Forest treatment residues for thermal energy compared with disposal by onsite burning: Emissions and energy return

Jones, Greg; Loeffler, Dan; Calkin, David E.; Chung, Woodam

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.016

Cited by 61 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The energy of the diesel fuel used in collection, grinding and transport is only 2.5% of the available energy of the biomass wastes delivered to BVBP; and 4.6% of the energy of the natural gas (that would be required for producing an equivalent amount of electricity in a combined cycle natural gasfired generation facility) that is displaced by the BFRS-BVBP bioenergy project. This is consistent with displaced generation found in other studies (e.g., Jones et al 2010;Pan et al 2008;Springsteen et al 2011). …”

Section: Energy Tradeoffssupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forest biomass diversion in the Sierra Nevada: Energy, economics and emissions

Springsteen¹,

Christofk²,

York³

et al. 2015

Cal Ag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As an alternative to open pile burning, use of forest wastes from fuel hazard reduction projects at Blodgett Forest Research Station for electricity production was shown to produce energy and emission benefits: energy (diesel fuel) expended for processing and transport was 2.5% of the biomass fuel (energy equivalent); based on measurements from a large pile burn, air emissions reductions were 98%-99% for PM 2.5 , CO (carbon monoxide), NMOC (nonmethane organic compounds), CH 4 (methane) and BC (black carbon), and 20% for NOx and CO 2 -equivalent greenhouse gases. Due to transport challenges and delays, delivered cost was $70 per bone dry ton (BDT) -comprised of collection and processing ($34/BDT) and transport ($36/BDT) for 79 miles one waywhich exceeded the biomass plant gate price of $45/BDT. Under typical conditions, the break-even haul distance would be approximately 30 miles one way, with a collection and processing cost of $30/BDT and a transport cost of $16/BDT. Revenue generated from monetization of the reductions in air emissions has the potential to make forest fuel reduction projects more economically viable.

show abstract

Section: Energy Tradeoffssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Reductions of PM 2.5 , CO, NMOC and BC were from 98% to 99%, which is consistent with other findings (Jones et al 2010;Lee et al 2010;Springsteen et al 2011). These results are due to the efficient combustion and controls at the biomass energy facility and engines used for processing and transport.…”

Section: Emissions From Open Pile Burningsupporting

confidence: 91%

Forest biomass diversion in the Sierra Nevada: Energy, economics and emissions

Springsteen¹,

Christofk²,

York³

et al. 2015

Cal Ag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, high transportation costs and weak regional demand for forest biomass negatively impact the financial viability of wood products manufacturing and silvicultural treatments by turning previously marketable byproducts into waste materials with disposal costs. Furthermore, the most widely practiced method of disposal, open burning, can have negative environmental impacts including increased air pollution, establishment of invasive species, and reduced nutrient capital and soil productivity at burn sites [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermochemical biomass conversion systems have the potential to produce heat, power, fuels and other products from forest biomass at distributed scales that meet the needs of some forest industry facilities. However, many of these systems have not been deployed in this sector and the products they produce from forest biomass have not been adequately described or characterized with regards to chemical properties, possible uses, and markets. This paper characterizes the producer gas, biochar, and activated carbon of a 700 kg h −1 prototype gasification system and a 225 kg h −1 pyrolysis system used to process coniferous sawmill and forest residues. Producer gas from sawmill residues processed with the gasifier had higher energy content than gas from forest residues, with averages of 12.4 MJ m for forest residues. Biochars produced have OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2013, 6 165 similar particle size distributions and bulk density, but vary in pH and carbon content. Biochars from both systems were successfully activated using steam activation, with resulting BET surface area in the range of commercial activated carbon. Results are discussed in the context of co-locating these systems with forest industry operations.

show abstract

“…Forest biomass fulfills a double aim from the environmental point of view: (a) capacity to produce renewable energy from it and (b) to keep an adequate degree of maintenance and cleanliness of our forests [10]. However, the energy valuation of forest biomass presents some problems due to its low energy density and the scattered production of the resource.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Distribution of Biomass and Woody Litter for Bio-Energy in Biscay (Spain)

Mateos

Ormaetxea

2018

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest management has been considered a subject of interest, because they act as carbon (C) sinks to mitigate CO 2 emissions and also as producers of woody litter (WL) for bio-energy. Overall, a sustainably managed system of forests and forest products contributes to carbon mitigation in a positive, stable way. With increasing demand for sustainable production, the need to effectively utilise site-based resources increases. The utilization of WL for bio-energy can help meet the need for renewable energy production. The objective of the present study was to investigate biomass production

show abstract

Forest treatment residues for thermal energy compared with disposal by onsite burning: Emissions and energy return

Cited by 61 publications

References 6 publications

Forest biomass diversion in the Sierra Nevada: Energy, economics and emissions

Forest biomass diversion in the Sierra Nevada: Energy, economics and emissions

A Comparison of Producer Gas, Biochar, and Activated Carbon from Two Distributed Scale Thermochemical Conversion Systems Used to Process Forest Biomass

Spatial Distribution of Biomass and Woody Litter for Bio-Energy in Biscay (Spain)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About