Debating what to do with all the wood in the forests
By Lauren Sommer, NPR
The record-breaking wildfire in Yosemite National Park is almost fully contained, two months after it started. The blaze calls attention to a problem across the Western U.S. — after a century having its fires routinely extinguished, the forests are overloaded with fuel.
A heated debate has flared up about what do to with that forest fuel. California is hoping to reduce its fire risk through renewable energy, but some worry about the environmental costs of thinning the forests.
The forest right after a big fire is incredibly quiet. There are no birds. No bugs. No pine needles rustling in the breeze. Just row after row of blackened trees. Their bark feels like charcoal.
At more than 400 square miles, the Rim Fire is the largest Sierra Nevada fire in recorded history.
For decades, the Forest Service tried to put out every fire by 10 in the morning after it started. Small trees grew in, and during the Rim Fire they became ladders, carrying flames up to the tree tops and leaving just charred trunks. But just across the road, it looks entirely different.
Brett Storey thinks there’s a solution. He’s a program manager for Placer County and he’s showing me around a recycling facility between Tahoe City and Truckee.
The plant would turn tree branches and scrap into a gas that runs a generator, supplying about 1,500 homes with electricity. It would be fueled by Forest Service projects within 30 miles.
The terrain is a huge factor in what is able to be done with heavy equipment. Roads built for fuel reduction can be a great asset. When built properly, they can be used for emergencies and stellar recreational opportunities. Mtn biking should be greatly enhanced.
How about logging it? Yes, timber is a renewable resource.
Noting that ‘biomass’ is a significant part of the National Energy policy we don’t yet have, it is pure conjecture to say that forest “fuels” are just that, as they hold a lot of embedded energy that could be used for civilized purposes above & beyond “going up in smoke”, the only alternative to their ending up to be the kindling which can start the “catastrophe” in catastrophic fire. . .
Petroleum releases its’ embedded energy and pollutes with CO2; forest fuels can release theirs and merely lead to better forest health, which can then process even more CO2 (the carbon being trees building block, with a by-product of oxygen) – a very poor tradeoff for society, leaving results to chance.
Policies are still oriented to the ‘linear-board-foot’ of lumber, as logging is still the only known thought to “monetizing” forest stewardship – but there are other ways, but from Federal agencies (such as the Department of Energy) that aren’t always part of the discussion on resource management, but should be.
‘Lineal-board-feet’ need not be the common denominator in these decisions; what should be included is “BTU’s/lb” all the way down to “joules/gram” as values for the embedded energy within that can be used for something other than smoke that pollutes the lungs of those who encounter it. . .the source of the Forest Service’ P.R. problem in announcing yet another prescribed fire.