I don't believe that nutrient rich soils will provide energy for the future. We need food. Cultures adapted to poor soils could provide energy.

I also believe that biomass can not be considered as a sustainable energy source. Deforestation for energy can implement other irreversible effects like global warming.

We need to fix more atmospheric carbon. Forest growth can help for that, provided wood is used for construction (buildings, churches, furnitures, and many other long-term usages), not for burning it for fulfilling energy requirements of mankind. We need to consume much less energy (for transport, home life, industry, agriculture, trade,...) before searching for other energy sources. See the desastrous results of palm oil and sugar cane plantations in Asia and South America: forests are burnt for that, is this the solution? First, the problem is demographic, this is the distal factor, but we urge to decrease our energy consumption in the same time birth control is implemented worldwide. Politically incorrect? I apologize...

@ Mohan Amarasiri: I agree with you that deforestation will not solve the problem! My question was aimed at managed forests. When I said increased harvesting, I meant increased harvesting intensity and not increased forest surface harvesting.

@Thomas Schroder: Forests in temperate areas are rarely on nutrient rich soils because historically nutrient rich soils were kept for agriculture for the production of food as you stated. In the future, could we imagine decreasing the forest cover in Europe for example to increase farmland?

@Jean-François Ponge: I agree with you that forest biomass cannot by itself be the energy solution. The first solution would of course be to change our habits and decrease our consumption which is not impossible contrarily to what everyone says. For instance, do we really need advert posters and screens to be lit all night long? or at all? The fact is that by burning biomass instead of fossil fuels, we also decrease CO2 emissions. I'm not sure that fixing atmospheric C is the solution for tomorrow, we are beyond that limit. But then again, you are right to point out we need to change our habits because even when biomass is used for construction the average lifespan of wood is very low. If any one has those figures I would be interested to see them again! This is due to an unsustainable way of building (by unsustainable I don't mean that wood constructions are fragile but because after a while we, society decides that this or that is old and tacky and we throw it out or destroy it when it is perfectly functional!)....

But maybe I'm straying to far from the initial question!!!!

If the biomass is both created and used locally (on-site), it would be recognized and protected as the fantastic resource it is. Sustainability is thereby mandated: if you want to use a resource, you must nurture and maintain that resource. This is the direction into which we are moving, albeit slowly.

biomass is a part of renewable energy, note that it is not clean energy, I always prefer using environmental friendly sources.... specially when we talk about sustainability, we never like to sustain the production of poisonous gasses.

There are several ways to use the forest biomass as an energy source in a sustainable way. It depends of how regulated the things are in certain areas. However in a long turn, no source of energy is green but the biomass has the advantage of relatively short periods for renewing.

Use of forest biomass should be strongly reduced in Europe, excluding 'waste' biomass from forets. There are many 'services and goods' from forests but burning them is not of that kind.

I agree with Prof. Ponge comment. We should also remember that forests play not only a crucial role in carbon balance. Forest cover of the planet is a poverful regulator of climate because mitigating, first of all, water balance. But energy wood plantation is not a real forest.

The question has so many complex features and dimensions, that out "research-gate-teamwork" is compiling or touching already a good deal of the lot. There is a clear answer: NO, if regarded exclusively, but YES, if considered as contribution to energy. Experiences: 1) In Ethiopia Eucalptus camaldulensis was introduced some 100 years ago to provide fuel for the Addis-Brewery etc. In the meantime the plant is probably providing some 40 % of the daily fuel-wood requirements of some 90 mio. people. Although the "eucalyptization" of Africa or other tropics would be suboptimal, this fast-growing tree has an enormous potential....and if done in proper forest-husbandry-approaches, you can grow tomatoes and wheat and..etc. under the canopy. Each Euc.forest needs to have its biodiversity-area attached. The fast Euc. reduces the "land-terror-pressure" of humans on the natural habitats. 2. Prosopis juliflora is another tree/shrub with an enormous energy-potential. Having invaded mio. of ha in Africa, it contributes enormously to the C-sink, at the same time being a fine food- and forage and timber-plant (see attachement) , although only a few grasp the potential and esp. the drought-resistance. The production of charcoal from Pros. is however already established. As long a humans do not come forward with wise, balanced forestry-strategies & action, Prosopis will continue its progress with unbelievable speed. 3. In Mali and other countries along the Niger again Eucaluptus has proved its fantastic timber- and fuel-potential. Its management / husbandry needs however some strict, sober supplementary ecological framing and synergies.

Transformation of wood in charcoal is a good compromise: wood charcoal has a high energetic value, is easy to transport and share between users, and it may be a long-lasting source of stable soil carbon, improving nutrient and water availability. See many recently published papers and books on charcoal and Biochar...

The question has several dimensions: sustainable management might also accept shorter rotation periods with concepts that provide assortments more prone to be used for energy or industrial use. If enough harvest residuals remain (no whole-tree harvesting) then this might even not endanger too much poor soils. On the other hand, if more intensive management happens, this might mean that even such harvest residuals are taken away which severely endangers soil functionality over time at sites with low capacity to buffer nutrient losses. Therefore, spatially explicit (site specific) management regimes should (and are normally) included in management plans. Problem is more that the pressure on bioresources puts inequal pressures on the forest systems depending from land tenure. We have still large resources in small scale forests and there seems still no way to access these resources to disburden forests in public property.

Burning biomass keeps the CO2 in the atmosphere stable. When you burn wood you release the same CO2 that was capured during the plant growth. No more and no less...

Yes, everybody knows that, but we have to fix more carbon, and tree growth is a good mean for that, providing the wood produced by trees is used for timber rather than for energy

Timber or charcoal, too, i.e. Non-gazeous stable forms of carbon...

If the humankind's energy need is increased to extreme level, the biomass from forests (residues of products, products of short rotation forests/coppices etc) would be partially contribute to the energy supply. Wood energy never meets total energy need of humankind in all of the regions of world. But wood energy meets the energy demand in some small cities of some suitable (esp. northern/ boreal) regions.

Fossil fuel is decresing day by day and we have to think about alternatives of fossil fuel and may be green energy one of the better alternatives. I am relly thankful to alexander for arising such type of question. Forest is really a resource for any country and we easily utilize this resource for energy production through proper management. we should keep in mind that we have to take benifit without losing our forest. question arise how? best answer through proper utilization and management.

1. we can rearrange our forest through adapting fast growing tree species

2. we can utilize total forest area through planting multilayered plant species

3 we can cover the forest soil with high biomass yielding grass species

4 we can adopt leguminous bushes which will enhance soil fertility

Someone once suggested that we should use forest land below electric power cables to grow short term coppice for bioenergy production since these areas aren't ever let to grow very high. I don't know how much surface that could represent over a whole country but it's true that it is "unused" potential agricultural land.

Of course, in such areas and more so on nutrient poor soils, you would quite often end up by liming or fertilizing the plots to keep such coppices going...

I agree with Gregory Van Der Heijden. The short term coppices that would supply biomass energy should be established on unused potential agricultural lands. But the main problem is site productivity (bonitet). Nutrient poor/ saline/ sodic/ alkaline soils, insufficient rainfall, extreme and weather/climate conditions may be limiting factors for biomass growing site productivity.

By the way: does anybody have a list of all forest-trees, which can be propagated by vegetative means: cuttings, suckers, branches, root-pieces, marcotting, etc.??; the question of raising trees quickly and efficiently and at low cost would be relevant for all biomas-forestry.If all trees, which had been raised in the past 50 years in nurseries, would have survived transplanting, tropics and subtropics would be very green !!!

Experiences from agriculture cropping tell us that it is fully possible to sustain the soil productivity of forest land. Even if technically possible, is it a good idea to rely entirely on forests in future energy supply?

yes, they can. Besides timber value forest can produce "green energy" using mill residues, slash operation-a process to transport logging residues to the power plant. The US forest resources currently provide 147 million dry tons of biomass for energy production and are capable of an additional 226 million dry tons (Perlack et al. 2005).

In US producing renewable energy in a sustained yield will be reached in the future depending on how to control the affecting factors.

Economically, the primary forest resource for biomass energy is mill residues (bark,sawdust, shavings, etc.), with additional potential capacity coming primarily from forest residues and other non-merchantable tree removals. Slash is favored to be produced as a part of an integrated harvesting system. But, it does not occur all times; furthermore, collection of slash in tough terrain, remote forested area is infeasible and non-economic. Hence, the economic factor will decide how many of additional dry ton of biomass in the US forest can be produced.

An excellent forest management, and tree improvement can increase the sustainable yield which, in turn, increases the possible, sustainable yield of renewable (green) energy through the increase of mill residue and slash. Yields per acre could double or quadruple through long-term management techniques that include commercial and pre-commercial thinning , fertilization, inter-planting, and the use of improved planting stock. More yield allows more timber production. Yes, more slash and mill residues are obviously produced. The problem is how to remove slash effectively.

Ecologically, the restriction policy on US public land is another factor to limit public forest contribution to the production of green energy. According to the Billion Ton Study, federal lands are highly unlikely to contribute anywhere near their potential, even though annual forest growth has far exceeded removals for decades.

Socially, contrasting views on the use of woody biomass for energy and wood industry, a part of society loves the view that the forest benefits human beings in terms of wildlife habitat, clean water, clean air, enjoyableness of natural beauty, and carbon sequestration, which affects the increasing demand of renewable energy in US. This group of society can create a political pressure on the policy to produce the green energy.

In terms of sustainability and site/soil productivity, the biomass energy supply may be very far from meet the energy demand of the society in any Mediterranean country. As a semi arid, dry sub humid and mediterranean/ temperate region, the site productivity (bonitet, site index) isvery low comparing with sites in boreal and tropical regions.

Yes I think Wood biomass will still play an important role in energy production during the coming decades. There is potential for sustainability.

Wood can only be a partial solution if it is to be sustainable and needs to be harvested as part of a broader spectrum of uses for wood and have selected portions (leaves/ needles) are left to manage the site. Ultimately we need to find ways to reduce energy use in concert with the development of the full suite of renewable energies.

Well forests are economic resources of any country and must be used in efficient manner to get benefit in the field of energy generation.

FIRST, there is no reason to control CURRENT CO2 emissions as they have very little effect on CURRENT climate.....see:

One of many papers showing that CLIMATE WARMING CAUSES INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS suggests  that the IPCC thesis and the assumptions of Global Climate Models ----------- that that assume CLIMATE WARMING

IS CAUSEDBY ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS ----------------- are in serious error.... see: 

http://www.clim-past.net/8/1213/2012/cp-8-1213-2012.html

The IPCC thesis and the assumptions of Global Climate Models that that assume that

CLIMATE WARMING IS CAUSED BY  INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATIONS ..........has been the basis for taxpayer funded and enormously misguided government policies and regulations designed to curb human emissions of CO2.

QUOTING from the FULL TEXT of the paper (with somewhat 'iffy' English) concerning the dominance of the Sun's influence on the Earth's CYCLICAL warming and cooling ................. available at:

 http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-98361500018A&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#.VRbMQPnF-ah

"The start of the Grand Minimum of TSI is anticipated approximately in cycle 27±1 approximately in 2043±11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age (of the Maunder Minimum type) in the past 7,500 years approximately in 2060±11, with possible duration of 45-65 years "

"The Sun is controlling and practically totally determining the mechanism of quasi-bicentennial cyclic alternations of climate changes from warming to Little Ice Age and set corresponding time-scales for practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system. The current long practically stable levels of World Ocean and of temperature additionally reflects the current state of global warming during past 17 years, which are under the direct control of the quasi-bicentennial decrease of TSI. Approximately in the end of 2014 we begin the descent into 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years " 

SECOND you asked if forests can provide biomass to produce the energy of the future in a sustainable way.

Using the forests of Canada (a country with low population density) as an example --- IF the total annual allowable harvest was used to produce energy it might yield 2 EXAJOULES per year --- while Canada presently uses 10 EXAJOULES per year ... so there is no way that the forests of most countries could supply yhe energy required for modern civilization// sustainably or not.

Peter Salonius