Continued obstacles to wood‐based biomass production in the southeastern United States

Abstract

International demand for wood‐based biomass for bioenergy production is growing, and private forestlands in the southeastern United States have the potential to supply that demand. The southeastern United States (Southeast) is the world's largest exporter of wood pellets for bioenergy, primarily to the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). However, wood‐based biomass production accounts for only a small share of total wood removals from private forestlands in the Southeast. There is sufficient wood‐based biomass in the Southeast to support greater production of wood pellets for domestic and international markets without redirecting timber from sawtimber and pulpwood production. In 2018–19, we conducted 39 semi‐structured interviews with private forest landowners, foresters, loggers, and biomass production facility managers in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia to obtain their views on wood‐based biomass production in the Southeast. Although landowners were interested in supplying wood for biomass as a byproduct of timber harvesting, they seldom participated in wood‐based biomass production because of limited and unreliable access to biomass markets. Loggers and production facility managers had not invested in biomass production because they remain skeptical about the financial viability of wood‐based biomass. Continued obstacles to biomass production include: price competition with fossil fuels and conventional wood products; inconsistent domestic government support for biomass production; concerns about meeting the sustainability requirements to export wood‐based biomass to the UK and EU; and the high costs associated with harvesting low‐grade wood for biomass. The barriers to biomass expansion in the southeastern United States remain primarily economic and political rather than biophysical.

Conserving alpha and beta diversity in wood‐production landscapes

“…Supporting biodiversity conservation in this intensifying bioenergy production landscape may include a mosaic of land uses and management regimes. The forest industry is engaging in intensive management; however, private landowners in the Southeast are less willing to engage in intensive management approaches, owing to concerns about exotic feedstocks, low prices for wood‐based biomass, and a culture of managing land for multiple benefits (including timber production, hunting, and aesthetic values) (Hodges et al., 2019; North & Pienaar, 2021). This heterogeneity in landowner motivations may contribute to a diverse mosaic of land uses across landscapes that promotes high regional biodiversity.…”

Spatially-explicit assessment of carbon stocks in the landscape in the southern US under different scenarios of industrial wood pellet demand

“…While the use of wood pellets is supported by some as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach climate change targets, others have held the production of wood pellets responsible for the destruction of forests and the contribution to the emission of greenhouse gasses (Dogwood Alliance, 2021;Greenpeace, 2021;Natural Resources Defence Council, 2020;The New York Times, 2021;The Rachel Carson Council, 2019). Negative public perceptions of bioenergy linked to these environmental risks, as well as to the local negative effects of production and power plants, has hampered the growth of the wood pellet sector (North and Pienaar, 2021;Upreti, 2004). The controversy surrounding the use of wood pellets for energy is further increased by contradicting results found by scientific studies that assess the carbon impacts of wood pellet use (reviewed by Miner et al 2014;Booth, 2018;Cowie et al 2021;Ter-Mikaelian et al 2015).…”

The Influence of Slash Management Practices on Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Longleaf Pine Forests

“…With new market demands, alternative silvicultural treatments, such as biomass harvesting and mastication, are sometimes used in restoration, but concerns about their applicability and long-term sustainability have arisen with increased use [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. The removal of harvesting residue (i.e., logging slash) and alterations in the spatial distribution of masticated debris influence soil hydrology and nutrient dynamics, but the effects have been widespread [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47].…”