Letter from the Editor - May 2009

By introducing a wood bioenergy newsletter at this juncture, it may seem like we're jumping on the bandwagon. But it really goes much deeper than that.

Forest2Market researchers and analysts have been tracking the emerging bioenergy industry for more than two years. We've been to numerous meetings and conferences in both the traditional forestry industries and in the bioenergy industry. We've talked to dozens of experts, from biomass suppliers to energy project developers and analysts. In these conversations, we've been struck by how many misconceptions about biomass availability and price exist.

Two words we heard over and over to describe biomass supply were "abundant" and "free." Obviously, these descriptors didn't seem right to us. What we identified in these conversations was a gap between what we heard and what we knew to be true.

Let's just look at an example. Some of the presentations we heard based their estimates of biomass availability in a supply shed on annual growth rate for forests in the area. Using these numbers, which are available through the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program at the U.S. Forest Service, makes sense if you want to know how much could theoretically be removed from the forest. But they do not represent what is practical and possible.

Because biomass is a by-product of harvest operations, any analysis of availability in a supply shed should start with the number of acres harvested in the area per year. Based on the breadth of the data we collect about harvests in the South, for instance, we know that only 2 or 3 percent of forests are harvested every year. (This number will vary from state to state.)

Other plans assume that 100 percent of the biomass left after harvest is collectible — that every limb, chunk of bark and needle will be swept up from the forest floor and delivered to the bioenergy facility.

What we know, however, is that if harvests follow best management practices, enough biomass should be left in the forest to prevent erosion, maintain soil quality and retain wildlife habitats.

We also know that the amount of available biomass is limited by the ability to physically remove it from the forest. Logging companies have been struggling as a result of the depressed housing market. Many have gone out of business. Are there logging crews in the area equipped to remove and deliver the biomass? Clearly, in this economy, not many are investing in the equipment that would make biomass removal financially feasible.

This is just one example of the large gap that exists between the optimistic views of what may be possible and what we know is feasible when it comes to biomass supply. There are many more.

Our decision to start this newsletter arose out of our wish to further explore the gaps and to inject some realism into the conversation that is rife with what we know — based on our data and experience — are false assumptions.

We think the bioenergy industry has a lot to learn about the wood supply chain before it can be successful, and we think that the forestry industry has a lot to learn about the energy industry in order to take advantage of emerging opportunities.

I said at the beginning that it might seem like we're jumping on the bioenergy bandwagon. We're interested not so much in jumping on the bandwagon, but on making sure the bandwagon traverses the gaps successfully. We want to foster the dialogue necessary to keep the bandwagon on the right track.

Thanks for reading. And don't miss our next issue, out in August.

Suz-Anne Kinney

To register and read more about the Forest2Fuel e-Newsletter, click here.