Got Pellets?

Got pellets?

     Climate change is an important issue in the world right now. Just about everyone is looking for a solution. Michel Foucault proposed his idea of governmentality as a way to solve political issues. We can apply this theory to environmental issues such as climate change (Edkins & Zehfuss, 2014, p.78). By applying the eco-governmentality perspective to environmental issues, it means that we should try to “look at specific, concrete practices and technologies that already surround us rather than trying to tackle really big questions of principle,” as suggested by Carl Death (Edkins & Zehfuss, 2014, p.79). The idea is to seek out solutions that were already proposed and practiced or “been done” in the world to try to counter climate change. One of the potential answers is to develop new energy sources such as biomass, specifically wood (in the form of pellets) which can reduce our dependency on coal and fossil fuels in order to generate electricity. Unfortunately, the negative impact on the environment of using wood pellets actually outweighs potential benefits. As Hammel (2013) reported in an article in Ecowatch, “the burning of whole trees in power plants actually increases carbon emissions relative to fossil fuels for many decades. It also emits higher levels of multiple air pollutants” (para.2). So in reality, biomass energy sources such as wood pellets are probably not a great alternative energy source to replace coal and oil.
     Despite these facts, due to high demand for biofuels in Europe, EU states are highly interested to import wood pellets from Canada to Europe (Magelli, 2009). Researchers Magelli et al. (2009) have reported that “about 7.2 GJ of energy is consumed for each tonne of wood pellets produced and shipped to Europe, representing about 39% of the total energy content of the wood pellets.” So the cost of production and shipping, including the long-term negative externalities amount for over a third of the long-term energy use. “Among those energies consumed over the life cycle, about 2.6 GJ is associated with long-distance ocean transportation. Ocean transportation is also the major contributor to negative environmental and health impacts, followed by the pellet production processes” (Abstract section). We know now that although wood pellets can be a better alternative energy in moderation compared to coal or other fossil fuels, the production combined with process and transportation of wood pellets actually contributes greater harm to the environment than the domestic fuel sources like oil and coal in the US. It is extremely costly for the EU to buy the US and Canada's wood and transport it, because of the oceanic transport necessary and cutting down these trees, particularly in old growth forests. Therefore, the production of wood pellets has serious detrimental impacts on the overlying ecosystem. Cutting these trees down leads to erosion and landslides, loss of nutrients in the soil and loss of the natural carbon “scrubber” – trees.
     There are other immediate issues to contend with when we talk about wood pellets. Two of the big ones, particularly here in the United States are economic growth, which goes hand-in-hand with jobs and corporate profit. This year Enviva LP, currently one of the largest producers of wood pellets, is on track to expand its operations. This means more jobs, in modern and profitable sectors at a time when the US economy is still struggling to recover from the recession. Currently, according to the company’s own estimates, their mills in Ashokie, North Carolina and Northhampton County, North Carolina (near Gaston) currently employ roughly 200 employees at an average salary of $35,000 annually. Both mills operate year round and around the clock to create over 850,000 metric tons of pellets per year. Most of these pellets are then loaded on trucks and shipped across the pond to Europe via Enviva’s own deep water port terminal on the Chesapeake Bay (Enviva).


     And that is just two mills – from one company – in one part of the US (the southeast). There are several other companies who are part of the wood pellet industry, not just in the US, but in Canada and even in Europe (though few and much smaller in scale). In the United States, corporations such as Riverside Holdings LLC are lining up to provide funding, while others, like Intrinergy, are bragging about partnerships with those in the emerging pellet market. All under the pretext of creating jobs and hefty corporate profits while simultaneously “saving the environment.” Enviva states on its website that its wood pellets are “manufactured from a mix of untreated raw wood, waste wood and residuals” (Enviva). This means they do use whole trees, but they claim those are only young trees from “thinning” of forests or diseased or weak growth trees. There are no current regulations in effect in the United States and no monitoring agency to prevent any pellet mill from using whole or old growth trees. Many companies rely on their supply chain to provide them with “sustainable” raw materials. Can any corporation be trusted to monitor themselves and their own supply chain?
     This issue of whether wood pellets are really a “green” energy is important to question. Recently the world’s communities have been working together to develop new renewable energy alternatives that actually can replace coal and fossil fuels. Presently the idea of biomass sounds like a great alternative, but is it really a smart choice? Yes, when burned, wood pellets produce less carbon into the atmosphere than coal. But, that doesn’t take into account how much carbon dioxide (and other hazardous emissions) are released during the process of making the pellets and then trucking and shipping them abroad. It also does not account for the effects of deforestation. Living trees actually filter carbon dioxide from the air during photosynthesis. So removing trees from the environment means there are less “carbon filters” and therefore more carbon in the atmosphere. Humans have already destroyed nearly 80 percent of the world's forest cover, which is vital to the health of ecosystems. Now we want to burn the rest? It will be a waste of technology, capital and resources for the EU to realize down the road that wood pellets aren't easily renewable and they have no better option than coal or oil again. Ultimately, taking into consideration the entire process of wood pellets, it is better if the use of wood pellets stays domestic and is regulated to prevent deforestation – not to be used as a quick substitution for coal in the EU so they can reduce their own domestic carbon footprint.


Sources:

Edkins, J., & Zehfuss, M. (2014). Global politics: A new introduction. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Enviva LP. www.envivabiomass.com

Hammel, D. (2013, Sept 4). U.S. becomes largest wood pellet exporter, clear-cutting forests and destroying wetlands. Retrieved from http://ecowatch.com/2013/09/04/wood-pellet-exporter-clearcutting-forests-destroying-wetlands/

Leslie, A. (2014, January 1). How the EU’s green energy is hitting US forests. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/how-the-eus-green-energy-drive-is-hitting-us-forests/a-17393422

Magelli, F., Boucher, K., Bi, H. T., Melin, S., & Bonoli, A. (2009). An environmental impact assessment of exported wood pellets from Canada to Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(3), 434-441. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.08.016

Shankleman, J. (2014, March 12). Chris Huhne biomass firm licenses out wood pellet tech. Business Green. Retrieved from http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2333615/chris-huhne-biomass-firm-licences-out-wood-pellet-tech