In the past several months, there has been a lot of discussion and attention regarding the use of woody biomass for energy (heat or electricity) and its affect on greenhouse gases. Advocates say that wood for energy is “carbon neutral” and therefore, good for mitigating climate change, while others believe that there is a negative impact.
Well, according to a recent study by Manomet and its partners, both sides are right and wrong.
The answer is more complex. More specifically, it depends on the life-cycle of the biomass being used, the biomass energy technology and the fossil fuel technology it replaces, and the way landowners choose to manage their forests.
The study shows that using wood for energy can result in an initial “carbon debt” because burning wood releases more CO2 into the atmosphere per unit of energy than fossil fuels (oil, coal, or natural gas). But, unlike fossil fuels, forests can grow back and recapture (or sequester) CO2 from the atmosphere. Over time, through accelerated forest growth, the carbon debt can be “paid off.” After the carbon debt is paid off, if the forest continues to grow, a “carbon dividend” is realized and the use of wood for energy then becomes increasingly beneficial for greenhouse gas mitigation.
Here is how the authors depict the concept of “carbon debt-then-carbon dividend“.
The executive summary and full report can be downloaded from the Manomet website.
Incoming search terms:
- carbon debt manomet (3)
- woody biomass | clean green heat carbon dividend biomass manomet (2)
- manomet biomass executive (1)
- manomet executive summary woody biomass (1)
- wood biomass manomet (1)
