2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.10.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation options for coal-fired power plants in the US Great Lakes States

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For each forest site, the amount of residue available without harvest was subtracted from the amount of residue estimated in the harvest scenario to determine the amount of residues that could be extracted for energy. Notably, this important accounting step has been omitted in some analyses of residue supply for bioenergy (e.g., [22,60]). …”
Section: Case Study Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each forest site, the amount of residue available without harvest was subtracted from the amount of residue estimated in the harvest scenario to determine the amount of residues that could be extracted for energy. Notably, this important accounting step has been omitted in some analyses of residue supply for bioenergy (e.g., [22,60]). …”
Section: Case Study Scenariosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This information is used both for the accurate estimation of attributes describing the amount and type of forest resource, principally done through forest inventories, as well as for the mapping of the forest resource, which provides information on the areal extent [2]. These pieces of information are then used to develop a comprehensive understanding and inform management of forest ecosystems [3] including for example silvicultural practices [4,5], volume and biomass estimation [6], assessment of biodiversity [7] and other ecosystem goods and services [8], carbon management (e.g., [9]), and forest health assessment [10]. Whilst there is a broad range of applications that utilize forest inventory data, information needs vary across the forest planning sector [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter value does not include a net-down factor, i.e., the fraction of slash left scattered on harvested sites for ecological purposes and due to harvesting methods; with the 50% net-down factor recommended by Dymond et al (2010), the ratio is reduced to 0.1088 odt·m -3 . Other researchers reported ratios of 0.1748 odt·m -3 (Froese et al 2010;Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), 0.1075-0.1774 odt·m -3 (Mabee et al 2006;all Canada), 0.3918 odt·m -3 (Wetzel et al 2006;all Canada), and 0.4581 odt·m -3 (Wood and Layzell 2003;all Canada). As noted by Dymond et al (2010), the variation among these values is created by annual variability in harvesting rates, assumptions about the proportion of residues left on-site, and the study area; higher estimates typically do not include a netdown for sustainability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%