Madison Peak Oil Group

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Woody biomass might feed energy-generating biodigesters, but not everyone agrees on the benefits, according to an article by John Myers in the Duluth News Tribure:

The Sierra Club has criticized large-scale biomass projects because they encourage public land managers to cut even more trees from forests already heavily logged for mills, said Clyde Hanson of Tofte, Sierra Club activist.

"All biomass has an ecological function. Removing it takes nutrients and organic material out of the land. Do it long enough and the biological productivity of the soil falls," Hanson said.

Hanson said Minnesota taxpayers and electricity customers will end up paying more as biomass projects are subsidized. Because of the impact on the forest, Hanson said biomass shouldn't be considered "green" energy.

But Mike Demchik, a forestry professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point who is studying the test plots before and after biomass harvesting, said more than enough woody debris is left behind at biomass harvesting sites.

"We're trying to figure out what we can take out and not have a negative impact," Demchik said. "But they're never going to take everything off a site. There's always some material left behind."

The key, Demchik said, is the fertility of the soil. And most forest soil in Minnesota is up to the task.

"I'm really excited about this," Demchik said. "It can help reduce fire danger in some spots where there's no interest from traditional markets. This won't work everywhere. But it should work at enough locations to make it viable."