"Waste" wood for energyby Gary Schneider

The recent talk of using "waste" wood to generate energy makes me feel as though I'm trapped in a time warp. For those too young to remember, or who have moved here too recently, this is not a new concept. The previous attempt in the mid-1980's was a disaster for Island forests and the concern is that we have learned nothing from history.

Dr. Stephen Manley, a former Director of Forestry Operations with the provincial government, had an idea in the late-1970's that we should create a market for low-value wood coming out of thinnings, small patch cuts and strip cuts that were specifically carried out to help restore healthy Island forests. Dr. Manley, with his love of Acadian forests, felt that creating this market would encourage Island woodland owners to take a more active role in restoration.

As is the case today, many woodlot owners were finding it difficult to improve low-value stands because there was either no market for products such as pin cherry, poplar or low-grade pulp, or they didn't create enough product to make up a full truckload.

Dr. Manley said that burning wood was intended to be a clean way to generate electricity. "It would be a lot cleaner than coal," he said at a public meeting in Montague in 1989, "and a lot less destructive than some hydroelectric power."

"The idea was that this would be a good place to look at sound, conservative manipulation of woodlands, removing only stems that should be removed, trying to coordinate the removal with some reconstruction if necessary so that we could get some sensitive species. No matter how you cut the cake, if you want to make a clearcut, you won't get sugar maples to grow back there." Unfortunately, Dr. Manley's dream turned into a nightmare. "That nice idea got bastardized over here and I don't know who's responsible but it wasn't me," Dr. Manley said. "I don't even recognize it anymore."

Years after the provincial government sent Dr. Manley packing, during the energy crisis in the mid-1980's, PEI and the federal government decided to heavily invest in burning wood chips. Instead of encouraging those who were carrying out restoration and trying to create future healthy forests, the money was invested in huge equipment that could chip whole forests. This monster chipper, hugely expensive even with 50% subsidies from taxpayers, simply couldn't afford to go into low-volume, low value stands as was originally intended, and wound up chipping large areas of young forests that were very much alive.

"They bring in this chipper that nobody could ever afford, and the only way you can get it to one place and make any money is to eliminate the woodlot and then rave about the fact that you got 140 tons off the whole thing" said Dr. Manley. "Now that is not sensible development and that is not the way the idea was conceived."

Today we have a new idea of a company using "waste" wood to generate energy in Borden. Great idea, especially if it is coupled with sound ecological forestry principles and rules/guidelines governing what can be used. In this way, it would help to encourage healthy forests. But it is a disaster waiting to happen if it means more wood gets harvested and if there are no controls on where it comes from. When taxpayers subsidized the Irving and McCain processing plants and the acreage spiked to meet the almost endless demands for potatoes, it led to erosion, siltation and health problems that plague us to this day. Creating a new wood-burning plant with an endless appetite could lead us into further ecological degradation.

Science has proven that there is no "waste" wood in a forest. Any wood that dies and falls down will benefit the future forest, providing nutrients, organic matter, soaking up rain, and providing a nursery bed for seeds. The traditional idea of "cleaning up" your woods often results in a less healthy forest. What you can safely do in most forests is harvest the excess that is produced each year. The rule in ecological forestry is that you are allowed to harvest less wood than a forest produces annually. Generally, that means from an acre of woodland you could sustainably harvest about 1/2 cord per year. Simply put, you could harvest 5 cords annually from ten acres of forest. You can extend that rule to 10 cords every two years, or perhaps even 25 cords every five years. What you can't do is extend that biologically-sound ratio if it destroys the forest. So, for example, you can't take 100 cords every 20 years or 200 cords every 40 years. That's just way too much, you wouldn't have much of a forest left.

Dr. Manley's original idea - burning wood purchased from woodlot owners who are clearly making improvements to their forests - is still valid, especially when supplemented with true "waste" wood from sawmills, construction sites and bark from pulp mills.

Even with this sound approach to supply, the facility should be a cogeneration plant, creating electricity and capturing the heat to further displace oil. That's why these plants are generally sited near large users such as cities, where the heat can be efficiently moved to heat a hospital, a processing plant or an apartment building.

It makes no sense to displace oil with wood if it leaves us with further impoverished forests. We're smarter than that. What does make sense is a conservation program that encourages us to use less electricity, supply sources that actually help improve the environment, and management and delivery systems that maximize inputs. Rather than stealing from our grandchildren's future, we could be leaving them a legacy.

Note by Chris:

I did a little researching on this topic it looks like the provincial governemnt has had a change of heart. I came across a 2003 PEI Governemnt Renewable Energy Policy paper (Requires Adobe Reader) that looks at the various options for potential energy on PEI. Here is what the policy paper said concerning generating energy from biomass, ie wood.

Wood biomass does not appear to hold as much potential as wind for electricity generation. Often the value of the wood as an energy source is less than the value of the same wood as a manufactured product. Moreover, the wood must be cut, chipped, loaded, trucked and stored at the combustion site which adds significantly to its cost as a fuel.

And, according to it's own strategies, the policy paper states:

5. Although biomass will continue to be used in home heating, because electricity generated from biomass is not expected to be competitively priced with wind, the PEI Energy Corporation will not develop projects for production of electricity from biomass.

Web development and maintenance by Chris Martin.