harmon said. Because wood stores less carbon-created energy than fossil fuels, you have to harvest, transport and burn more of it to produce as much energy. This extra activity produces additional carbon emissions.
“These emissions must be offset if forest bioenergy is to be used without adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the near-term,” he said.
Performing partial harvests at a medium to low frequency – every 50 to 100 years or so – could be an effective strategy, O’Connell noted, but would generate less bioenergy.
“It’s a Catch-22,” she said. “Less intensive methods of harvesting release fewer emissions but yield less energy. The most intensive methods, such as clear-cutting, produce more energy but also release more carbon back into the atmosphere, prolonging the time required to achieve carbon sequestration parity.”
Given current economic realities and the increasing worldwide demand for forest products and land for agriculture, it’s unlikely that many forests will be managed in coming years solely for carbon storage, Mitchell said, but that makes it all the more critical that scientists, resource managers and policymakers work together to maximize the carbon storage potential of the remaining stands.
“The take-home message of our study is that managing forests for maximal carbon storage can yield appreciable, and highly predictable, carbon mitigation benefits within the coming century,” Mitchell said. “Harvesting forests for bioenergy production would require such a long time scale to yield net benefits that it is unlikely to be an effective avenue for climate-change mitigation.”
The research was funded by a NASA New Investigator Program grant to Kari O’Connell, by the H.J. Andrews Long-term Ecological Research Program, and by the Kay and Ward Richardson Endowment.
I put all this down to excessive education, ie educating people beyond their capability to understand.
Here in the UK, there is an aim to have 50% of the populace university educated. We had someone, (I think it was Ed Balls when education minister/secretary), saying “I want over 50% of children to be above average!”
Me thinks that all warmist theories have now been debunked. So can we now go back to the civilised world of the most affordable and safe energy as provided by mother earth itself, aka hydrocarbon fuels? It could be that we might be just in time to save the human world from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Finacial Collapse.
Watts started this by his so complete misinterpretation (deliberate?) or misunderstanding (natural) of what was being said. Fortunately he provided sufficient quotations to allow us to do better. I presume the link is behind a paywall? Usually it is polite when doing this sort of post, to allow your readers access to the original material. Of course, they might not draw the desired conclusions…
============================
The question Duke was answering was whether the emissions from energy from fossil fuels displaced by substituting wood as a fuel source were outweighed by the retention of the original growing trees as an efficient carbon sink. So the question relates to the energy provided as well as the carbon cost.
This is complicated by the fact that trees are more efficient at capturing carbon at some stages of growth than at others… and that CO2 sequestered in the tree is released when it dies.
So the study was about something NOT obvious… but that’s not as much fun as making up strawmen and using them as a basis for ridiculing science.
ShrNfr says:
May 31, 2012 at 5:46 pm
@polistra Yes, sawdust/chips are used for pellet stoves pellets. But they are also combined with various plastics to make building material. With the lumber demand down of late, sawdust has been harder to come by. Nothing left but the squeal and all you know.
________________________
That is for sure. The price of sawdust for animal bedding has more than doubled.
“””””…..wobble says:
May 31, 2012 at 11:39 pm
George E. Smith; says:
May 31, 2012 at 10:13 pm
OLD GROWTH FORESTS ARE CARBON NEUTRAL. They die and rot, and return to carboniferous gases, as fast as they convert CO2 into new wood. They are in a state of dynamic Equilibrium.
That’s great. You’re claiming that they are in Equilibrium. This means that they are continuing to store carbon.
George E. Smith; says:
May 31, 2012 at 7:12 pm
they don’t do a thing for the CO2 balance.
They don’t do a thing for the CO2 balance as long as they’re NOT harvested and burned. Because, if they are harvested and burned, then they most certainly do something for the CO2 balance. Even if they are harvested and left to rot, then they most certainly do something for the CO2 balance…….”””””
Well it is apparent that not nearly enough lumber is turned into 2 x 4 s for teaching implements.
A system that is in equilibrium DOES NOT CHANGE.
A system that is in DYNAMIC equilibrium changes continually, but has NO NET CHANGE IN ITS state.
That means a CO2 processing sytem in dynamic equilibrium has no net change of CO2 input and CO2 output; they exactly balance.
Old growth forests grow slowly, and they die and return CO2 to the atmosphere at the exact same rate that they take up CO2 and convert it to new wood. Farmed forests do a lot of CO2 conversion to wood, and virtually no dying and rotting, and CO2 release, so they are carbon sinks. And their harvested products keep the CO2 sequestered for longer than it sits and rots in old growth forests.
The World’s largest man made forests are in New Zealand. They are just about the only forests harvested there. Well except for their really old no-growth Kauri forests. Old no growth Kauri forests are between 2,000, and 55,000 years old. The oldest lumber I have bought from these Kauri forests, is 45,000 years old, so no-growth forests can sequester carbon much longer than old growth forests.
Their farmed forests of Oregon Pine (aka Douglas Fir) are planted in such a way, that in 35 years, they grow into a forest of small fir Christmas trees growing on top of branch free telephone poles, ready for harvest. Underbrush can’t grow in the light free zone under the Christmas trees, so the fire hazard is greatly reduced.
The trouble with you trolls, is that you don’t understand enough to even make good arguments.
Forest farming is GOOD for the environment, as well as for the economy.
By the way, both the USA and New Zealand, are net carbon sinks, as a result of their forest farming. The USA is the ONLY very large net carbon sink (on land) on earth. All the other land masses are carbon sources, or carbon neutral. The USA farming takes up ALL of our car exhausts, and then some so we sink, a lot of the carbon from the rest of the world.
Hoser says:
May 31, 2012 at 10:31 pm
I’m thinking per acre, not per tree.
Pull My Finger says:
June 1, 2012 at 7:40 am
Hey, I just invented this thing called the wheel, I bet if we use to roll stuff on it will save energy. I also just invented the ax which we can use to cut down trees to make wheels.
===================
That led to another idea. A tax, it will take the wheels off anything you put them on. It’s car-ban neutral. It’s very popular in California now.
Forget wind and solar as future energy sources. The way our insane governments around the world are destroying the world economy through: overspending, overtaxing, overregulating and over printing currency, once the global financial and monetary collapse occurs, I think the next major fuel source could very well be furniture…..
George,
Why do you keep pretending to be correcting me? My statements are 100% true.
Old growth forests store carbon. This is a fact.
Just because they aren’t continuing to store more and more carbon doesn’t make my statement any less true.
NO NET CHANGE IN ITS state means that it’s CONTINUING TO STORE CARBON.
You’re only embarrassing yourself by pretending that I don’t understand what is meant by a concept as simple as dynamic equilibrium.
So, we’ve established that old growth forests store carbon. Now, certainly you must admit that if an old growth forest is burned it will be a net contributor to atmospheric CO2 (and according to this Duke study this is true EVEN IF SUCH BURNING REDUCES FOSSIL FUEL USAGE – probably on a btu basis).
Go ahead and admit it.
Now, you’re more than welcome to argue in favor of certain types of forest management. Nobody is stopping you, and I’m certainly not trolling about this issue.
Btw, harvesting forests for lumber seems to be outside the scope of this study. This study seemed to look at using forests for burning.
<bj says:
June 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm
So the study was about something NOT obvious… but that’s not as much fun as making up strawmen and using them as a basis for ridiculing science.
How on earth can you claim that Anthony was ridiculing science? The opposite seems to be true here. Anthony seemed to be using science to ridicule those that want to make decisions based on feelings and intuition.
Wobble:
“Btw, harvesting forests for lumber seems to be outside the scope of this study.”
Why on earth do we need to study burning wood? We have much cleaner and more efficient energy sources. We also have much more efficient uses for wood. Only the “sustainability” crowd might be interested in this study. The rest of us would prefer not to be funding 19th century energy science.
I expect that is why most of the posts (mine included) don’t actually discuss the scope of the study, it’s just too ludicrous.
“””””…..wobble says:
June 2, 2012 at 5:28 pm
George E. Smith; says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm
George,
Why do you keep pretending to be correcting me? My statements are 100% true.
Old growth forests store carbon. This is a fact. “””””
All plant materials store carbon; diamonds store carbon, coal stores carbon, organic foods store carbon (which is poisonous according to the epa and scotus) gee I guess people store carbon too, so what the earth needs is more people to store more carbon; even petroleum stores carbon.
The point is that replacing a steady state old growth forest with an active growing tree farm will actually store even more carbon. No I didn’t burn ANY of the old growth forest material; I stacked it in a big warehouse, also made of carbon storing wood, just in case anybody has a use for any of that material.
Wobble, there are plenty of very good reasons for preserving old growth forests which I fully endorse and support. Carbon storage which as you point out is a fact (trees being carbon after all) is NOT one of them.
“””””…..wobble says:
June 2, 2012 at 5:28 pm
George E. Smith; says:
June 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm
George,
Why do you keep pretending to be correcting me? My statements are 100% true.
Old growth forests store carbon. This is a fact.
Just because they aren’t continuing to store more and more carbon doesn’t make my statement any less true.
A system that is in DYNAMIC equilibrium changes continually, but has NO NET CHANGE IN ITS state.
NO NET CHANGE IN ITS state means that it’s CONTINUING TO STORE CARBON.
You’re only embarrassing yourself by pretending that I don’t understand what is meant by a concept as simple as dynamic equilibrium……”””””
Getting a little wobbly there aren’t we !
Some observations: “””””…..Why do you keep pretending to be correcting me?…..”””””
Just where have I pretended to correct you; NOWHERE have I challenged YOUR statement that old growth forests store carbon. Don’t flatter yourself; I wouldn’t waste my time “correcting” your statement of the obvious; carbon stores carbon !
Now YOU didn’t bother to add, that “simple concept of dynamic equilibrium” which you understand so well.
I added that for the benefit of others who might not understand that; since YOU left it out.
What I stated, and which you apparently chose to ignore, was that old growth forests are carbon neutral; I never said they don’t store carbon.
Item #2 “””””…..You’re only embarrassing yourself by pretending that I don’t understand what is meant by a concept as simple as dynamic equilibrium…..”””””
Now there’s an absurd statement; wobble; there’s no possible way, that you could know whether or not I might be embarrassed about something; anything, particularly assuming something, that, a) I never assumed, and b), you could not possibly know I had assumed, since nowhere did I state or imply, that you did not understand what is meant by a concept as simple as dynamic equilibrium. And for the record; I’m not the least embarrassed, about what you do or do not understand.
My comments were for whatever benefit, anyone might get from them; if anything; not to start an inane argument as to whether carbon stores carbon.
.
We already learned that clear-cutting the Northern Forests was a good thing for “global warming,” via research published in Global Change Biology. It was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. Sunlight on dark trees creates local warming. Sunlight reflects off of a snowy ground without trees. Per their study, if you lose Northern Forest Trees and the sun reflects off of the snowy ground, it provides a cooling effect.
“In cold regions where forest recovery is slower, albedo increases can persist for 100 years.”
So, Saw Baby Saw… those Northern Forests, to save the planet, per the Dept of Energy study. 🙂
—————————
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Albedo_effect_in_forests_can_cause_added_warming_bonus_cooling_999.html
From the linked article about the study:
“Albedo effect” in forests can cause added warming, bonus cooling
by Staff Writers
Corvallis OR (SPX) Oct 21, 2011
Researchers conclude in a new study that the albedo effect, which controls the amount of energy reflected back into space, is important in the climatic significance of several types of major forest disturbances.
In some cases – mostly in boreal forests with significant snow cover – increases in reflectivity can provide cooling. If the area disturbed by fire or insects is large, this cooling can substantially offset the increase in global warming that would otherwise be caused by these forest disturbances and the release of greenhouse gases.
“On a smaller or local scale, however, changes in albedo can be fairly important, especially in areas with significant amounts of snow, such as high latitudes or higher elevations.”
Albedo is a measure of radiation reflected by a surface, in this case the surface of the planet. Lighter colors such as snow reflect more light and heat back into space than the dark colors of a full forest and tree canopy.
“This decreased absorption of heat by the land surface is a local atmospheric cooling effect,” said Tom O’Halloran, a recent postdoctoral research at OSU who is now with the Department of Environmental Studies at Sweet Briar College. “This was clear in one case we studied of trees killed by mountain pine beetles in British Columbia.
“In areas with substantial snow cover, we found that canopy removal due to either fire or insect attack increased reflected radiation and approximately offset the warming that would be caused by increased release of carbon dioxide,” O’Halloran said.
This complex phenomenon would be much less in lower latitudes or areas without snow for much of the year, the researchers said. It relates primarily to boreal or colder mid-latitude forests, such as the Canadian insect outbreak over 374,000 square kilometers of forest.
In cold regions where forest recovery is slower, albedo increases can persist for 100 years.
OK, great, but that has nothing to do with the question of replacing fossil fuels with wood as a source of energy in order to reduce atmospheric CO2 – which was the primary point of this study.
Additionally, it seems as if this study reaches the same conclusion as you – that forests can be managed in order to maximize carbon storage (which is separate from the question of burning them).
I don’t care about preserving old growth forests, nor do I care about the reasons for preserving them.
Reread all of my comments. I never claimed that carbon storage was a reason to preserve old growth forests. I only ever claimed that old growth forests store carbon.
Frankly, I’m left wondering if you even thoroughly read this post because you seemed to have missed the point entire but decided to jump on a soap box and start arguing a different issue entirely.
You kept defining dynamic equilibrium as if it was germane to anything that I had written.
In order to dismiss the notion that it’s a good way to reduce atmospheric CO2.
Exactly, the sustainability crowd needs to know that widespread replacement of fossil fuels with wood will actually contribute to more atmospheric CO2 – which might be the only metric that they care about.
“”””” wobble says:
June 4, 2012 at 8:58 am
George E. Smith; says:
June 3, 2012 at 1:16 am
you could not possibly know I had assumed, since nowhere did I state or imply, that you did not understand what is meant by a concept as simple as dynamic equilibrium.
You kept defining dynamic equilibrium as if it was germane to anything that I had written…..”””””
Well that’s an absurd observation.
First off, I never questioned ANYTHING you wrote; or understood.
I did ADD, (entirely for the benefit of others who may not know or understand) that old growth forests are carbon neutral; meaning they are not continuing to take up carbon in excess of that they are currently storing; and are in fact in dynamic equilibrium.
I defined dynamic equilibrium for those other folks; precisely once.
I did not, as you falsely claim;….””””” kept defining dynamic equilibrium as if it was germane to anything that I had written…..”””””
If you have a fundamental objection to my adding anything to something you have posted; take up your objection with Anthony; and he has my open ended permission to delete ANY and ALL comments, I may make in the future to ANYTHING you choose to inform us about; and that includes this comment as well.
OK, George. We seemed to have become slightly cross threaded. We’ve both made our points well known, and we probably agree on the big picture.