Burning biomass from our forests is a bad idea

I read with interest the views in Elaine O’Neil’s opinion piece “Congress must break logjam for biomass” on Nov. 23.

I agree that CO2 from burning forest biomass can be balanced with the absorption of carbon by a healthy forest but it takes a long time. We don’t have the time.

I am not in favor of burning biomass to supply energy. The forests are already working full speed to sequester carbon and adding more CO2 by burning biomass will is not going to balance. The only way CO2 emissions can be reduced is if the world produces energy by burning less carbon based fuels including biomass. Burning carbon fuels releases stored energy from carbon molecules produced by plants powered by sunshine.

Why not harvest the sun and not burn biomass? As a forester, I am concerned about the impacts on our forests over time. Like farmland, nutrient loss from removing crops depletes the productivity of the land. Production of biomass (timber products ) and the ability to sequester carbon will both be diminished over time. Harvesting biomass and trucking on forest roads will increase soil erosion. Harvesting biomass and trucking it to a generator from a forest uses a lot of energy (more CO2). It is not cheap power.

Wind and solar are proving cost competitive and costs are decreasing. I think tidal energy has a huge potential. We have to move away from burning carbon based fuels to get our energy.

This story was originally published December 20, 2016 at 6:29 PM with the headline "Burning biomass from our forests is a bad idea."