Burn pellets - a "green" alternative(?)

[twar]

Pellet ovens are popular in Europe, especially where firewood access and/or storage is a challenge. And pellet ovens are easier to install than, for example, a wood stove with a proper pipe/chimney. And in some places, close to timber/lumber/pulp operations where there are mountains of forest waste, I can see how pellet production and use may make sense.

But in the New York Times today, they write about production timber being harvested in one country/place, ground to sawdust in another country/place, pressed in to pellets (maybe yet another place) and then transported to stores (in other countries) and sold as a green alternative. Scientists/economists say that in may cases coal would be a better alternative--environmentally! And the whole mess is subsidized by the government(s).

There. I got that off my chest, but I don't really feel any better.  :embarassed:

[Southside]

It's been discussed here many times but without subsidies stand alone, dedicated pellet facilities don't make it. The economics just don't work. 

There is also the irony that almost every single pellet stove needs electricity to operate, so just how green are they really? 

[Joe Hillmann]

There are many things that are touted as green that are really questionable. 

However the one truly green  thing that no one wants to push is, simply getting by with less: buy less, spend less, have less, travel less.  The problem is our entire economy is based on spend, spend, spend.  And when you don't have enough, borrow and spend some more.  And having more makes you higher status.

[Gary_C]

It's been discussed here many times but without subsidies stand alone, dedicated pellet facilities don't make it. The economics just don't work.

Three loggers near Hayward, WI went together in 2005 to create this pellet plant and now make Lumber Jack grilling pellets which are top rated for grilling. The reason they got together was the amount of wood fibre wasted on their logging jobs.
Lumber Jack Grilling Pellets

They are now part of a larger company that has pellet plants all across the country. 
Lignetics

[twar]

The reason they got together was the amount of wood fibre wasted on their logging jobs.

Don't get me wrong; I really like the idea of using local recovered forest waste to make pellets, but grinding saw timber to sawdust to press pellets, transported and transported again to sell as a clean green solution crosses a line for me.

[Gary_C]

Don't get me wrong; I really like the idea of using local recovered forest waste to make pellets, but grinding saw timber to sawdust to press pellets, transported and transported again to sell as a clean green solution crosses a line for me.

So you are opposed to any form of transportation for energy? No transmission lines, trucks, trains nor ships?

Those guys in Hayward process round wood locally sourced and ship to retailers. Where does that cross the line?

[rusticretreater]

The point being made is there is a break-even line where the fuel, packaging and handling makes using wood pellets neutral in "green" terms.  Gary_C senses that this line has been crossed and he is correct.

Whether trees naturally decompose or burn, carbon dioxide is emitted back into the atmosphere, replacing what was just taken out. As long as global tree biomass production is at least as fast as wood is burned and it decomposes, the carbon cycle remains in balance. Carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels is not neutral and upsets the balance of the cycle used by biomass.  So unless folks are planting trees to compensate for every use of fossil fuels, nothing is "green".

But until green power electricity is efficient and affordable enough to kill the pellet industry, consumers will opt for the lower cost alternative or perceived bill of goods they have been sold which is being "green".  

[Don P]

We were talking about biochar production the other day and I asked if it could run carbon negative. After reading the knee jerk, "of course not" comments I thought about it. 

Burning wood is carbon negative.

Why? The tree absorbed CO2 and created wood. 
You burn the wood but probably not all of it. The carbon rich residue gets returned to the soil, what you burned released the rest as CO2, CO, CH4 but the point is, some fraction gets buried and thus removed from the air. We can choose what fraction of the carbon to sequester by stopping the burn of the charcoal anywhere in the process and sequestering it.

If you burn current sunlight and sequester some of the carbon, CO2 levels in the air go down. 
If you dig up and burn ancient sunlight, CO2 levels in the air go up.
There is no better solar collector than a plant.

Pellets, trying hard to come back around, burn pretty completely but very clean. When we were outside of Rapid City there were frequent no burn days in the winter for smog inversions. Pellet stoves were exempt.

Where did all that coal come from? CO2 levels were far higher than today, plant life was lush and exploding (and pumping out O2). Decay fungi hadn't been invented yet, a planet burying itself in fallen plants and timber that didn't rot. 

[Hilltop366]

I burn wood pellets in a Harman pellet boiler for a 12 unit apartment building because of the cost savings.

It depends on the price of pellets and oil, last heating season I used around 27000 lbs and it was like using $ 0.80 to $0.85 per litre heating oil. Heating oil was twice that last season. The season before I did not use pellets because heating oil was cheaper than pellets.

There is more work involved with using pellets but I figure it gives me a bit of exercise although I am not fond of cleaning the pellet boiler.

As far as acquiring, transporting, processing, subsidies/tax breaks..... of wood pellets I figure the same goes for oil.

[twar]

So you are opposed to any form of transportation for energy?

No, I'm not. Production and consumption will very seldom be in the same place, so stuff and energy will nearly always be transported. My reaction was to (details in the NYT article) 1) the clearcutting of productive forest (in this case in Romainia) to produce sawdust/chips to produce pellets, as opposed to harvesting timber and using the waste to produce pellets. And then 2) shipping the pellets across Europe, e.g. to England (approx. Chicago to Seattle) to sell to folks as an environmentally friendly alternative. And 3) the whole chain is encouraged through subsidies.

Without a doubt, burning pellets in England is far better for the environment (in England) than burning the traditional coal or coke, but is it always better for the global environment?

consumers will opt for the lower cost alternative or perceived bill of goods they have been sold which is being "green".  

Very true.

[Gary_C]

The point being made is there is a break-even line where the fuel, packaging and handling makes using wood pellets neutral in "green" terms.  Gary_C senses that this line has been crossed and he is correct.
 

Let me clarify that a little. That pellet plant that was started by three logging business operators in Hayward, WI was built because of dismal prices being paid by the local pulp mills for the wood off their local timber sales. The pulp mills had a good demand for the wood but were not being pushed to pay a fair price even for their main species and secondary species were either not accepted or paid at prices below costs of production. It had little to do with being "green."

When you try to make comparisons of energy sources based on "green" or "carbon" considerations, it becomes a difficult if not impossible task because you have issues setting the boundaries of what to include in the comparisons.

[Gary_C]

No, I'm not. Production and consumption will very seldom be in the same place, so stuff and energy will nearly always be transported. My reaction was to (details in the NYT article) 1) the clearcutting of productive forest (in this case in Romainia) to produce sawdust/chips to produce pellets, as opposed to harvesting timber and using the waste to produce pellets. And then 2) shipping the pellets across Europe, e.g. to England (approx. Chicago to Seattle) to sell to folks as an environmentally friendly alternative. And 3) the whole chain is encouraged through subsidies.

OK. Now I understand. As far as I know there is little of that type of clearcutting solely for the purpose of producing "green" products in this country. Most of the chips and other so called "green" products here are produced from logging residues after other higher value products were sold.

I have personally been in situations where the prices paid for sawtimber were significantly less than pulp prices and I resisted pressure to sell to the sawmills but I've never cut for "green" purposes.

PS: There are some logging operations that produce chips including what's called "clean chips" (debarked before chipping) from logging jobs but the chipping is done in the field to replace the chipping operations at the pulp mill. But the majority of the chips used for fuel are produced from the residue of logging operations. 

[Ianab]

Without a doubt, burning pellets in England is far better for the environment (in England) than burning the traditional coal or coke, but is it always better for the global environment?

The emissions in England are about the same as if they were burning Nat Gas.  The "global" environment is probably better off, as most of the CO2 is from, and going to be re-absorbed, by a forest some place. It's not "old" carbon being dug up form deep underground. CO2 emissions aren't a "local" issue, because the effects circulate the whole globe (same as a big volcanic eruption or nuclear accident does) 

Hauling fuel from Europe to England of course takes "some" energy, which might be diesel. But hauling oil from the Middle East to England can't be any better, and that's "old" carbon that's being dug up. 

Wood pellet aren't a big thing here, but the larger mills usually run co-gen boilers for power and kiln steam. This is basically "waste" wood, so the economics work out. If they are generating more power than the need, if can be sold back to the National Grid, if they are making less, they buy power. But the co-gen makes economic sense, otherwise they would just run off mains power 100%. 

[customsawyer]

We have a few pellet mills around this area. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't get a grant of some kind to get started. I will say that I for one am glad that we have them in this area. Not sure of the specs of the logs they take. I've heard they ship most of the pellets to Europe for generating electricity. There is also a local shavings mill that ships a lot of their product to Dubai. I was told they can ship a container overseas cheaper than truck one to California. I just know this area produces a lot of wood and the more ways we have to move that wood the better this area will do. The pulp market has taken some hits over the years so we have to figure out different ways to use those trees.
Some of you may remember the post where WDH was "Establishing a pine plantation". It shows the amount of wood that we can grow in just a few short years so we are always looking for ways to use the wood from the first thinning.

[twar]

There is also a local shavings mill that ships a lot of their product to Dubai.

Curious what's that for, horse stables? Certainly not energy?

[customsawyer]

Yes horse bedding. Lots of those oil rich folks over there like their horses.

[kantuckid]

I read the NYT's article about the European pellet situation. If you want a link to find it the title is: New York Times, "Europe is Sacrificing it's Ancient Forests for Energy", September, 7, 2022. Much of the content comes from an investigative environmental group, which I forget their name.

 It is focused on the Romanian protected, old forest areas in the north of that country as the wood source and traces the truck path of the logs to a pellet plant in Germany and then discusses the European wide use of wood pellets for heat. 
The article comes to us during much world wide media talk about what will Europe do for heat this winter as Russia cuts of energy sources.

I found it to be insane that a 200 year old tree would be made into pellets! 
The pellets in the article are marketed as having been made from waste products which is said to not be true at all, thus the articles title. Europe is of course facing an immense energy crisis that comes from the Ukrainian/Russia situation. The Euro pellet market pre-dates that war and the article revolves around the topic as it's been happening for sometime prior to Russia's war. Areial views of the forest before and after harvest show large clear cur areas in northern Romania and the truck routes used to extract the logs.
Also discussed is the reality that burning wood pellets is ecologically speaking a dirtier fuel than coal, nuclear and other fossil fuels. 
 

[kantuckid]

Speaking of bedding: The ERC that's bought by the ton and chipped for the pet trade is huge in the USA.

When I worked in two supermarkets from1959-1964 full & part time, pet food was part of one side of an aisle in the largest store in Topeka, KS where I worked. My local Walmart now has 5 aisles full of pet food, pet toys and bedding-foam filled cloth or wood chips. Typical to see a large center aisle pile of ERC chip bales. I assume it's the lower grades of ERC but I don't know for sure what goes into those chips. The 3 ERC places that buy near me buy logs and cants for mfg and export, are not chip places. TN is the closest i know of?  
Of course USA Cypress mulch trade issues have lead to newish laws r.e. the harvesting of cypress as the mulch saw destruction of many cypress areas.
 I assume thats all under control now?  

[beenthere]

I read the NYT's article about the European pellet situation.

Likely the article was written to be alarming to the reader. True of most media articles. So take the "alarming" part out as it was likely just an old tree that was coming out, or needing to be removed, that ended up in a pellet.

[stavebuyer]

American Wood Fibers in Lebanon KY is a huge user of ERC logs that are chipped into pet bedding. Some mighty fine logs included.

There is a huge pellet operation in Somerset Ky that's going through a major expansion right now and I wouldn't doubt its in response to the Ukraine/Nordstream mess. Among the boilers and driers being unloaded at the construction area I also spotted a huge log deck so they may be adding round wood to the mix. The current plant is run on sawdust only.

Our main charcoal plants have been under pressure from the EPA to reduce ash which comes from bark. They used to take "dirty" chips and sawdust mixed which was a blessing for a small mill. Those days are over and one of the reasons the Somerset pellet plant was built; as a way to get rid of waste as the Kingsford Plants were becoming more uncertain and often subject to shutdowns. If you have a big mill and can't move your waste; it will put you under faster than not having logs or not being able to sell lumber.

[Evgenii.B]

Our main charcoal plants have been under pressure from the EPA to reduce ash which comes from bark. They used to take "dirty" chips and sawdust mixed which was a blessing for a small mill.

The main problem is the mixing of dirty wood chips and sawdust. If we process them separately, we can obtain pellets of the highest quality. Chips with bark must first be crushed to the size of a broken match. When the raw material comes out of the dryer, it must be sifted to separate the sand. The ash content in raw materials is reduced from 3-4% to 0.5-0.7%. The ash content in fine screenings is 15-25%. The purified raw materials are re-crushed and processed into pellets. Here is a video where the difference in the separated contamination is noticeable even in color.

The sawdust is cleaned using a similar sifter with a large sieve cell. The sifter is also installed after the dryer. This allows you to free the sawdust from gravel and pieces of bark.
Thus, even small production facilities with a capacity of 1-2 tons per hour become profitable when all waste is completely processed.

[DavidDeBord]

Greetings Ya'll,

My Trade is HVAC/Electrical, & Refrigeration.

I've had one "Pellet Burner Installation", where the Customer bought the equipment, & hired me to install it, & two "No Heat" Service calls for Pellet Burners.

My "Install Customer", at first was happier than a "Cat let loose in a fish processing plant" for a couple of months until, he realized that he was paying practically as much for "Pellets" as he was for his Electric per month.

And, when the power went out for 48 hours, he had no battery back up. The following winter, he had me install a new Heat Pump & 15KW Air handler.

As far as Wood Heat goes,.... I'll install a Wood Burner, & Recommend that over a pellet stove.