|
Summer 2004, Volume 4, No. 4
Table of Content
A PDF
copy of this Newsletter is available here!
|
Director's Notes
This edition of the RTI newsletter focuses on carbon, smoke,
and the work that RTI has done to incorporate consideration
of these environmental impacts into our research and technology
applications. The concern about carbon is that increased carbon
dioxide (C02) in the atmosphere will cause global warming
in the long term. Forests play an important role in the carbon
cycle, as trees actually pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere
through photosynthesis and store it as wood, leaves, etc.
until such time as |
|
Another link between forestry and carbon is
through “bio-energy.” Bio-energy is produced when
wood (usually small diameter material or mill byproducts like
hogfuel) is burned in a wood boiler to generate electricity.
The carbon released by burning wood is that which has been
pulled from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, completing a
sustainable, solar energy driven cycle. In contrast, burning
fossil fuels releases carbon stored in the earth. Using bio-energy
instead of fossil fuels is known as displacement and results
in a reduction of net emissions.
Jim Walls from the Lake County Resources Initiative in Oregon
completes the carbon picture in his article about a proposed
bio-energy plant. This plant would use as fuel the large volumes
of small diameter material that would result from thinning
overstocked forests that are at high risk of a catastrophic
wildfire. Using wood |
the tree burns
or decomposes, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere.
There is increasing recognition of carbon sequestration as
one of the many public benefits that forests provide, and
in some cases these benefits translate into market incentives
known as carbon credits.
The story does not end there, though. Often there is the
misconception that choosing to not harvest forests is the
best way to maximize carbon storage. However, a broader perspective
reveals that forest products also play a role. When timber
is harvested and converted to products, that carbon in the
wood fiber remains stored for the life of the product. Then
if new trees are planted, more carbon is taken out of the
atmosphere. In addition, the use of wood products precludes
the use of fossil-fuel intensive alternatives like steel and
concrete, reducing carbon emissions through an effect known
as substitution. With these concepts in mind, actively managed
forests that utilize growing trees to produce forest products,
that result in substitution for fossil intensive products
can play a huge role in reducing atmospheric carbon. Jeff
Comnick and I cover this “Carbon Life Cycle Analysis”
in more detail in this newsletter. You can also read from
Jeff and Jim McCarter about how this type of analysis has
been integrated with the Landscape Management System (LMS),
allowing carbon to be included with the many non-market forest
values that LMS can assess. |
|
biomass to generate electricity
releases far less carbon to the atmosphere than wood burned
in wildfires. This is a win-win situation in which catastrophic
fires and the associated large releases of carbon are avoided
and a renewable source of energy is utilized that displaces
fossil fuels. If carbon credits are considered, the project
would also produce economic (market) benefits in addition
to these non-market benefits. To make real headway in reducing
carbon emissions, some form of credits seems essential.
Carbon is not the only emission of concern when it comes
to forest fires. Larry Mason reports on the other negative
aspects of forest fire smoke, the health consequences, and
a new computer model being used to predict smoke patterns
from forest fires. Carbon life cycle analysis, bio-energy,
and smoke management are growing areas of research and technology
that will become increasingly important in the years to come.
RTI will continue to study these issues and find useful and
innovative ways to integrate carbon and smoke analysis in
our programs.
Bruce Lippke, Director
Email: rtiu.washington.edu
(206) 616-3218 |
|
|
The
Life Cycle of Wood Plays an Important Role in Reducing Carbon
Emissions
Concerns over global warming are increasing interest in the
emission, sequestration, and storage of carbon. Forests play
an important role in the carbon cycle. Through photosynthesis,
trees utilize carbon dioxide from the air to grow, removing
carbon from the atmosphere and storing it for long periods
of time. Some of that carbon can then be transferred to forest
products through harvest and manufacturing. Wood products
used in housing construction generally last a long time, producing
an increasing pool of stored carbon. In addition, using wood
products precludes the use of alternative materials such as
steel and concrete, the manufacturing of which requires burning
fossil fuels that release carbon from the earth into the atmosphere.
With this in mind, forest management that includes harvesting
timber to create wood products may keep more carbon out of
the atmosphere than no-harvest alternatives. To truly measure
the potential for forests to counter global warming, a life-cycle
analysis is needed that accounts for carbon during all stages
of regeneration, materials processing, construction, and product
or building use.
The carbon life-cycle analysis first accounts for all processes
that increase or decrease the amount of carbon in the forest
or that move carbon from the forest to other stages. Processes
that increase carbon include growth of the stem, roots, and
crown of all tree species. Reforestation and afforestation
are important occasions of new growth. Processes that release
carbon to the atmosphere include the decomposition of snags,
logs, roots, and litter, as well as combustion during fire
events. Carbon changes in the soil and understory vegetation
may also be significant in some circumstances. Mortality shifts
carbon from living trees to snags or logs. Similarly, silvicultural
operations can shift carbon from living trees to snags, logs,
or products. Carbon must be tracked as it enters or leaves
each one of these categories, which are called Carbon Pools.
When wood products are removed from the forest, the carbon
stored in the wood will continue to be stored in lumber and
mill byproducts. Carbon stored in products is only released
as the products decompose, which depends on the life cycle
of the |
|
product. Lumber used in construction
can store carbon for a 100 years or longer. Wood byproducts
such as hog fuel or other low-valued residuals can be burned
in a wood boiler to generate bio-energy. This precludes the
use of an equivalent amount of fossil-energy (e.g. diesel, coal,
or natural gas), reducing net carbon emissions. The replacement
of fossil-energy with bio-energy is termed ‘displacement,’
which is a key carbon pool. Similarly, if lumber is used
as a construction material, steel and concrete are not used,
and therefore do not need to be manufactured. This permanently
avoids the carbon emissions from the fossil fuels used to
manufacture each material, which can be a significant amount
of carbon. This is another important carbon pool known as
‘substitution.’
When forest management alternatives are investigated using
this carbon life-cycle analysis, the significance of the product,
displacement, and substitution pools becomes apparent. The
product and substitution pools from a management alternative
that includes harvest, may store more carbon than an alternative
without harvest. In ecosystems where disturbances can be expected,
such as forests with high fire risk, products will likely
store carbon for a longer period than the forest would. Finally,
because of the permanent benefits of avoiding the carbon emissions
from fossil fuel use, substitution and displacement are very
important, especially in the long-term.
It is important to consider a complete carbon life-cycle
when evaluating different management and policy alternatives.
RTI has incorporated life cycle research on wood products
into the Landscape Management System to provide a complete
accounting of carbon pools from forest regeneration through
processing, construction, and ultimate demolition. The Consortium
for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) has
recently published a life cycle study on wood products in
the June 2004 Forest Products Journal. Copies are available
for download at www.CORRIM.org.
- Bruce Lippke & Jeff Comnick,
RTI - |
Tracking
Carbon Pools in LMS with Different Management Strategies
RTI has implemented a carbon life-cycle analysis model in
the Landscape Management System (LMS). Based on studies of
the amount of biomass in a tree, the amount of lumber and
by-products produced at mills, and energy requirements to
manufacture steel and concrete construction materials, the
model determines carbon storage under a range of management
options for a single stand or portfolio of stands. The model
predicts metric tons of carbon in the forest for stems, roots,
crowns, litter, and dead material (snags and logs). Users
can choose from several equations for each tree component
and adjust species-specific coefficients for each equation
if local information is available.
The model predicts product carbon for lumber, chips, and
hogfuel. Users can also specify whether chips or hogfuel should
be burned in a wood boiler to generate bio-energy. If so,
carbon is immediately removed from the byproducts carbon pool
but the carbon credit from displacement increases. Although
the displacement increase does not represent a large amount
of carbon, it is permanent and becomes more significant over
several timber rotations. Lumber production shifts carbon
from the forest to products but also determines the amount
of carbon credit from substitution for fossil-fuel intensive
products such as steel and concrete . Users can select whether
steel or concrete is used as the alternative building material
to calculate the amount of carbon emissions avoided by using
wood.
Selecting the carbon table from LMS will generate the results
in the Carbon Life Cycle Analysis Excel template. This template
allows the user to view the raw results (Figure 1), or tabular
results summarized by category for the landscape, or graphical
results for an individual carbon category or combined over
all categories. |
|
Figure 1: The Carbon Life-Cycle
Analysis Template automatically creates graphs like this
showing the amount of carbon over time in each category. |
Implementing the carbon life-cycle analysis model in LMS
has two important advantages. First, analyzing the amount
of carbon stored in the forest, products, or offset by substitution
for a single stand or an entire landscape is as simple as
selecting a table from LMS. This allows for quick comparisons
of carbon storage outcomes from simulations of management
alternatives. Because charts are automatically generated in
the spreadsheet, results are easy to communicate.
The second advantage is that carbon can now be analyzed with
the same growth model and treatment assumptions used to generate
all other market and non-market values available from LMS.
This promotes an unbiased and more inclusive analysis that
allows trade-offs between objectives and management alternatives
to be determined. Understanding the consequences of a management
alternative on carbon, as well as economics, wildlife habitat,
and other values, will only increase in importance. RTI and
other LMS users now have the capabilities to analyze another
important value provided by forests.
- Jeff Comnick and Jim McCarter, RTI
Staff - |
Carbon
Credits – The Lakeview Experience
Lake County is located in South Central Oregon near the California
and Nevada borders. Lake County forests naturally burned at
low intensity on a 15-25 year interval and were dominated
by large, widely-spaced Ponderosa Pine. In 2002 a study completed
by the Rural Technology Initiative showed that 77 % of the
Fremont National Forest is in high to medium fire hazard condition
and that when a fire does occur it is likely to be catastrophic
in nature. Our recent fire history shows this to be true on
a 2-3 year interval we are experiencing 200,000 acres of catastrophic
fires.
These conditions were brought on by forest management policies
that focused on aggressive fire suppression and logging of
large old-growth trees. Consequently, forest composition and
natural fire disturbance regimes have been dramatically altered.
Combined with a decade of drought conditions, this has resulted
in increased insect infestations and high fuel loads. The
2002 study showed that restoring the Fremont National Forest
to natural stand conditions and fire regimes would require
an extensive thinning and under-burning program that would
yield tremendous volumes of small diameter material. The only
economically proven technology that could consume this large
volume would be a biomass plant.
In December 2003 Lake County Resources contracted with CH2M
Hill to develop a business plan and preliminary engineering
for a biomass plant. Going into the project we knew that most
biomass plants are uneconomical under today’s electrical
prices. We decided to look at what influence carbon credits,
energy credits and Forest Service Stewardship contracts would
have on the economics of a biomass plant. In the State of
Oregon any new fossil fuel power plant being built must mitigate
for the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In neighboring Klamath
County, a 600 megawatt (MW) natural gas plant is being proposed,
and the reported CO2 mitigation expense is going to be approximately
$12-14 million. The 2002 study by the University of Washington
showed that by thinning to restore natural stand conditions
versus a wildfire would save 41 metric tons/acre of carbon
from going into the atmosphere over a 30-year period.
In Oregon, between 1992 and 2001 (the last year data is available),
CO2 emissions from uncontrolled forest wildfires ranged from
a low of 0.5 million metric tons/year in 1993 and 1997 to
a high of 22.3 million metric tons in 1996 (Figure 1). It
is our goal to obtain recognition of carbon credits for reducing
conditions that lead to catastrophic fire events. In the case
of the Fremont National Forest, that would be a |
|
savings of 41 metric tons of carbon/acre
or in CO2 equivalents, 145 metric tons of carbon dioxide per
acre. This estimate includes carbon storage in the forest,
displacement value of using biomass over natural gas, and
product substitution.
Our biomass business plan showed that at current electrical
prices, a 15 MW plant would be $11 million in the red at the
end of 20 years. Much of the cost is in the fuel, which for
a 15 MW plant that is approximately $3 million/year for biomass
from forest thinnings. Assuming that a catastrophic fire event
kills approximately 50% of the trees, if we could get $3/metric
ton of CO2 as a credit, this would amount to a $218/acre to
assist in reducing fuel costs to the plant (.50 x 145 metric
tons/acre x $3/ton).
Figure 1: CO2 emissions
from forest burning in Oregon (Source: Oregon Department
of Forestry). |
The carbon credits, combined with the provisions outlined
under the Stewardship Contracts allowed under the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act, now make a biomass plant economical.
Depending on assumptions, a 7-20% return on investment could
be anticipated.
The Landscape Management System (LMS) can perform all of
these calculations and provides a monitoring system for verification
of credits. We have buyers interested in these credits, if
we can get the EPA to review and accept the science behind
LMS. The science community also needs to accept the total
forest/product carbon cycle outlined in the CORRIM report
(http://www.corrim.org
and associated articles in this newsletter).
Reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, producing renewable
energy and making our forests healthy again seems like a winner
to us. We will keep you informed as this project progresses.
- James K. Walls,
Lake County Resources Initiative - |
Where
There’s Fire There’s Smoke
In 1997, a widespread series of uncontrolled fires in Indonesia
burned close to 40 million acres of drought-stressed tropical
forest. By comparison, in 2002 (a record year for forest fires
in the United States) approximately 7 million acres were burned.
A blanket of thick, smoky haze spread over a large portion of
Southeast Asia. Pollution levels reached all-time highs, closing
schools and airports and causing tens of thousands of people
to seek treatment for respiratory illness. Dramatic short-term
health problems, including fatalities, were experienced by at-risk
groups such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics. The potential
long-term health problems caused by exposure to smoke pollution
may not be known for years. 70 million people were affected.
Following such large, well-publicized wildfire events, the general
public as well as the scientific community are becoming more
aware that emissions from forest fires represent a serious and
enduring environmental impact.
Smoke is made up of tiny particles, gases, and water vapor.
Water vapor makes up the majority of smoke, but the remainder
includes carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide,
formaldehyde, benzene, and other irritant compounds, toxics,
and small particles. Known health effects from smoke exposure
can range from burning eyes, runny nose, and bronchitis to
congestive heart failure and emphysema. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). It is not uncommon
for western communities located within the “wildland
urban interface” to experience extended periods of time
where smoke from forest fires causes air quality to exceed
EPA NAAQS and pose health hazards.
|
|
While the greatest public health concerns have centered around
the fine particulate matter (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_index.html)
present in smoke, additional environmental negatives associated
with smoke include release of carbon into the atmosphere adding
to long-term concerns about global warming.
Unfortunately the many health impacts associated with forest
fire smoke are not generally considered as a public cost (liability)
caused by a failure to treat forests to reduce fuel loads
and consequently, wildfire incidence and severity. If these
negative impacts (public costs) were fully reflected in the
market, there could be high motivation to avoid them by making
investments to remove excessive fuel loads similar to investments
that are made to reduce other forms of air pollution such
as industrial smoke emissions.
- Larry Mason, RTI Staff -
|
-
Technology Update -
New smoke model is being used to warn communities
of potential health impacts from large wildfires
Smoke from wildfires affects air quality. A collection of
government and university scientists brought together as the
Fire Consortium for the Advanced Modeling of Meteorology and
Smoke (FCAMMS) have been working to develop predictive capabilities
for anticipating the cumulative impacts of smoke from forest,
agricultural, and range fires. The result is a new modeling
framework called BlueSky, http://www.fs.fed.us/bluesky/. On
a nightly basis, BlueSky obtains a regional meteorological
forecast and burn information from state and federal agency
burn reporting systems. The merging of these data with models
of fuel consumption and emission, and dispersion and trajectory
models results in a regional |
|
forecast of smoke concentrations
for the next two days. This modeling capability gives fire
managers a much improved ability to estimate how much smoke
will be produced, to track the actual smoke produced, and
to forecast smoke movement for the next several days. BlueSky
has been used to help determine firefighting strategies for
large wildfires and to warn nearby communities of potential
health impacts. Developing modeling technologies like BlueSky,
are also helping scientists to better understand and to predict
the magnitude of the social, the environmental, and the economic
costs associated with wildfire events.
Website offers up-to-date fire information
The National Interagency Fire Center maintains a very informative
web site, that reports current wildfire activity across the
nation. The website can be found at http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfn.html. |
-
LMS Update -
Inventory Wizard 2.1 – Released July,
2004
Economatic 1.1 with Scenario Analyzer – Released August,
2004
Economatic 1.2 – Available September, 2004
Sort Table Wizard 1.0 – Available September, 2004
LMS 3.0 – Available Fall, 2004
Free downloads available from
http://lms.cfr.washington.edu/lmsdownload.php
(CD-ROMs are also available free of charge upon
request). |
|
|
|
Save the Date |
|
Saturday September 18, 2004
Family Forest Field Day
Francis, WA Contact Steve Gibbs at steve.gibbswadnr.gov
Sunday, September 19 - Tuesday, September 21,
2004
GIS Training Workshop
Pack Forest, Eatonville, WA
Contact Clara Burnett at (206) 543-8684 or
clara75cfr.washington.edu
*New Date: Saturday November 13, 2004
Fall Education Seminar: Technology in the Woods
Pack Forest, Eatonville, WA
Contact Don Hanley at (206) 685-4960 or
dhanleyu.washington.edu |
|
Wednesday, December 8 - Friday,
December 10, 2004
LMS Training Workshop
Skagit Valley College, Mt. Vernon, WA
Contact Clara Burnett at (206) 543-8684 or
clara75cfr.washington.edu
Thursday January 13, 2005
Introduction to LMS (1-day workshop)
Space is very limited - Contact Don Hanley at (206) 685-4960
or dhanleyu.washington.edu
|
Readers may send comments to:
Bruce Lippke, Director RTI
CFR, University of Washington
Box 352100
Seattle, WA 98195-2100
Phone: 206-616-3218
email: RTIu.washington.edu
Janean Creighton, Editor RTI News
Department of Natural Resource Sciences
Washington State University
PO Box 646410
Pullman, WA 99164-6410
Phone: 509-335-2877
email: creightonwsu.edu
|
|
|