Research conducted H.Y. Hadikusumah in Majalaya, West Java, concluded that poor people use wood for energy as much as possible, resorting to kerosene only when the supply is exhausted.
Although woodfuel creates significant health hazards and has been declared the "silent killer" of women and children, it is the energy of necessity rather than choice.
The decision to use either kerosene, woodfuel or other energy (such as bio-methanol) depends on several factors, such as the price, availability, reliability of supply, the cost of appliance replacement (i.e. stoves) and the energy content of available alternatives. However, in many rural areas there is no option but to use woodfuel because of isolatiob and the lack of infrastructure to deliver other types of energy.
The use of forest biomass to produce energy can play a significant role in the lives of many people in the world. However, we need to explore the following questions:
Is it economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially acceptable if the raw materials for charcoal and woodfuel are transformed into biomethanol using mobile technology that is both environmentally friendly and inexpensive?
Can we use the available silviculture regimes or ecosystem management principles to achieve sustainable forest management while at the same time producing forest biomass for bioenergy?
Can we use forest certification to prove that the sources of forest biomass are managed under the principles of sustainable forest management?
If the answer is "yes" to most of those questions, then we may use forest materials for biomethanol without further loosing significant forest areas or damaging the forest ecosystem in Indonesia.
According to the FAO, Indonesia has the 8th largest forest area in the world. Yet Indonesia is also one of ten countries with the largest annual net loss in forest area in the years 2000-2005. This situation reflects the manifestation of a problematic structural of the forest sector, including the policy and regulatory frameworks, economic and financial policies, the operations of the timber industry, and corruption
Inefficiency also happens in forest harvesting operations. Even with conservative calculations using production levels in the 1980s, total log waste was 7.5 million m3/year with a value of almost Rp. 1.2 trillion/year.
Making forest more productive and sustainable will be one among technical tools to control deforestation. In fact, using forest biomass for bioenergy with appropriate silvicultural techniques will not only reduce pressure to harvest more commercial timbers since economic benefits not only come from commercial trees.
It is also from less commercial trees, shrubs, and other biomass. The program will also provide opportunity to have more healthy forest and other community-based programs in the rural area.
According to a study in Washington state, production of biofuels or bioenergy from otherwise un-merchantable forest thinnings will be insufficient to cover the cost of removing thinnings from the forest. However, if this material must be removed to reduce the risk of wildfire, then the range of biofuel and energy production options are preferable to the disposal of this material and should be aggressively pursued.
Approximately about 71.86 percent of what has been classified as forest residue can be used as raw material for bioenergy production. If there are 7.5 million m3/year (5.063 tonnes) forest residues and if we assume that we can use a very conservative calculation of 25 percent efficiency when converting biomass to methanol, the total biomethanol that can be produced will be 39.87 million liters.
- Electricity production from the amount of methanol will support 12,493 households.
- Total net carbon emissions avoided by subtracting bio-methanol for natural gas in fuel cell is 29,365 tonnes of carbon, while 26,581 tonnes of carbon would avoid being emitted if bio-methanol was used to substitute or supplement gasoline use at country level.
To some extent, energy farms (plantation forests) will increase the competition of land use and will gradually increase the price of agricultural products. If woodfuel is produced on an unsustainable basis by the clear cutting of forests, substituting energy produced from wood for energy produced from fossil fuels will not have a positive effect on carbon balances and could even be worse than the use of fossil fuels.
If woodfuel is produced from sustainably managed forests where the wood harvested is replaced, then the substitution of wood energy for fossil fuels will result in a real reduction in the net carbon balance. From this point of view, forest certification programs can be an appropriate tool when used to prove that sustainable forest management practices have been implemented in the FMU.
Similarly, if residues from harvesting and the wood industry are used for energy production, rather than left unused, this would also have a positive net effect to forest health (by reducing forest fire) and the availability of clean energy for rural people."
Oriģināls
Nav komentāru:
Ierakstīt komentāru