New 'Green' Technologies Won't Replace Fossil Fuels
By Bill Cook Upper Peninsula Extension Forester

We hear a lot about alternative energy, biomass, ethanol, and related topics. There are a host of existing technologies, quite a few emerging technologies, and many sources of feedstocks. Certainly, it can be mind-boggling. Within the bigger picture, using wood can be one of Michigan's strong suits.

It may be helpful to understand the magnitude of the situation that causes all the fuss. Arguing about whether or not ethanol is a good product is less important than considering why we need something like ethanol in the first place.

Michigan consumes an incredible amount of energy, not to mention the rest of the country, Europe, India, China, and the rest of the world. The U.S. Department of Energy says Michigan consumed 3.1 quadrillion British thermal units (btu) equivalents in 2004. That's roughly 60% of all Michigan standing timber. It's also equivalent to 16.5 times the annual forest growth.

Where does Michigan's energy come from? Oil, natural gas, and coal make up 87% of the supply. All of these are fossil fuels with variable amounts of longer-term availability and extraction costs. They remain the lowest hanging fruit to feed our expanding energy diet. Some folks have heralded warnings about fossil fuel consumption.

Some say wind and solar power might be the answer. Others talk about woody biomass, ethanol, and other products. Some simple calculations show that we would need 20,000 to 30,000 wind turbines, like the ones at the Mackinac Bridge, just to satisfy the amount of residential retail electricity consumption, and that's less than 4% of Michigan's entire energy budget.

To heat our homes with solar energy, we would need to cover roughly the area of a county with solar panels. Home heating is only 13% to 14% of Michigan's energy demand. If every household in Michigan burned wood, we would need more than twice the amount of wood that grows in Michigan each year. None of these calculations make adjustments for inefficiencies, production technologies, processing, and transportation.

Gas engines use only about 25% of the energy in the gas. Some suggest that electric cars are efficient, which they are, however, generating and moving the electricity to the car is not so efficient.

If all the gasoline used in Michigan were replaced by electricity, our electric consumption would jump 50%. The energy in the gasoline represents the equivalent of around 30 million tons of coal, or 570 billion cubic feet of natural gas, or 60 million megawatts of nuclear power. The total amount of feedstock would need to be much higher because of the energy losses between the raw materials and the electric outlet. Most current power plants send about 70% of the energy up the stacks. More electricity is lost along the transmission lines.

The energy "footprint" of Michigan is huge beyond comprehension. Obviously, the new "green" technologies, using current methods, will not come close to replacing fossil fuels. We need to continue working on all existing and potential nonfossil fuel energy sources.

The single biggest factor, and by far the most important, will be increased efficiencies and conservation. Some experts suggest that we could reduce our consumption by 30% to 50% through fairly easy measures. We might have refrigerators that use less energy, but if we use larger refrigerators or have two of them, then the net result is increased consumption. Too often, energy discussions fail to emphasize the role of efficiency and conservation. Attitudes are difficult to change. We continue to drive large, inefficient vehicles, build oversized homes, and use electricity like there is no end.

Yet, there is an end. Maybe not in the lifetime of the baby-boomers, but their children and grandchildren will likely have to deal with conservation and alternative energy by necessity, rather than by choice.

One of Michigan's logical opportunities for providing part of the solution is to use our abundant forests. Woody biomass can be used in a variety of ways to produce a variety of products. Energy is one more reason to manage and harvest our forests. Woody biomass is far from a silver bullet, but it's renewable, abundant, and we already know how to properly manage forests. Yet, as we improve forest use, we always need to keep in mind the humongous energy footprint our state currently has.

We can debate the role of woody biomass as a large footnote in the greater energy story. It's one thing to have energy accumulating out there in the forest, which runs around 189 trillion BTUs per year, or about 6% of current Michigan consumption. Capturing that free energy for useful human purposes, however, has a series of challenges, including landowner cooperation. The biomass must be harvested, processed, and the energy products distributed. Each of these three areas of technology has many sub-headings. Each has energy inputs. And then, there are the laws of physics.

With all that we hear about energy these days, it's no wonder that the numbers, terms, conversion, and opinions are ranging all across the board.

The numbers in this article have assumptions, limits, and caveats, too. Energy situations are not easy to describe and compare. Yet, we must continue to work at it.