Biomass Direct Storage is an Appropriate Use of “Negative Value” Forest Residue

I used to receive CD’s in the mail from America On Line (AOL) offering a few hours of free Internet access.  I always saved the CD’s in anticipation of the day I could save a few dollars on Internet access, perhaps for use on a business trip or when away from home.  Turns out I never did use them, and the CDs piled up in drawers for years.  Somehow AOL was able to create a perception of value for those CDs, even when no value existed, at least not to me.

Something similar currently exists with Forest Residue, which to me (and for the purposes of this article) is the woody part of a tree that, for one reason or other, needs to be removed from a silvicultured or natural forest, but for which there is no merchantable use.  The reason for removal might range from a) thinning to allow other trees to grow stronger and straighter, b) removing already-dead standing or prone trees that cause “fuels” buildup, c) removing wood from burn scars that are a fire hazard, and hinder new forests from growing in their place, d) removing invasive species to give native species a chance to thrive, and finally e) removing wood to create fire breaks or otherwise reduce the risk of the mega wildfires that could damage human infrastructure.

There is a perception of financial value for this removed material when there often is not. And ‘da haterz are quick to say how the material should be used, for everything from housing, to cabinetry, to advanced forest products.  But often, facts are that no one is lining up to pay for the material, much less take it out of harm’s way in fireprone or overgrown forests.  The “market” is telling us this material has zero value, and even “negative value” as is, because it is such a risk to leave it lying on the forest floor.  Foresters are left with no other choice but to burn the material in place on cold and wet days, hoping their effort to destroy this liability biomass does not burn the whole forest down.

The Forest Products community are particularly vocal about what is, and what is not, an appropriate use of Forest Residue.  Often the arguments focus on the long-term physical presence and visibility of the woody material.  They emphasize that research into new wood products, and new applications for those products, are the best path toward the creation of demand for Forest Residue.  An impressive example is a new generation of “Structural Wood Products” that are absorbing use cases for some kinds of structural steel.  There are indeed numerous other positive examples.

But this progress in Forest Products is the proverbial drop in the bucket towards absorbing the supply of available Forest Residue, especially that which grows a long distance from any factory that produces structural flakeboards or composite lumber.  No fundamental research, applications testing, or factory buildout will absorb supply for the Forest Residue produced naturally in many forest, any time in the coming decades.  Furthermore, there is only so much lumber, wood chips, pulp and paper, saw dust, wooden pallets, and wood scrap demanded in the market.  We need way more uses of Forest Residue to motivate widespread, effective forest management.

ENTER environmentally “beneficial” uses of wood, which I break into four categories, that have achieved various levels of social acceptance.  Purposefully burning wood to create heat seems to be socially acceptable, and has been since the dawn of civilization.  The “environmentally  beneficial” argument is that burning wood (instead of coal or oil) draws from the short carbon cycle (trees and wood) instead of the long carbon cycle (fossil fuels), so proponents think of it as “carbon neutral.”  (We’ll leave aside the deleterious effects of emitting PM 2.5 for the moment).

A second environmentally “beneficial” use is to burn wood to create electricity, which also draws carbon from the “short” carbon cycle, potentially replacing fossil fuels that would draw carbon from the long cycle into the short cycle.  This process happens in “bioenergy” plants, and sometimes there is the added benefit of capturing a portion of the greenhouse gases in smoke stacks and storing it deep below the earth “forever”, making such endeavors marginally “carbon negative.”  Bioenergy seems to be socially accepted, though the path towards regulatory approvals and steep capital costs limit deployment.

A third environmentally “beneficial” use is to create useful materials from burning wood, like charcoal or biochar.  Biochar is coming into its own as a useful soil amendment and filtration material.  The process can sometimes also generate useful heat and electrons, but at the cost of significant emissions in the production process.  The source wood is apparent in the biochar, which might make it seem more palatable to Forest Residue advocates.  

The last environmentally “beneficial” use is the one that I (and my company Woodcache Corp) practice, called Biomass Direct Storage (BDS).  In BDS we bury Forest Residue in carefully engineered vaults with the intention of stopping the decomposition process, thereby keeping the carbon in the wood instead of allowing it to escape into the air in the form of greenhouse gas.  It is perhaps two or three times more effective as a Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) method than the others listed, but the co-benefits of “useful material,” “heat,” and “electrons” are not available.  The literal usage of the wood as a durable packaging material for carbon atoms is not “visible,” because the wood is buried underground.  The benefit is also not “apparent” to those who doubt the importance of reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the air.  

I suspect “Da haterz” have varying opinions on which of these are acceptable uses.  I’m guessing that any process that involves controlled “burning,” including “heat,” “electricity,” and “biochar” are deemed acceptable because of strong historical precedent.  Appreciation for the highly visible co-benefits also helps.  By contrast,  Biomass Direct Storage (BDS) does not include burning, and its effects are not immediately visible.    

My challenge and admonition to ‘Da haterz’ is to revisit your opinion about Biomass Direct Storage (BDS), and reconsider whether it is an appropriate use of “negative value” Forest Residue.  Your re-evaluation should be based on at least the following two considerations:

First, is it better to transport and bury “negative value” Forest Residue than to leave it in forests to burn accidentally in a wildfire, or purposefully?  LEAVING IT IN PLACE TO BURN IS THE MOST COMMON CURRENT PRACTICE, emitting megatons of greenhouse gases and particulate matter each year.   Is that what you want?

Second, is delivering highly efficient Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) an appropriate use of “negative value” Forest Residue?  The answer to this is likely driven by whether you believe excessive greenhouse gases in the air is a problem.  If you believe there is a problem, BDS is among the best solutions.  Think of the wood as a durable, scalable, measurable, specialized packaging material for carbon atoms that would otherwise become greenhouse gas.

Talk it over amongst yourselves.  This question is not going away.