Reframing Humankind’s Relationship with Nature: Contributions from Social Exchange Theory

FEBRUARY 20TH, 2017
By Keri Schwab, Daniel Dustin and Kelly Bricker

Link to Deepening Our Craft February 2017 JSE TOC

Schwab JSE Feb 2017 General Issue PDF

Abstract: In this paper we compare and contrast the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) with Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958) as conceptual foundations for eliciting pro-environmental behavior. We reason that Social Exchange Theory provides the better orientation because of its metaphorical power in casting humankind as being in a reciprocal relationship with nature rather than being in a superior position over nature. We illustrate our thinking by discussing ecosystem services (Melillo & Sala, 2008) as nature’s contribution to humankind in return for humankind’s responsible environmental stewardship.

Keywords: biodiversity, ecosystem services, humankind, nature, pro-environmental behavior, Social Exchange Theory, Theory of Planned Behavior

The diminishment of the Earth’s biodiversity due to human impacts is occurring at an alarming rate (Cardinale, et al., 2012; Pereira, Navarro, & Martins, 2012; Perrings et al., 2011) despite concerted efforts to change human beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward nature. This is a particularly vexing problem in the Western industrialized world where humans often see ourselves as being separate from and having dominion over nature (Annan, 2008; Schramski, Gattie, & Brown, 2015; Vitousek, Mooney, Lubchenco, & Melillo, 1997; White, 1967). Nature tends to be viewed as an object ‘out there’ that derives value to the extent it serves our purposes. This highly anthropocentric orientation to humankind’s relationship with nature leads to one-way exchanges; humans acting toward nature rather than with nature.

The purpose of our paper is to discuss Social Exchange Theory (SET) as an alternative conceptual orientation to humankind’s relationship with nature, thereby offering a different approach to changing human beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. We make our case by first reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a common starting point for eliciting pro-environmental behavior. We then address SET’s potential to supplant the TPB as a preferable starting point for eliciting pro-environmental behavior by shifting the focus from doing things to nature to doing things with nature. We conclude the discussion by reaffirming the need to reframe humankind’s relationship with nature to stem the loss of biodiversity and protect and preserve the health and well-being of the planet’s inhabitants, human and non-human alike.

Eliciting Pro-Environmental Behavior 

However daunting the challenge of trying to change human beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in ways that will protect and preserve the Earth’s rapidly diminishing biodiversity, it is a challenge that must be met. The change sought after is often described as eliciting pro-environmental behavior, or “that which harms the environment as little as possible, or even benefits the environment” (Steg & Vlek, 2009). How best to elicit pro-environmental behavior is a topic of ongoing concern and debate.

Theory of Planned Behavior

Many interventions designed to elicit pro-environmental behavior begin with Ajzen’s TPB (1991). In general, the TPB seeks to explain how people form behavioral intentions that lead to certain actions (See Figure 1). The TPB posits that if an intervention can impact the formation of a behavioral

Figure 1: Theory of Planned Behavior

intention, a change in action should follow that corresponds to the desired intention. Behavioral intentions are formed based on one’s beliefs and attitudes toward the behavior, social norms about the behavior, and perceived behavioral control to carry out the behavior.

Many researchers have attempted to apply the logic of the TPB in eliciting pro-environmental behavior, with varying degrees of success. In one meta-analysis, researchers found that of 57 studies looking at ‘psychological action models’ to affect behavior change, the majority sought to impact behavior by first changing behavioral intentions (Bamberg & Moser, 2006). Other researchers have found that many interventions based on the TPB analyze the costs and benefits of actions and the role of social norms and personal morals in accounting for changes in behavioral intentions (Steg & Vlek, 2009). They note as well that many interventions use informational strategies that attempt to change perceptions or increase knowledge in order to persuade, alter motivations, or address social norms related to the person’s attitude toward the environment. In sum, the TPB has served as a popular starting point for eliciting pro-environmental behavior. Interventions stemming from the TPB are intended to change behavior in a manner that results in less damage (or more good) being done to the environment. This approach asks people to modify their actions in deference to their impact on nature, recognizing that beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors result in certain kinds of predictable actions toward nature.

However popular the TPB may be as a foundation for eliciting pro-environmental behavior, it is also wanting in certain respects. For example, the TPB suggests a linear route to human behavior change based on individual beliefs, attitudes, and one’s interpretation or value of social norms. It positions the individual as the agent of change, with motivation or support coming from social, attitudinal, or structural components. The individual generates behavior and directs his or her behavior toward the desired action. The model is largely unidirectional.

Focusing on human-centered intentionality is especially problematic when trying to change behaviors that affect nature adversely, because it is often difficult to see how any one individual’s behavioral change can have a positive effect on either a personal or societal level. This ‘vision’ problem has been discussed as a principal obstacle to eliciting pro-environmental behavior for decades (Dustin, Schwab, & Bricker, 2010; Tilden, 1975). If people cannot see how a particular behavioral change will improve the quality of their lives, there is little motivation for them to behave in the desired manner. Within the context of the TPB, this accounts for the integral role that ‘perceived behavioral control’ plays on motivation to form a behavioral intention (Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). People need to believe that a change in their behavior will contribute to, or result in, desirable outcomes; otherwise, they will not likely form the desired intention leading to the desired behavior. Thus, even though actions that are environmentally friendly often carry a positive normative belief, perceived behavioral control may be constrained by the belief that one’s behavior will not have any significant impact.

This limitation of the TPB is exacerbated by its neglect of emotional variables such as threat, fear, compassion, connectedness, or other feelings that may influence the formation of behavioral beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Koger & Winter, 2010; Stern, 2005). Environmental controversies are often fraught with deep emotional feelings that influence how individuals respond to calls for changing human behaviors toward nature. Once again, if what is being asked for in the way of behavioral change does not resonate with the experience of people and engage them in an emotional way, the likelihood of eliciting the desired behavioral change is lessened. In the absence of a feeling of reciprocity, environmental issues are thus more inclined to be deemed distant and abstract, especially if the temporal or spatial impacts of the behavior in question are far removed from people’s daily lives. This is why Tilden (1975) stressed the importance of interpretive messages resonating with the experience of people receiving the messages. Otherwise, the messages come across as sterile and unappealing.

The TPB thus tends toward a one-way approach to behavioral change that seeks to address why and what humans do to achieve a desired end, and offers a way to change that one-way behavior. The absence of a feeling of reciprocity in the theory and its neglect of emotional variables that tend to influence environmental commitment and decision-making weaken its usefulness as a starting point for eliciting pro-environmental behavior. The TPB leads to interventions that do something to, or act in a certain way toward, but never with, the other entity impacted by the behavior—nature.

Social Exchange Theory

A potentially more useful approach to understanding, predicting, and changing attitudes and behaviors regarding nature is provided by Social Exchange Theory [SET] (Homans, 1961). This theory is often used to explain human interactions, particularly those in which people seek to gain something from the relationship. The theory outlines how relationships must be beneficial and reciprocal in order to work and be sustainable.

SET was conceived as a way to help broadly explain and predict how individuals and social groups interact with one another when exchanging goods or services (Homans, 1958). The theory assumes humans are rational beings who seek to meet their basic needs (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Homans’ Social Exchange Theory

When making exchanges, SET suggests there are always costs and benefits that both sides must consider, and that behavioral exchange will be driven by the extent to which each side determines the benefits (or payoff) of the exchange are greater than the exchange’s costs. The benefits that someone receives from the exchange constitute the reward for their choice and participation in the exchange and serve to reinforce the behavior enacted in the exchange (Homans, 1961). Typically, the exchange provides benefits to, or has some value to, both parties, thereby mutually reinforcing the exchange and its continuation over time.

Homans (1958) offered several propositions in developing SET that have important implications for its usefulness as a starting point for eliciting pro-environmental behavior. First, he posited that behavior that offers positive rewards or consequences will be repeated. Second, he posited that behaviors that are rewarded (or reinforced) will be repeated under the same or similar circumstances. Third, he posited that the more valuable the result of a behavior is to an actor, the more likely that behavior is to be performed. Fourth, he posited that the more often an actor receives a reward for a behavior, the less valuable will be receiving any more of that reward. Finally, he posited that an actor will be angry or aggressive if he or she does not receive the reward when it is expected.

Extending and clarifying SET, Blau (1986) adds that a social exchange, as opposed to an economic exchange, includes some level of ambiguity as to exactly what goods and services might be exchanged. One person may do another a favor, with only a general expectation that some unspecified favor will be returned in the future. Further, he stipulates that favors being exchanged “can only be achieved through interactions with other persons, and it [the actor] must seek to adapt means to further achievement of these ends” (Blau, 1986, p. 5). In other words, each exchange should help give rise to the next. Moreover, a social exchange is rarely perfectly equal and at some point the exchange gives rise to power differentials in the relationship. This occurs when one person has more goods or is in a better position in society (or the network) than the other, rendering ‘the other’ dependent on the first for goods and services (Cook & Rice, 2006).

Underlying Assumptions

Before discussing the applicability of SET as a foundation upon which to elicit pro-environmental behavior, it is important to consider the assumptions underlying its potential usefulness. The first, and most obvious assumption is that “humanity, having evolved as part of the web of life, remains enmeshed within it” (Wilson, 2008, p. vii). This view challenges the idea that humankind is separate from and above nature and replaces it with the idea that humankind is a part of nature, and, just as importantly, that biodiversity has a profound influence on human health and well-being (Wilson). This perspective recognizes humankind’s rootedness in, and dependence on, nature for its sustenance. Sustaining life, including human life, is grounded in understanding that life’s processes consist of ongoing exchanges between and among all things living and non-living.

A second assumption that flows from the first is that in a world characterized by ongoing exchanges between and among all things living and non-living there are really no one-way exchanges. Feedback, however subtle, is continuous whether we humans see it, listen to it, taste it, touch it, or smell it. Our species’ challenge is to use all of our senses to be increasingly aware of the feedback and make adjustments in our conduct accordingly. This requires openness to new learning and accepting both emotionally and intellectually that change may be required in the way we humans conduct ourselves, however accustomed to, or comfortable with, traditional patterns of behavior.

A third assumption acknowledges that even though SET starts by assuming all actors are rational humans, we know that emotions play into human decision-making. Meanwhile, nature is neither emotional nor rational. However, nature is– without human or other interference – generally predictable with repeating patterns of behavior. This makes the idea of exchanges reliable as we humans increasingly have a good idea of what to expect from nature.

A fourth and final assumption is that while nature does not communicate its needs and wants in a language familiar to humankind, it does ‘communicate’ in a variety of ways that we humans have the capacity to interpret accurately. Conceiving of humankind as nature’s invention for keeping track of itself (Oelschlaeger, 1991), we humans have a moral responsibility to act on nature’s behalf in ways that correspond to pro-environmental behavior (Stone, 1974). Increasingly, lessons learned from scientific inquiry inform our species’ thinking in ways that could and should result in better environmental decision-making.

The Relevance of Social Exchange Theory

Perhaps the best example of the potential usefulness of SET as a point of departure for eliciting pro-environmental behavior is the concept of “ecosystem services” (Daily, 1997; National Research Council, 2004). Ecosystem services refer to the “various ways that organisms, and the sum total of their interactions with each other and with the environments in which they live, function to keep all life on this planet, including human life, alive” (Chivian & Bernstein, 2008, p. xi). Melillo and Sala (2008) divide ecosystem services into four major categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services. Provisioning services are products the ecosystem provides humans (food, fuel, fiber, medicines, etc.) Regulating services refer to the benefits obtained from environmental regulation of ecosystem processes (cleaning air, purifying water, mitigating floods, controlling erosion, detoxifying soils, modifying climate, etc.). Cultural services refer to nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems (aesthetics, intellectual stimulation, a sense of place, etc.). Supporting services are those services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services (primary productivity, nutrient recycling, pollination, etc.) These four categories of services represent what we humans gain in exchanges with a healthy (biodiverse) ecosystem.

What can and should the ecosystem expect to gain in return from us for having held up its end of the bargain (as if the ecosystem had the ability to expect anything)? The answer would have to be responsible environmental stewardship from the only self-aware (Schumacher, 1977) member of Leopold’s (1949) land community—humankind (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Social Exchange Theory Applied to Ecosystem Services

SET thus offers an orientation to pro-environmental behavior that is rooted in an ecological worldview (Dustin, Bricker, & Schwab, 2010). It is a perspective that sees the health and well-being of life on Earth stemming from a mutually supportive relationship that honors what the ecosystem can provide humankind and what humankind can provide the ecosystem.

We recognize that the idea that humans can and should live in a mutually supportive relationship with nature has existed for centuries, but it has been largely lost to modern ways of thinking. Many indigenous cultures hold a relational belief system, in which they view themselves as situated within the natural world and connected through interactions with nature and each other (Datta, 2015; Reddekop, 2014). This relational view sees all life, including plants, animals, and water, as animate and “full of thought, desire, contemplation and will,” (Watts, 2013, p. 23). All life forms are thus thought to have agency and can communicate how they should be arranged and treated. Indigenous peoples also believe their ancestors’ spirits are part of the land, so human life is embedded within as well as upon the earth. In such a “non-entity-centric” belief structure there is no ‘I,’ no atomistic view of the world, nor is there a reductionistic logic to understand and control the natural world. From this relational perspective, empathy, respect and reciprocity are inherently part of living relationships (Reddekop, 2014), and indigenous peoples treat the natural world as a close friend with mutual respect and reciprocity. The modern world, in sum, could learn much from indigenous cultures about doing things ‘with’ rather than ‘to’ nature.

Applying Social Exchange Theory to Elicit Pro-Environmental Behavior

The scientific community’s challenge is to translate increased understanding of the workings of the world to the citizenry in a way that engages and inspires them to modify their behaviors as necessary to protect and preserve the sustainability of life on Earth. That brings us back to the question of how best to elicit those behaviors, and it requires revisiting Homans’s five propositions underpinning SET:

• behavior that offers positive rewards or consequences will be repeated
• behaviors that are rewarded (or reinforced) will be repeated under the same or similar circumstances
• the more valuable the result of a behavior is to an actor, the more likely that behavior is to be performed
• the more often an actor receives a reward, the less valuable will be receiving any more of that reward
• actors will be angry or aggressive if they do not receive the reward when they expect it

Rewards (ecosystem services) come readily from Earth’s resources, and that easy and frequent receipt of rewards often leads people to undervalue them (i.e., take them for granted). The challenge is to help people better appreciate the exchange process so they will begin to value the rewards more. Considered together, these conclusions highlight the significance of the aforementioned ‘vision’ problem as well as Tilden’s (1975) admonition that for messages to be effective they must resonate with something in the individual’s experience. What this means in the context of ecosystem services is that we must communicate the rewards associated with those services for humankind in a manner that is understandable, relatable, and meaningful. The difficulty of accomplishing this is heightened by what Hardin (1968) and others have characterized as humankind’s selfish or myopic nature. This, in turn, underscores the importance of communicating how ecosystem services benefit humankind in a way that will not be possible with a reduction in biodiversity and a corresponding deterioration in environmental health.

Adding to the challenge’s complexity is what Blau (1986) described as power differentials in the relationship between the exchanging entities. At first glance, it would appear that nature has many resources upon which humans depend, thus placing power in nature’s hands. However, humans have an abundance of physical and intellectual resources available, and are always ready to employ those resources to maximize profits and minimize costs in social exchanges with nature. This unequal exchange asks much of nature with little or no gain to nature in the process. Understood this way, humans are no longer in a social exchange with nature. Rather, they are involved in a one-way process of taking goods and services, without allowing nature to accrue any benefits in the process. In SET, this has been explained as the relative use of power that results in an unequal distribution of rewards across positions in a social network (Cook & Rice, 2006). Left unchecked, while it may appear that humans are in a favorable position relative to nature in receiving rewards rather than giving them, in time nature may no longer have resources to give and stop participating in the exchange. If, however, we humans were to come to our senses and recognize our dependence on nature for ecosystem services, and recognize as well that nature ultimately holds the power in the relationship, and that even with human innovation and technological advances we cannot adequately replicate nature’s complex systems, then we humans might be persuaded to engage in a more equitable social exchange with nature–a mutually beneficial, reciprocal exchange in which power, costs, and benefits are balanced, and both sides receive something from the relationship.

Conclusion

In closing, it is important to emphasize language’s metaphorical power in helping change the way we might think about our relationship with nature. Leopold’s (1949) land ethic ushered in the possibility of we human beings stepping down from our anthropocentric pedestal to assume a more humble station among life’s creations when he implored us to see ourselves as plain members and citizens of the larger community of life. In the years since, others have pointed out that the language we speak both reflects and shapes the way we see ourselves in relation to the larger living world (Cachelin, Norvell, & Darling, 2010; Cachelin, Rose, Dustin, & Shooter, 2011; Cachelin & Ruddell, 2013). To distance ourselves from nature through our spoken language, and to consider nature as an ‘other’ that is ‘out there’ serving as a mere backdrop for our human drama, is not helpful. It reinforces the idea of a one-way relationship between humankind and nature, when ecology teaches that it has been, is, and always will be a two-way relationship. Consequently, we believe supplanting the Theory of Planned Behavior with Social Exchange Theory as a conceptual foundation upon which to build a healthier and more sustainable human/nature relationship is a promising metaphorical step in the right direction.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. (pp. 11-39). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Annan, K. (2008). Prologue. In E. Chivian & A. Bernstein (Eds.) Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. p. ix. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2006). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2006), 14-25.

Blau, P. (1986). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Cachelin, A., Rose, J., Dustin, D., & Shooter, W. (2011). Sustainability in outdoor education: Rethinking root metaphors. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2: March.

Cachelin, A., Norvell, R., & Darling, A. (2010). Language fouls in teaching ecology: Why traditional metaphors undermine conservation literacy. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 669-674.

Cachelin, A., & Ruddell, E. (2013). The impact of language framing on sustainability education. Journal for Environmental Studies and Sciences, 3(3), 306-315.

Cardinale, B.J. (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67.

Chivian, E., & Bernstein, A. (Eds.) (2008). Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cook, K., & Rice, E. (2006). Social exchange theory. In J. DeLamater (Ed.) The handbook of social psychology. pp. 53-76. New York: Springer.

Daily, G. (Ed.) (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Dustin, D., Bricker, K., & Schwab, K. (2010). People and nature: Toward an ecological model of health promotion. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 3-14.

Dustin, D., Schwab, K., & Bricker, K. (2010). Thermus aquaticus and you: Biodiversity, human health, and the interpretive challenge. Rural Connections, September: 47-50.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (3859), 1243-1248.

Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc.

Homans, G. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63 (6) 597-606.

Koger, S., & Winter, D. (2010). The psychology of environmental problems. New York: Psychology Press.

Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9.

Melillo, J., & Sala, O. (2008). Ecosystem services. In E. Chivian & A. Bernstein (Eds.) Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. pp. 75-115. New York: Oxford University Press.

National Research Council, (2004). Valuing ecosystem services: Toward better environmental decision-making. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Oelschlaeger, M. (1991) The idea of wilderness: From prehistory to the age of ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pereira, H., Navarro, L., & Martins, I. (2012). Global biodiversity change: The good, the bad, and the unknown. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 25-50.

Perrings, C., Naeem, S., Ahrestani, F.S., Bunker, D.E., Burkill, P., Canziani, G., … Weisser, W. (2011). Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Environ, 9, 512–520.

Schramski, J.R., Gattie, D.K., Brown, J.H. (2015). Human dominiation of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencs of the United States of America. 112(31).

Schumacher, E. (1977). A guide for the perplexed. New York: Harper & Row.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309-317.

Stern, P. (2005). Understanding individuals’ environmentally significant behavior. Environmental Law Reporter: News and Analysis, 35: 10785–10790.

Stone, C. (1974). Should trees have standing? Law, morality, and the environment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tilden, F. (1975). Interpreting our heritage. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Vitousek, P., Mooney, H., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 227 (5325), 494-499.

White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155 (3767), 1203-1207.

Wilson, E. (2008). Foreword. In E. Chivian & A. Bernstein (Eds.) Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. p. vii. New York: Oxford University Press.

For further details log on website:
http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/reframing-humankinds-relationship-with-nature-contributions-from-social-exchange-theory_2017_02/

From the forest to the classroom: Energy literacy as a co-product of biofuels research

Published Date
JANUARY 11TH, 2015
By Justin Hougham, Steve Hollenhorst, Jennifer Schon, Karla Bradley Eitel, Danica Hendrickson, Chad Gotch, Tammi Laninga, Laurel James, Blake Hough, Dan Schwartz, Shelley Preslley, Karl Olsen, Liv Haselbach, Quinn Langfitt and Jennifer Moslemi

Hougham et al JSE Vol 8 Jan 2015 (1)

Abstract

The Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA) is a biofuel research project that includes a holistic educational approach to energy literacy.  NARA research is focused on woody biomass as a feedstock for biofuels and associated co-products, particularly in the forested areas of the U.S. Pacific Northwest.  Extending beyond the science of biofuels, the NARA project examines many social elements of our energy economy, including education.  Projects that can combine research and connections to educational venues provide excellent opportunities to expand the impact of grant funded proposals.  Keys to making this possible include coordination across disciplines, interpretation of  research results, and  research processes in the field coupled with investment into integrated educational strategies within the project.   This paper outlines elements of the NARA approach to energy literacy, offering strategies for approaches to broader impacts in projects beyond the energy sector.

Keywords: Sustainability Education, Energy Literacy, Biofuels, Research

This paper presents a case that demonstrates the broader impact of research programs within a sector of energy- biofuels- and how research in that area impacts education for energy literacy.  This case also presents an example of how a research community embraced efforts to repackage scientific data for use in education communities across sectors in the education field (k-12, undergrad, digital media, and teacher professional development).  The Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA) project was founded through a USDA grant (no. 2011-6800530416)  The resulting conceptual framework from this energy project reflects the collaboration of over 100 researchers and staff and also speaks to the impact of one funding agency understanding the impact of socially engaged research to connect to stakeholders as well as STEM education writ large.  Developing environmentally and economically sustainable alternatives to petroleum is a central challenge of the 21st century. Aviation requires energy-dense liquid fuels, currently derived exclusively from petroleum. This fossil energy dependence poses tremendous challenges to carbon emissions reductions. In the Pacific Northwest, considerable research is focused on developing viable biofuel alternatives from existing waste streams like forest harvest residues and municipal solid waste.

First, we will discuss the proposition that significant positive environmental and economic benefits can be achieved through the development of biofuels, including lower carbon emissions, improved air/water quality, and the development of a regional sustainable energy and co-product industries. Then, we consider how the wood-based biofuels research populates an energy literacy infrastructure that reaches educational stakeholders across disciplines and audiences.

Importance of Wood-Based BioFuels Research

Advanced biomaterials technologies – biofuels and co-products derived from forest, crop, and urban residues, as well as non-food crops – hold great promise for transforming the energy sector and can provide opportunities for revitalization of rural economies, biodiversity protection, and climate stabilization. Congress has mandated that the U.S. annually produce biofuels from biomass to replace 30% of petroleum-derived gasoline by 2030 (Perlack et al. 2005). In addition, these same technologies will provide sustainable routes to supply other key chemical needs currently derived from petroleum, such as monomers for industrial polymer production (e.g., polystyrenes, polyacrylates, polypropylenes, phenols, etc.) and specialty chemicals (solvents, paints, fine chemicals, disinfectants, and other commodities).

As the world increasingly looks to biofuels to support the growing global demand for energy, there is a need to recruit and train a next-generation workforce that can transform existing energy supply chains to bring bioenergy research and innovations to market. This poses a dual challenge, as the workforce must not only create new economically viable products, but also ensure the maintenance of ecological services required to sustain both human life and biodiversity.

Scientists from public universities, government laboratories and private industry from throughout the Northwest, and beyond, have joined together to focus on developing ways to turn one of the region’s most plentiful commodities—wood and wood waste—into jet fuel.  Led by Washington State University, NARA  (http://nararenewables.org/) takes a holistic approach to building a supply chain for aviation biofuel with the goal of increasing efficiency in everything from forestry operations to conversion processes. Using a variety of feedstocks, including forest and mill residues as well as construction waste, the project aims to create a sustainable industry to produce aviation biofuels and important co-products. The project includes a broad alliance of private industry and educational institutions from throughout the Northwest. Aviation requires energy-dense liquid fuels, currently derived exclusively from petroleum. This fossil energy dependence poses tremendous challenges to carbon emissions reductions.  Networks have been established to develop a new bio-based energy industry situated upon the close geographic proximity of physical assets across the entire supply chain. Networks of academic institutions committed to bioenergy education are growing stronger and more coordinated in their efforts to reach faculty and students.

Academic institutions are at the forefront of the challenge to educate a future workforce, policymakers, and citizenry that can perform within the complex supply chain that must be built to transform the energy sector. However, working effectively to bring about this transformation will require more than just a conceptual grounding in bioenergy science. Transformation will only come by truly rethinking academic education to contextualize bioenergy innovations within the larger framework of energy development and to provide skills needed to work within this inherently interdisciplinary system. The educational challenge is therefore threefold, as it must include:

1) conceptual knowledge across multiple disciplines;

2) an understanding of bioenergy research and innovations within the larger context of energy supply chains; and

3) the development of “soft-skills” such as problem solving and communication to deal with diverse real-world situations.

While academic education has traditionally been successful in providing disciplinary focus, it has struggled to provide the kinds of opportunities that a transformative bioenergy education requires. Academic institutions are characteristically discipline-oriented and are marked by few opportunities for real-world learning (Szostak 2007). While a deep understanding of various disciplines related to bioenergy production and distribution is critical, it must be developed within a larger interdisciplinary framework that teaches how the individual parts fit within larger supply chain systems. Students must understand the challenges and opportunities for bioenergy within this larger context and learn the skills needed to work within an interdisciplinary environment.

From Research to the Classroom and the Community—the Educational Challenge

To meet its goals, NARA is organized into five specific areas of focus.

1. Education: This team engages citizens, meets future workforce needs, enhances science literacy in biofuels, and help people understand how they’re going to fit into the new energy economy.
2. Conversion: This team provides a biomass-derived replacement for aviation fuel and other petroleum-derived chemicals in a way that is economically and technologically feasible.
3. Feedstocks: This team takes a multi-pronged approach to the development and sustainable production of feedstocks made from wood materials, including forest and mill residues and municipal solid waste.
4. Sustainability Measurement: This team evaluates and assesses the environmental, social, and economic viability of the overall wood to biofuels supply chain, guiding the project as it goes forward.
5. Outreach: This team serves as a conduit between researchers and community stakeholders, helping to transfer the science and technology of biofuels and important co-products to communities in the Northwest.

The Education team uses the outputs from the other four teams and this research to serve as the ‘feedstock’ for the educational approach seen in the NARA model.  These outcomes or products include datasets, media, reports, published articles and presentations.  The members of the education team depend on these artifacts to connect students from a variety of ages and programs to energy issues facing our communities today.

Education

We know that energy and biofuels literacy can be challenging to teach in the classroom. Energy concepts and applications are complex and holistic, and draw from the major sciences: biology, ecology, chemistry, physics, math, earth, and environmental. We also know that while researchers and educators have developed literally thousands of resources for teachers, it can be difficult to understand how resources can be used to teach different components of science, and how those resources link back to the state and national science standards that all schools follow. The NARA Education team meets this challenge through:

1) integrating educational opportunities within project research efforts; and

2) converting research data into educational formats that are available to graduate students, undergraduate classes, k-12 teacher professional development, web-based resources and print materials for lessons.

Middle and High school Curriculum

The McCall Outdoor Science School (MOSS) delivers biofuel education programs to 2,500 middle and high school students annually both during the school year and during the summer. MOSS strives to increase energy literacy in a place based, hands-on approach through the residential program offered by the University of Idaho. New biofuel lesson plans are created and field-tested in partnership with Facing the Future. Energy literacy lessons are taught daily at MOSS. Students attending the MOSS program participate in two energy lessons, one occurs during the day in the field and the other is apart of the first night evening program that introduce the inquiry process to students (Schon, et al 2014). Teachers also have the option to choose Engaging Energy as a topic for their students for one full field day. There are currently five topics available. All students attending MOSS also partake in two different energy chores to cover basic energy literacy principles such as renewable and nonrenewable energy, sources of energy, value and importance of energy in our daily lives, and basic units of energy.

MOSS also assess a sample of students that attend the programming to ascertain student change in energy literacy from their time at MOSS. MOSS staff, along with the NARA education team, has worked to create and pilot test an energy literacy assessment tool that will be used to define change in energy literacy for students attending NARA related programs.

Teacher Professional Development

NARA teacher professional development is approached through two different formats: 1) a webinar series designed to support teachers with new content knowledge in bioenergy and skills for facilitating problem-based learning in conjunction with coaching an Imagine Tomorrow team (see below for a description of Imagine Tomorrow) and 2) a 4-day intensive workshop where teachers are engaged in problem-based learning around the topic of bioenergy. The goals of our teacher professional development are:

1)      to increase the energy literacy of students and teachers in the Pacific Northwest by providing direct education and resources for teaching and learning about energy in place-based contexts

2)      to connect teachers and students to ongoing scientific research in the broad area of bioenergy and the specific area of woody biomass based biofuel

3)      to create an ongoing dialog between the education /outreach teams and the science team for mutual benefits

4)      to use the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA) project as a case study of one way that researchers are looking at addressing the complex questions associated with providing energy in a sustainable way.

Facing the Future- Curriculum Modules

Facing the Future, an independent program of Western Washington University, creates interdisciplinary curricula that equip and motivate students to develop critical thinking skills, build global awareness, and engage in positive solutions for a sustainable future. This curricula uses global sustainability as a framework to present engaging, real-world issues to K-12 students and reaches 1.5 million students each year. Facing the Future resources are used in all 50 states and over 140 countries.

In partnership with the NARA project, Facing the Future recently developed Fueling Our Future: Exploring Sustainable Energy Use (FOF) for a middle school and high school audience (Hendrickson, et al 2014). Both units contain 9 interdisciplinary lessons that immerse students in personal, local, and global energy issues. Because the NARA project is a rich example of a contemporary, real-world energy problem, this project served as a model for many of the lessons in these units.  For example, in Fueling Our Future’s culminating assessment, students are asked to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of using different feedstock to produce aviation biofuel in the Pacific Northwest. Just like NARA researchers, students are required to use information from several different disciplines, employ critical thinking skills, and collaborate with others to work toward positive solutions for a sustainable future.

Imagine Tomorrow- Design Competition 

Imagine Tomorrow is a high school energy competition that started in 2008 at Washington State University and challenges students to explore energy issues such as alternative energy. 2014 was the seventh year of the competition. The numbers of participating students has steadily increased, starting at 296 in 2008 and reaching 542 in 2014. Statistics have shown nearly equal gender participation over the years, which many accredited to the framework of the competition that included challenges encompassing not just technical fields, but also overlapping social sciences. The four challenges currently are Technology, Behavior, Design and Biofuels. Past observational trends implied that many of the students were interested in STEM and gaining knowledge in energy issues.  Therefore a goal was set to determine which variables in the competition, such as repeat participation, challenges, etc., might contribute to varying displays of energy literacy in the two main competition deliverables. These were the abstracts which were submitted prior to the competition, and the posters which were presented at the event.

Connection between NARA and Tribal Communities

There is approximately 1.8 million acres of commercial forestlands distributed throughout the NARA region on tribal lands.  The top five timber-owning tribes ranked by the their commercial acres include:

	Tribe	Commercial Acres
1	Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation	660,000
2	Yakama Nation	449,000
3	Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes	300,000
4	Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs	256,000
5	Quinault Indian Nation	174,000

Those tribal reservations are identified on the map below (FIGURE 1).

Various tribes have explored the potential of establishing or supporting existing local biomass operations to dovetail with their forest and/or fire management planning activities.  The NARA Tribal Partnership Projects (TPP) recently completed a biomass availability and cost assessment for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of Montana.  The tribe uses a management plan that considers both the natural fire regime and the historic forest seral classes to derive the management actions suitable for a specific tract.  Using these tribally prescribed treatments and their 10-year harvest plan (Table 1), our analysis identified the availability of slash and the cost to chip and deliver it to Pablo, MT (a potential depot site in the Western Montana Corridor).  A key finding of our work is that the tribal forest management plan is focused strongly on ecological management, but it yields comparable slash production as typical western Montana industrial forestry operations. This project highlights our goals of providing meaningful information to our tribal partners while supporting a regional supply chain analysis that has an end goal of providing biomass to gain an aviation biofuel product.  The tribe is now able to identify their potential role as a biomass supplier in the Western Montana Corridor.

Year	Harvested Area (Acres)	Harvest (MMBF)	Recovered Slash (yd3)	Recovered Slash (BDT)	Avg. Delivered Cost ($/BDT)
2013	11,049	18.1	31,966	12,946	16
2014	7,554	18.1	32,243	13,059	24
2015	10,431	18.1	31,992	12,957	21
2016	9,459	18.1	32,170	13,029	20
2017	8,822	18.1	32,283	13,075	17
2018	7,836	18.1	32,343	13,099	19
2019	9,482	18.1	32,266	13,068	20
2020	7,826	16.8	30,228	12,242	22
2021	9,541	18.1	32,364	13,108	20
2022	9,318	18.1	36,119	14,628	24

The NARA education focus guides our efforts in seeking out and securing undergraduate and graduate level training opportunities for Native scholars, while we partner with tribal communities.  To date, we have provided undergraduate and graduate training to 12 scholars, with 7 of them having tribal affiliations from 4 different academic institutions.

Collegiate Courses – IDX

The Integrated Design Experience (IDX) is a joint studio for undergraduate and graduate students from Washington State University and the University of Idaho who are interested in identifying innovative solutions to complex, contemporary, real-world challenges. Specifically, students and faculty together with NARA stakeholders analyze the feasibility of wood-based biofuel supply chains throughout the Pacific Northwest. Faculty with expertise in engineering, design, planning, and economics facilitate IDX, which attracts students seeking degrees in engineering (civil, mechanical, environmental), architecture, landscape architecture, planning, law, business, environmental science, renewable materials and other disciplines.

IDX goals include:

1. Giving students skills in collaborative research, problem-solving, and design methods to utilize in their academic and professional work;
2. Training a workforce ready to participate in the renewable energy and biofuels industry; and
3. Providing technical assistance to communities interested in participating in the emerging biofuels economy.

IDX works with regional partners on identifying community assets, conducting site selection, and resource flow and supply chain economic analyses, as well as site specific designs for biofuels facilities. Every year, IDX produces key outputs including a regional Analysis report that focuses on providing analyses of the supply chain and a Design portfolio that showcases innovative concepts and designs for selected production sites and linkages within the supply chain.

Undergraduate Research- SURE

The Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) program focuses on integrating educational opportunities within the research framework. Undergraduate students are recruited to spend 10 weeks during the summer working under the mentorship of NARA faculty and graduate students to conduct independent research full time. Students are engaged in the research process at every step including conducting a literature review of previous research efforts, designing laboratory experiments, analyzing data, summarizing results, and finally disseminating their research results in the form of a poster presented during a research symposium. The NARA SURE program has trained 22 students over the past 3 years. Students have the opportunity to work with faculty at any participating University and also with researchers from Industry (i.e. Weyerhaeuser). This experience serves to train and educate a next-generation workforce for entering the bioenergy industry

Institute for Energy Studies

The Institute for Energy Studies at Western Washington University was established to deliver new undergraduate interdisciplinary energy degrees and two energy minors. The interdisciplinary, authentic, and service learning driven model for these degrees builds on WWU’s successful legacy of interdisciplinary approaches to undergraduate education. These programs help fulfill WWU’s commitment to filling a critical unmet need in the Northwest region for Bachelor-level graduates who are prepared to become future professionals within the renewable energy sector. These graduates understand the critical linkages between science, technology, economics, business, and policy, and how they combine to advance the new energy industry.

Digital Curriculum Assets

The efforts from the NARA teams and educators are integrated into the Energy Literacy Principles Matrix (http://energyliteracyprinciples.org/), a web-based resource that helps solve this challenge by effectively organizing materials to be used by science teachers and the general public. The organization of these materials follows the U.S. Department of Energy authored energy literacy principles as a guideline (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012). This web-based resource serves three primary functions:

1) It lays out the fundamental concepts (or building blocks) of energy literacy in an organized, logical way.

2) It organizes, classifies, describes, and cross-references resources to both fundamental concepts AND to science standards.

3) It provides an easy to use resource for teachers and community members to find information useful to their classroom or city.

Assessment 

Essential to all education efforts is quality assessment that informs educators of instructional impacts and shapes decisions about future instruction. To assess the impact of the array of educational activities within NARA, the education team is creating a set of instruments to measure the energy literacy of individuals from the upper elementary grades through adulthood. The Learning and Performance Research Center (LPRC) at Washington State University has provided consultation in instrument development efforts. The energy literacy instruments reflect both the Energy Literacy Principles Matrix, referenced above, and the unique focus on sustainable biofuels that embodies the NARA model. Once complete, the energy literacy instruments will provide valuable information about the success of NARA activities in reaching its goals. Indeed, in line with the alliance’s mission to leverage research to achieve broad impact, the energy literacy instruments developed within NARA efforts will help to move forward educators’ understanding of how to build a population that is equipped to handle the multifaceted challenges of 21^st century energy demands.

Implications

Developing sustainable alternatives to conventional energy sources is key 21^stcentury challenge, one that will require a future workforce prepared to succeed in the bioenergy sector. Moving education forward at the speed of research will require a transformational shift in academic approaches, away from entrenched disciplinary specialization and towards pedagogies rooted in authentic, experiential learning and real-world issues (Hougham, et al 2012). The overarching goal of the education component of this project is to recruit, motivate, and train students to become next-generation bioenergy professionals by transforming bioenergy-based education. We achieve this goal by introducing bioenergy literacy in many venues where students and stakeholders can engage with research in progress.  The potential outlined here for integrated and holistic educational approaches for multidisciplinary grant-funded work stretches beyond energy literacy, offering a framework that could be used in a variety of large-scale research programs.

Acknowledgments

This work, as part of the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA), was supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68005-30416 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

References

Hendrickson, D., Shaw, D., Jacob, S., Keefe, A., & Skelton, L. 2014. Fueling our Future: Exploring Sustainable Energy Use. (Middle School ed.). Seattle: Facing the Future.

Hendrickson, D., Shaw, D., Jacob, S., Keefe, A., & Skelton, L. 2014.  Fueling Our Future: Exploring Sustainable Energy Use. (High School ed.). Seattle: Facing the Future.

Hougham, R. J., Schon, J.A., Bradley Eitel, K., & Hollenhorst, S.A. (2012). Education at the Speed of Research: Communicating the Science of Biofuels. Published Proceedings of the Sun Grant Initiative. New Orleans, LA.

Perlack, R. D., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham, R. L., Stokes, B. J., and Erbach, D. C. (2005). Biomass as a Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. USDA/DOE Report, DOE/GO-102005-2135. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf.

Schon, J., Hougham, R.J., Eitel, K., & Hollenhorst, S. (2014). The value of a tree:

comparing carbon sequestration to forest products. Science Scope, 37:7, 27-35.

Szostak, R. (2007). How and why to teach interdisciplinary research practice. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2): 1 – 16. Retrieved January 20, 2013 from: http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/viewPDFInterstitial/92/144

U.S. Department of Energy (2012).  Energy Literacy Essential Principles and Fundamental Concepts for Energy Education.  Retrieved February 4, 2013 from: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/education/energy_literacy.html

For further details log on website :
http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/4529_2015_01/

Costs of Wood Pellet Production in Iran

DOI: 10.4236/ib.2016.83005    581 Downloads   697 Views  

Author(s)     comment

Vahid Nabavi, Majid Azizi^*, Asghar Tarmian

Affiliation(s)

Department of Wood & Paper Sciences and Industries, Faculty of Natural Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Climate changes and increased Earth’s temperature form a phenomenon that affects all humans and countries. Consequently, even countries with plenty of fuel energy resources have realized the importance of this issue. Wood pellet is among the most commonly used bio fuels and is spreading quickly all over the globe. In this research, the feasibility of wood pellet production in Iran was assessed by studying a production project and economically analyzing it. Based on the results, all of the economic indicates are reflective of economic utility of wood pellet production in Iran. For instance, the IRR index of the project was 64.54%, and the final price of the product was 118.89 EUR per ton. Analysis of production costs indicated that raw materials had the highest share of the final price followed by fixed investment costs and energy costs.

Cite this paper

Nabavi, V. , Azizi, M. and Tarmian, A. (2016) Costs of Wood Pellet Production in Iran. iBusiness, 8, 37-47. doi: 10.4236/ib.2016.83005.

References

[1]	Duca, D., Riva, G., Pedretti, E.F. and Toscano, G. (2014) Wood Pellet Quality with Respect to EN 14961-2 Standard and Certifications. Fuel, 135, 9-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.042
[2]	Kaliyan, N. and Morey, R.V. (2009) Factors Affecting Strength and Durability of Densified Biomass Products. Biomass and bioenergy, 33, 337-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.08.005
[3]	Gilbert, P., Ryu, C., Sharifi, V. and Swithenbank, J. (2009) Effect of Process Parameters on Pelletisation of Herbaceous Crops. Fuel, 88, 1491-1497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2009.03.015
[4]	Shahinzadeh, H., ghotb, H., Tavanarad, M., Feghhi, S.A. and Hajahmadi, M. (2012) Estimating the Potential to Achieve Electrical Energy from Biomass Resource in Iran (A Case Study in Isfahan). Journal of Science and Technology, 7, 322-328.
[5]	Anon (2008) Agricultural Ministry of Iran, Statistical Book of 2008, Vol. 1, Part 1. http://maj.ir/portal/Home/Default.aspx?CategoryID=20ad5e49-c727-4bc9-9254-de648a5f4d52
[6]	Hamzeh, Y., Ashori, A., Mirzaei, B., Abdulkhani, A. and Molaei, M. (2011) Current and Potential Capabilities of Biomass For green Energy in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 4934-4938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.060
[7]	Thek, G. and Obernberger, I. (2012) The Pellet Handbook: The Production And thermal Utilization of Biomass Pellets. Earthscan, London and Washington DC.
[8]	Pirraglia, A., Gonzalez, R. and Saloni, D. (2010) Techno-Economical Analysis of Wood Pellets Production for US Manufacturers. BioResources, 5, 2374-2390.
[9]	Thek, G. and Obernberger, I. (2004) Wood Pellet Production Costs under Austrian and in Comparison to Swedish Framework Conditions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 27, 671-693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.07.007
[10]	Tromborg, E., Ranta, T., Schweinle, J., Solberg, B., Skjevrak, G. and Tiffany, D.G. (2013) Economic Sustainability for Wood Pellets Production—A Comparative Study between Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the US. Biomass and bioenergy, 57, 68-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.01.030
[11]	Alakangas, E., Junginger, M., Van Dam, J., Hinge, J., Keranen, J., Olsson, O., Vesterinen, P., et al. (2012) EUBIONET III—Solutions to Biomass Trade and Market Barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 4277-4290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.051
[12]	Karkania, V., Fanara, E. and Zabaniotou, A. (2012) Review of Sustainable Biomass Pellets Production—A Study for Agricultural Residues Pellets’ Market in Greece. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 1426-1436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.028
[13]	Nunes, L.J.R., Matias, J.C.O. and Catalao, J.P. (2014) Economic and Sustainability Comparative Study of Wood Pellets Production in Portugal, Germany and Sweden. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable Energies and Power Quality, Cordoba, 8-10 April 2014, Vol. 14, 526-531. http://www.icrepq.Com/icrepq
[14]	Eriksson, L. and Gustavsson, L. (2010) Comparative Analysis of Wood Chips and Bundles—Costs, carbon Dioxide Emissions, Dry-Matter Losses and Allergic Reactions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34, 82-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.10.002

For further details log on website :
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=70071

The Direct Use of Post-Processing Wood Dust in Gas Turbines

DOI: 10.4236/jsbs.2012.23009    2,684 Downloads   4,983 Views   Citations

Author(s)    Leave a comment

Alîne Doherty, Eilín Walsh, Kevin P. McDonnell

Affiliation(s)

Animal and Crop Sciences, School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
School of Biosystems Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

ABSTRACT

Woody biomass is a widely-used and favourable material for energy production due to its carbon neutral status. Energy is generally derived either through direct combustion or gasification. The Irish forestry sector is forecasted to expand significantly in coming years, and so the opportunity exists for the bioenergy sector to take advantage of the material for which there will be no demand from current markets. A by-product of wood processing, wood dust is the cheapest form of wood material available to the bioenergy sector. Currently wood dust is primarily processed into wood pellets for energy generation. Research was conducted on post-processing birch wood dust; the calorific value and the Wobbe Index were determined for a number of wood particle sizes and wood dust concentrations. The Wobbe Index determined for the upper explosive concentration (4000 g/m3) falls within range of that of hydrogen gas, and wood dust-air mixtures of this concentration could therefore behave in a similar manner in a gas turbine. Due to its slightly lower HHV and higher particle density, however, alterations to the gas turbine would be necessary to accommodate wood dust to prevent abrasive damage to the turbine. As an unwanted by-product of wood processing the direct use of wood dust in a gas turbine for energy generation could therefore have economic and environmental benefits.

Cite paper

A. Doherty, E. Walsh and K. McDonnell, "The Direct Use of Post-Processing Wood Dust in Gas Turbines," Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2012, pp. 60-64. doi: 10.4236/jsbs.2012.23009.

References

[1]	SEI, “Bioenergy in Ireland,” Sustainable Energy Ireland, Dublin, 2004.
[2]	COFORD, “Strategic Study: Maximising the Potential of Wood Use for Energy Generation in Ireland,” 2004. http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Bioenergy/Maximising_the_potential_of_wood_energy,_Coford.pdf
[3]	Teagasc, “Forestry Statistics 2010,” Teagasc, Carlow, 2010.
[4]	DCMNR, “Bioenergy Action Plan for Ireland,” Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Dublin, 2007.
[5]	M. Peksa-Blanchard, P. Dolzan, A. Grassi, J. Heinim?, M. Junginger, T. Ranta and A. Walter, “IEA Bioenergy Task 40: Global Wood Pellets Markets and Industry: Policy Drivers, Market Status and Raw Material Potential,” International Energy Agency, Paris, 2007.
[6]	Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, “Wood Fuel and Supply Chain,” 2011. http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Bioenergy/Sources/Wood_Energy_and_Supply_Chain/Fuel_and_Supply_Chain/
[7]	M. R. Wu, D. L. Schott and G. Lodewijks, “Physical Properties of Solid Biomass,” Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 35, No. 5, 2011, pp. 2093-2105. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.020
[8]	GTC, “Gasification: The Waste-to-Energy Solution,” Gasification Technologies Council, Arlington, 2012.
[9]	C. Syred, A. Griffiths and N. Syred, “Gas Turbine Combustor with Integrated Ash Removal for Fine Particulates,” Proceedings ASME Turbo Expo, Vienna, 14-17 June 2004, pp. 1-9.
[10]	D. J. Flynn, J. J. Dillon, P. B. Desch and T. S. Lai, “The NALCO Guide to Boiler Failure Analysis,” 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, 2011.
[11]	K. W. Ragland, D. J. Aerts and A. J. Baker, “Properties of Wood for Combustion Analysis,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 37, 1991, pp. 161-168. doi:10.1016/0960-8524(91)90205-X
[12]	B. Fungtammasan, P. Jittreepit, J. Torero and P. Joulain, “An Experimental Study of the Combustion Characteristics of Sawdust in a Cyclone Combustor,” Proceedings European—ASEAN Conference on Combustion of Solids and Treatment of Products, Hua Hin, 16-17 February 1995, pp. 1-18.
[13]	Weyerhaeuser Company, “Wood and Wood Dust (Without Chemical Treatments or Resins/Adhesives). Material Safety Data Sheet,” Weyerhaeuser Company, Washington, 2010.
[14]	V. Babrauskas, “Ignition of Wood: A Review of the State of the Art,” Proceedings Interflam, 9th International Fire Science and Engineering Conference, Edinburgh, 17-19 September 2001, pp. 71-88.
[15]	R. K. Eckhoff, “Dust Explosions in the Process Industry,” Gulf Professional Publishing, Massachusetts, 2003.
[16]	M. P. Boyce, “Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook,” Vol. 4, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, 2011.

For further details log on website :
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=22745