22 Jan 2015: Report

Wood Pellets: Green Energy or
New Source of CO2 Emissions?

Burning wood pellets to produce electricity is on the rise in Europe, where the pellets are classified as a form of renewable energy. But in the U.S., where pellet facilities are rapidly being built, concerns are growing about logging and the carbon released by the combustion of wood biomass.

by roger real drouin

In 2011, Enviva — the United States’ largest exporter of wood pellets — opened its flagship pellet-manufacturing mill in Ahoskie, North Carolina. The plant annually converts 850,000 tons of trees and waste wood into tiny pellets that are shipped to Europe and burned in power plants for what is being touted as a renewable form of electricity.

Two years later, Enviva opened another mill 50 miles away in Northampton County, North Carolina, and by 2016 the company is

Enviva Ahoskie plant

Dogwood Alliance
Enviva's Ahoskie, N.C., wood pellet facility converts 850,000 tons of trees and waste wood into pellets each year.
expected to operate eight wood pellet mills from Virginia to Mississippi. Elsewhere in the southeastern United States, other companies are planning or rapidly building facilities to produce wood pellets. A mill planned by Biomass Power Louisiana in Natchitoches, La., will produce up to 2 million tons of the pellets annually. Drax, a British utility that’s taking steps to transform itself into a predominately biomass energy generator, has said it will open four of its own large mills to produce pellets in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana.

Demand for this purportedly green form of energy is so robust that wood pellet exports from the United States nearly doubled from 2012 to 2013 and are expected to nearly double again to 5.7 million tons in 2015. This soaring production is driven by growing demand in the U.K. and Europe, which are using wood pellets to replace coal for electricity generation and heating. The European Union’s 2020 climate and energy program classifies wood pellets as a carbon-neutral form of renewable energy, and European companies have invested billions to convert coal plants to plants that can burn wood pellets.

But as wood pellet manufacturing booms in the southeastern U.S., scientists and environmental groups are raising significant questions about just how green burning wood pellets really is. The wood pellet industry says that it overwhelmingly uses tree branches and other waste wood to manufacture pellets, making them a carbon-neutral form of energy. But
Critics contend pellet manufacturers frequently harvest whole hardwood trees that can take a long time to regrow.
many environmentalists and scientists believe current industry practices are anything but carbon-neutral and threaten some of the last remaining diverse ecosystems in the southeastern U.S., including the Roanoke River watershed surrounding the Ahoskie, N.C., plant and longleaf pine ecosystems near the large Enviva wood pellet mill in Cottondale, Fla.

Critics contend that Enviva and other pellet manufacturers frequently harvest whole trees — including hardwoods from bottomland areas — that can take a long time to regrow, thus making the burning of wood pellets an overall source of CO2 emissions.

“They are cutting them down and burning them to produce energy in Europe — a practice that both degrades critical forest habitat and increases carbon emissions for many decades to come,” says Debbie Hammel, a senior resource specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Less than a year after Enviva’s Ahoskie plant opened, the NRDC began monitoring how the facility was impacting nearby forests and what kinds of trees were being used to produce pellets. As the demand for wood to manufacture more pellets increased, the NRDC noticed forested wetlands in the Roanoke watershed begin to disappear.

“A significant portion of the wood source Enviva uses comes from natural hardwood forests,” says Hammel, noting that logging in such forested wetlands and bottomlands creates major ecological impacts, including threatening species such as wood storks and the cerulean warbler. In the opinion of Hammel and others, burning wood pellet biomass to produce electricity is far more harmful to the environment and the climate than renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

Industry officials say, however, that manufacturing and burning wood pellets is an important part of the mix of renewable energy options. Seth Ginther, executive director of the United States Industrial Pellet Association, says that wood pellets are a “low-cost, low-carbon alternative” to coal. In addition, he says, wood biomass is lower in sulfur, nitrogen, ash, chlorine, and other chemicals than coal and traditional fossil fuels.

Wood pellet producers are using waste wood and low-grade wood fiber in many instances, according to Ginther. This niche market is enabling some landowners to keep growing and planting trees, rather than chopping down woodlands for commercial development or agriculture. “Our industry helps
Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit than burning coal.
encourage forest owners to reforest and replant so this market helps keep working forests working,” Ginther says.

Ginther says that the U.S.’s wood pellet industry can expect even more robust growth if the Asian commercial market or European residential market embraces the combustion of wood biomass. “The U.S. has established itself as a sustainable source of fiber for bioenergy, and we are very proud of the fact that so many European customers are looking to U.S. producers for sourcing needs,” Ginther says.

The wood pellet industry really took off in 2012, after the U.K.’s Department of Energy and Climate Change published guidelines on the direction of British renewable energy policy for the near future. The guidelines encouraged utilities to convert coal-fired generators to generators using wood biomass and gave utility companies the option to burn wood pellets to help them meet European Union air pollution and renewable energy standards. Power companies then began to turn to the southeastern United States, where logging is well-established and much less restricted than in Europe, as the primary supplier of wood pellets.

“It is the EU that has prompted this industry explosion,” Hammel says.

Some scientists say there are still more questions than answers when it comes to commercially burning wood pellets for energy, and it’s largely a matter of carbon cycle calculations. Bob Abt, a professor of natural resource economics and management at North Carolina State University,

forests surrounding Enviva Ahoskie plant

NRDC/Dogwood Alliance
Wetland hardwood forests near Enviva's plant in Ahoskie, North Carolina.
says a lot depends on the origin and type of trees used to feed the pellet mills.

Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy as burning coal, so in order for burning pellets to be carbon-neutral the carbon emitted into the atmosphere has to be recaptured in regenerated forests, Abt says. Residual wood, such as tree thinnings and unused tree parts left over at timber mills, is the best material for wood pellets, says Abt. But he and others say that not enough of such waste wood exists to feed the growing demand for wood pellets.

So the industry has turned to whole trees.

Softwood trees such as loblolly pines grown on managed plantations can be planted and regrown relatively quickly after harvesting, and selective removal of some trees may occur in as little as 12 years. When softwood is used, carbon released during the burning of wood pellets for electricity production can then be sequestered and stored in the new trees.

But using hardwood trees from bottomlands results in a different carbon calculation, Abt says. Using these species of trees requires a much longer time to make up for the released carbon, as bottomland hardwoods grow more slowly. Abt also points out that floodplain forests, which are typically owned by smaller, private owners, tend not to be certified to adhere to sustainability standards. Regeneration in bottomlands also tends to be more variable and depends on local hydrological conditions.

When a mill consumes nearly a million tons of wood a year, it’s difficult to track where every single tree comes from, according to Abt and other experts.

But Forisk, a consulting company that tracks forest industry trends, calculates that the majority of the wood used at Enviva’s Ahoskie, N.C., mill comes from hardwood trees — including those typically found in wetland forests.

Generally, wood pellet mills in North Carolina and Virginia are more reliant on these slower-to-regrow hardwoods, while mills in Georgia, for instance, mainly utilize plantation pines, Abt says. These two different classes of trees are “on different ends of the spectrum” when it comes to
More than 168,000 acres of forest are at risk of being cut down for producing wood pellets for one facility.
both forestry management and how much carbon is released and sequestered, he notes.

If the timber industry in the southern U.S. gathers up all the branches, roots, and other tree waste and uses that wood to make pellets, William Schlesinger, who is president emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and a biogeochemist who studies carbon cycles, wouldn’t have a problem with it.

The problem, he says, is when pellets are made from virgin growth and second-growth hardwoods.

“The best evidence we have is that not all the pellets are coming from wood waste, and that creates a carbon deficit,” says Schlesinger, who was one of the scientists who wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency calling on the agency to create strong pollution standards for biomass energy. Schlesinger points to aerial photos distributed by the Southern Environmental Law Center showing large-diameter oak and hickory trees felled for wood pellet production at Enviva’s Ahoskie mill.

A study of the Ahoskie plant commissioned by the Southern Environmental Law Center and National Wildlife Federation found that more than 50 percent of the likely sourcing area for the Ahoskie facility is forested wetlands. More than 168,000 acres of wetland forest are at high risk of being cut down for manufacturing wood pellets at this single plant, the study said.

The NRDC is currently undertaking a study using GPS data to map hotspots where wood pellet facilities throughout the southeastern United


As Uses of Biochar Expand,
Climate Benefits Still Uncertain

Research shows that biochar made from plant fodder and even chicken manure can be used to scrub mercury from power plant emissions and clean up polluted soil. The big question is whether biochar can be produced on a sufficiently large scale to slow or reverse global warming.
States are having the biggest impacts. The group plans to publish the study this spring, highlighting logging around wood pellet manufacturing facilities.

Schlesinger says recent calculations using U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and International Energy Agency (IEA) data show that burning wood pellets results in major impacts on forests for very modest quantities of bioenergy. For instance, the IEA projects that to produce 6.4 percent of global electricity from burning wood biomass in 2035, the global commercial tree harvest — all trees felled except for traditional firewood — would have to increase by 137 percent.

It’s not just European utilities that may end up burning wood pellets on an industrial scale. Hammel, of NRDC, notes the possibility of a significant shift to burning wood commercially here in the United States, depending on how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decides to count greenhouse emissions from power plants that burn biomass.

“It would be a mistake for the EPA to give biomass energy producers a free pass on carbon accountability,” Hammel says. “Cutting down and burning trees for energy is a step in the wrong direction for the climate and our forests.”

POSTED ON 22 Jan 2015 IN Business & Innovation Climate Energy Energy Forests Policy & Politics Science & Technology Europe Europe North America 


Any EROEI on the chips by the time they arrive at Drax? They take a long and carbon-intense route to England, and I imagine the fossil fuel cost of transport and processing probably means they are nothing like as carbon-friendly as we'd like to think.
Posted by Tim Bastable on 22 Jan 2015

There are two different issues here that need to be sorted out:

1) Is there a place for wood in the range of renewable energy sources?

2) If so, and acknowledging that every energy source exacts an environmental cost, how should wood be utilized?

This second question addresses the concerns about what kind of wood should be harvested, how it should be harvested, how it should be replaced, and how it should be burned.

Posted by Hallie Metzger on 22 Jan 2015

Maybe I need to go back & re-read, but as a (very crude!) first approximation, suppose all the carbon in trees comes FROM CO2 or organic material that would in the natural course of things be converted into CO2 by termites, bacteria, whatever.

In that case, burning the wood is 100% recycling of the CO2. Only if forests are not replanted, or are replanted with trees that have a lower density of carbon locked up, will there be a net worsening of CO2 in the long run. Of course, replanting with lower-carbon trees means the wood processor is de facto eating his seed stock, running his location out of business.

So the concern ought to be that wood harvesters ensure 100% replanting of the carbon, for a steady carbon-neutral policy.

(None of this addresses the loss of wildlife habitat, etc. A legitimate concern, but separate from AGW.)
Posted by Walt French on 22 Jan 2015

With declining paper use there may be enough wood to support a growing pellet industry.

Interesting data from the US Forest Service: "The South’s production of pulpwood declined from 65.5 million cords in 2010 to 62.7 million cords in 2011. Roundwood production decreased by 878,000 cords to 50.1 million cords and accounted for 80 percent of the South’s total pulpwood production. The use of wood residue dropped 14 percent to 12.6 million cords in 2011."
Source: Southern pulpwood production, 2011 Author(s): Bentley, James W. Steppleton, Carolyn D. - See more at: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/43626#sthash.Hvfxzkga.dpuf

At 2.6 tons per cord the reduction in pulpwood production in one year is about the same as the article's "5.7 million tons in 2015".
Posted by Mike Ferrucci on 22 Jan 2015

There is a role for wood pellet energy when done right. Some forest land should be protected in parks, reserves and lightly managed public forests. But most other forest sooner or later will be commercially harvested. Though much commercial forestry work is poorly done, most is done based on the science of silviculture with due concern for ecological values.

The better wood will go to sawmills. Nobody is going to burn high quality timber. If wood is not used for fuel- those forests will still be logged and often the quality of the work is inferior because low value species and poor quality trees due to defect and disease are often left in the forest- which results in long term degradation of the forest.

Burning wood as pellets, according to the Manomet Report, paid for by the state of Massachusetts, has a far smaller carbon footprint than burning wood for electric power. The “carbon debt” caused by burning wood is “paid back” within several years by the regrowth of the forest.

Since the market for pellets enhances the economics of forest management, it will help landowners keep their land as forest. Here in Massachusetts, I've managed harvests where some of the wood goes to pellet plants. This new market really does result in nicer looking, healthier forests. And, I say this as one of the biggest critics in New England of forestry- since I’m disgusted by the bad logging I’ve seen.

In New England, most homes burn oil for heat- converting to pellets will save money and reduce the amount of imported oil.

Ergo, this new market for poor quality wood for biomass is a very good thing.
Joe Zorzin
"42 years a forester"

Posted by Joseph Zozin on 06 Feb 2015

The hickory tree offers advantages over other wood
sources. The hickory nut is a high density heat
source containing bio-oils. No processing is required
and is ready for bulk handling and transport
immediately after harvest. Growth habit of the tree
makes mechanized harvest easy. Over a life span of
sixty years, the tree may produce 1 1/2 to 2 tons of
nuts. Reforestation at the end of life is easy as the
nut sprouts and grows readily in a variety of soils. I
burn about 200 lbs of nuts each winter from 5 trees
to supplement a wood stove for home heat.
Automated wood pellet stoves can be modified to
burn hickory nuts.
Posted by Tom Maxwell on 18 Feb 2015


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.

roger real drouinABOUT THE AUTHOR
Roger Real Drouin is a journalist who covers environmental issues. His articles have appeared in Grist.org, Mother Jones, The Atlantic Cities, and other publications. Previously for Yale Environment 360, he wrote about growing concerns surrounding fracking wastewater and efforts to reduce methane leaks associated with fracking.



For European Wind Industry,
Offshore Projects Are Booming

As Europe’s wind energy production rises dramatically, offshore turbines are proliferating from the Irish Sea to the Baltic Sea. It’s all part of the European Union’s strong push away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

In Fukushima, A Bitter Legacy
Of Radiation, Trauma and Fear

Five years after the nuclear power plant meltdown, a journey through the Fukushima evacuation zone reveals some high levels of radiation and an overriding sense of fear. For many, the psychological damage is far more profound than the health effects.

For China’s Polluted Megacities,
A Focus on Slashing Emissions

The booming industrial center of Shenzhen is a showcase for Chinese efforts to cut CO2 emissions and make the nation's burgeoning cities more livable. But it remains to be seen whether China's runaway industrial development can give way to a low-carbon future.

Why We Need a Carbon Tax,
And Why It Won’t Be Enough

Putting a price on carbon is an idea whose time has come, with even Big Oil signaling it may drop its long-standing opposition to a carbon tax. But the question is, has it come too late?

Clinton vs. Trump: A Sharp Divide
Over Energy and the Environment



MORE IN Reports

For European Wind Industry,
Offshore Projects Are Booming

by christian schwägerl
As Europe’s wind energy production rises dramatically, offshore turbines are proliferating from the Irish Sea to the Baltic Sea. It’s all part of the European Union’s strong push away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

In New Ozone Alert, A Warning
Of Harm to Plants and to People

by jim robbins
Scientists are still trying to unravel the damaging effects of ground-level ozone on life on earth. But as the world warms, their concerns about the impact of this highly toxic, pollution-caused gas are growing.

The Rising Environmental Toll
Of China’s Offshore Island Grab

by mike ives
To stake its claim in the strategic South China Sea, China is building airstrips, ports, and other facilities on disputed islands and reefs. Scientists say the activities are destroying key coral reef ecosystems and will heighten the risks of a fisheries collapse in the region.

Natural Aquaculture: Can We
Save Oceans by Farming Them?

by richard schiffman
A small but growing number of entrepreneurs are creating sea-farming operations that cultivate shellfish together with kelp and seaweed, a combination they contend can restore ecosystems and mitigate the impacts of ocean acidification.

High Stakes on the High Seas:
A Call for International Reserves

by nicola jones
Marine protected areas in national waters have proven successful in helping depleted fish stocks to recover. Now, there is growing momentum for the creation of extensive reserves on the high seas as a way of reversing decades of rampant overfishing.

For China’s Polluted Megacities,
A Focus on Slashing Emissions

by mike ives
The booming industrial center of Shenzhen is a showcase for Chinese efforts to cut CO2 emissions and make the nation's burgeoning cities more livable. But it remains to be seen whether China's runaway industrial development can give way to a low-carbon future.

Rocky Flats: A Wildlife Refuge
Confronts Its Radioactive Past

by fred pearce
The Rocky Flats Plant outside Denver was a key U.S. nuclear facility during the Cold War. Now, following a $7 billion cleanup, the government is preparing to open a wildlife refuge on the site to the public, amid warnings from some scientists that residual plutonium may still pose serious health risks.

Pressure Mounts to Reform Our
Throwaway Clothing Culture

by marc gunther
Americans dispose of about 12.8 million tons of textiles annually — 80 pounds for each man, woman, and child. In the U.S. and around the world, a growing number of environmentalists and clothing industry executives say it’s time to end the wasteful clothing culture and begin making new apparel out of old items on a large scale.

The New Green Grid: Utilities
Deploy ‘Virtual Power Plants’

by maria gallucci
By linking together networks of energy-efficient buildings, solar installations, and batteries, a growing number of companies in the U.S. and Europe are helping utilities reduce energy demand at peak hours and supply targeted areas with renewably generated electricity.

Sticker Shock: The Soaring Costs
Of Germany’s Nuclear Shutdown

by joel stonington
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s 2011 decision to rapidly phase out the country’s 17 nuclear power reactors has left the government and utilities with a massive challenge: How to clean up and store large amounts of nuclear waste and other radioactive material.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.