• Energy Research
• NL close

Many factors may globally affect the trade pattern for industrial-grade wood pellets, with one such factor being the decision strategies by potential buyers and suppliers to optimize feedstock pric...

Abstract Past research on identifying potentially negative impacts of forest management activities has primarily focused on traditional forest operations. The increased use of forest biomass for energy in recent years, spurred predominantly by policy incentives for the reduction of fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, and by efforts from the forestry sector to diversify products and increase value from the forests, has again brought much attention to this issue. The implications of such practices continue to be controversially debated; predominantly the adverse impacts on soil productivity and biodiversity, and the climate change mitigation potential of forest bioenergy. Current decision making processes require comprehensive, differentiated assessments of the known and unknown factors and risk levels of potentially adverse environmental effects. This paper provides such an analysis and differentiates between the feedstock of harvesting residues, roundwood, and salvage wood. It concludes that the risks related to biomass for energy outtake are feedstock specific and vary in terms of scientific certainty. Short-term soil productivity risks are higher for residue removal. There is however little field evidence of negative long-term impacts of biomass removal on productivity in the scale predicted by modeling. Risks regarding an alteration of biodiversity are relatively equally distributed across the feedstocks. The risk of limited or absent short-term carbon benefits is highest for roundwood, but negligible for residues and salvage wood. Salvage operation impacts on soil productivity and biodiversity are a key knowledge gap. Future research should also focus on deriving regionally specific, quantitative thresholds for sustainable biomass removal.

AbstractCurrent biomass production and trade volumes for energy and new materials and bio‐chemicals are only a small fraction to achieve the bioenergy levels suggested by many global energy and climate change mitigation scenarios for 2050. However, comprehensive sustainability of large scale biomass production and trading has yet to be secured, and governance of developing biomass markets is a critical issue. Fundamental choices need to be made on how to develop sustainable biomass supply chains and govern sustainable international biomass markets. The aim of this paper is to provide a vision of how widespread trade and deployment of biomass for energy purposes can be integrated with the wider (bio)economy. It provides an overview of past and current trade flows of the main bioenergy products, and discusses the most important drivers and barriers for bioenergy in general, and more specifically the further development of bioenergy trade over the coming years. It discusses the role of bioenergy as part of the bioeconomy and other potential roles; and how it can help to achieve the sustainable development goals. The paper concludes that it is critical to demonstrate innovative and integrated value chains for biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower that can respond with agility to market factors while providing economic, environmental, and societal benefits to international trade and market. Furthermore, flexible biogenic carbon supply nets based on broad feedstock portfolios and multiple energy and material utilization pathways will reduce risks for involved stakeholder and foster the market entry and uptake of various densified biogenic carbon carriers. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

AbstractThe scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy‐making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system‐level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short‐term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium‐ to long‐term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.

An analysis by Sterman et al (2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 015007) suggests that use of wood for bioenergy production results in a worse climate outcome than from using coal. However, many of the assumptions on which their primary wood bioenergy scenario is based are not realistic and therefore are not informative. Assumptions of uncharacteristically long rotations for southern pine plantations, no utilization of wood for longer-duration products, and a single harvest over 100 years understate the carbon performance of current forest management practices. We provide references that support realistic modeling of forest carbon dynamics that are reflective of current practice and therefore more informative.

AbstractThe temporal imbalance between the release and sequestration of forest carbon has raised a fundamental concern about the climate mitigation potential of forest biomass for energy. The potential carbon debt caused by harvest and the resulting time spans needed to reach pre‐harvest carbon levels (payback) or those of a reference case (parity) have become important parameters for climate and bioenergy policy developments. The present range of analyses however varies in assumptions, regional scopes, and conclusions. Comparing these modeling efforts, we reveal that they apply different principle modeling frameworks while results are largely affected by the same parameters. The size of the carbon debt is mostly determined by the type and amount of biomass harvested and whether land‐use change emissions need to be accounted for. Payback times are mainly determined by plant growth rates, i.e. the forest biome, tree species, site productivity and management. Parity times are primarily influenced by the choice and construction of the reference scenario and fossil carbon displacement efficiencies. Using small residual biomass (harvesting/processing), deadwood from highly insect‐infected sites, or new plantations on highly productive or marginal land offers (almost) immediate net carbon benefits. Their eventual climate mitigation potential however is determined by the effectiveness of the fossil fuel displacement. We deem it therefore unsuitable to define political guidance by feedstock alone. Current global wood pellet production is predominantly residue based. Production increases based on low‐grade stemwood are expected in regions with a downturn in the local wood product sector, highlighting the importance of accounting for regional forest carbon trends. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

The global pellet market is growing but with different characteristics in different countries and regions. In this paper we trace developments between 2008 and 2016. For 2008, production was reported at 9.8 Tg, expanding globally to 14.3 Tg in 2010 and surpassing 26 Tg in 2015. Global hot spots are North America (production) and Europe (consumption). Sustainability certification was applied for about 9 Tg in 2016. Nevertheless, projections for future development are difficult as low pellet prices and uncertain sustainability obligations may hinder further expansion. In general, there is a strong dependency of the pellet market on the policy framework. © 2018 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractMost climate change mitigation scenarios rely on increased use of bioenergy to decarbonize the energy system. Here we use results from the 33rd Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF-33) to investigate projected international bioenergy trade for different integrated assessment models across several climate change mitigation scenarios. Results show that in scenarios with no climate policy, international bioenergy trade is likely to increase over time, and becomes even more important when climate targets are set. More stringent climate targets, however, do not necessarily imply greater bioenergy trade compared to weaker targets, as final energy demand may be reduced. However, the scaling up of bioenergy trade happens sooner and at a faster rate with increasing climate target stringency. Across models, for a scenario likely to achieve a 2 °C target, 10–45 EJ/year out of a total global bioenergy consumption of 72–214 EJ/year are expected to be traded across nine world regions by 2050. While this projection is greater than the present trade volumes of coal or natural gas, it remains below the present trade of crude oil. This growth in bioenergy trade largely replaces the trade in fossil fuels (especially oil) which is projected to decrease significantly over the twenty-first century. As climate change mitigation scenarios often show diversified energy systems, in which numerous world regions can act as bioenergy suppliers, the projections do not necessarily lead to energy security concerns. Nonetheless, rapid growth in the trade of bioenergy is projected in strict climate mitigation scenarios, raising questions about infrastructure, logistics, financing options, and global standards for bioenergy production and trade.