Beetles killing Rocky Mountain trees, so why not use the wood to make ethanol?
There is a huge beetle problem in the Rocky Mountains. The official declaration of what the mountain pine beetles are doing is a "catastrophic" killing off of trees. While foresters and others try to get a handle on the situation, energy companies are thinking that all those fallen trees might make good biofeedstock for ethanol production. According to the Rawlins Daily Time (Wyoming), at least five companies have expressed an interest in "energy conversion" using the wood, with ethanol being one possibility. A pilot cellulosic ethanol plant using the wood might be built in Carbon County, Wyoming, but local officials are still at the "putting out feelers" stage.
[Source: Rawlins Daily Time via Domestic Fuel]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave 1:09PM (2/05/2008)
I see the sense, but also the danger.
What is to stop unscrupulous companies from starting beetle infestations in order to cut down trees instead of just logging them on their own? Will they pay for their cutting and removal?
Reply
GoodCheer 1:46PM (2/05/2008)
I would think the lumber industry would be able to use all the trees that are killed. Unless the beetles boar in too deep and damage the wood. Does anyone know it this is the case?
Reply
Yggdrasilly 1:57PM (2/05/2008)
#1. Trees are more valuable as lumber than as ethanol, so a timber company makes more money off a healthy tree than a beetle-infested one.
Reply
Rojo 2:10PM (2/05/2008)
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05528.html
Looks like primarily 'sick' trees are hit first anyway. Also considering the trees (guessing) have already fallen or have already began to decompose, I doubt the wood is going to be of suitable quality for building or crafting.
Dave: It would take breeding the things in the billions to get results. A few guys with some rope and chainsaws would be a far cheaper and more effective method.
This is a cut and dry (groan) case of using a natural occurrence to our advantage. Make 'em into fuel.
Reply
meme 2:21PM (2/05/2008)
I was out in RMNP last summer, and let me tell you, it was really sad. You're driving along and it looks like autumn -- only it's not, and the reddish brown you see is on evergreens, not deciduous trees. It's really that complete in a lot of places -- entire mountainsides dead.
Reply
thentro 2:26PM (2/05/2008)
Every time some natural event like a blow-down or insects kill a large swath of trees the lumber industry always tries to convince people that rather than "waste" the wood from the "disaster" they should be able to go in and drag it all out. But when they do go in and skin everything to the ground it turns what is really an ecological fact into a true disaster.
The often poor soil is robbed of the energy trapped in the wood that would normally rot or burn. The logging process scars the ground for decades. I have seen pristine wilderness permanently changed by this type of refuse logging.
So if the area they are looking at is more or less wilderness, going in to dig it up to fuel a few cars is insane.
Reply
Simon 2:24PM (2/05/2008)
One theory I heard is that the situation became bad since the forest fire control came in place. Less forest fire means less young trees. So the solution might be burning more older trees? :-)
P.S. I'm more worried about tourists instead of pine beetles for the particular lake (Moraine Lake) in the picture. There were people paddling in that peaceful mirror-like water!!!
Reply
environment for fuel 2:57PM (2/05/2008)
ethanol out of our wood or corn is still a way to destroy our environment or take more resources than our current gas system. And ethanol would not be and is not an alternative fuel when it is destroying our environment when that's the whole purpose of it.
I just don't get why people can't accept that electricity is cheaper.. about one-fifth of gas and even less compared to hydrogen or ethanol, EVs run on 2 cents per mile.
Reply
GreyFlcn 3:20PM (2/05/2008)
One question to ask:____________
Which forest type holds more GHG
1. One with undercover
2. One without undercover
Clearly the one with undercover holds more GHG.
http://greyfalcon.net/notwaste.png
http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil
Reply
Wise Golden 3:27PM (2/05/2008)
The use of these trees would provide value in more than one way. By leaving them behind, a fire issue is created. Forest fires are the largest sorce of pollution on Earth (somebody call Al Gore on this -- he didn't get the memo.) If we clear the wood and use it for ethanol, or even burn it in a coal plant, we're doing a lot of good. In fact, I think all large tree stands in the US should be managed in such a way to provide value from the large amount of deadwood that is always present.
Even if a fire were not to occure, the rotting of the tree will release the same amount of pollution as burning, but over a long time frame. If we burn it in a power plant, we push aside a sequestered, non-renewable fossil fuel -- it's a huge swing to the positive in the pollution catagory.
#8 -- I respectfully disagree. The white papers say something much different than you. Ethanol is also improving with each year in it's efficiency. I know you mean well, but you're spreading bad info. Harvard, Berkly, MIT all disagree with what you're saying. Our Federal government disagrees with what you're saying. Every State government disagrees with what you're saying. Even the oil companies disagree with what you're saying.
I don't know where all the bad info on ethanol comes from, but it's the same false dribble that destroyed the nuclear industry 30 years ago. I suspect that we would fnd oil dollars at the root of these false claims. After all, ethanol currently amounts to 6 billion gallons of oil not purchased each year ($18 billion in sales,) and ethanol is heading for 36 billion ($108 billion in oil sales displaced.) I know that it is somehow orchestrated because I hear the same false things from so many divergent sorces.
As for electricity -- I'm fine with that. I'm fine with conservation. I am NOT fine with taking ethanol off the table as a portion of our solution.
Reply
OhmExcited 4:07PM (2/05/2008)
These beetles do not merely kill trees, but they seek to disrupt and end a way of life. With every tree they destroy, they hope that America grows fearful. They stand against us because our cellulosic ethanol production will stand in their way.
We're not deceived by them. We have seen their kind before. We will direct every resource at our command to the destruction and to the defeat of the beetles. We ask every nation to join us. Thank you, and God bless America.
Reply
Mort 5:01PM (2/05/2008)
The trees should be allowed to rot in place.
Reply
sensitive_man 10:17AM (2/06/2008)
I'm with 11 and 12
Dead trees serve a vital role to the ecology of an area. Further that whole rigmarole about forest fires is B.S.
True there is lots of air pollution from forest fires (smoke) but the burning of forests is a natural and regenerative occurrence. It is part of natures design. However planting corn to make gas is not!
Reply
Wise Golden 7:51PM (2/06/2008)
13. I'm with 11 and 12
Dead trees serve a vital role to the ecology of an area. Further that whole rigmarole about forest fires is B.S.
True there is lots of air pollution from forest fires (smoke) but the burning of forests is a natural and regenerative occurrence. It is part of natures design. However planting corn to make gas is not!
Posted at 10:17AM on Feb 6th 2008 by sensitive_man
Have you ever been within 300 miles of a forest fire? I understand it's a natural process, but I'm telling you that 300 miles away it makes your lungs burn and your throat soar. You need a respirator to go outside. If you think that this natural form of pollution is unimportant in comparision to the controbutions of mankind, I'd ask how you reach that conclusion.
If you feel that the rotting of the wood is beneficial to the soil, I'd suggest to you that it's minor in comparison to the rotting of 100 years of leaves that fall from the tree. It's very minor compared to 100 years of nitrogen nods in the root system. It's minor compared to the animals that will live in the tree and die under it over 100 years. And at the end of the day most of the stuff still exist in the form of ash that can be reaplied to the soil.
You call yourself some form of environmentalist? Maybe you ought to have fewer opinions and do a little more research. That would be a good start for you. It's this type of inane disinformation that has prevented a real correction of environmental concerns.
I know you mean well, but the fact is that you're not doing well.
Reply