A recent Mongabay article on Enviva, the world’s largest biomass energy company teetering on the brink of collapse, provides a case study in the pitfalls of the renewable energy sector. This situation isn’t just about business; it’s a stark illustration of the flawed logic often found in climate action narratives.
The forest biomass energy industry took a major hit this month, as Enviva, the world’s largest producer of wood pellets — burned in former coal power plants to make energy on an industrial scale — saw catastrophic third quarter losses. Enviva’s stock tanked, its CEO was replaced and the company seems near collapse.
Enviva’s model, centered on converting trees to wood pellets for energy, is based on a contentious and, arguably, flawed concept. Biomass is often touted as sustainable, yet this is a gross oversimplification. As the article points out,
“Enviva converts millions of tons of trees into wood pellets,”
highlighting the environmental cost of this ‘green’ energy.
The impact of biomass on the environment is a critical aspect often glossed over by its proponents. Enviva’s practices, involving large-scale deforestation, starkly contrast with the principles of true sustainability. The article remarks,
“Critics argue that the company’s practices contribute to deforestation and that burning wood releases more carbon dioxide than coal.”
This statement exposes the inconvenient truth behind biomass energy.
The financial challenges facing Enviva are a clear indicator of the broader economic instability within the renewable energy sector. The article mentions, “Enviva’s stock has plummeted,” pointing to the inherent market vulnerabilities and inefficiencies of such ventures. This financial instability is a red flag, often ignored in the rush to adopt renewables.
“Enviva built a business model saying it uses mostly scrap and waste from lumber mills and cut sites to make its pellets,” he said. “If that were true, its feedstock would basically be free. But it has to buy trees, a lot of trees, and it’s competing for them with other companies that want that wood. Loggers sell to the highest bidder, right, and that drives up the price. It’s something Enviva can’t control.”
Central to Enviva’s narrative is the idea that biomass is a key solution to climate change. However, as the article reveals,
“Enviva has been touted as a leader in renewable energy, but its struggles raise questions about the viability of biomass.”
This highlights the problematic nature of biomass and similar renewable energy solutions.
Another crucial aspect often sidelined is the impact of biomass production on local communities and ecosystems. Enviva’s operations have significant local environmental and social implications, yet these are seldom part of the larger conversation about renewable energy.
Forest advocates — who have long decried the stark contrast between Enviva’s forest-friendly claims and its contributions to deforestation during a climate emergency, celebrated the company’s crisis and said they weren’t surprised by it.
“Enviva built a business model based on environmental injustice [and] forest destruction,” the North Carolina-based Dogwood Alliance, an NGO, said in a statement. “The [wood pellet] industry operates on a model of greenwashing, bad climate science, large-scale clearcutting and cutting corners on community protections.”
Government policies and subsidies have played a significant role in promoting biomass energy. The article hints at this, suggesting a misalignment between policy objectives and environmental realities. This underscores the need for policy reevaluation in light of Enviva’s situation.
The unfolding story of Enviva is a cautionary tale about the rush towards renewable energy without proper scrutiny. It calls for a rational, evidence-based approach to energy policy, one that truly balances environmental, economic, and social factors. The Enviva case is a reminder of the need for a more critical perspective on renewable energy.
Read the full article for detailed information on the rise and fall of Enviva.
HT/georgeinsandiego, Robert F, and resourceguy
Using actual waste, like slash or sawdust is one thing, but using saw logs to make pellets looks very much like virtue signaling.
Yes. pellets used for home heating enclosed fireplaces with an automatic feeder makes sense.
The homeowner buys a pallet load or two for the winter and has the visible flame ( and very little ash remains)
https://www.comfortbilt.ca/collections/our-pellet-stoves/products/comfortbilt-alpine
As you say, using scrap and refuse timber is a great idea, but growing or chopping down trees just for the purpose.. that is total idiocy… not surprised the “greenies” don’t care, though.
In season, Queensland uses biomass from sugar cane.. leaves etc before processing, and left-overs after processing
… although even that is often sold as garden mulch.
Yeah, depending on the species of tree, converting trees into lumber has a considerable amount of waste.
Unless those trees can be persuaded to grow up with a rectangular cross-section. Why has nobody suggested how this could be done? I can’t possibly be a shortage of development-funding, with all the inane work being done to try to justify those Greenie dreams!
oh, yuh- square trees- we’ll see fusion reactors before we see square trees
THAT’S NOT THE TRUE- YOU’RE BELIEVING THE LIE PUT OUT BY THE GREENS BECAUSE THEY HATE BIOMASS.
Before you believe such idiot lies you ought to talk to a forester like me, with 50 years experience.
Obviously we can burn waste from the sawmills and we can burn trees and replant replacements to get an equilibrium. One of my college roommates worked with power plants converting from coal to wood 30 years ago. Is this technology scalable enough to be a viable alternative to coal and natural gas or will it always be a niche operation?
Actually, in many forestry areas- you don’t need to replant- such as most of the American north. Down in Dixie- where they do super intense forestry- very similar to agriculture- they do replant because they want certain species. Up here, we attempt to influence the “regeneration” with some luck some of the time. It’s just too expense to replant unless you’re doing intense forestry in a region where its a big industry- it’s not in the north- especially with the slow death of the paper industry.
Yes, it’ll mostly be a niche operation. The reason to do it is not to save the planet or that there’s anything wrong with burning coal- though the biomass people will even pitch that. The reason we want pellet and biomass power plants is to get rid of trees we don’t want- either in thinnings or if it’s a clearcut, and we send the better wood to sawmills, plywood mills, veneer mills, furniture or other factories, a pulp mill, firewood- there’s still wood left and it’s either going to rot in the forests- or not be cut at all- and that’s high grading- so better to use it for pellets or biomass power. Compared to coal or gas- the full potential for woody biomass is absolutely trivial to the world at large. But for forestry, it’s good to help us do better forestry.
https://www.youtube.com/@JoeZorzin/videos
Is thinning different from coppicing and does anybody still do coppicing these days? I once read that this can actually improve forest productivity, among other factors.
Of course, I’m not suggesting it would be useful for industrial purposes.
I think coppicing is extremely rare. It’s common in Europe- mostly the Med. as a way to generate lots of easy to exploit branches. Lots of videos in the Med. show coppiced trees all over the region- on roads and on farms. The trees don’t look nice this way. They pretty much cut the crown off- but then it’ll branch out heavily.
Thinning is basically logging. It might be heavy or it might be light. You could have a very mature forest- and remove only 20% or more- and that’s a thinning. Or it could be a young stand- if it regenerated on its own, in the north, it might have 1,000 or more trees per acre. Often it’s species we don’t want. So when the stand is mature enough – usually when the trees are big enough for some use- you can thin out maybe a third of the total volume. I only clearcut a few times in 50 years- I just kept thinning- some stands 3 times. I have 3 logging videos on my YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/@JoeZorzin/videos
Forestry is very different across the world. It might look a lot different. It might not look pretty but that doesn’t mean it’s not done right. It’s not about making the forest look nice, it’s about utilizing the forest for human need while not ruining it.
Not sure of your “you don’t need to replant- such as most of the American north.”
They do a lot of it in the Northwest.
Weyerhaeuser – Our company began replanting forests in the 1930s, long before it was common practice or required under forest practice rules. Over just the last decade, we’ve planted more than 1 billion trees on our timberlands.
But when you own 12,400,000 acres and manages an additional 14,000,000 acres, you may think a little different.
OK, most forestry people when you say “the north” – they think of everything but the PNW. And yes, that company does planting because it’s a big industry – or used to be. Across the rest of the north- er, north central and northeast, forestry is “extensive” rather than “intensive”. But even in the PNW, it’s probably not really necessary unless you want certain species and not others. Forests will amost always regenerate on their own except in arid areas. I think they prefer Doug Fir out there. There is a case though of one private owner (can’t recall the name) who has or had a few thousand acres. He managed his forest as productively or more so than the big companies without clearcutting. The company foresters always say you need to clearcut to get natural regeneration of Doug Fir- or plant them. He got it through smart cutting which he did himself. Just an example of the disagreemnts not uncommon in forestry. We don’t agree on a lot- though there is quite a bit of research done in the past century.
Wood can be part of “all of the above”. I’ve been reading through the comments below. I love forests as much as anyone, AND I note that there have been articles here on WUWT that note that more of North America is covered in forests now than there were 100 years ago. They should be a resource for construction and fuel. Doing so could diminish the annual forest fires in California that make western Nevada air so smoky.
We live in the boonies above Reno, NV. Electricity goes out a lot. Thanks to Government policies, propane is expensive. A pellet stove makes a lot of sense for us. A LOT cheaper than propane, which we prefer to use to run the Generac when the power goes out due to falling trees, drunk drivers, lightning strikes, etc. Miles and miles of single point failures.
Jes*s Chri*st. I’ve tried enlightening all of you on this biomass topic in the past- with failure I see. NOBODY IS BURNING SAWLOGS. You’re all believing the GREEN lie about biomass- THEY hate biomass. The greens HATE biomass with a passion.
You don’t belive the climate emergency bullshit but you believe the green’s propaganda AGAINST biomass.
Sorry Joseph but you’re wrong – US authorities investigated Enviva a few years ago and they found that Enviva had been processing hardwood and softwood sawlogs to burn as pellets. The investigation finished a few years ago which may be why the present downturn in their profits because there is simply no way that Enviva can supply all its customers with those quantities from waste wood alone. Enviva got greedy and got caught at it.
So, you believe everything “US authorities” say? A few sawlogs might get through because the intellectual level of most loggers ain’t too high. But, by and large, only a moron would burn a sawlog. There are tens of millions of acres down in Dixie under forest mgt. It’s possible they over built- as they’ve built several facilities. Also, it’s an economic thing- other markets may be drawing in too much of the “junk wood”. So all that is really about markets and economics- not about whether or not woody biomass is sustainable or whatever they hell they’re burning. You can be sure, nobody is going to purposefully burn a valuable sawlog. You either believe an industry or believe those who hate the industry in the name of “saving the earth”. Go to Enviva’s web site and send them an email and see how they’ll respond before believing forestry and fossil fuel hating maniacs.
You live in an imaginary world. In northern Ontario – a huge piece of real estate – saw logs are made into pellets by some companies. Limbs, branches etc from all logging are for the most part pushed into piles and burnt. A very small amount is used as ‘hog fuel’ in the their mills.
If they are burning sawlogs- then that’s what the market conditions have caused to happen. How do you know what a sawlog is? It looks like a sawlog? Maybe it’s not a sawlog. Many logs really aren’t sawlogs unless there is a market for that species and those specifications. Hemlock, red maple, beech and other “sawlogs” really aren’t sawlogs if those species have no market for them. You can be sure they aren’t going to burn red oak, black cherry, sugar maple sawlogs for biomass. So, I think you should think twice about who you say is living in an imaginary world. Why not talk to those people and find out the truth- rather than imagining you think you know the truth and for believing propaganda. This is why so many people think there is a climate emergency- the propaganda is very powerful. And, as I responded to your other message, the slash can’t be used for pellets- but it could be used in a biomass power plant because they can burn anything that burns. Pellets require low grade logs. To you, they’re sawlogs- but THEY’RE NOT SAWLOGS. A sawlog is a log that can economically be converted into lumber. Low grade logs sometimes can and sometimes can’t. Many logs on a log truck may look like sawlogs to a person who knows nothing about the subject- but those logs have no other market- in that locality though they may in other localities. The wood markets are “atomized”.
I think your point of the local market is important. The shipping costs for logs are probably too high to profitably move them very far to be burned for energy. It’s like the cardboard box industry where boxes aren’t shipped very far because the cost of shipping is higher than the value of the boxes.
Yeah of course, let’s accuse the US SEC of lying because Joseph Zorzin knows better, despite him not having investigated Enviva and the SEC actually having done so. There are also about 6 or 7 law firms looking into their books on behalf of the shareholders so I don’t think there problems are limited to whether they used waste or sawlogs.
I’m not saying their company isn’t having problems- every company does. Many companies go broke- that doesn’t prove that their product is inherently a bad product. The fact that the company is having problems- maybe they’re stupid and/or corrupt- I don’t know or care. All I’m saying is that WOODY BIOMASS is a good product for pellets and power. Anyone who says it’s not sustainable or that its carbon output is “worse than coal” doesn’t have a f****g clue. I’m talking about forestry not a specific company. Nice to know you trust the US government. Many oil and coal and gas companies have problems too- many are not so smart in their business practices- some are probably corrupt. So what, should they all be put out of business? I doubt you’ll say that so why get down on Enviva? Better to fix it and get back to managing forests and burning pellets and woody biomass for power- even if that amount of power is trivial. It’s so stupid that they bring in the climate thing- they’re trying to co-opt the idea to look good- that’s one of their mistakes. I see that a lot now- the forestry people saying how good forestry is good for the climate- it’ll help save the planet- I tell them to cut the sh*t with that- instead, argue that there is no climate problem. I never said that forestry people, by and large, are smart- they’re not- I’ve been their biggest critics for half a century- because I know that great forestry is a great thing- much of forestry was and is poorly done. Most forestry people won’t admit that. I’ve admitted it and they’ve tried to cancel me many times. Many forestry leaders are idiots! In government, academia and business.
Right and now you’re conflating 2 different issues. At no time did I say that biomass wasn’t a good idea – I agree with you that, if done right, it can be a very efficient and cheap local energy source. But not necessarily the way that Enviva have gone about it.
As to trusting US authorities, well you’ve got to start somewhere until proven wrong – can you provide any evidence that the US SEC cannot be trusted? If not we’ll go with what we’ve got for the moment then.
I just drove by several miles of a logged over area and all the slash was pushed into piles to be burnt. There’s a company here that cuts trees to be made into pellets. Slash, or wood waste, is not used. It’s just burnt when snow is on the ground to avoid causing forest fires.
For pellets, you’re right. If they had a woody biomass power plant- they could burn everything and anything. Rotted wood, wood of any species whatsoever. Here in MA, I can mark trees to cut that I couldn’t without a woody biomass power market- so it allows superior silviculture. Unfortunately, the forestry haters are winning the battle against biomass power, pellets and all forestry- their propaganda is so good that many here in WUWT even believe it. 🙂
But, without the pellet market, those piles would be much bigger with much more carbon being released when burned- as if we even care about carbon.
Studies have been done that conclude an industrial society, meaning any participating since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, needs a certain minimum (net energy produced) to (energy needed for energy production) ration. Coal, natural gas, petroleum, hydro, and nuclear fission supposedly can meet that standard. For conversational purposes, lets just accept that claim as basically true – or provide explicit reasons why it is not.
Many critics of wind and solar claim their net energy delivered vs energy input is zero or negative, or at best a very low ratio, due to low capacity factors, relatively short lifetimes, additional equipment needed to make their electricity output useful, and higher equipment production energy requirements, while advocates say the opposite.
Do you have any figures on the ration of electrical energy produced to production energy required for tree cutting, processing into pellets, and all transportation of the wood from forest to power plant? Do wood pellet power plants make sense from that viewpoint, even when source is separated from user by an ocean?
How about using tree wastes for local power plants? That would seem, to me, to require the power plant being serviced from a fairly large area, thus the energy used for transportation, plus whatever other processing is necessary before burning, plus reasonable air pollution measures, might make that energy out/energy in ratio pretty slim.
Any such estimates of energy flows are likely to be debated ad infinitum. I don’t have such numbers. What counts to me is the flow of money. I wonder if that might be the best measure. If a pellet maker can sell pellets at a profit- that means all costs including energy are covered. What makes such comparisons difficult is to count all the externalities and uncounted benefits. With forestry work- there are many uncounted benefits such as the forest being preserved from development so it can continue to produce ecosystem values such as producing oxygen and sequestering carbon and benefits to wildlife, if we were to assume that means anything- and of course there we go with that difficulty. So, it’s not just about producing pellets or biomass power but the great value such a market adds to the profitability of all the other parts of forestry- that is, producing high value timber when you can remove such wood from the forest. When a forest is productive of economic wealth- there is, according to the late forestry professor, David Kittredge (U. Mass. Amherst)- a 50-1 multiplier effect.
Energy from wood really doesn’t belong with wind and solar both of which damage the environment. Good forestry improves the environment. For wind and solar we need to import all sorts of products and materials. We don’t do that for forestry other than maybe chainsaws. Forestry is labor intensive so it provides many jobs. Wind and solar don’t after you install it and until it needs replacement. I know as there is a 20 acre solar farm right behind my house. Forestry keeps those jobs going.
Biomass power plants in New England cost at least 200 million bucks and up to 3-4 times that. Believe me, they don’t spend that kind of money without doing intense research to make sure they’ll have access to what they need.
Perhaps the energy in vs. energy out doesn’t look great if you don’t consider the items I mention above. I’m sure it won’t compare well with fossil fuels but will compare well with wind and solar, all things considered. But, and here’s the rub- nobody in forestry is trying to displace or replace the ff industries. We love fossil fuels and use a great deal of it. It’s true that some woody biomass and other forestry sectors idiotically talk about the climate- and how woody biomass will help save the planet- but they don’t really believe the climate nonsense – they’re saying it to please their masters who can shut them down and have shut some down. We’re not trying to save the planet- we’re trying to produce high quality timber and having a way to get rid of the “junk wood” helps a great deal. For 35 years I lived in one part of the state without this biomass market- then 15 years in a place where I had it. Forestry with a biomass market is vastly superior. Without it- and this is important- we can’t do, without difficulty, great forestry because half the trees in the northeast have very little value in any market. The other trees that are marketable- we want to grow to the correct size and they’ll grow much faster if thinned out. What I had to do where I didn’t have the market is force the loggers to kill the undesired trees in place by girdling. That takes time and reduces the sale value to the owner. And, those standing dead trees are potentially dangerous to anyone walking in there. And, they’ll rot on site emitting “carbon pollution”. I always ask those who think woody biomass is a bad thing- how we can do proper silvicultural work without it and they have no answer:
Look at the following 2 of my logging videos- both are done by mechanized crews- with feller buncher, skidders, sometimes forwarders, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSSBNyIRbE&t=282s and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMrfAVsxKyI&t=69s
In conclusion, excusing the above rambling rant- my 50 years says woody biomass is a great thing- great for the forest, for the owner, for all of society, and it contributes a small amount to the energy the world needs and it’s not trying to displace or replace fossil fuels.
There’s a woody biomass power plant in VT: https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/mcneil/
They’ve got many studies on their site documenting what they’re up to. The produce power for the city of Burlington including a large state college. They say they get all the wood they need from a 50 acre distance. One thing a company like this looks for is how much forest land is under management in the area? It’s not that difficult to calculate how much wood will be available. It’s engineering at its best.
Some of my other relative videos- on proforestation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Sd6c1lzxI&t=79s
On “climate dumb forestry”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Trd6spu-U&t=320s
the phoney climate emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsvrADdwiIU&t=334s
The logging moratorium in MA based on the climate nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLldLfN-k6M&t=11s
the construction of a solar farm next to my ‘hood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4&t=438s
’nuff for now
Joseph Zorzin,
I’m not a forestry expert by any means and I always find your comments interesting and informative. I think I understand and agree with your point that good forestry management is a necessity and there should be no issue with the responsible harvesting and management of forests, and that activist environmental groups are trying their hardest to shut down all logging for Gaia/Mother Earth reasons (oversimplification, but yeah). I think your comments went a little off the rails and became a little distracting over the discussion of sawlogs. Never having heard of Mongabay I went to their website and dug around a little bit. I think others should too. I think it would more than clarify the point that I think you were making.
Mongabay is basically an environmental activist news/media site and has little to nothing to do with science. I took a look at their staff page and they had 90+ people listed with brief bio descriptions. out of 90+ I saw one with a degree in science (PhD in Chemistry, but quit and switched to communications)
I summarized a few below as examples. Almost all are described as having degrees or experience in journalism, environmental or science writing, communications, graphic design, etc. Basically, a bunch of passengers on the B ark.
ABHAYA RAJ JOSHI
Staff Writer – Nepal, Mongabay
Abhaya is a multi-media journalist based in Kathmandu, Nepal.
ABHISHYANT KIDANGOOR
Staff Writer and Video Producer, Mongabay
Abhishyant is a writer and video producer from India. Since 2014, he has covered a wide range of stories on climate change, health and human rights from around the world.
ABU SIDDIQUE
Contributing Editor – Bangladesh, Mongabay
An astute pro-environment journalist, Abu Siddique has a nose for smelling stories, especially those with a trans-boundary water and climate change angle.
ADITI TANDON
Production Editor, Mongabay-India
Aditi has over 10 years of experience working in Communication, Public Diplomacy and Journalism. She started her career as a print journalist and has since then moved onto various communication roles with organizations like Amnesty International, the United States Mission in India and the United Nations Development Program.
AKITA ARUM VERSELITA
Data Analyst, Mongabay-Indonesia
Akita is Mongabay-Indonesia’s data and research analyst. She was formerly a student leader and an activist in Malaysia, working closely with the government and private institutions to support Indonesian students.
ALEJANDRO PRESCOTT-CORNEJO
Marketing Associate, Mongabay
Alejandro is passionate about finding creative solutions to reach diverse audiences to protect the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems and people.
This has more to say about the op than about Joseph Zorzin’s comments.
It gets worse when you think that this wasn’t just softwood they were harvesting, but hardwood trees as well. Stupid, short-sighted and environmentally destructive virtue-signalling.
Btw Enviva’s the major supplier of the Drax power station with wood pellets – this might take Drax out as well.
As a side note, the chair of the committee that gave Drax and Enviva their clean, green biomass credentials was, at the time, the CEO of Drax Group, Dorothy Thompson. Since then she has gone on to be CEO of an oil/gas exploration company and involved in a company making engines and parts for EV’s.
I never bought in to the biomass notion. None of it made sense.
Makes perfect sense- try talking to foresters instead of reading forestry hating green propaganda because they want no trees to be cut.
My daughter and son-in-law have a biomas system at their house which runs on hardwood logs, heats all their hot water and central heating and they cook with wood. But they have enough tree acreage to keep the system going for ever. If they had to buy the wood it would not be economic.
I have no problem with individuals burning wood. That is not the same as those who believe biomass is a substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear energy. In my home town the city tells you when you can burn wood or not. Your family is lucky they don’t live here.
What a biomess!
Good one, anti.
Back in the first half of the 1900s, forest practices discarded much material produced as “waste”.
They slowly realized the waste had value, and began using it. That continues today. One can see multiple biomass generators feeding electricity to their own operations and to regional balancing authorities.
Check the list under the chart here:
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
The 3 lines near the bottom are of interest.
The very steady output of nuclear (Cobalt line) is there.
The biomass (brown line) usually drops on Sunday and comes back Monday morning.
The VER (wind & solar; mostly wind) line is green and in goes from near zero to erratic peaks.
Balancing is done via hydro from dams on the Columbia River and a few others.
Yep, but you need a thriving “timber” industry for there to be enough biomass to make it worthwhile.
The greenies, of course, have tried to kill-off the timber industry, thus destroying a good source of biomass.
Greentards, with their moronic forestry practices, aren’t so much trying to kill the timber industry as burn it to the ground! What parts of “sustainable” and “carbon sequestration” don’t they understand? Oh, that’s right; ALL of it!
There is a vast amount of wood waste for the biomass industry in much of North America. And yes, they have tried to kill off the timber industry- and I detest them for that. Most of the pellets are made down in Dixie- a vast forestry industry- tens of millions of acres of managed forests- and they sure the hell ain’t burning sawlogs.
100% wrong!
I am an expert in the forest health of the semi-arid forest that John H referenced. It is the biggest environmental problem in North America.
The problem is too much biomass. These forest developed with fire as part of the natural process but well meaning practices suppressed fires. This has resulted in devastating fires that destroy everything in its path rather than cleanse the forest.
Even dumber than burning trees is biofuel.
To prevent climate change from destroying our crops, we will convert the crops to fuel and burn that.
If you read that sentence enough times it starts making sense.
Oh, really?
I think you have to be drinking the biofuel whilst reading that sentence for it to ever make any sense.
My preferred biofuel is a red blend of Vitis vinifera. 🙂
Nothing dumb about burning trees- it’s part of long term forestry. Read a forestry book instead of forestry hating propaganda.
It was clear my comment was in regard to burning trees instead of fossil fuel not forest management or for lumber. If you wish to comment in a forum where people nit pick things to death for the pure pleasure of getting one over on another commenter including accusing them of read hate propoganda, that you get yourself over to twitter where I am sure you will find many more committed to that mind set.
You may be better served however by visiting the self help section of a local bookstore and seeing if you can find something on being a better person.
What’s wrong with burning trees? I don’t need to be psychoanalyzed, thank you. There is nothing wrong with burning trees- only, they’re not trees when burned. You don’t rip it out of the ground and torch it. It’s processed. I don’t do this for pleasure but because too many people comment on forestry who have no clue- like saying burning trees is bad. For excellent forest mgt. you may need to burn some trees, to use your way of describing it.
Your apology is accepted.
Only if you’re a leftist.
The sentence makes sense. { to members of the ClimateCult™}
The concept does not. {to members of Reality}
“Enviva’s practices, involving large-scale deforestation, starkly contrast with the principles of true sustainability.”
Bullshit. That’s not how it happens. For crying out loud- y’all ought to read forestry literature, not propaganda from forestry hating, fossil fuel hating, commies.
Joseph, whilst it isn’t supposed to happen like that in theory, in practice Enviva was never able to supply it’s customers with just waste wood from managed forests – they played fast and loose with the definitions and, in practice, bought up large amounts of timber, some hardwood as well as softwood. They were investigated in the US after complaints about their practices and it was found that they really had been doing this, contrary to what they should have been doing.
And, even if they did burn a sawlog, so what? Who the hell cares? If you like wood in yoru home- in your furniture- in paper products- have a bit more faith in forestry industries than in the folks who want to kill all forestry, stop all fossil fuels and have us go back to the stone age. All industries do make mistakes and all are at least a bit corrupt and stupid – so what. But, forestry is a great thing. The forestry haters would have everyone think we’re just out there raping and pillaging forests.
I’ll guarantee we haven’t heard he end of Enviva- this is a short term problem which will be overcome.
The ultimate woody biomass hater is in my area- Mary Booth and her web site: https://www.pfpi.net/. Go there and read her lies.
I believe you and, if they were growing and harvesting acres of softwood grown for pellets I’d have very little problem with that and we’d both probably agree that it made sense. However they’re stating to the US authorities that they are harvesting waste wood; unwanted or unused cheap wood that would otherwise be destroyed. Fair enough but in practice they haven’t been restricting themselves to this – they’ve signed contracts to supply wood pellets to customers and, when they couldn’t fulfill those contracts exclusively with waste wood, they’ve been buying premium wood to fulfil them. I don’t know exactly what law or regulations Enviva broke doing this but it was serious enough for the US SEC to check it out for themselves (presumably that means it had some ramifications in the financial sector), and for the current investigations into Enviva’s financial conduct on behalf of the shareholders.
First- you don’t manage an entire forest for low value pellets or biomass. You manage to grow premium wood. You do thinnings- and much of that goes to either pulp, or firewood or biomass. If you go to the anti forestry anti biomass web sites- you’ll see mountains of what look like sawlogs. They are not sawlogs. Even the wood going to a pulp plant look like sawlogs on a log truck. They are not sawlogs. Any given tree- what will be its use- is highly variable from locality to locality and it depends on the markets from day to day.
The worldwide demand for pellets is increasing nicely. It may be that as Enviva’s demand grows- that escalates the value of what will go to pulp or firewood or biomass- so they may very well be taking some wood that looks pretty good to people- but if that tree has a real sawlog in it- that sawlog is going to be worth orders of magnitude more. Now, maybe they’re ripping off some landowners because they need the wood so bad- if they’re paying a landowner a low value telling them that the wood is only junk wood when it’s valuable wood- then the company is indeed hurting the owner- and that’s corrupt and illegal. And it doesn’t hurt the company unless it gets caught. I believe the company also owns land too. On its own land- it wouldn’t harvest a sawlog and send it to the pellet plant.
So, yes indeed, the company is probably screwing somebody and got caught. That doesn’t mean that the concept of harveting wood for pellets or a power plant is a bad idea- but that’s what the forestry and biomass haters are trying to say. So, there’s a mix up- between arguing against biomass in principle vs. arguing against a company like Enviva which may have ripped off some landowners and can’t meet its quota. I have no mercy for the company if it’s corrupt or has other stupid businsess practices. I’m only defending forestry- in practice- when done smartly.
The whole argument about “whole tree logging” is absurd. The companies stupidly claim they aren’t doing that but of course they are- and of course, it’s usually a good thing- but it sounds bad so they try to deny it. Then the greens say, “you bad, you burning whole trees- mother Gaia is angry”. OK, so they burn some whole trees- so what? So the company then says, “we good- we not burning whole trees”. Idiots. All they need to do is tell the truth. Burning slash and whole trees is good if done smartly.
Ripping off a forest owner- paying them next to nothing for slash when taking out sawlogs because you must meet the demand and contracts is criminal. Hang’em for all I care.
Listen, I’ve had to deal with crooked loggers for half a century. Bad loggers. Bad logging companies here in Wokeachusetts. I’ve had battles with them. Battles with bad state agencies who tolerated such bad actors and academics who didn’t have the balls to talk about this problem. Most logging in New England in the 2nd half of the twentieth century was “high grading” where the cut the best and left the rest and paid the owner very little if anything. But, when done right, the owne benefits and all of society because there is a high mulitplier effect on the value of the “stumpage” (value of tree on the stump). To get the best value it’s necessary to have markets. As the paper industry in this region had pretty much died off- there is little to no market for low value wood. Biomass could fill that need.
But if companies are ripping people off- I’ll dislike them as much as I dislike forestry haters, who I’d like to send to Ukraine to live in those trenches. 🙂
I think I’ll stop replying now. You seem not be reading anything I’ve been saying and continuing a diatribe against anti-forestry groups despite nobody but you having mentioned them. I agree with much of what you’re saying but your attitude is getting somewhat off-putting.
Nobody mentioned anything about anti-forestry groups?
I quote the following from the article above- showing that the author seems to know very well what THEY think- that’s the conflating of biomass in principle vs. what terrible things Enviva or any other such company is doing. That’s where I started today with comments. Looks to me like the author of this article is swallowing the green propaganda. The home of the anti forestry- anti biomass idiocy is: https://www.pfpi.net/. Look at that- and you’ll know why I’m so angry about anyone ranting against biomass. It’s nothing but lies- so when anyone rants against Enviva, they fail to focus on legal issues and instead talk about the suppossed horrors of biomass- that the forests are being destroyed- that they’re burning entire forests- that it’s destroying ecosystems, and on and on and on.
and then this article goes one step further by showing an anti forestry – anti biomass video full of lies- the suppossed whistleblower saying some whole trees were cut! OK, that just shows stupid attempt at co-opting the climate nonsense- because of course SOME whole trees are used for pellet production- it has to be that way- you don’t want to chip up bark and slash to make pellets- but you can if all that is sent to a biomass for power company- heck, even a biomass power plant in VT brags about how it’s carbon neutral- which it is if you look at the forestry work on the landscape scale- but they should give up trying to co-opt a need for being carbon whatever- I intend to make a video just on this stupid effort to co-opt the climate sh*
I’ve read most of these comments. Joseph’s attitude is fine. I’d like to hear how some of his critics would utilize poorer grade or standing dead trees. He suggests we should use them for fuel. I agree. Whether they are harvested for firewood or wood pellets, there could be no better use of certain types of wood. Joseph’s point is you have to be selective, as I believe most of his comments are.
I don’t agree with the opening post overgeneralization lumping wood harvesting for burning with the ethanol industry, pig farm and landfill methane recovery and other minimally useful and expensive sources of fuel. Make a distinction. What are you referring to when you talk about “biofuels”.
Is wood harvesting cheap, available fuel or not? It would be more useful to discuss whether selective cutting, processing and delivery of wood fuel to customers (either as fuel or electricity) is an overpriced, irrational or unsustainable business enterprise. I don’t think it is any of those things.
While most of the discussion here has been about eastern hardwoods, the West has millions of standing dead lodgepole pine trees from beetle kill which would seem ideal candidates for biochar or pellet-ization – a perfectly reasonable place to put the foresters to work on planning and cutting.
“Central to Enviva’s narrative is the idea that biomass is a key solution to climate change.”
This is where they went wrong by making that claim- that was incredibly stupid of them to claim that. It’s NOT about saving the planet- it’s about one thing only- from the perspective of the forestry folks- getting rid of wood that has no other market- and you either bury it, or just cut it down and let it rot in the forest. I keep telling forestry people to stop making such stupid claims about the climate but they don’t listen to me. It fails because obviously it can’t be a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Y’all want the true about this from a forester with 50 years experiencing- much of that fighting forestry haters, the same folks that now want to stop all ff to save the planet?
Woody biomass is a great thing. Best thing ever to happen to forestry. NOBODY is going to burn sawlogs- or any wood with any value at all for any other market. Down in Dixie where woody biomass is a big industry- it’s very, very intensive forestry. They don’t manage the forests to burn them. They’re trying to produce as much value as possible and that means sawlogs and if possible veneer quality timber (worth a lot). So, you grow the forest, then harvest- either by thinning or clearcut. The best trees go to the sawmills or a plywood mill or veneer mill. Some ends up as lower quality rough lumber. Lower quality goes to a pulp mill. Even lower goes into firewood. What’s left you either have to burn on the spot after piling into big piles or file a hole and bury some of it.
It makes infinitely more sense to USE that wood for energy. As to the argument that it releases more carbon than coal- that’s the biggest lie in the universe. It’s based on a false theory called “carbon debt”. That when you cut a tree, it takes several decades for the forest to recover the carbon. Nonsense- because for every tree you cut and burn you have many more trees capturing carbon every year. If you only look at the site of the stump- yes, it’ll take several decades, but you have to open your minds and look at the “landscape scale”. If you have a thousand acre managed forest and cut 50 acres that year- and 20% of the wood goes to a biomass facility- you have 950 acres of forest that didn’t get cut and which captured far more carbon than the carbon burned at the biomass facility- so the forest, as a whole, is NOT reducing carbon on that property- it’s actually INCREASING it.
This myth of the “carbon debt” is based on a paper in “Science” about a dozen years ago- written by a chemist, I think- who knows NOTHING about forests- and who only looks at the site of the stump. It’s extrarodinarily ignorant. But, it got picked up and promoted around the world by a dingbat named Mary Booth and her web site: https://www.pfpi.net/. She travels the world battling woody biomass with a ferocious hatred of forestry. She’s here in Wokeachusetts. We keep asking her who finances her enterprise and she won’t say- but we’ve found out it’s some ultra rich nut job down south who hates seeing trees cut who has given her millions. Also, ironically, we’ve seen photos of a huge firewood pile behind her home- so she screams about stopping “deforestaton” yet she burns wood. It turns out this is common with the forestry haters- comparble to the climatistas who fly private jets.
It’s about time that those oppossed to the climate emergency nonsense wake up to the fact that woody biomass is a great thing. When you want to understand the oil industry- do you listen to an oil producer or listen to ff haters? When it comes to woody biomass, listen to a forester.
That was a hard-earned two “thumbs up” – or whatever the little bubble things stand for. You deserve it. Have a great Thanksgiving.
There is another, more useful option than burning or burying the leftovers, perhaps even for the majority of what is burned for power. It isn’t free but, similar to my earlier questions above about cost of energy, what is the value of the result vs the cost of achieving it?
That waste, adequately chipped or shredded, can be placed on soil, especially agriculture soil but also many other places, varying the depth of coverage reasonably, to great long term benefit. It gets incorporated into the soil by natural processes, insects, bacteria, fungus, small animals, resulting in marked flooding and erosion protection. This takes some time and generally requires regular replenishment to achieve full benefits but those longer term benefits are real.
The protections against flood and erosion can be very valuable in the longer term view. These are significant costs that could be avoided, just as reasonable forest management can avoid large wild fire costs. I don’t know the relative application costs vs damage cost avoided but I suspect they are in favor of taking such action. Considerable agriculture water use can be reduced by such mulching, even before the soil incorporates much of the cover. At least most crops grow very well with several inches or more of constant mulch.
Other ingredients, minerals and nitrogen, may sometimes be necessary for balance, added before or with each waste wood application, but these are generally needed for agricultural land anyway.
“what is the value of the result vs the cost of achieving it?”
Vastly superior forestry. Look at some of my videos I referred to in my other response to you.
“That waste, adequately chipped or shredded, can be placed on soil”
Then who is going to pay for all the work to make that happen? All the big machines and chippers and labor costs are very high. If the chips go to a pellet plant or biomass plant- they pay for it. The soils in most places don’t really need to be enhanced with more organic matter. When the work is properly carried out- there is little to no disturbance of the soil, in so far as protecting the watersheds from flooding. What people fail to realize is that forestry has been studied in America for over a century and in Europe they’ve had forestry for a millenium. Forestry isn’t just about cutting trees- it’s really about growing trees for the future- cutting some now is how we grow others for the future. We study “silvics” which is forest ecology and silviculture, how to grow forests, and we study long term forestry economics, along with many other things. It isn’t just guys with chainsaws. The old days of “cut out and get out” are long gone. It’s forest engineering. It’s the use of natural resources, like fossil fuels. it’s real- not like the wind and solar mythology.
Energy/power generation via biomass is a niche solution. Producing wood pellets is an unnecessary step adding complexity & ineffciency to the process. Biomass production is completely renewable– trees are a crop with a multi-decadal replacement cycle. (Does even the silliest TreeHugger mourn the death of the corn stalk each fall?)..We could turn to coppicing of dedicated tree plantations for fuel production to shorten the cycle….A major drawback of biomass as fuel is the innefficiency of recycling the mineral nutrients drawn from the soil as the plants grow and are carried away at harvest….All engineering solutions involve compromises and trade-offs….
For perpsective, an orders of magnitude estimation shows that US forests, without even considering using the slash, burned in gassfication units to power ICEs, @1 mi/lb (like Paris taxis in WWII) are adequate to supply our automotive needs for a century (!)– without replacement of trees.
“A major drawback of biomass as fuel is the innefficiency of recycling the mineral nutrients drawn from the soil as the plants grow and are carried away at harvest….All engineering solutions involve compromises and trade-offs….”
Maybe. I think the process would result in forest meadows, with trees growing further apart and thus stronger, with fewer forest fires perhaps. These kinds of “engineered forests” apparently not uncommon in Europe are the results of thousands of years of coppicing, brush and deadwood clearance, hog pannaging and browsing of deer on low branches. Forest meadows are the most beautiful parts of forests which allow passage of humans through them, better light to the forest floor, and you walk under a canopy of green. I agree that the trees thus harvested would only be a niche market. But over generations they become better trees – straighter grain, etc. Local.
Japanese tree pruning is the extreme example – but the results are amazing. Around the island, there are clubs of men who voluntarily go into the local forests with basic climbing equipment and saws – and prune the forest trees. I’m not calling it coppicing, because it’s something else. More like bonzai-ing. Not just young guys but older men with time on their hands work a single tree clear to the top pruning away. One video I saw suggests these men stick with it and come back season after season. The forest meadows they create are truly impressive.
The term I was searching for above was “forest parks”.
De gustibus non est disputandum…I agree with you about the aesthetic value of meadows, but then, some of us also find beauty even in the desert. OTOH, natural ecological succession occurs on decadal, century & millennial time scales..Long term research studies from UW show that after the harvest of a woodlot, those plots left to nature replace the trees more quickly, with more diversity and better over-all ecological health than those artificially re-planted with tree seedlings.
Like PV & wind power generation, biomass has its niche on small scale applications. Adaptation to industrial size operations probably have more negtive environemntal impact than positive and is non-sustainable.
From the linked article:
“European governments will ideally focus more on [natural] gas
as a transition fuel and redirect biomass subsidies to real forms
of sustainable energy such as hydrogen …”
Hydrogen? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Another shoot – ready – aim for the green blob. Without subsidies and tax breaks these half ass ideas would never materialize and with subsidies they fail.They will never learn because they are already on to the next hair brained idea before the dust settles on the last one.
Forestry is farming. The biggest difference being that the “crop” takes decades to grow. whether the product is pellets, sawn timber or something else, depends on the market and value of the products in question.
What “critics say” is probably not a useful metric. Some of it is wrong and some of it is contradictory. You cannot simultaneously argue that forestry causes “deforestation” and also that it affects communities by replacing farmland with forest. That’s rubbish.
Nor am I impressed with the CO2 argument, but it should be noted that burning biomass can only release the CO2 that it absorbed within its own lifetime. So burning 30yo plantation timber creates a 30-year cycle, not a nett release of CO2.
The energy equation of harvesting, processing and transporting biomass from Canada to Britain is something I’ll leave to others .
There’s nothing sacred about “sawlogs”.
From the growers and harvesters point of view, the product should go to the market that creates the highest value.
If you believe that there is something wrong with that, either be prepared to pay more for your preferred product, or blame the politicians who subsidise low-value products (like pellets).
As for an industry being unprofitable…. that’s what happens when business has to invest in an industry that is still developing and no-one has a perfect crystal ball with which to predict future markets and regulations. It’s no different from car manufacturers investing huge amounts in R&D and production lines to build electric cars. If Government mandates EVs, then spending the money looks wise and prudent. If they don’t, then the money is lost. That is how Capitalism works.
Business operates in an economic environment shaped by Government.
Business will operate, differently or not, without any government economic shaping. Governments of some sort are necessary to protect people and property from violence but often create more than prevented.
Andy…
Business will not operate – or will operate far less effectively – when Government drives up the costs of doing business.
Energy costs.
Regulatory and compliance costs.
Infrastructure costs.
Employment costs.
Tax costs.
All of those have major effects on profitability and business decisions.
That’s before we start looking at Government decisions to restrict one product and subsidise a competing product.
If you don’t understand this, you have never run a business.
Here are some article I wrote some years ago regarding wood burning being PARTIALLy renewable, or CO2 neutral
CO2 OF BURNING WOOD IS PARTIALLY ABSORBED OVER 40-100 YEARS
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-burning-wood-co-2-neutral
CO2 EMISSIONS FROM LOGGING, CLEARCUTTING AND BURNING
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logging-clear-cutting-and-burbing
Hey Kids, I’ve got a great idea! Instead of burning 300 million year old forests (coal), let’s clear cut and burn today’s (CO2 absorbing) forests and save the planet!
Well, okay, it’s all BS, but just look at those fat gov’t subsides.