Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is Use of Both Pulpwood and Logging Residues Instead of Only Logging Residues for Bioenergy Development a Viable Carbon Mitigation Strategy?

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study adopts an integrated life-cycle approach to assess overall carbon saving related with the utilization of wood pellets manufactured using pulpwood and logging residues for electricity generation. Carbon sequestered in wood products and wood present in landfills and avoided carbon emissions due to substitution of grid electricity with the electricity generated using wood pellets are considered part of overall carbon savings. Estimated value of overall carbon saving is compared with the overall carbon saving related to the current use of pulpwood and logging residues. The unit of analysis is a hectare of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantation in southern USA. All carbon flows are considered starting from forest management to the decay of wood products in landfills. Exponential decay function is used to ascertain carbon sequestered in wood products and wood present in landfills. Non-biogenic carbon emissions due to burning of wood waste at manufacturing facilities, wood pellets at a power plant, and logging residues on forestlands are also considered. Impacts of harvest age and forest management intensity on overall carbon saving are analyzed as well. The use of pulpwood for bioenergy development reduces carbon sequestered in wood products and wood present in landfills (up to 1.6 metric tons/ha) relative to a baseline when pulpwood is used for paper making and logging residues are used for manufacturing wood pellets. Avoided carbon emissions because of displacement of grid electricity from the electricity generated using wood pellets derived from pulpwood fully compensate the loss of carbon sequestered in wood products and wood present in landfills. The use of both pulpwood and logging residues for bioenergy development is beneficial from carbon perspective. Harvest age is more important in determining overall carbon saving than forest management intensity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Congress (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. HR 6 (100th)

  2. USEIA (2012) Annual energy outlook 2012 with projections to 2035. United States Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Perlack R, Wright L, Turholllow A, Graham R, Stokes B, Erbach D (2005) Biomass as a feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National laboratory United States Department of Energy/United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Bush TG, Marinescu M (2011) Quantifying GWI of wood pellet production in the southern United States and its subsequent utilization for electricity production in the Netherlands/Florida. Bio Energ Res 4(3):180–192

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Alavalapati J, Nesbit T (2012) Global warming impact of E85 fuel derived from forest biomass: a case study from southern USA. Bio Energ Res 5(2):470–480

    Google Scholar 

  6. Steele P, Puettmann M, Penmetsa V, Cooper J (2012) Life-cycle assessment of pyrolysis bio-oil production. For Prod J 62(4):326–334

    Google Scholar 

  7. Katers J, Snippen A, Puettmann M (2012) Life-cycle inventory of wood pellet manufacturing and utilization in Wisconsin. For Prod J 62(4):289–295

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gan J, Smith CT (2011) Optimal plant size and feedstock supply radius: a modeling approach to minimize bioenergy production costs. Biomass Bioenergy 35(8):3350–3359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gan J, Smith CT (2010) Coupling greenhouse gas credits with biofuel production cost in determining conversion plant size. Silva Fenn 44(3):497–510

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gan J, Smith CT (2007) Co-benefits of utilizing logging residues for bioenergy production: the case for East Texas, USA. Biomass Bioenergy 31(9):623–630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gan J, Smith CT (2006) A comparative analysis of woody biomass and coal for electricity generation under various CO2 emission reductions and taxes. Biomass Bioenergy 30(4):296–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR, Susaeta A, Stainback A (2009) Impact of carbon value on the profitability of slash pine plantations in the southern United States: an integrated life cycle and Faustmann analysis. Can J For Res 39(5):990–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Spelter H, Toth D (2009) North America’s wood pellet sector. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI

    Google Scholar 

  14. Abt K, Abt R, Galik C (2012) Effect of bioenergy demands and supply response on markets, carbon, and land use. For Sci 58(5):523–539

    Google Scholar 

  15. Earles J, Yeh S, Skog KE (2012) Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nat Clim Change 2(9):682–685

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Stainback G, Carter D (2012) Impact of payments for carbon sequestered in wood products and avoided carbon emissions on the profitability of an NIPF landowners in the US South. Ecol Econ 78:63–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nepal P, Grala RK, Grebner DL (2012) Financial feasibility of increasing carbon sequestration in harvested wood products in Mississippi. Forest Pol Econ 14(1):99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Markewitz D (2006) Fossil fuel carbon emissions from silviculture: impacts on net carbon sequestration in forests. For Ecol Manag 236(2–3):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gonzalez-Benecke CA, Martin TA, Cropper WP Jr, Bracho R (2010) Forest management effects on in situ and ex situ slash pine forest carbon balance. For Ecol Manag 260(5):795–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Woodbury PB, Smith JE, Heath LS (2007) Carbon sequestration in the U.S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010. For Ecol Manag 241(1–3):14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Smith WB, Miles PD, Perry CH, Pugh SA (2009) Forest resources of the United States, 2007: a technical document supporting the forest service 2010 RPA assessment, General Technical Report WO −78. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, United States

    Google Scholar 

  22. Yin R, Pienaar LV, Aronow ME (1998) The productivity and profitability of fiber farming. J For 96(11):13–18

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jenkins J, Chojnacky D, Heath L, Birdsey R (2003) National scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For Sci 49(12–35)

    Google Scholar 

  24. EIA (2011) Voluntary reporting of greenhouse gases program Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2011

  25. Davis SC, Dietze M, DeLucia E, Field C, Hamburg SP, Loarie S, Parton W, Potts M, Ramage B, Wang D, Youngs H, Long SP (2012) Harvesting carbon from eastern US forests: opportunities and impacts of an expanding bioenergy industry. Forests 3:370–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vose J, Swank W, Geron C, Major A (1997) Emissions from forest burning in the Southeastern United States: application of a model determining spatial and temporal fire variation. In: Levine J (ed) Biomass burning and global change, vol 2. MIT, Cambridge, pp 733–749

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mobley ML, Richter DD, Heine P (2013) Accumulation and decay of woody detritus in a humid subtropical secondary pine forest. Can J For Res 43(2):109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. PRé Consultants (2012) United States life cycle inventory database. SimaPro 7, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  29. Puettmann M, Oneil E, Wilson J, Johnson L (2013) Cradle to gate life cycle assessment of composite I-Joist production from the souhteast. CORRIM, Seattle, WA

    Google Scholar 

  30. PRé Consultants (2012) EcoInvent database. SimaPro 7, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  31. WDNR (2010) Forest biomass and air emissions. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bridgwater AV, Toft AJ, Brammer JG (2002) A techno-economic comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with gasification and combustion. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 6(3):181–246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the funding support provided by Yale Climate and Energy Institute and Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors are also thankful to Drs. Jianbang Gan (TAMU), Wendell Cropper (UF), Douglas Carter (UF), Timothy Martin (UF), and Gary Peter (UF) for their helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Biosciences Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Room # 1115, 1206 W Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Puneet Dwivedi & Madhu Khanna

  2. School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Robert Bailis

Authors
  1. Puneet Dwivedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Bailis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madhu Khanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Puneet Dwivedi.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Fig. S1

Percentage contribution of timber products towards total weight at different harvest ages. (PDF 178 kb)

Fig. S2

Difference of carbon sequestered at the end of simulation period in wood products and wood present in landfills for cases ENE-LR and ENE-LR&PW with respect to LEFT-LR (baseline). Carbon emissions are positive whereas savings are negative. Simulation period is 500 years. (PDF 175 kb)

Fig. S3

Difference of carbon sequestered at the end of simulation period in wood products and wood present in landfills for cases ENE-LR and ENE-LR&PW with respect to BURN-LR (baseline). Carbon emissions are positive whereas savings are negative. Simulation period is 500 years. (PDF 174 kb)

Fig. S4

Difference of overall carbon savings at the end of simulation period for cases ENE-LR and ENE-LR&PW with respect to LEFT-LR (baseline). Carbon emissions are positive whereas savings are negative. Simulation period is 500 years. (PDF 174 kb)

Fig. S5

Difference of overall carbon savings at the end of simulation period for cases ENE-LR and ENE-LR&PW with respect to BURN-LR (baseline). Carbon emissions are positive whereas savings are negative. Simulation period is 500 years. (PDF 174 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dwivedi, P., Bailis, R. & Khanna, M. Is Use of Both Pulpwood and Logging Residues Instead of Only Logging Residues for Bioenergy Development a Viable Carbon Mitigation Strategy?. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 217–231 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9362-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9362-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation