America's Forest Carbon Market

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

I have the opportunity to auction off 1 year of carbon sequestration in my private family forest. This is land I purchased with cash from my day job. I would be allowing the middle man (ncx.com) to auction off my credits (which they calculated for me, based on their proprietary algorithm). I get to set my reserve price, so I would likely go as high as they allow. In return I delay harvesting lumber, 1 year and this carbon market gets sold to a company wanting to offset their carbon footprint. If someone purchases mine I get taxable income.

Anyone have any experience with this?!

I have reached out to my state department of natural resources/division of forestry as well.
-Andrew
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

What you are referring to is broadly known as terrestrial sequestration.
Last edited by Zeno on Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
forgeblast
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:45 am
Location: PA
Contact:

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by forgeblast »

Just wondering how much is possible per acre? is it better to do a longer term like 5 or 10 years? I have property enrolled in CREP ending soon.
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

Zeno wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:56 am I know a fair amount about this topic; please feel free to message me.

What you are referring to is broadly known as terrestrial sequestration.

There are two types of carbon markets: regulated/compliance and voluntary. I'm assuming you are referring to the latter. Voluntary carbon markets include companies such as the American Carbon Registry and Verra. There are many protocols or methodologies that can be used to generate carbon offsets for different types of projects. Forestry projects are one type, and there are several types of forestry projects. See, e.g., https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/an-introdu ... et-markets. It sounds as if your project would fall in the "avoided conversion" category.

You used the term "proprietary algorithm." The term(s) of art instead are "protocols" or "methodologies," which are publicly available. I don't really think of any of this as being "proprietary" although I suppose a specific registry might have the rights to its protocols/methodologies. If somebody is trying to get you to do a deal based on their "secret" algorithm, I would walk away.

It isn't clear to me that you are eligible to generate carbon offsets merely by delaying harvesting for a year as that could run afoul of a requirement known as "additionality." The devil is in the details, however, and depends upon the specific facts of your project and the protocol/methodology being used. Under all circumstances, however -- and unless we are talking about 100,000's of acres -- I would expect the value of your offsets to be relatively trivial because at the end of the day all you are proposing to do is allow the trees to uptake one more year's worth of CO2. You aren't proposing to preserve for perpetuity a swath of the Amazon rainforest.
Thank you. This post, and the associated link, are very interesting and informative.
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

forgeblast wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:00 am Just wondering how much is possible per acre? is it better to do a longer term like 5 or 10 years? I have property enrolled in CREP ending soon.
I have never done a CREP deal, but it is a worthwhile and noble program so congratulations for participating in it. I have never seen a CREP agreement so don't know if it says anything about carbon offsets.
Last edited by Zeno on Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
alpenglow
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:02 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by alpenglow »

This is interesting. I have about 40 acres in New England that is managed for timber. Any idea of the offset value per acre per year? Most of the land is hard maple, but there are some areas of softwoods as well.
patch
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:41 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by patch »

deleted
Last edited by patch on Tue Dec 12, 2023 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
forgeblast
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:45 am
Location: PA
Contact:

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by forgeblast »

Zeno wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:46 am
forgeblast wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:00 am J

It must also be remembered that carbon offsets are not "free money." Projects take effort and capital to implement. And generally, a project owner/operator has to be doing something other than "business as usual" to participate in the markets -- a notion that goes to the heart of "additionality." I don't know, for example, if a CREP project would pass the "additionality" test (and I recognize that wasn't your scenario either). I'm just emphasizing that doing a carbon market project of any type is generally non-trivial. Indeed, the entire notion of a carbon offset is compensating a project owner for undertaking the effort and expense to implement the project in the first instance while delivering a public good.
I truly appreciate the information. Right now we are a mixed hardwood forest in NE-PA, I have a beech bark disease issue that will cause me to take out a bunch of them, but I plan on replanting with different varieties of trees. Our wooded acres are about 15-18, and have been doing a lot of restoration processes, and have had a forester come out to help us put together a long term plan. The major issue we face now is the deer population. They destroy everything that is not in a 5' tree tube. Down the road I want to fence in and put in deer exclusion fencing but that is a project for another day.
The crep land was about 2 acres of pasture that was eroding and getting filled with multi flora rose. It was a lot of work to cut and burn that out and then we CREP enrolled it. I did all the planting work and its amazing how well the trees are coming in.

Thank you again, I appreciate the info.!!!
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

Zeno - appreciate and excited to talk with you!!! It looks like this company NCX is changing the market norm from lots of acres and long term to no minimum acreage and 1 year contracts.

Here is the bulk from the document I was given:

Thank you for your interest in the Natural Capital Exchange (NCX) forest carbon program. We’re
pleased to inform you that based on the property information you’ve uploaded to
landowners.ncx.com, your property is eligible to participate in our Winter 2022 program cycle,
which runs from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.
The NCX program pays participants to defer the harvesting of timber that would otherwise face
some likelihood of harvest under the BAU scenario (business-as-usual) over the next 12 months.
Our assessment for the Winter 2022 cycle includes estimates of the standing timber on your
property as of June 1st, 2021. Based on our assessment of your property, the NCX BAU scenario
for your property is as follows:
personal information removed

To generate your Business-as-Usual (BAU) amount of harvesting activity, NCX uses a predictive
algorithm. Inputs to the algorithm include the sizes and species of trees on your property (as
estimated by NCX’s Basemap), your location and proximity to markets, terrain and operability,
and the size of your parcels, and your ownership type, among other factors. This algorithm is run
over the subset of your acreage that is eligible for this cycle (see figures below).
The Harvest Deferral Credit figures in this report are predicated on the condition that the owner
or manager of the property would ordinarily consider harvesting in the next 12-18 months. This is
to ensure that participation in the NCX forest carbon program represents a legitimate change
versus a “business as usual” management scenario that could include removals through timber
harvesting. Each participant who signs the NCX Seller Agreement will legally confirm this in
Section 3.1.H. If, on the other hand, the owner or manager is unwilling to consider a timber
harvest in this time frame, they must not proceed as an NCX participant.
✦ What are Harvest Deferral Credits?
You may be used to units of timber like tons, cords, or board feet. Since all trees store carbon,
Harvest Deferral Credits (HDC) are simply units that express the carbon content of the trees
instead of, for example, their weight (like green tons). Here are some approximate ranges for
converting units:
Unit Approximate Conversion Ratio
Green short tons, conifers/softwood Approx. 25 tons = 1 HDC
Green short tons, hardwood Approx. 19 tons = 1 HDC
Board feet, conifers/softwood Approx. 3,000-3,500 BF = 1 HDC
Board feet, hardwood Approx. 2,000 - 2,300 BF = 1 HDC
There are many possible conversion ratios between green tons and board feet. We have used a
value of 7.5 tons per 1000 board feet for conifers and 8.75 tons per 1000 board feet for
hardwoods.
1 HDC represents a certain amount of timber harvest deferral over a 1 year period and above the
business-as-usual case. The precise translation between HDCs and permanent ton carbon
credits is uncertain and is under review by Verra as part of their methodology approval process.

✦ When will I be able to submit a bid and sign my Seller Agreement?
Your NCX Seller Agreement will be available in your account at landowners.ncx.com in early
November. You will be notified when it has been posted to your account. At that time, you will be
able to prepare your bid and submit the Seller Agreement electronically.
✦ Do I have to sell all of my eligible HDCs?
No. Landowners are not required to bid all of their eligible HDCs. For example, if you have a
planned harvest, that can continue as scheduled. However, landowners will need to account for
any anticipated volume reduction as part of the bid submission process and reduce their HDC
volume accordingly to ensure they are able to deliver on their commitment. The conversion to
use is listed in the table displayed above.
✦ How should I structure my bid?
Landowners can submit either a single price and volume pairing or multiple pairings. Although
multiple price and volume pairings can be submitted, a maximum of one will be accepted. A
tutorial that explains how to complete the bid submission process will be available in your
account and will help answer common questions. The NCX team will also be hosting regular
webinars to discuss questions about completing the Seller Agreement.
Although each landowner, their property, and motivations are unique, we have published this
article that provides guidance on structuring your bid following this 3-step process:
1. First, estimate the stumpage revenue that could be generated from selling the timber on
which you’re considering deferring harvest and bidding into NCX as HDCs.
2. Then, calculate the economic cost to you of waiting to earn that revenue 1 year later.
This is most easily done by multiplying the revenue by a “discount rate”, which
embodies the time value of money. Discount rates of 4-5% are commonly used in this
setting, though ultimately it’s an individual decision.
3. Divide this total “economic cost” by the number of HDCs you’re planning to bid to
determine the HDC price. This would be the breakeven price for one HDC
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

Drewman wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:55 pm Zeno - appreciate and excited to talk with you!!! It looks like this company NCX is changing the market norm from lots of acres and long term to no minimum acreage and 1 year contracts.

Here is the bulk from the document I was given:

Thank you for your interest in the Natural Capital Exchange (NCX) forest carbon program. We’re
pleased to inform you that based on the property information you’ve uploaded to
landowners.ncx.com, your property is eligible to participate in our Winter 2022 program cycle,
which runs from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.
The NCX program pays participants to defer the harvesting of timber that would otherwise face
some likelihood of harvest under the BAU scenario (business-as-usual) over the next 12 months.
Our assessment for the Winter 2022 cycle includes estimates of the standing timber on your
property as of June 1st, 2021. Based on our assessment of your property, the NCX BAU scenario
for your property is as follows:
personal information removed

To generate your Business-as-Usual (BAU) amount of harvesting activity, NCX uses a predictive
algorithm. Inputs to the algorithm include the sizes and species of trees on your property (as
estimated by NCX’s Basemap), your location and proximity to markets, terrain and operability,
and the size of your parcels, and your ownership type, among other factors. This algorithm is run
over the subset of your acreage that is eligible for this cycle (see figures below).
The Harvest Deferral Credit figures in this report are predicated on the condition that the owner
or manager of the property would ordinarily consider harvesting in the next 12-18 months. This is
to ensure that participation in the NCX forest carbon program represents a legitimate change
versus a “business as usual” management scenario that could include removals through timber
harvesting. Each participant who signs the NCX Seller Agreement will legally confirm this in
Section 3.1.H. If, on the other hand, the owner or manager is unwilling to consider a timber
harvest in this time frame, they must not proceed as an NCX participant.
✦ What are Harvest Deferral Credits?
You may be used to units of timber like tons, cords, or board feet. Since all trees store carbon,
Harvest Deferral Credits (HDC) are simply units that express the carbon content of the trees
instead of, for example, their weight (like green tons). Here are some approximate ranges for
converting units:
Unit Approximate Conversion Ratio
Green short tons, conifers/softwood Approx. 25 tons = 1 HDC
Green short tons, hardwood Approx. 19 tons = 1 HDC
Board feet, conifers/softwood Approx. 3,000-3,500 BF = 1 HDC
Board feet, hardwood Approx. 2,000 - 2,300 BF = 1 HDC
There are many possible conversion ratios between green tons and board feet. We have used a
value of 7.5 tons per 1000 board feet for conifers and 8.75 tons per 1000 board feet for
hardwoods.
1 HDC represents a certain amount of timber harvest deferral over a 1 year period and above the
business-as-usual case. The precise translation between HDCs and permanent ton carbon
credits is uncertain and is under review by Verra as part of their methodology approval process.

✦ When will I be able to submit a bid and sign my Seller Agreement?
Your NCX Seller Agreement will be available in your account at landowners.ncx.com in early
November. You will be notified when it has been posted to your account. At that time, you will be
able to prepare your bid and submit the Seller Agreement electronically.
✦ Do I have to sell all of my eligible HDCs?
No. Landowners are not required to bid all of their eligible HDCs. For example, if you have a
planned harvest, that can continue as scheduled. However, landowners will need to account for
any anticipated volume reduction as part of the bid submission process and reduce their HDC
volume accordingly to ensure they are able to deliver on their commitment. The conversion to
use is listed in the table displayed above.
✦ How should I structure my bid?
Landowners can submit either a single price and volume pairing or multiple pairings. Although
multiple price and volume pairings can be submitted, a maximum of one will be accepted. A
tutorial that explains how to complete the bid submission process will be available in your
account and will help answer common questions. The NCX team will also be hosting regular
webinars to discuss questions about completing the Seller Agreement.
Although each landowner, their property, and motivations are unique, we have published this
article that provides guidance on structuring your bid following this 3-step process:
1. First, estimate the stumpage revenue that could be generated from selling the timber on
which you’re considering deferring harvest and bidding into NCX as HDCs.
2. Then, calculate the economic cost to you of waiting to earn that revenue 1 year later.
This is most easily done by multiplying the revenue by a “discount rate”, which
embodies the time value of money. Discount rates of 4-5% are commonly used in this
setting, though ultimately it’s an individual decision.
3. Divide this total “economic cost” by the number of HDCs you’re planning to bid to
determine the HDC price. This would be the breakeven price for one HDC
You have exceeded my knowledge and experience

I would contact a lawyer or carbon market broker per the companies referenced in the news story posted above
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

forgeblast wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:00 am Just wondering how much is possible per acre? is it better to do a longer term like 5 or 10 years? I have property enrolled in CREP ending soon.
From my learning ncx.com uses a proprietary algorithm, along with Verra, which Zeno mentioned, to give your acreage a number of carbon units. It's not a 1:1 ratio. It considers the type of tree, or not if there is grass, and seems to used pooled data from the local area.

They then give you a number of units you can allow to go up for bid. If your reserve price is bought up by one of the "buyers" you are agreeing to delay or not harvest what would be your business as usual for the units auctioned off.

From what I have very roughly concluded you can get anywhere from $5 to $30 per acre.

ncx.com only does 1 year contracts
Big Heart
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:42 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Big Heart »

Fascinating thread.

A few years ago I resolved for my Christmas budget to include contributions for environmental protection. Some years the money has gone to advocacy groups but one year I spent my budget on carbon offsets through the UN.

I am wondering if those on this thread have a sense of where we can get the biggest 'bang for our buck' in terms of global warming. For instance, if you had $1,000 to donate , where do you think would be the best place to do so in terms of efficacy in addressing global warming? I understand that I'm just asking for personal opinions and that the pathway to 1.5 degrees is uncertain.
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

Big Heart wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:09 am Fascinating thread.

A few years ago I resolved for my Christmas budget to include contributions for environmental protection. Some years the money has gone to advocacy groups but one year I spent my budget on carbon offsets through the UN.

I am wondering if those on this thread have a sense of where we can get the biggest 'bang for our buck' in terms of global warming. For instance, if you had $1,000 to donate , where do you think would be the best place to do so in terms of efficacy in addressing global warming? I understand that I'm just asking for personal opinions and that the pathway to 1.5 degrees is uncertain.
That is a very good question. Being a private land owner in the United States of America, with a Certified Family Forest, a bulk of my knowledge comes from the American Tree Farm System and The National Woodland Owners Association. These are groups you could donate to, like you mentioned, but I have no knowledge of which makes the most impact.What I see around my area are large corporations including farmers that strip the land (cut down trees) to plant crops(beans and corn) or build livestock factories. That is part of what I understand ncx.com and other carbon offset companies attempting to curb. Compensate for allowing the land to remain untouched, or rather in a more natural state of carbon sequestration.

I would encourage you to take that $1000 and plant as many native species of trees as you can in your local area. Call the city, the park system, see if there is any land that they need trees on. Imagine getting to see the progress (trees grow slow :) I just see planting a tree as the most direct impact with little money being wasted.
-Andrew
Big Heart
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:42 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Big Heart »

Thank you, that inspires some ideas. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective.
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

Big Heart wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:09 am Fascinating thread.

A few years ago I resolved for my Christmas budget to include contributions for environmental protection. Some years the money has gone to advocacy groups but one year I spent my budget on carbon offsets through the UN.

I am wondering if those on this thread have a sense of where we can get the biggest 'bang for our buck' in terms of global warming. For instance, if you had $1,000 to donate , where do you think would be the best place to do so in terms of efficacy in addressing global warming? I understand that I'm just asking for personal opinions and that the pathway to 1.5 degrees is uncertain.
Rainforest Action Network
Rainforest Alliance

As a non-American I don't get the tax credits. But I can contribute.

I believe the leverage of those 2 groups (those are just 2 I found, there may be others) in terms of the potential to avoid carbon emissions (by saving hectares of rainforest) is much greater than anything I could do personally. A principle of leverage (but also of acceptance of uncertainty).

I used to buy up carbon permits on the EU Emission Trading Scheme (Sandbag.org used to do it now https://ember-climate.org/ ) but they eventually concluded that the way ETS permits were being awarded, this wasn't actually doing any good. It offered the opportunity of genuinely averting a tonne of CO2 emission (since the supply of permits is fixed). I used to use the Air Canada offset, but then I noticed that the programmes they listed were never updated, and their websites didn't seem to be updated.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Drewman wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 5:49 am
I would encourage you to take that $1000 and plant as many native species of trees as you can in your local area. Call the city, the park system, see if there is any land that they need trees on. Imagine getting to see the progress (trees grow slow :) I just see planting a tree as the most direct impact with little money being wasted.
-Andrew
If they’re appropriate on your land, plant as many oaks as you can. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... nrYZrfD74v

There are knock on beneficial effects on wildlife from thriving oaks, and in the NE they’ve had a couple of challenging years.

We have also utilized assets to promote carbon neutrality in our home. It won’t be recognized as charity by the tax authorities, but we have spent on geothermal, solar, batteries, triple glazed windows, etc., and yes, planting trees. My solar system has a displayed metric on the equivalent number of trees we have saved with our solar, which is encouraging (I’m not sure how accurate it is, but it makes me smile 😊).
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 7:51 am If they’re appropriate on your land, plant as many oaks as you can. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... nrYZrfD74v

There are knock on beneficial effects on wildlife from thriving oaks, and in the NE they’ve had a couple of challenging years.

We have also utilized assets to promote carbon neutrality in our home. It won’t be recognized as charity by the tax authorities, but we have spent on geothermal, solar, batteries, triple glazed windows, etc., and yes, planting trees. My solar system has a displayed metric on the equivalent number of trees we have saved with our solar, which is encouraging (I’m not sure how accurate it is, but it makes me smile 😊).
Oaks are appropriate for my land! We have planted a number of white oaks to hopefully bring them back! We have primarily Sugar Maple, American Beech, Black Cherry, Cottonwood, and Shagbark Hickory. The neighbors said that it was high graded back in the early 80s, and they took all the White Oak. We actually have 2 white oaks in our 30 acres!

That is really cool about your solar!
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

A typical hardwood tree would capture about 22 kg of CO2 per year. Thus by using a 1 kW capacity rooftop solar system to replace fossil power generation, one could offset carbon emissions equivalent to about 40 trees.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:11 pm
A typical hardwood tree would capture about 22 kg of CO2 per year. Thus by using a 1 kW capacity rooftop solar system to replace fossil power generation, one could offset carbon emissions equivalent to about 40 trees.
I am unclear why you referred to “emissions” from trees. You may have meant “uptake” instead.

More broadly, the words I highlighted above (“capacity” and “could”) are important. There is a difference between theoretical “capacity” and actual “utilization” of energy systems. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wh ... generation. The ratio between the two is called the capacity factor.

The capacity factor of rooftop solar systems is highly dependent on location and generally quite low. https://sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity- ... y-compare/

This is not a criticism of any type of energy system. Indeed, even baseload generation doesn’t operate 100% of the time. I am a fan of solar as well, and that market will continue to enjoy unprecedented growth in the decades ahead. I am just highlighting how energy systems work in practice.

Tl;dr: It is possible the described system is actually only addressing uptake from about 10, not 40, trees — and it could even be performing less than that.
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

I should be able to connect with my State Service Forester today. I'll keep you all updated with this new venture!
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Zeno wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:03 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:11 pm
A typical hardwood tree would capture about 22 kg of CO2 per year. Thus by using a 1 kW capacity rooftop solar system to replace fossil power generation, one could offset carbon emissions equivalent to about 40 trees.
I am unclear why you referred to “emissions” from trees. You may have meant “uptake” instead.

More broadly, the words I highlighted above (“capacity” and “could”) are important. There is a difference between theoretical “capacity” and actual “utilization” of energy systems. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wh ... generation. The ratio between the two is called the capacity factor.

The capacity factor of rooftop solar systems is highly dependent on location and generally quite low. https://sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity- ... y-compare/

This is not a criticism of any type of energy system. Indeed, even baseload generation doesn’t operate 100% of the time. I am a fan of solar as well, and that market will continue to enjoy unprecedented growth in the decades ahead. I am just highlighting how energy systems work in practice.

Tl;dr: It is possible the described system is actually only addressing uptake from about 10, not 40, trees — and it could even be performing less than that.
Yes, the quote I posted was something I found via Google online. We have a ground based solar installation, which has undergone change, but at one time SolarEdge clocked us at producing 40 MW annually, and over time, has said that we have created a benefit equivalent to planting 2,000+ trees. The area that the solar panels take would hold, I guess, 3 large mature oaks or perhaps more if they were crowded. So, whether the carbon situation is 2,000 trees worth, or 500, or 8,000 doesn’t matter as much as the fact that solar panels are effective. For purposes of comparison, during this time I have been able to physically plant 15 trees.

I had set a goal of being carbon neutral, and I think I’ve achieved it (without counting embedded carbon in our house). My most recent addition has been to sign up for ConnectedSolutions, which allows the grid to drain my batteries a number of times annually during peak times. This should allow for lower utilization of dirty fuels to cover the peaks (and eventually reduce the number of dirty fuel plants).
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Drewman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:07 am I should be able to connect with my State Service Forester today. I'll keep you all updated with this new venture!
You go, Drewman! 👍
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

Drewman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:07 am I should be able to connect with my State Service Forester today. I'll keep you all updated with this new venture!
+1

Best of luck and keep us posted, Drewman
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:19 am
Zeno wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:03 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:11 pm
A typical hardwood tree would capture about 22 kg of CO2 per year. Thus by using a 1 kW capacity rooftop solar system to replace fossil power generation, one could offset carbon emissions equivalent to about 40 trees.
I am unclear why you referred to “emissions” from trees. You may have meant “uptake” instead.

More broadly, the words I highlighted above (“capacity” and “could”) are important. There is a difference between theoretical “capacity” and actual “utilization” of energy systems. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wh ... generation. The ratio between the two is called the capacity factor.

The capacity factor of rooftop solar systems is highly dependent on location and generally quite low. https://sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity- ... y-compare/

This is not a criticism of any type of energy system. Indeed, even baseload generation doesn’t operate 100% of the time. I am a fan of solar as well, and that market will continue to enjoy unprecedented growth in the decades ahead. I am just highlighting how energy systems work in practice.

Tl;dr: It is possible the described system is actually only addressing uptake from about 10, not 40, trees — and it could even be performing less than that.
Yes, the quote I posted was something I found via Google online. We have a ground based solar installation, which has undergone change, but at one time SolarEdge clocked us at producing 40 MW annually, and over time, has said that we have created a benefit equivalent to planting 2,000+ trees. The area that the solar panels take would hold, I guess, 3 large mature oaks or perhaps more if they were crowded. So, whether the carbon situation is 2,000 trees worth, or 500, or 8,000 doesn’t matter as much as the fact that solar panels are effective. For purposes of comparison, during this time I have been able to physically plant 15 trees.

I had set a goal of being carbon neutral, and I think I’ve achieved it (without counting embedded carbon in our house). My most recent addition has been to sign up for ConnectedSolutions, which allows the grid to drain my batteries a number of times annually during peak times. This should allow for lower utilization of dirty fuels to cover the peaks (and eventually reduce the number of dirty fuel plants).
Just for anyone reading this (I am sure Tomato was just posting in haste).

Solar arrays are rated per peak kw (4-5 panels is normally 1 peak kw). A 4-5 kw roof array would probably be around typical US home size (ie big houses by standards of almost any country other than Australia). 10 kw is a big array. Your local electricity company will have rules about how much capacity it will connect to the grid (too much, and the local Low Voltage network cannot handle the back flow of power). Generally the economics of these things are set so as to discourage "oversizing" beyond a single household's needs.

Your output in terms of kw hrs per annum - which is what matters - varies hugely by geography and latitude. But let's say 750-850 kwhr for a panel in the southern parts of New England. In Colorado or southern California, you could be doing twice that (1500 kwhr pa). There are various good estimators on the web.

So kw is the maximum potential output of your system ("capacity"), kwhr is how much energy it produces (kw x time in hours).

Your theoretical maximum production then is peak kw x 8760 hrs p a = maximum theoretical potential production. Your Capacity Factor (actual production / theoretical production) will be for solar I think somewhere around 10% of that? Wind (in commercial wind farms) is c 35% (US has better wind locations, onshore, than other countries).

Actual output for mid day over a 365 day year could swing by 1 to 10 due to weather. "Value" to the electricity grid actually comes from meeting peak demand (4pm to 9pm ish, weekdays) thus in California a more valuable array might face west not south (not sure if the tariffs adjust for that or not).

Then you have to figure out what the emissions intensity of your local electricity is. This varies hugely - and there are online calculators that adjust for that. (To complicate things many-fold, it's actually the *marginal* emissions that count, ie the emissions that your particular array is displacing at that time of day; that's very hard to figure out without access to full ISO data (emissions source, usually by hourly or half hourly slots (although some US ISOs may be even finer gradation - not sure)).

So per 1 kwhr, using the UK govt values (approx):

- coal = 1.0-1.1 kg
- oil = I forget the factor, but somewhere between gas and coal (in electricity generation). Very little oil is consumed by developed countries in electricity generation now (before the oil crises of the 1970s it was as much as 30-40% of all electricity generated).
- gas = 0.55 kg (combined cycle; if running "peaking" as open cycle then much closer to coal (but still cleaner looking at all emissions ie including NOX & particulates))

nuclear/ solar PV/ hydro/ wind = 0

So if you know your blend of power, you can figure out average emissions per kwhr. The "average" US home uses, from memory, around 12,000 kwhr pa so say 30 kwhr p.d. -- but much of that is summer AC load (which does not apply everywhere; an average which does not take account of Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days tells you very little).

Trees are a complex subject because you have to make assumptions re eventual use of wood. If it's burned in someone's log fire, it's less good than if it is say used in construction (where it will lock up those emissions for 100 years). If it is allowed to decay, a lot of the stored elements will be recycled.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Even more importantly than posting in haste, I posted in the morning before caffeine has had a chance to kick in. That said, this is what my SolarEdge system tells me. I am not at the other posters’ knowledge level about power output.

Image

In a else you’re wondering about the dramatic falloff in output, in mid 2019, we replaced a bunch of SolarEdge panels with more efficient Encharge panels, added batteries, then more batteries in 2021 all of which reduced the reporting on SolarEdge.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:23 am Just for anyone reading this (I am sure Tomato was just posting in haste).
Valuethinker, your generous statement that I posted in haste speaks more to your gentle nature than to my understanding of the math (maths to you) involved. I appreciate it even if I don’t deserve it. I stumble along with a surplus of good intentions to make up for my shortfall of knowledge.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:23 am Just for anyone reading this (I am sure Tomato was just posting in haste) ....
+1 and thank you, Valuethinker

What is moderately curious to me is that Tomato's system shows the "benefits" in terms of "trees planted" which, to me, is perhaps the most vague and opaque way to catalogue the benefits of local solar production. I've since researched the company's approach, and they are using transparent metrics. It just seems odd to me.

The system would be more precise if it instead, following your metrics, presented the benefits in terms of "emissions avoided" or something comparable with respect to the generalized/local emissions profile of power production because that is precisely what is occurring, as you have eloquently explained above. The solar project is not, in contrast, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, which is what trees do of course. So to convert from solar project (power produced) to "tree planting equivalent" seems somewhat strained to me.

I guess the solar company's marketing folks concluded that presenting the benefits to consumers in terms of trees was more benign perhaps or easier to understand. To me, it is just confusing, and perhaps even a little misleading.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

FWIW, SolarEdge also shows “CO2 Emission Saved” of 226,999.66 lbs. I especially appreciate the 2 decimal place accuracy.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:51 am
Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:23 am Just for anyone reading this (I am sure Tomato was just posting in haste).
Valuethinker, your generous statement that I posted in haste speaks more to your gentle nature than to my understanding of the math (maths to you) involved. I appreciate it even if I don’t deserve it. I stumble along with a surplus of good intentions to make up for my shortfall of knowledge.
I am really struggling with that graph.

40 MWhr in 2018? vs less than 10 MWhr now?

I know that you have installed a heat pump and solar panels? One would increase consumption, one would decrease it (net consumption - net of solar output). So I am guessing the 40 MWhr refers to demand pre installation? (that's a big house - and since it heated with ? oil ? before, and you don't live in a place like Texas, I struggle to understand how it burned that much electricity?). 10 MWhr (= 10k kwhr) doesn't seem unlikely for a big American house with a heat pump.

(my Victorian terrace (row) house is about 3000 kwhr pa of electricity, and about 27000 kwhr of gas - a modern house that would be more like 10k kwhr).

kw is what mpg you do (in gasoline consumed per hour of engine running so say 1 gallon per hour). Kwhr is how many gallons of gasoline you burn. They get mixed up all the time (and North American heating engineers use BTUs not kwhr and you have to convert to kwhr; tons of air conditioning capacity makes my head hurt even more).

Your battery has a capacity in kwhr, but an ability to deliver power in kw. For most household applications, you shouldn't ever go over about 3 kw (not sure what an oven draws, but these days things like furnaces don't have huge draws, i don't think). Exception would be a Level 2 EV charger (7 to 10 kw?). If say your Hyundai Ioniq 5 has a 56 kwhr battery, it's going to take roughly 8 hours to charge it up (as the battery gets full, the rate of charging slows down). And if your electricity prices are 20 c/ kwhr (not unlikely for New England?) that's going to cost you around $11 to $12 for a full battery carge).
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

Zeno wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:08 am
Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:23 am Just for anyone reading this (I am sure Tomato was just posting in haste) ....
+1 and thank you, Valuethinker

What is moderately curious to me is that Tomato's system shows the "benefits" in terms of "trees planted" which, to me, is perhaps the most vague and opaque way to catalogue the benefits of local solar production. I've since researched the company's approach, and they are using transparent metrics. It just seems odd to me.

The system would be more precise if it instead, following your metrics, presented the benefits in terms of "emissions avoided" or something comparable with respect to the generalized/local emissions profile of power production because that is precisely what is occurring, as you have eloquently explained above. The solar project is not, in contrast, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, which is what trees do of course. So to convert from solar project (power produced) to "tree planting equivalent" seems somewhat strained to me.

I guess the solar company's marketing folks concluded that presenting the benefits to consumers in terms of trees was more benign perhaps or easier to understand. To me, it is just confusing, and perhaps even a little misleading.
That's right. You could do it as emissions in tons or tonnes but people generally would not know what that means.

When they commission a wind farm here, they talk about "energy for x thousand homes". But, of course, a UK home (c. 3500 kwhr pa electricity) is very different from an American one (over 12k, but highly dependent on location due to air conditioning factor). And people like big numbers - so talking about 1 GW of new capacity sounds far better than saying "equivalent to a 400 MW gas-fired power station".

But there are so many assumptions underlying the planting of trees.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:55 am
I am really struggling with that graph.

40 MWhr in 2018? vs less than 10 MWhr now?
We replaced a lot of SolarEdge panels in 2019, so they no longer show up on the SolarEdge report. Reporting was paused and I don’t have a full year of Enphase reporting yet.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:45 am Even more importantly than posting in haste, I posted in the morning before caffeine has had a chance to kick in. That said, this is what my SolarEdge system tells me. I am not at the other posters’ knowledge level about power output.



In a else you’re wondering about the dramatic falloff in output, in mid 2019, we replaced a bunch of SolarEdge panels with more efficient Encharge panels, added batteries, then more batteries in 2021 all of which reduced the reporting on SolarEdge.
Adding batteries is the game changer. Suddenly you are not using grid supplied electricity at peak hours (say 4pm - 930 pm, weekdays). That's both very expensive power and (usually) fairly dirty power (coal tends to run mid demand aka "mid merit" times of day, gas (cleaner) runs peak demand but it does very much depend upon your utility and your ISO).
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

TomatoTomahto wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:39 am
Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:55 am
I am really struggling with that graph.

40 MWhr in 2018? vs less than 10 MWhr now?
We replaced a lot of SolarEdge panels in 2019, so they no longer show up on the SolarEdge report. Reporting was paused and I don’t have a full year of Enphase reporting yet.
Thank you. That's now clear to me.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

Valuethinker wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:41 am Adding batteries is the game changer. Suddenly you are not using grid supplied electricity at peak hours (say 4pm - 930 pm, weekdays). That's both very expensive power and (usually) fairly dirty power (coal tends to run mid demand aka "mid merit" times of day, gas (cleaner) runs peak demand but it does very much depend upon your utility and your ISO).
Massachusetts does not have TOU metering for net metering, but does have an apparently generous program to pay to drain our battery for 60 summer days and 5 winter days during peak hours. $225 per average KW contributed on the summer days, $50 for winter. I get to help smooth the peaks and get paid to do it. Win win.

The biggest concern with signing up was the danger of having an outage after contributing, but my generators can recharge the batteries in 3 hours if the worst happens.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
User avatar
TomatoTomahto
Posts: 17158
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by TomatoTomahto »

@OP, my apologies for derailing your thread. Please let us know what the forestor says.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

My local service forester wasn't too concerned about this program. He was not familiar with programs for landowners with <100 acres. He cautioned me to make sure I didn't have to complete a harvest (as defined by my forestry plan) in 2022 as he didn't want the contracts to compete. As an aside there are two large forestry plans in my state that provide tax advantages. To be in these programs you are required to have a plan which typically encompasses around 10 years and quite often a harvest may be required.

He was excited for me to go for it and he was hopeful that landowners can finally get compensated to hold on to their forest as most often they are getting sold and cut down for corn and soybean fields.

I submitted my contract to NCX, I will hear back by Dec 15th if my carbon credits are auctioned off!
-Andrew
Trav
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Trav »

Big Heart wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:09 am Fascinating thread.

A few years ago I resolved for my Christmas budget to include contributions for environmental protection. Some years the money has gone to advocacy groups but one year I spent my budget on carbon offsets through the UN.

I am wondering if those on this thread have a sense of where we can get the biggest 'bang for our buck' in terms of global warming. For instance, if you had $1,000 to donate , where do you think would be the best place to do so in terms of efficacy in addressing global warming? I understand that I'm just asking for personal opinions and that the pathway to 1.5 degrees is uncertain.
If you have a yard or even access to park land, $1,000 can create a nice oasis for wildlife. Monarch Watch and other organizations have detailed information. One doesn't need to plant trees, it could be native grasses, flowers, and shrubs. A guild planting of a tree or three, a few understory shrubs, and some flowers, grasses, and other herbaceous ground level plants can all be planted on a rather small footprint of area. Its just key to use native plants. Doug Tallamy, an entomologist, has written several books and given many talks (available on Youtube) about what private homeowners and communities can do to help restore and protect bio diversity.
Big Heart
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:42 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Big Heart »

My own yard is already a refuge for pollinators. It's been an amazing journey. I'm glad you're suggesting that to people.

I'm really concerned about carbon and global warming. I'm going to look into local tree planting . But I think that all forest is not created equally, an acre of rainforest protected or an acre of already-established forest protected is going to do more than an acre of saplings. And maybe low-emission stoves for people could do more than even planting trees. I don't know .. really curious about maximal impact for carbon uptake per dollar.
patch
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:41 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by patch »

Big Heart
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:42 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Big Heart »

patch wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:06 am https://www.wri.org/insights/young-fore ... ly-thought

Interesting read.
Wow!!! That is really hopeful.

Article in turn led me to Global Forest Watch, anyone else who loves interactive maps - check this out: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

Big Heart wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:54 am My own yard is already a refuge for pollinators. It's been an amazing journey. I'm glad you're suggesting that to people.

I'm really concerned about carbon and global warming. I'm going to look into local tree planting . But I think that all forest is not created equally, an acre of rainforest protected or an acre of already-established forest protected is going to do more than an acre of saplings. And maybe low-emission stoves for people could do more than even planting trees. I don't know .. really curious about maximal impact for carbon uptake per dollar.
Now the IPCC publishes reports and estimates.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fa ... ingham.htm

I found the above (from the IMF). The academic article is

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.32.4.53

Now what I don't have is an IPCC reference to hand.

There is the famous McKinsey curve

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckins ... sion2.ashx

(negative cost means it actually improves Net Present Value - society is better off. When I was paying £20/ $32 for an LED bulb, I still found it generated positive NPV (I posted about it here in about 2008. What I did not foresee was that the price of an LED bulb would fall even faster than my discount rate, so it would have paid to wait. Shrug :oops: C'est la vie).

Additivity and certainty matter. Insulating my home may be an expensive way of doing this but it is certain - and it's not likely to be additive (only the homeowner will insulate their own home).

The challenge with rainforest is that the project may not work out, the law of unintended consequences can bite. That's true of any "movement" which relies on influencing others.

But I am willing to take that risk. The leverage on a relatively small donation, particularly if given on a regular basis (so the organisation has reliable finance and can make long term plans) can be phenomenal.

Low emission stoves. The literature on how these go wrong is rich -- suffice it to say if it adds significantly to the hassle of cooking or changes in the way you cook, it's not going to be adopted. Also the cost is a major deterrent for the potential users. One important policy is for a country to even subsidise distribution of cooking gas (bottled gas) to get people to switch off using stoves fired by wood or other biomass. That's counterintuitive - replacing biomass with fossil fuels. But it can work (but it's not a long term solution).

I support groups like Oxfam which are broadly for women's education and other measures which are proven to have significantly improved the wellbeing of the target countries (Bangladesh, which was a basket case of a country with mass starvation in the 1970s, now has a higher GDP per capita than its former controlling power, Pakistan).
3feetpete
Posts: 613
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:30 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by 3feetpete »

Big Heart wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:09 am Fascinating thread.

A few years ago I resolved for my Christmas budget to include contributions for environmental protection. Some years the money has gone to advocacy groups but one year I spent my budget on carbon offsets through the UN.

I am wondering if those on this thread have a sense of where we can get the biggest 'bang for our buck' in terms of global warming. For instance, if you had $1,000 to donate , where do you think would be the best place to do so in terms of efficacy in addressing global warming? I understand that I'm just asking for personal opinions and that the pathway to 1.5 degrees is uncertain.
I looked into this a couple of years ago and determined the biggest bang for the buck was a non-profit called One Tree Planted. For every dollar they plant a tree. The donor gets to choose from the several locations they are working at. A typical tree fixes about a ton of carbon over it's lifetime.
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

"We are writing to let you know that, unfortunately, your bid to sell Harvest Deferral Credits was not accepted in the 2022 Winter Cycle. Landowners in your seller cohort with bids at or below $8 per HDC were accepted; your minimum bid price exceeded that threshold. Your seller cohort includes landowners who have the majority of their property in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. We will be sharing more information in early January regarding the detailed results of the auction."

From this blog post I see Spring 2021 Cycle credits went for $17:
https://ncx.com/learning-hub/forest-car ... ge-launch/

That means in 6 months the price went from $17 down to $8 per credit!
I'd be curious to know your interpretation of the data, or what questions you have that I could maybe get some more information.
-Andrew
Valuethinker
Posts: 49035
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Valuethinker »

Drewman wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:43 am "We are writing to let you know that, unfortunately, your bid to sell Harvest Deferral Credits was not accepted in the 2022 Winter Cycle. Landowners in your seller cohort with bids at or below $8 per HDC were accepted; your minimum bid price exceeded that threshold. Your seller cohort includes landowners who have the majority of their property in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. We will be sharing more information in early January regarding the detailed results of the auction."

From this blog post I see Spring 2021 Cycle credits went for $17:
https://ncx.com/learning-hub/forest-car ... ge-launch/

That means in 6 months the price went from $17 down to $8 per credit!
I'd be curious to know your interpretation of the data, or what questions you have that I could maybe get some more information.
-Andrew
My suspicion would be that legislative changes did not pass thru and so that changed the valuation? Discussion of politics and pending legislation is prohibited here, but that would be my guess.
User avatar
snackdog
Posts: 3102
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:57 am
Location: PNW

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by snackdog »

Drewman wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:43 am ..
That means in 6 months the price went from $17 down to $8 per credit!
I'd be curious to know your interpretation of the data, or what questions you have that I could maybe get some more information.
-Andrew
I'm preparing a bid for the upcoming auction. The NCX information suggests that if you offer a low price, they will auction it at the highest possible price. In other words, if I put my forest up for $5/credit and they get $8 for it, I get $8 (not just $5). In other words, no downside for me putting in a low offer as long as I am willing to defer harvest at that price. Is that your understanding?

Thanks
BH Consumer FAQ: | Car? Used Toyota, Lexus or Miata. | House? 20% down and 3x salary. | Vacation house? No. | Umbrella? $1 million. | Goods? Costco.
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

Sorry for the late reply but that is correct.
Per NCX: Our price guidance this cycle is that a bid between $5 - $10/HDC is likely to clear on the NCX exchange. We will be maintaining a guaranteed clearing price of $5/HDC.
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

Drewman wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 5:46 am Sorry for the late reply but that is correct.
Per NCX: Our price guidance this cycle is that a bid between $5 - $10/HDC is likely to clear on the NCX exchange. We will be maintaining a guaranteed clearing price of $5/HDC.
+1
Zeno
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 am

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Zeno »

Zeno wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:03 am
TomatoTomahto wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:11 pm
A typical hardwood tree would capture about 22 kg of CO2 per year. Thus by using a 1 kW capacity rooftop solar system to replace fossil power generation, one could offset carbon emissions equivalent to about 40 trees.
deleted
Topic Author
Drewman
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by Drewman »

Well I put in my bid this year as I am not planning a commercial harvest. I guess I should get the money even if it is only a couple hundred dollars. I don't see any reason why not. In another news we did tap our first maples trees! We have collected 50 gallons in about a week. We give it to a local Amish that has a commercial evaporator and in return he gives up syrup.
forgeblast
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:45 am
Location: PA
Contact:

Re: America's Forest Carbon Market

Post by forgeblast »

Just a heads up for people planting trees, this is information we learned from our crep planting.
1. tubex tubes are a must, 5' tall work best. They must be in the ground a bit to keep voles from eating the roots.
2. bluex are cheaper but a mess stay away from those tubes.
3. In PA county conservation districts often have spring seedling sales/fundraisers. They are a great place to get a variety of trees.
4. know your property, wet soggy soil requires a different tree then something high and dry on a hill side.
I have had success in wet areas with pin oak, and swamp white oak, along with sugar maple and black walnut.
5. We planted on a 15'x15' grid some people plant on a 10'x10'. We knew the ground was so muddy it would not be easy to get in and select harvest.

I have two years left in our 15 year crep program after that we can do what we want with the property. We plan on planting more and still controlling the invasive s.
When we moved iwe had a full dense acre of multiflora rose. It took two years of cutting and burning it out but it now makes up half of what we have in the crep program.
Post Reply