Mobilisation of Forest Bioenergy in the Boreal and Temperate Biomes. Challenges, Opportunities and Case Studies

259 Pages·2016·9.593 MB·English

by  Evelyne Thiffault, C.T. Smith, Martin Junginger, Göran Berndes

Mobilisation of Forest
Bioenergy in the Boreal
and Temperate Biomes
Challenges, Opportunities and Case Studies
Evelyne Thiffault
Department of Wood and Forest Sciences and Research Centre
on Renewable Materials, Laval University, Quebec, Canada
Göran Berndes
Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden
Martin Junginger
Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jack N. Saddler
Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy Group, University of British
Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
C.T. Smith
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON
NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further
information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations
such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our
website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical
treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others,
including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume
any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or
ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-804514-5
For information on all Academic Press publications
visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/
Publisher: Joe Hayton
Acquisition Editor: Raquel Zanol
Editorial Project Manager: Mariana Kühl Leme
Editorial Project Manager Intern: Ana Claudia Garcia
Production Project Manager: Sruthi Satheesh
Designer: Greg Harris
Typeset by Thomson Digital
List of Contributors
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors’ contrbutions begin.
Antti Asikainen (10, 68), Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Joensuu, Finland
Göran Berndes (190), Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology,
Gothenburg, Sweden
Mark Brown (165), Australian Forest Operations Research Alliance, University of the
Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia
William Cadham (102), Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy Group, University
of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
David C. Coote (165), School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne,
Richmond, VIC; Australian Forest Operations Research Alliance, University of the Sun-
shine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia
Guillaume Cyr (36), Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Quebec City,
Canada
Ger Devlin (10), UCD Forestry, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Gustaf Egnell (50), Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Luc Guindon (36), Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Quebec City,
Canada
Tanja Ikonen (68), Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Joensuu, Finland
Martin Junginger (127), Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The
Netherlands
J.S. Linoj Kumar (102), Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy Group, University
of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
Patrick Lamers (50, 127, 190), Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, United
States of America
Thuy Mai-Moulin (127), Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
David Paré (36, 50), Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Quebec City,
Canada
Johanna Routa (68), Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Joensuu, Finland
Jack N. Saddler (102), Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy Group, University of
British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
ix
x List of Contributors
Evelyne Thiffault (1, 10, 36, 50, 165, 190), Department of Wood and Forest Sciences
and Research Centre on Renewable Materials, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
J. Susan Van Dyk (102), Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy Group, University
of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada
William A. White (84), Kingsmere Economics Consulting, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Preface
The International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy aims to achieve a substantial
bioenergy contribution to future global energy demands. Accelerating produc-
tion and use of environmentally sound, socially accepted and cost-competitive
bioenergy will help to provide increased security of supply, while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. Colleagues affiliated with several
IEA Bioenergy Tasks have engaged to help achieve this objective, including Task
37 (Energy from Biogas), Task 38 (Climate Change Effects of Biomass and Bio-
energy Systems), Task 39 (Commercialising Conventional and Advanced Liquid
Biofuels from Biomass), Task 40 (Sustainable International Bioenergy Trade:
Securing Supply and Demand), Task 42 (Biorefining—Sustainable Processing
of Biomass into a Spectrum of Marketable Bio-based Products and Bioenergy)
and Task 43 (Biomass Feedstocks for Energy Markets). This collaborative ef-
fort has led to the inter-Task project ‘Mobilising Sustainable Bioenergy Supply
Chains’. The purpose of this project is to identify sustainable biomass systems
and promote their implementation. This was done by identifying a number of
case studies that were evaluated in terms of potential bioenergy supply, barriers
for development and potential policies to further mobilise the potential.
This book presents findings on forest biomass supply chains in the boreal
and temperate biomes. It deals more specifically with countries from North
America, the European Union and Oceania.
Work was coordinated by Evelyne Thiffault, assistant professor at the De-
partment of Wood and Forest Sciences, Laval University (Canada) and a mem-
ber of the Research Centre on Renewable Materials. The following scientific
editors were also involved:
• Göran Berndes, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, IEA Bioenergy
Task 43;
• Martin Junginger, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands,
IEA Bioenergy Task 40;
• Jack N. Saddler, University of British Columbia, Canada, IEA Bioenergy
Task 39;
• C.T. (Tat) Smith, University of Toronto, Canada, IEA Bioenergy Task 43.
Kirsten Hannam, from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, acted as technical
editor.
xi
xii Preface
The following authors were involved:
• Antti Asikainen, Johanna Routa and Tanja Ikonen, LUKE, Finland;
• Mark Brown, Forest Industries Research Centre, University of Sunshine
Coast, Australia;
• David Coote, Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science, The University
of Melbourne, Australia;
• Ger Devlin, UCD Forestry, University College Dublin, Ireland;
• Gustaf Egnell, Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden;
• Thuy Mai-Moulin, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands;
• Patrick Lamers, Idaho National Laboratory, United States;
• David Paré, Natural Resources Canada—Canadian Forest Service, Canada;
• William Cadham, Susan Van Dyk and Linoj Kumar, Forest Products
Biotechnology/Bioenergy Group, University of British Columbia, Canada;
• Bill White, Kingsmere Economics Consulting, Canada.
The following provided reviews of various chapters:
• Dan Neary, US Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, United
States;
• Annette Cowie, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Australia.
The following contributors generously provided data and insights about
forest biomass deployment in their specific countries:
Jianbang Gan, Texas A&M University, United States;
Mohammad Ghaffariyan, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia;
Bo Hektor, Swedish Bioenergy Association, Sweden;
Dirk Jaeger, University of Freiburg, Germany;
Søren Larsen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;
Daniel Len, USDA Forest Service, United States;
Didier Marchal, Direction of Forest Resources, Wallonia Public Service,
Belgium;
Rut Serra, Fédération québécoise des coopératives forestières, Canada;
Adam Sherman, Biomass Energy Resource Centre, United States;
Megan Smith, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada;
Inge Stupak, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
The team gratefully acknowledges IEA Bioenergy Executive Committee for
providing funding to the project.
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
In 2012, the United Nations Secretary General set up an agenda on sustainable
energy, for which one of the objectives was to double the share of sustainable re-
newable energy in the global energy mix by 2030, and triple the share of modern
renewables to replace the use of traditional biomass. The International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA) developed a Renewable Energy Roadmap (REMAP) to
explore how this target could be put into practice. In the REMAP 2030, biomass
could account for 60% of the total final renewable energy use in 2030, totalling
108 Exajoules (EJ), with applications in all sectors. Global biomass supply in 2030
is estimated to range from 97 to 147 EJ/year, with about 24–43 EJ coming from
forestry. As another illustration of longer-term biomass demand for energy, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reviewed 164 long-term global en-
ergy scenarios and found bioenergy deployment levels in the year 2050 ranging
from 80 to 150 EJ/year, for 440–600 ppm COeq concentration targets and from
2
118 to 190 EJ/year, for less than 440 ppm COeq concentration targets. To indicate
2
magnitudes, 100 EJ roughly corresponds to 13.7 × 109 m3 of wood (at 7.3 GJ/ m3
of wood). In comparison, the total global annual quantity of wood removals only
increased from 2.75 × 109 m3 to around 3 × 109 m3 from 1990 to 2011.
With their generally mature forestry sector, countries from the boreal and
temperate biomes are expected to play an important role in the mobilisation
of forest biomass for energy and contribute to reach the targets set by interna-
tional agencies. In those countries, the models are mostly based on long-rotation
forestry, which presents unique challenges and opportunities relative to short-
rotation woody crops or forestry in tropical/sub-tropical areas.
AIM
The aim of the book is to identify opportunities and challenges for the mobili-
sation of sustainable forest bioenergy supply chains in the boreal and temper-
ate biomes from North America, the European Union and Oceania. Secondary
goals of the report include identifying the necessary elements of a successful
and sustainable supply chain, as well as identifying occasions of knowledge
transfer between countries and technologies.
ANALYSIS
A supply chain is a set of three or more entities (organisations or individu-
als) directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows of products,
services, finances and information from a source to a customer. Unlike other
xiii
xiv Executive Summary
manufacturing supply chains, forest product supply chains have a divergent co-
production structure, in which trees are broken down into many products at all
levels of the production processes. Wood has a highly heterogeneous nature,
which makes planning and control a difficult task. Forest bioenergy supply,
therefore, shares the inherent complexity of forest product supply chains in
general.
Forest bioenergy supply chains evolve in specific geographical, socio-eco-
nomical and policy environment and result in specific environmental and socio-
economic footprints. The various processes, pathways and actors that comprise
each forest bioenergy supply chain can present a range of opportunities and
challenges, success stories, roadblocks and potential solutions in the develop-
ment and deployment of sustainable business cases.
Comparison of Forest Biomass Supply Chains from the Boreal and
Temperate Biomes
Several factors interact to determine the level of mobilisation of forest biomass
supply chains, that is the ability of forest biomass to be harvested, collected, pro-
cessed and delivered to end-users and markets in a manner that is competitive
relative to other energy alternatives, notably to fossil fuels. Large differences
exist between countries of the boreal and temperate biomes in terms of mobili-
sation, due to the action of individuals, businesses and organisations exploring
opportunities that are shaped from real policy, market and operating conditions.
Countries also vary in terms of the share of the forestry sector captured by forest
energy. There is also variation in the integration (or lack thereof) of bioenergy
within the basket of wood products in strategic, tactical and operational deci-
sion-making. Those differences represent a challenge when it comes to making
useful recommendations that need to be meaningful and applicable throughout
such an array of conditions. They also represent opportunities: these can be in
the form of cross-regional and international synergies among stakeholders and
markets with different but complementary characteristics; technological trans-
fer; and possibilities of niche applications or efficiency gains arising from small
improvements to various aspects of the supply chain, which can potentially re-
sult in large collective gains for global biomass mobilisation.
Quantifying Forest Biomass Mobilisation Potential in the Boreal
and Temperate Biomes
Forest bioenergy mobilisation could be achieved via:
Intensification of forest management activities, in which forestry would ap-
l propriate a larger share of forest ecosystem NPP; and
Intensification of biomass recovery from silvicultural, harvesting and wood
l processing operations, in which bioenergy would appropriate a larger share
of forest by-products/residues.
Executive Summary xv
Mobilisation of forest biomass is relatively high in some countries (eg Bel-
gium, Germany), while significant gains could be achieved in others (eg Can-
ada, Russia). Forest biomass is likely to remain a commodity product that is
strongly related to the management of the forest for other wood products. There
is potential to increase biomass feedstock supply for bioenergy production in
many regions, even without an enhancement of forest productivity by way of
fertilisation, drainage or breeding improved tree species. For example, increas-
ing the operational efficiency of logging residue recovery, that is the proportion
of logging residues recovered from a given cutblock, represents one opportu-
nity. Technological learning through improved worker training and changes in
bioenergy policies and markets might increase this rate and, therefore, increase
overall mobilisation of forest bioenergy.
On the other hand, intensification of forest management and biomass pro-
curement can have adverse effects on biodiversity. For example, management
of areas with high biodiversity value can be a concern. Strong environmental
governance ensuring sustainable forest management practices and protection of
forest ecosystem services is crucial.
In some regions, other constraints, such as access to the land, need also to be
considered. In addition, certain regions are subjected to high rates of damage by
natural disturbances, such as fire and insects. When it is not possible to reduce
the damage from natural disturbances, the use of salvaged wood could be an
important way to increase bioenergy mobilisation.
Environmental Sustainability Aspects of Forest Biomass
Mobilisation
The environmental sustainability of forest biomass procurement needs to be
well understood, as the capacity of ecosystems to provide biomass without
negative impacts on ecological functioning limits the biomass potential.
Emerging bioenergy markets typically first take advantage of secondary
residue streams of various wood processing industries and tertiary end-of-
life residues. The use of these secondary and tertiary wood resources is not
likely to compromise the environmental sustainability of forests. When these
resources in any region become scarce or fully utilised, primary residues (ie
by-products of forest harvesting operations and silvicultural practices) such
as branches, tops and non-merchantable trees become increasingly targeted
as feedstock sources. Forest biomass procurement in the boreal and temper-
ate biomes should, therefore, not be analysed as a stand-alone activity, but
rather as an intensification of land use and of forest management, in which
tree parts and trees are harvested in addition to conventional forest product
fractions. Thus, principles of protection and sustainability should remain
the same, whether forests are managed for conventional forest products
only, or also for biomass for energy. Some modifications may be needed
to find mitigation strategies for sensitive conditions where field evidence
xvi Executive Summary
suggests that the incremental removal of biomass, or other forms of inten-
sive management, may not be sustainable. Silvicultural practices such as
fertilisation, competition control and soil preparation are options to manage
the microenvironment and tree growing conditions, as well as preventing or
mitigating negative impacts. Moreover, landscape management regulations
should be put in place to ensure that sufficient biodiversity-important fea-
tures, such as dead wood, aging stands, corridors etc. are preserved. Special
attention should then be directed to trees and stands with high biodiversity
values, or those important for maintaining ecosystem services. Applying
the concept of adaptive forest management, ecological monitoring follow-
ing harvesting operations, scientific field testing and modelling should be
combined, in order to produce better knowledge that could help improve
practices. The forestry sector needs to start adapting to a future situation
where it is expected to provide conventional forest products, biomateri-
als and bioenergy. To achieve this, good governance mechanisms, such
as landscape-level land-use planning and science-based improvements of
practices, will become increasingly important to ensure sustainable forest
product supply chains.
Challenges and Opportunities of Logistics and Economics
of Forest Biomass Mobilisation
Mobilisation of forest biomass for energy production calls for a high level of
integration with those forest industries that generate the raw materials (usually
by-products of timber harvesting and wood processing). Integration of timber
and energy supply chains helps overcome the challenge of seasonal fluctuations
in energy demand by offering greater and more consistent use of machine ca-
pacity. Quality management of harvested biomass has become a very important
issue in recent years. As supply volumes have increased, the economic losses
associated with poor storage management have become obvious. Energy yields
per unit of delivered biomass can be maximised through careful establishment
and location of storage, prediction and measurement of changing moisture con-
tent and the ability to match supply with demand. Research shows that the use
of biomass quality and location data to schedule wood chipping and transporta-
tion can markedly reduce the fleet size required to transport wood chips dur-
ing periods of peak demand and the use of transport capacity through the year.
Quality management becomes even more important when value-added products
are made from biomass. The quality of liquid biofuels is highest when made
from clean and dry feedstock. Producers of higher-value end products are will-
ing to pay a premium price for good quality feedstock and their needs should be
considered when handling forest biomass, in order to gain and maintain a com-
petitive advantage. Biomass projects should target areas where market-driven
competitiveness is best and where economic sustainability can be achieved with
modest incentives.