Forestry Bioenergy in the Southeast United States: Scenario Modeling and Geodesign
2015 Geodesign Summit, January 23, 2015
Presenter/Author: Alison L. Smith, Co-Authors: Jason Evans, Jon Calabria
1
photo credit: Tiffany Williams Woods
Background
Biomass
“any organic, i.e. decomposable, matter derived from plants or animals available on a
renewable basis. Biomass includes wood and agricultural crops, herbaceous and woody
energy crops, municipal organic wastes as well as manure.”
Bioenergy
“is energy derived from the conversion of biomass where biomass may be used directly as
fuel, or processed into liquids and gases”
Source: http://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/subtopics/bioenergy/
Accessed January 22, 2015
Background
The southeast U.S. has recently emerged as a leading global supplier for biomass energy.
Anticipated growth in available solid biomass supply from the various sourcing regions in the import scenario from 2010 to 2020.
For comparison: 1 million tonnes of wood pellets equals about 18 PJ. Source: IEA BIOENERGY(2011)
Source: http://bioenergycrops.com/blog/2013/09/03/8-reasons-to-invest-on-biomass-pellets-in-developing-countries/
Accessed January 22, 2015
Background
“More than 98% of these exports
were delivered to Europe, and 99%
originated from ports in the
southeastern and lower Mid-Atlantic
regions of the country.”
Why the southeast U.S.?
• Supply
• Shipping costs
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16391/
Accessed January 22, 2015
Rapid geo-spatial risk assessment for biodiversity and wildlife
Final Report completed December 2013
Project Sites
Of the 89 existing and proposed facilities in the Southeast the following 6 were chosen to provide a wide crosssection of land cover types, biodiversity and biomass sourcing practices.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Georgia Biomass, LLC
Enviva Pellets Ahoskie
Piedmont Green Power
South Boston Energy
Carolina Wood Pellets
Virginia Hybrid Energy Center
Project Approach
• Develop spatially-explicit biomass sourcing models
• Transportation
• Biomass competition
• Agronomic suitability for pine plantation forestry
• Maxent machine learning model
• Identify risks to extant forest habitats and selected “indicator” species due to pine
forestry conversion and/or biomass harvest
• Policy suggestions for mitigating forest biodiversity risks associated with biomass
energy feedstock sourcing and harvest practices
7
Modeling Process
• Land cover and species data: USGS National Gap Analysis Program (GAP)
• Competition analysis based on transport distance and demands of other facilities in woodshed
• Conservation lands, row crops, and developed lands excluded from all scenarios
• Other masks based on policy “screens” (pastures, upland natural forests, wetlands forests)
• Multiple objective land allocation applied in IDRISI Selva GIS platform
An advanced GIS workflow was developed for scenario modeling of six woody
biomass facilities to analyze multiple “scenario screens” which simulate sourcing
for each facility under different sets of constraints.
8
Map Matrix
Map Matrix
Case Study: Georgia Biomass, LLC
750,000 Mg/yr wood pellet production
Sources 100% yellow pine
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/10/31/photo_cw_03.jpg
http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2011/jan/images/GeorgiaBiomass2_30771_2.jpg
75-mile Network Travel Dist ance and Woodshed Delineation
GAP Land Cover and Conser vation Lands
Travel Network Analysis & Locations of Competing Bioenergy and Pulp Mill Facilities
Competition Demand Strength Analysis, as Annual dry Mg / Network Travel Mile
Maximum Entropy Suitability Model for Pine Plantation
Multiple Criteria Evaluation (IDRISI Selva)
Conservation Mask
Sourcing Screens
Composite Model of Pine Plantation Only (PO) Sourcing Model Screen
Composite Model of Pine & Disturbed, No Pasture (PNP) Sourcing Model Screen
Composite Model of Pine, Disturbed & Pasture Risk Composite Sourcing Model Screen
Composite Model of Upland Forest, No Pasture Risk Composite Sourcing Model
Composite Model of Upland Forest & Pasture Risk Composite Sourcing Model Screen
Composite Plantation Pine Conversion Risk for Natural Forest Stands
Georgia Biomass: GAP Ecosystem Overlays under No Protection Scenario
GAP Ecosystem
Hectares
Acres
Sourcing %
Atlantic Coastal Plain Fall-line Sandhills Longleaf Pine Woodland - Offsite Hardwood
52
128
0.0%
Atlantic Coastal Plain Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Forest
629
1,554
0.3%
Atlantic Coastal Plain Fall-line Sandhills Longleaf Pine Woodland - Open Understory
178
440
0.1%
Atlantic Coastal Plain Southern Wet Pine Savanna and Flatwoods
464
1,146
0.3%
Atlantic Coastal Plain Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland
15,202
37,549
8.4%
East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland - Loblolly Modifier
2,775
6,854
1.5%
East Gulf Coastal Plain Interior Upland Longleaf Pine Woodland - Open Understory
Modifier
15,664
38,690
8.7%
Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Mesic Hardwood Forest
135
333
0.1%
Southern Coastal Plain Dry Upland Hardwood Forest
851
2,102
0.5%
Southern Coastal Plain Hydric Hammock
5,173
12,777
2.9%
Southern Coastal Plain Oak Dome and Hammock
1,778
4,392
1.0%
619
1,529
0.3%
Deciduous Plantations
3,140
7,756
1.7%
Disturbed/Successional - Grass/Forb Regeneration
13,128
32,426
7.3%
Disturbed/Successional - Shrub Regeneration
15,933
39,355
8.9%
Evergreen Plantation or Managed Pine
83,624
206,551
46.5%
Harvested Forest - Grass/Forb Regeneration
12,728
31,438
7.1%
Harvested Forest-Shrub Regeneration
7,922
19,567
4.4%
West Gulf Coastal Plain Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland
~86,000 acres of natural softwood
stands at high risk
~21,000 acres of natural hardwood
stands at high risk
~337,000 acres in plantation or
disturbed
~76% of area demand in
plantation/disturbed
The current land cover base for
plantation pine forestry in this
facility’s woodshed appears
sufficient for meeting long-term
softwood demands if biomass
sustainability criteria that prohibit
natural forest stand conversion are
adopted.
Final Report Executive Summary, pg 7.
24
For more information
Download Final Report here:
http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/media-center/reports/archive/2013/12-05-13-forestry-bioenergy-in-the-southeast.aspx
Acknowledgements
This study was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation and Southern Environmental Law Center
with funds provided by Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
Project Team:
• Contributing Authors: Jason M. Evans (UGA Carl Vinson Institute of Government, Environmental Policy Program), Janaki
Alavalapati (Virginia Tech University, Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation), Jon Calabria
(UGA College of Environment and Design), Robert Fletcher (University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and
Conservation), Alison L. Smith (UGA College of Environment and Design), Miguel Acevedo (University of Florida,
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation), Chris Stebbins (UGA College of Environment and Design), Thakur
Upadhyay (Virginia Tech University, Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation),; Divya Vasudev
(University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation)
Project Stewards: F.G. Courtney-Beauregard (NWF), Julie Sibbing (NWF), Ben Larson (NWF)