Task 25: Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems
9 – 13 March 1998 – Forest Research, Rotorua, New Zealand
Jointly organized by
|New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.
Private Bag 3020, Rotorua/NZ
A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
This workshop was organized within IEA Bioenergy Task XV/25 (“Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems”) and is part of a series of meetings taking place every 6 to 12 months.
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted on 10 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. This workshop will focus on the consequences of the protocol for forestry and bioenergy projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions or enhancing carbon sinks (for a full version of the protocol see http://newsroom.unfccc.int/).
The current version of the Kyoto Protocol (which is still subject to technical revision) states that
“… The net changes in greenhouse-gas emissions from sources and removals by sinks, resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in stocks in each commitment period … shall be used to meet the commitments …“.
Of particular interest at the workshop was the issue of “baselines” (both in terms of reference land uses and reference energy systems), needed as a reference to derive the net carbon benefits of forestry, bioenergy, or other land-use related projects.
MONDAY, 9 MARCH 1998
TUESDAY, 10 MARCH 1998
(organized by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority – EECA)
Welcome and Introduction (Hon Max Bradford)
Finnish bioenergy goals and policy initiatives (Pentti Hakkila)
Opportunities through IEA Bioenergy (John Tustin)
Carbon balances of bioenergy systems (Bernhard Schlamadinger)
Environmental Risk Management (Tat Smith)
The New Zealand Situation (Peter Hall & John Gifford)
Forest industry waste management
Bioenergy supply systems (Barrie Hudson)
Biomass energy crops (Stig Ledin)
Municipal solid waste (Niranjan Patel)
Kinleith cogeneration plant (Abdul Khan)
Some Swedish Examples (Leif Gustavsson)
McNeill Plant, Vermont (John Irving)
Summary (George Hooper)
WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH 1998
(organized by Forest Research for IEA Bioenergy Task XII)
THURSDAY, 12 MARCH 1998
(organized by Forest Research for IEA Bioenergy Task XII)
FRIDAY, 13 MARCH 1998
Sinks and the Kyoto protocoll – interpretations, implications and unfinished business
(Murray Ward – Ministry for the Environment/NZ)
Technical issues regarding forestry and land-use change in the Kyoto Protocol
(Bernhard Schlamadinger – Joanneum Research/AUT, currently at ORNL/USA and Gregg Marland – ORNL/USA)
Silvicultural carbon sequestration options
(Doug Bradley – E. B. Eddy Ltd./CAN)
Implications for forestry of government commitments under the FCCC
(Murray Parrish – Forest Industries Council/NZ)
Does the Kyoto Protocol make a difference for the optimal carbon mitigation strategy? Some GORCAM results
(Gregg Marland – ORNL/USA and Bernhard Schlamadinger – Joanneum Research/AUT, currently at ORNL/USA)
Discussion paper for the Australian Greenhouse Challenge Office’s Carbon Sinks Workbook. Carbon emissions avoidance through fire management. Theory and proposed methodology for estimation
(Alice LeBlanc/USA; Neil Bird – Woodrising Consulting Inc./CAN)
Replacing fossil fuels with forest fuels – baselines, CO2 reduction and mitigation cost
(Leif Gustavsson – EESS, Lund University/SWE)
Bioenergy and forest industry after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol
(Kim Pingoud, Antti Lehtilä, and Ilkka Savolainen – VTT Energy/FIN)
The effect of land use practices on greenhouse gases
(Justin Ford-Robertson, Kimberly Robertson, and Piers MacLaren – Forest Research/NZ)
How to determine baseline scenarios for a forest sector carbon balance in Finland
(Timo Karjalainen, Ari Pussinen, Seppo Kellomaki, and Raisa Makipaa – European Forest Institute/FIN)
Establishing a basis for the assessment of greenhouse gas and other impacts from combustion of biomass compared with coal
(A. H. Clemens, W. W. Hennessy, T. W. Matheson, and R. S. Whitney – Coal Research Ltd./NZ)
Forest Ecosystems Elevated CO2 Project
(David Whitehead – Forest Research and Land Care/NZ)
Workshop Summary, followed by final discussion
|Apps, Mike||Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service||5320 – 122 St, EDMONTON, Alberta T6H 3S5, CANADA||+1 403 435 7305||+1 403 435 7359||mapps@ nrcan.gc.ca|
|Beecy, David||Office of Environmental Systems Technology, Office of Fossil Energy, US Department of Energy||19901 Germantown Rd, GERMANTOWN, MD 20874, USA||+1 303 903 2787||+1 301 903 8350||david.beecy@ hq.doe.gov|
|Beets, Peter||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5577||+64 7 347 9380||beetsp@ fri.cri.nz|
|Bergman, Perry||Federal Energy Technology Centre||P.O. Box 1054D, Pittsburgh PA15236, USA||+1 412 892 4840||+1 412 892 3917||bergman@ doz.fetc.gov|
|Bird, Neil||Woodrising Consulting Inc.||132 Main St., ERIN, Ontario N0B 1T0, CANADA||+1 519 833 1031||+1 519 833 2195||nbird@ woodrising.com|
|Boström, Bengt||Swedish National Energy Administration||S-117 86 Stockholm, SWEDEN||+46 8 681 93 88||+46 8 681 9328||bengt. bostrom@ stem.se|
|Bradley, Doug||E. B. Eddy Limited||700-1600 Scott St., Ottawa, Ontario K1S 2K7, CANADA||+1 613 725 6854||+1 613 725 6858||dbradley@ ebeddy.com|
|Brasell, Robin||ECNZ||P.O. Box 930, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND||+64 4 472 3550||+64 4 471 0333||robin.brasell@ ecnz.co.nz|
|Buwalda, Hans||Woodward-Clyde International||500 12th St., Oakland, CA 94607, USA||+1 510 874 1732||+1 510 874 3268||jjbuwal0@ wcc.com|
|Carnus, Jean-Michel||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5587||+64 7 347 9380||carnus@ fri.cri.nz|
|Currie, Terrence||Greenhouse Policy Coalition||Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 348 5952||+64 7 348 5162||tac@ wave.co.nz|
|Dadhich, Pradeep||TATA Energy Research Institute (TERI)||Darbari Seth Block, Habitat Place, Lodi Rd., New Delhi 110 003, INDIA||+91 11 462 2246||+91 11 462 177||pdadhich@ teri.res.in|
|Davison, Ross||Carter Holt Harvey Ltd.||Private Bag 92106, Auckland, NEW ZEALAND||+64 9 262 6127||+64 9 262 6197||ross.davison@ chhwiri.co.nz|
|Eliasson, Baldur||Energy and Global Change Dept., ABB Corporate Research Ltd.||Segelhof, CH-5405 BADEN-DÄTTWIL, SWITZERLAND||+41 56 486 8031||+41 56 493 4569||baldur. eliasson@ chcrc.abb.ch|
|Ford- Robertson, Justin||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5661||+64 7 347 5332||robertsj@ fri.cri.nz|
|Freund, Paul||IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, CRE Group Ltd.||Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham GL52 4RZ, UK||+44 1242 680 753||+44 1242 680 758||paul@ ieagreen. demon.co.uk|
|Gislerud, Olav||The Research Council of Norway||P.O. Box 2700, St. Hanshaugen, N-0131 Oslo, NORWAY||+47 22 037 108||+47 22 037 104||olav.gislerud@ nfr.no|
|Gjølsjø, Simen||Norwegian Forest Research Institute||Høgskoleveien 12, N-1432 ÅS, NORWAY||+47 64 949 133||+47 64 942 980||simen.gjolsjo@ nisk.no|
|Green, Geoff||New Zealand Pine International||NEW ZEALAND||darrell@ neilsonscott. co.nz|
|Gustavsson, Leif||Environmental and Energy Systems Studies (EESS) Lund||Institute of Technology, Lund University, Gerdag. 13, SE-223 62 Lund, SWEDEN||+46 46 222 8641||+46 46 222 8644||leif. gustavsson@ miljo.lth.se|
|Heding, Niels||Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute||Hoersholm Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hoersholm, DANMARK||+48 45 763 200||+48 45 76 32 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Horgan, Gerard||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5744||+64 7 347 9380||horgang@ fri.cri.nz|
|Karjalainen, Timo||European Forest Institute (EFI)||Torikatu 34, FIN-80100 Joensuu, FINLAND||+358 13 252 020||+358 13 124 393||timo. karjalainen@ efi.joensuu.fi|
|Kingiri, Senelwa||Massey University||Private Bag, Palmerston North, NEW ZEALAND||+64 6 350 4337||+64 6 330 5640||k.a.senelwa@ massey.ac.nz|
|Koike, Koichiro||Shimane University, Faculty of Life and Environmental Science||1060 Nishikawatsu, Matsue 690, JAPAN||+81 852 32 6510||+81 852 32 6597||koikek@ life. shimane-u.ac.jp|
|LeBlanc, Alice||39 West 67th, #204, New York, NY 10023, USA||+1 212 799 3045||+1 212 799 1336||alice_leblanc@ email.msn.com|
|Lee, Kyu-Wan||Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology||P.O. Box 107, Yuson, Taejon 305-600, KOREA||+82 42 860 7550||+82 42 860 7590||kwlee@ pado.krict.re.kr|
|Mackie, Keith||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5882||+64 7 347 9380||mackiek@ fri.cri.nz|
|Maclaren, Piers||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Ilam, Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND||+64 3 364 2949||+64 3 364 2812||maclarep@ fri.cri.nz|
|Madlener, Reinhard||JOANNEUM RESEARCH||Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 316 876 1340||+43 316 8761 320||reinhard. madlener@ joanneum.at|
|Marland, Gregg||Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)||Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335, USA||+1 423 241 4850||+1 423 574 email@example.com|
|Matheson, Trevor||Coal Research Ltd. (CRL)||P.O. Box 31244, Lower Hutt, NEW ZEALAND||+64 4 5 703 700||+64 4 5 703 701||w.hennessy@ crl.co.nz|
|Oliver, Graham||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5547||+64 7 347 9380||oliverg@ fri.cri.nz|
|Parrish, Murray||Carter Holt Harvey Ltd.||P.O.Box 17121, Auckland, NEW ZEALAND||+64 9 525 8480||+64 9 525 8488||parrishm@ kinforest.co.nz|
|Pingoud, Kim||VTT Energy||P.O.Box 1606, FIN-02044 VTT, FINLAND||+358 9 456 5074||+358 9 456 6538||kim.pingoud@ vtt.fi|
|Robertson, Kimberly||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5417||+64 7 347 5332||robertsk@ fri.cri.nz|
|Robertson, Susan||Ministry of Commerce||P.O. Box 1473, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND||+64 4 494 2606||+64 4 499 0969||susan. robertson@ moc.govt.nz|
|Scaife, Peter||BHP Research-Newcastle Lab||Off Vale Street, Shortland, PO Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287, AUSTRALIA||+61 2 4979 2502||+61 2 4979 2025||scaife. peter.ph@ bhp.com.au|
|Schlamadinger, Bernhard||JOANNEUM RESEARCH||Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 316 876 1340||+43 316 876 1320||bernhard. schlamadinger@ joanneum.at|
|Scott, Neil||Landcare Research||Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North, NEW ZEALAND||+64 6 356 7154||+64 6 355 9230||scottn@ landcare.cri.nz|
|Sims, Ralph E. H.||Massey University, Institute of Technology and Engineering||Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, NEW ZEALAND||+64 6 350 5288||+64 6 350 5640||r.e.sims@ massey.ac.nz|
|Sligh, Peter||Tasman Pulp and Paper||Private Bag, Kawerau, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 323 3635||+64 7 323 3157||slighp@ tasman.co.nz|
|Spitzer, Josef||JOANNEUM RESEARCH||Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 316 876 1332||+43 316 876 1320||josef.spitzer@ joanneum.at|
|Sproule, Tony||Pacific Power AUSTRALIA||Level 16, Pacific Power Bldg, Cnr Park & Elizabeth Streets, Sydney, NSW 2000, AUSTRALIA||+61 2 92688317||+61 2 9268 6989||tony.sproule@ pp.nsw.gov.au|
|Wakelin, Steve||New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5482||+64 7 347 5332||wakelins@ fri.cri.nz|
|Ward, Murray||NZ Ministry for the Environment (MfE)||84 Boulcott St, P.O. Box 10362, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND||+64 4 917 7400||+64 4 917 7526||wmw@ wel01.mfe. govt.nz|
|Weightman, Fiona||Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA)||P.O. Box 388, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND||+64 4 470 2200||+64 4 499 5330||weightma@ moc.govt.nz|
|Whitehead, David||Forest and Landcare Research in S. Island||P.O. Box 69, Lincoln 8152, NEW ZEALAND||+64 3 325 6700||+64 3 325 2415||whiteheadd@ landcare.cri.nz|
|Wilson, Andrew||Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry||P.O. Box 1340, Rotorua,NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 348 0089||+64 7 347 7173||wilsona@ forestry.govt.nz|
|Wright, Michael||Canadian Electricity Association (on behalf of)||NEW ZEALAND|
Proceedings of the Workshop
Effects of the Kyoto Protocol on forestry and bioenergy projects for mitigation of net carbon emissions
B. Schlamadinger and R. Madlener (eds.)
Important note: Several of the papers contained in these proceedings, plus 2-3 additional ones, are published in revised form in a Special Issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy.
“Sinks” were included in Articles 3.3 and 3.4 in the protocol in a very constrained manner viewed as the “least best” by major forestry countries. The language may be interpreted in different ways. Until clarified and settled by the Parties this will be a problem. This presentation (by an official who was “in the negotiating room”) will give the background to the way sinks were included. The presentation will discuss possible interpretations, the implications of these and propose a science based approach that is in keeping with the (apparent) intent of negotiators. It will also outline key areas of unfinished business that will engage and challenge forest technical experts and officials working in the climate change arena for many years.
This paper describes the implications of the Kyoto Protocol for the land-use change and forestry sector and addresses some of the technical issues that merit further consideration before the treaty comes into force. Although the phrasing is sometimes ambiguous and the opportunities limited, the Protocol considers some limited forest-related activities to be used to meet emission-reduction commitments. To implement the forest related portions of the Protocol, most importantly: 1.) a clear definition for the word “reforestation” is required, 2.) contradictory wording in Article 3.3 should be clarified, and 3.) some thought should be given to the last sentence of Article 3.7 (establishing different rules for countries with a net carbon source in the forestry sector in 1990), with respect to countries reporting a net carbon sink for 1990 despite deforestation.
The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association is now preparing an estimate of the potential impact of afforestation and reforestation activity on the first commitment period. Also, we are estimating the impacts of several forest management initiatives some of which seem to fall within Kyoto’s measurement criteria, and some which do not. There is no consensus here on whether to introduce the latter.
Implementation of a Tradeable Carbon Certificate (TCC) scheme as a means fulfilling Governments commitments under the FCCC could influence forest land prices and consequentially the level of investment in forest planting. The treatment of existing and new forests may differ, leading to a differentiation of forest values unrelated to forest productivity. TCC’s could alter the current financial and economic basis of the forest industry in response to society’s reevaluation of the environmental externality associated with the production of competing products.
The Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon by more than 150 nations in December, 1997 and (if and when ratified) will establish international commitments to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. However, under the Kyoto Protocol, only some of the components of the land-use change and forestry sector can be counted toward a country’s commitments for emissions reductions. In addition to impacts of land-use practices on fossil fuel emissions, only stock changes in forests (possibly including forest soils) caused by the direct human activities afforestation, reforestation and deforestation, and taking place in the “first commitment period” (2008-2012) are of interest under the Kyoto Protocol. Credits are limited to projects initiated since 1990. For actions taken as part of the “Clean Development Mechanism”, banking of emission reductions is allowed beginning in the year 2000. An adapted version of the model GORCAM has been used to assess eligible carbon credits under the Kyoto regime and to illustrate how the optimal forest-based strategy for carbon mitigation might change under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Australian Greenhouse Challenge program was established in 1995 as a joint initiative of industry and the Commonwealth to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. It encourages voluntary action by companies, and has enlisted the cooperation and support of more than 160 industry associations and Australian companies. Some of these companies currently include new carbon sequestration projects in their “action plans” under their Greenhouse Challenge cooperative agreements. A Sinks Workbook is being developed for the Greenhouse Challenge program. The workbook will explain methods of monitoring and measuring carbon sequestration. Preparation of the Workbook is being undertaken in order to help companies quantify and report the greenhouse gas benefits of vegetative management projects included in their Greenhouse Challenge action plans. Projects types to be included in the first edition of the Workbook centre around increasing the amount of growing vegetation through new plantations, environmental plantings and improved management of existing plantations. The Workbook is aimed at projects within the Greenhouse Challenge program framework, rather than at certifying offsets within the context of emissions trading or Joint Implementation. Nonetheless, the workbook is written in a way which will acquaint companies with some of the issues potentially involved in creation of tradeable carbon emissions offsets from the forest sector in case they might want to participate in such arrangements in the future. Preliminary to the finalized workbook, expected to be completed in May 1998, a Discussion Paper and a Draft Workbook have been prepared to promote dialogue and elicit stakeholder views on a range of methodological issues related to the creation of forestry offsets. The Draft Workbook and Discussion Paper, which will be described in this presentation, discuss methodological and other issues involved in the quantification of the greenhouse benefits of vegetation management projects as carbon emissions offsets or credits. Issues covered include those related to baseline determination, leakage and project boundaries, reporting and accounting conventions, project duration, monitoring and verification.
The Kyoto Protocol states that Parties in Annex I shall protect sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, and include in their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments emissions and removals from afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation only. Fire, a huge source of emissions, currently is not included in the Protocol. Fire is part of the natural forest cycle but without management may have increased due to increased human activity. In non-Annex I countries, fire management might be needed to help protect forest resources. So should fire management be considered as a “Clean Development Mechanism”? This paper explores a theory and proposes a methodology for quantifying carbon emissions avoided through fire management including a baseline. It shows using examples that fire management has the potential to avoid large amounts of emissions rapidly for a land-use project, but if the management program is temporary, the benefit will be lost as regrowth occurs.
The CO2 reduction and the CO2 mitigation cost, when fossil fuels are replaced by forest fuels, varies for different fossil fuels and energy systems. Power plants burning natural gas have a low fuel-cycle CO2 emission, high conversion efficiency and low investment costs. Thus, the CO2 reduction is typically lower and the mitigation cost higher when natural gas-fired power systems are replaced by biomass systems, compared with when oil- or coal-based systems or heat production systems are replaced. The replacement of transportation fuels, however, is more costly and results in a lower reduction of CO2 due to high conversion losses and costs when forest fuels are converted to transportation fuels. New biomass technology under development, such as integrated gasification and combined cycle technology (IGCC) will increase the CO2 reduction compared with current technologies. Fossil energy systems with decarbonisation is another option for reducing CO2 emission. The CO2 reduction, however, is higher for biomass-fired power plants systems using IGCC technology than for natural gas systems using decarbonisation, as long as the carbon neutrality when recovering forest fuels is above 0.8, but the mitigation cost may be higher.
The structure of primary energy supply varies considerably among countries mainly according to indigenous energy resources. The percentage of biomass fuels of total primary energy supply is relatively high in some forest-covered countries like in Austria, Finland and Sweden where the share is close to 15 %. The percentage of biomass-based electricity is in most countries below 3% of total electricity generation, but in Finland about 10 %. This high share in Finland is mainly due to the cogeneration of electricity and heat within forest industry using biomass-based by-products and wastes as fuels. Also for the domestic and tertiary sectors the cogeneration of electricity and heat based on biomass fuels is important. Although the forest industry is a large user of bioenergy, it is also a large user of fossil-based energy, taking into account both own consumption of fossil fuels and the use of fossil fuel-based electricity from the public grid. About 28 % of total primary energy consumption in Finland takes place in forest industry causing about 16% of the total fossil carbon dioxide emissions. The emission reduction requirements shared among the EU countries on the basis of the Kyoto protocol are likely leading to a change in the energy use and production processes within the forest industry. The forest is a renewable source of raw-material and energy, and it can also act as a sink of carbon dioxide. Many other requirements are also given for the forest, e.g. those concerning biodiversity and conservation. There are trade-offs among the raw-material, energy and carbon sink uses of the forests. E.g. in chemical pulping the lignin part of the wood can be used as an energy source, but smaller amounts of end-products are obtained than in mechanical pulping. In a modern chemical pulping plant a surplus of energy can be generated in the pulping process. However, as more wooden raw-material is needed for a given amount of end-products, the increase of the share of chemical pulping would cut down the carbon sink impact of the forests.
Data are presented for New Zealand on carbon stocks and flows for different land uses, at the single-hectare scale. Included are the carbon in vegetation and soil, and methane production from livestock. A model is described whereby the user can graph changes in carbon stocks for combinations of soil type, browsing animal, livestock carrying capacity, and site productivity. Land use options modelled are continued pasture, agroforestry, forestry and land abandonment. It is clear that there is a lack of data available on carbon sinks and sources other than carbon dioxide uptake by radiata pine plantations. Carbon uptake by afforestation of pastures since 1990, during the first reporting period defined in the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) could be as high as 38 million tonnes of carbon. Preliminary data on soil changes with afforestation suggests this sequestration value could decrease by 10% due to soil carbon losses over the same period. This loss is almost offset by avoided methane emissions due to the removal of livestock.
The objective of this paper is to compare different scenarios for carbon sequestration in the forest sector in Finland. The dynamics of carbon sequestration has been simulated with a gap-type forest simulation model and a wood product model, which take into account carbon flows and storages in forests, as well as in wood products. In the baseline scenario we have applied current forest management practices. In an another scenario, current recommendations for forest management were applied, which resulted in more intensive harvesting levels than in the baseline scenario. Both scenarios have been run also under changing climatic conditions to demonstrate possible impact of climate change on carbon sequestration. This study demonstrates that carbon sequestration assessments should include not only carbon in the biomass of trees, but also carbon in the soil and in the wood products, and interactions between respective pools. Partial assessments are likely to result in missleading estimates of the actual carbon sequestration. Also possible implications of the Kyoto Protocol has been discussed.
An overview is given of the importance of coal utilisation to the New Zealand economy and the possibilities for replacement by biomass. Life cycle analysis issues are discussed in establishing a basis for the assessment of greenhouse gas and other impacts from combustion of biomass compared with coal as a reference combustion system. Preliminary experimental results are presented for combustion gases from an underfeed stoking combustor burning various forms of wood waste and compared with coal combustion measurements. Factors impacting on combustion performance (moisture, ash, particle size, combustion regime and environmental) are assessed for their relative importance in demonstrating biomass combustion technology. These results are discussed in relation to further research required to identify the range of greenhouse gas emission factors for both biomass and coal under different combustion systems.
Forest ecosystems hold approximately 75% of the Earth’s organic carbon (C), with Canada possessing one-tenth of this reserve. Canadian boreal forests have experienced changes in productivity and organic matter decomposition during last 20 years. The net result of these changes, together with changes in the disturbance regime, has been a shift in these systems changing from a net sink of atmospheric C to a small net source. Although many factors that influence the forest C-cycle are beyond direct human control, management of short-term forest product sector activities can either mitigate or aggravate the net C-balance. The Forest Product Sector (FPS) model, designed to work with the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS), accounts for harvested forest biomass C from the time it leaves the forest until it is released into the atmosphere, use and production of energy by the FPS, and emission of CO2 during FPS processing. The FPS accounting framework uses the characteristics of different forest product types to estimate the storage of C in forest products; it tracks C through all processing steps from the transportation of the raw harvested material through various processing steps in sawmills or pulp mills, to its final destination (product, pulp, landfill, atmosphere, or recycled). Since not all the C harvested is released into the atmosphere the year it is harvested, the model tracks C in various short- and long-lived products, and in landfills. Model results are in general agreement with available data from 1929-1989.