Pellets to Europe

[Wood-row Wilson]

The following article is written more from an environmental/conservation perspective but thought it was an interesting read for those that are interested. Not a pellet guy so forgive me if this has been discussed, but the exportation of pellets was news to me!

http://climate.audubon.org/article/why-us-forests-are-fueling-europe

 

[TimfromMA]

Its one of the prevailing theories as to why pellets are so expensive and scarce.

 

[JDenyer236]

I like the C02 sequestration time of 30-50 years being unacceptable. Really? Considering that is how long it takes to grow the biomass back then what's the problem. Would they prefer me to fire up my oil boiler?

 

[killie11]

Hate to get political but all these new created issues are results from laws created to protect the environment.

 

[mralias]

I like the C02 sequestration time of 30-50 years being unacceptable. Really? Considering that is how long it takes to grow the biomass back then what's the problem. Would they prefer me to fire up my oil boiler?

I think "they" prefer that we're not around at all. IMO

 

[killie11]

Nothing wrong with trying to protect the environment.
I think birdman's reasoning is wrong. Yes these man made forests are being harvested and then new ones are planted to replace them. More jobs, lower pollution. Okay the birds have to move around a bit but that is still better than acid rain.
His international perspective regarding deforestation is a whole different story. Nothing to do with politics that is just greed. The Indonesian deforestation for palm oil production (which is what we are most aware of as they are our neighbours) is a travesty against humanity. I dont know but I think what is going on in Brasil is just as bad, that is to "grow" Big Macs I think.

What I meant is we ban or tax to heaven certain fuels. Once these fuels have been replaced with clean fuels they complain about the results of their efforts. The palm oil is due to laws passed to replace with other oils and now they run into a different problem. Their efforts to rush and save people from themselves is going to kill the people they are trying to protect.

 

[whit]

Here's an important fact:

The value of the wood shipped to a pellet plant typically represents between 10 percent and 30 percent of the timber tract’s total value. At a harvest site in southeastern Virginia, I watched as a log loader picked up whole felled trees with a giant grappling bucket. For most trees, the lower 30 feet were sawed off and placed into one pile, earmarked for a lumber mill. Treetops up to 40 feet long were sorted for Enviva. It’s a process called “merchandising.” Timber from a single clear-cut might go to a half-dozen different mills and plants, of which a wood pellet plant is only the newest buyer.

So some 80% of the value of the tract is traditional timber. The 20% going to pellets would otherwise be either left on the ground or piled up and burned. Either way, it releases its carbon through rot or buring. By pelletizing it, there's the same carbon release from that scrap, and we're spared the carbon release from what else we would have burned. It makes forestry more profitable, which can be an incentive to maintain forests. It might also make lumber a bit cheaper, by defraying part of the logging costs. So in that sense it could encourage more logging. But is being able to build home affordably bad? If they're McMansions, maybe it is. But in that market the cost of lumber's not the determining constraint.

 

[whit]

A report from a timber industry trade paper, that as of the first half of this year, exports to Europe had plateaued: http://www.fordaq.com/fordaq/news/North_America_wood_pellets_exports_Europe_38966.html

 

[hossthehermit]