BioEnergy Research

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 180–192 | Cite as

Quantifying GWI of Wood Pellet Production in the Southern United States and Its Subsequent Utilization for Electricity Production in The Netherlands/Florida

  • Puneet Dwivedi
  • Robert Bailis
  • Todd G. Bush
  • Marian Marinescu
Article

Abstract

This study attempts to determine global warming impact (GWI) of imported wood pellets from the Southern United States for electricity production in The Netherlands. An attempt is also made to determine GWI of utilizing produced wood pellets within the state of Florida for electricity generation instead of exports. A life-cycle approach is adopted to determine overall GWIs of both the cases. Economic objectives of forest landowners are also incorporated to determine biomass (pulpwood and harvesting residues) availability from a hectare of slash pine plantation. The GWI of a unit of electricity produced at a power plant located at Geertruidenberg, The Netherlands and Gainesville, Florida was 296.4 and 177.5 g of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas, respectively. An overall saving of 72.6% in greenhouse gas emissions was estimated for every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated using imported wood pellets in The Netherlands when compared with coal-based electricity. This value was found to be 82.4% if produced wood pellets are utilized within Florida for electricity generation instead of exports. A need exists to evaluate the potential of other feedstocks for wood pellet production like understory forest biomass. Additionally, macroeconomic and ecological impacts of utilizing forest biomass for wood pellet production needs to be quantified.

Keywords

Electricity generation Europe and Southern United States Forest biomass Global warming impact Wood pellets 

References

  1. 1.
    Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI - The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouwman AF (1996) Direct emission of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 46:53–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell H, Brown R (2003) Benefit cost analysis: financial and economic appraisal using spreadsheets. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chau J, Sowlati T, Sokhansanj S, Preto F, Melin S, Bi X et al (2009) Techno-economic analysis of wood biomass boilers for the greenhouse industry. Appl Energy 86:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Damen K, Faaij A (2006) A greenhouse gas balance of two existing international biomass import chains: the case of residue co-firing in a pulverized coal-fired power plant in The Netherlands. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11:1023–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwivedi P (2010) Environmental and economic suitability of forest biomass-based bioenergy production in the Southern United States. Dissertation, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):990–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    EBA (European Biomass Association) (2009) Bioelectricity/cogeneration statistics: electricity from biomass (TWh). AEBIOM European Biomass Association. http://www.aebiom.org/?cat=18. Cited 14 June 2010
  9. 9.
    Ecoinvent (2010) Database. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/. Cited 06 October 2010
  10. 10.
    EEA (European Environment Agency) (2006) How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? European Environment Agency Report # 7/2006. Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.europabio.org/Biofuels%20reports/eea_report_bioenergy.pdf. Cited 14 June 2010
  11. 11.
    EREC (2009) Renewable energy technology roadmap: 20% by 2020. European Renewable Energy Council. http://www.erec.org/fileadmin/erec_docs/Documents/Publications/Renewable_Energy_Technology_Roadmap.pdf. Cited 14 June 2010
  12. 12.
    Faustmann M (1995) Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry (republication of original article—1849). J For Econ 1:7–44Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franklin Associates (2010). Life cycle services. http://www.fal.com/lifecycle-services.html. Cited 30 September 2010
  14. 14.
    Freney JR (1997) Emission of nitrous oxide from soils used for agriculture. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 49:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giacomo G Di, Taglieri L (2009) Renewable energy benefits with conversion of woody residues to pellets. Energy 34:724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gujrati D (2004) Basic econometrics, 4 economyth edn. Tata McGraw-Hill, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Mann MK, Volk TA et al (2004) Life cycle energy and environmental benefits of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renewable Energy 29:1023–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    IEA (International Energy Agency) (2010a) Electricity/heat in Netherlands in 2007. http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NL. Cited 30 September 2010
  19. 19.
    IEA (International Energy Agency) (2010b) Electricity/heat in United States in 2007. http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=US. Cited 30 September 2010
  20. 20.
    Jones D, Harper D, Taylor A et al (2009) Wood pellets—an introduction to their production and use. Wood Products’ Information, Forest Products Center, Extension Document # W214. Institute of Agriculture, The University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Magelli F, Boucher K, Bi HT, Melin S, Bonoli A et al (2009) An environmental impact assessment of exported wood pellets from Canada to Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 33:434–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peng JH, Bi HT, Sokhansanj S, Lim JC, Melin S et al (2010) An economical and market analysis of Canadian wood pellets. Int J Green Energy 7:128–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sikkema R, Junginger M, Pichler W, Hayes S, Faaji APC et al (2010) The international logistics of wood pellets for heating and power production in Europe: costs, energy-input and greenhouse gas balances of pellet consumption in Italy, Sweden and The Netherlands. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefin 4:132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sipilä K, Mäkinen T, Wilén C, Solantausta Y, Arasto A, Helynen S, Uil H den, Vehlow J, Schwaiger H, Gabrielle B, Peck P, Rogulska M et al (2008) Bioenergy in Europe: implementation of EU directives and policies relating to bioenergy in Europe and RD&D priorities for the future. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2008/T2441.pdf. Cited 14 June 2010
  25. 25.
    Spelter H, Toth D (2009) North America’s wood pellet sector. Research paper FPL-RP-656. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, p 21Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Swaan J, Melin S (2008) Wood pellet exports: history, opportunities, and challenges. Paper presented at the bioenergy conference and exhibition, Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, 3–5 June 2008Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    TMS (Timber Mart South) (2010) Southeastern average stumpage prices. http://www.timbermart-south.com/prices.html. Cited 12 June 2010
  28. 28.
    Yin R, Pienaar LV, Aronow ME et al (1998) The productivity and profitability of fiber farming. J Forest 96(11):13–18Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Y, Mckechnie J, Cormier D, Lyng R, Mabee W, Ogino A, Maclean HL et al (2010) Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environ Sci Technol 44:538–544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Puneet Dwivedi
    • 1
  • Robert Bailis
    • 1
  • Todd G. Bush
    • 2
  • Marian Marinescu
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.School of Forest Resources and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.FP InnovationsVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations