Forestry, rather than importing natural gas, is a better bet for addressing energy issues, Jim Childerstone writes.
This country’s leadership tells us burning natural gas emits fewer greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels.
Going by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s quotes to the media (ODT 28.8.24) it is a simple matter of exchanging coal for natural gas to solve our energy problems.
Really? It’s pretty marginal. Is this the only solution to reach carbon zero?
"The bottom line is less gas means more coal" he tells us and his Cabinet.
"More coal means higher emissions because coal has around twice the carbon intensity of natural gas for the same amount of energy".
This has led to Cabinet consents for the construction of facilities to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and also to fast-track consents for local mining.
What brought this on was the regular shortage of electricity, mainly due to low hydro-lake levels during droughts.
If this is the current administration’s simplistic remedy, then any hope of achieving carbon zero by 2030 or 2050, or even by 2100, will be a lost cause. After all, natural gas is just another finite fossil fuel.
Lng is not to be confused with methane-gas capture from landfills, food waste/septic tank systems and vegetative residues from crops. A couple of decades ago, Invermay scientists were extracting methane for heating through a system of silos using vegetative residue — a system of bioremediation used elsewhere in the world.
And there has been a steady increase in boiler conversions among public institutions and businesses from coal to wood-chip biomass, ranging up to 20 megawatts of energy — mostly space heating.
Over the past few years we have been shy of some 500MW of power leading to potential cuts, but thanks to Huntly Power Station’s coal-fired boilers we had been importing nearly half a million tonnes of Indonesian coal annually.
What Mr Luxon’s Cabinet needs to learn is that, apart from solar, wind and biofuel developments, our Crown research institutes have been researching forms of renewable energy. That is until more recent funding cuts.
Last year, in an experiment using two of Huntly’s generators, 1000 tonnes of torrefied wood pellets were imported as a coal substitute, and it worked to the company’s satisfaction.
Now we learn that Australia’s Foresta Group has applied to construct a plant in the Bay of Plenty to manufacture adequate supplies of torrefied wood pellets and chemicals — enough to feed a couple of boilers at Huntly as required without undue modification to the facilities.
The pellets are processed mostly from wood mill and skid-site residues, as well as low-grade logs and stumps. It could be set up within a couple of years — about the same time as an lpg gas facility, and using our own renewable resources and low carbon footprint.
Also within that time period of two to five years, renewable power from solar and wind energy plants will be operational, adding more than 300MW.
Exactly what is the government thinking? Does it not take any note of our own research efforts? Much of this is based on logical common sense, not counting other obvious developments to cut greenhouse gases.
Forestry has the key. Rather than gas extraction with added transport factors, and cutting even more dollars from its agencies and researchers, this government needs to look at the most effective economic investments.
The Ministry of Primary Industries has finally listed its efforts to transition forestry industries into value-added planning from commodity log exports, to boost the domestic market, after continued nudging from forestry leaders and media commentators.
It says the "government’s stated position is to introduce a package to support industry growth and to deliver positive outcomes across the forestry and wood-processing value chain. This includes domestic wood processing".
Forestry Minister Todd McClay says: "This includes working with the industry to increase onshore wood processing, opening new and improved access to existing trading markets, supporting suitable planting, easing burdensome regulations, enabling and supporting the development of new and innovative wood products, adjusting investment settings and supporting climate goals.
"Nearly 60% of New Zealand’s harvest is exported. Increasing our domestic processing will grow the economy, create more regular jobs and help us double our exports by value in 10 years.
"Alongside domestic reforms, the government is working to expand access to overseas markets for producers to export high-quality wood products, also by addressing non-tariff barriers. This will provide the market certainty wood processors need to expand and innovate."
Fine words, but apparently lost in translation.
The MPI’s Te Uru Rakau forest service recommends parties "can apply for funding... to upgrade mills to increase products" — AKA engineered timber.
On climate change, MPI says "increasing carbon storage in harvested wood products is a priority for the government and is actively investigating options to incentivise additional production".
On Foresta’s application the MPI writes : "Overseas firms are encouraged to base operations here, providing they meet relevant legislation (Overseas Investment Act). Most government funding programmes for feasibility and capital investment are limited to businesses based in New Zealand."
But there appears to be little action on these fronts so far. Just more fine words for the benefit of Cabinet members.
• Jim Childerstone is a consultant with 48 years’ experience in the forestry sector. This article originally ran in Logger magazine.
