You may be aware that we mine for coal in British Columbia. Thanks to hydroelectric power, we have some of the cleanest electricity anywhere on the planet. We donsa国际传媒檛 burn coal for electricity ourselves. Instead we enable other peoplesa国际传媒檚 coal habit.
BC is doing something very similar with wood pellets. British Columbia exports wood pellets to Europe and Japan. An accounting loophole in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol means that carbon emissions from wood burning of any kind fall under sa国际传媒渓and usesa国际传媒�, not sa国际传媒渆nergysa国际传媒�. This means that Germany or Japan doesnsa国际传媒檛 have to include the smoke rising from pellet stoves or electricity plants in their greenhouse gas emissions reports if the wood is imported. British Columbia includes carbon-storage lost from cutting down trees, but not the carbon emitted from burning. As a result each year world-wide there is more and more carbon in the atmosphere from burning wood.
This isnsa国际传媒檛 the only confusion over wood fuel
Subsidies because pellets are part of the sa国际传媒渘atural carbon cyclesa国际传媒�: To make matters worse BC is providing 27 million dollars in subsidies to sa国际传媒渋ncrease the use of wood fibresa国际传媒� (see keep jobs running in North Okanagan).
Europe is providing subsidies to turn coal fired electricity into wood-fired electricity. Why? The argument is that the wood carbon cycle is natural. Trees gather carbon, grow tall, then die and release carbon. We harvest the trees, burn them, releasing the carbon, and as long as we plant new trees, everything is in balance. There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, many carbon models confirm that the numbers do balance, but only when the new trees are about a hundred years old. Thatsa国际传媒檚 way too late for the planet. Second, many organizations feel that BC is not accurately monitoring forest use or isnsa国际传媒檛 planting and maintaining enough trees to make up for the amount of logging we do.
READ MORE:
Mature trees are sneaking into pellet food: The idea behind pellet use is that you are creating a product from what would otherwise be particle board or waste. In practice however, trees that are currently pulling carbon from the atmosphere can be classified as sa国际传媒渓ow gradesa国际传媒� or sa国际传媒渋nferiorsa国际传媒� or sa国际传媒渧erified wood wastesa国际传媒� and harvested to create wood pellets, going far beyond sa国际传媒渞esiduesa国际传媒� wood.
READ MORE:
Intensive harvests disturb soil carbon: Our Okanagan example, the Pinnacle Renewable Energy/Tolko project harvesting in the Monashee Mountains is an interesting case. The project is recovering 38,000 cubic meters from already logged terrain. Even after logging removes the living trees, there is carbon stored in the forest floor, top soil, mid soil and deep soil. Theresa国际传媒檚 growing evidence that sa国际传媒渋ntensive harvestssa国际传媒� (defined as sa国际传媒渢he collection of tree stems and logging residuessa国际传媒�) decrease the ability of the soil to hold on to carbon especially at the forest floor and deep soil level (Achat et al 2015, Hamburg et al 2019, Meyer et al 2020).
Wood is not a very dense form of fuel. You have to burn a lot to create a single kilowatt hour of electricity. This alone makes wood a bad choice for creating energy. Burning wood releases more carbon than burning coal by about 13 percent. Yes, forestry is a big part of BCsa国际传媒檚 economy, but subsidies for creating wood pellets are accelerating our carbon emission sa国际传媒� the exact opposite of what was intended.
Missed last weeksa国际传媒檚 column?
Kristy Dyer has a background in art and physics and consulted for Silicon Valley clean energy firms before moving (happily!) to sunny Penticton. Comments to Kristy.Dyer+BP@gmail.com
Kristysa国际传媒檚 articles are archived at
Like us on and follow us on .
