Recovery rate of harvest residues for bioenergy in boreal and temperate forests: A review

Abstract

Harvest residues are an attractive woody biomass feedstock for bioenergy production. A portion of the total harvest residues are generally left in the cutblock due to technical and profitability constraints. A better understanding of the factors influencing the variability of residue operational recovery rate is important to inform accurately policy development on sustainable forest biomass procurement practices. We compiled the results of field trials from boreal and temperate forests to quantify the range of variation of residue recovery rates and to identify the main factors explaining this variability. The average recovery rate was 52.2%, with minimum and maximum values of 4.0 and 89.1%, and a near-normal distribution around the average. The main factor contributing to this variation was country of operations, which encompasses aspects of bioenergy policy and markets, technological learning, and forestry context. A shift in bioenergy policy, a growth in (and a change in access to) bioenergy markets, and upward movements along the technological learning curve could increase residue recovery rates approaching the highest values observed in this study, such as those in Nordic countries (72% residue recovery), or even higher if economic and technological conditions keep improving. However, local stand conditions, especially in North America where natural variability is high among forest stands, may continue to constrain operational recovery of harvest residues. Our results suggest the need for the development of policies that define practices and thresholds based on the ecological suitability of ecosystems, with clear definitions and explicit standards for harvest residue inventory, quantification, and retention.

Using Macronutrient Distributions within Trees to Define a Branch Diameter Threshold for Biomass Harvest in Sugar Maple-Dominated Stands

“…However, caution should be paid when interpreting changes in nutrient pools that are based on mass balance budgets, as these models do not always depict forest reality, even after careful on-site calibration [40]. Further, nutrient export with harvest may be overestimated in practice as residue removal, on average, only recovers 50% of available forest residues [41]. Nevertheless, our estimates are consistent with the perception that Ca and P forest pools may be depleted by WTH [38,40].…”

Geospatial supply–demand modeling of biomass residues for co‐firing in European coal power plants

“…The impacts of harvesting forest residues differ depending on the harvesting volume, type of biomass, and from where in the landscape the biomass is harvested, as well as other factors (de Jong, Akselsson, Egnell, Löfgren, & Olsson, 2017). Therefore, estimates of harvestable fractions, or of actually harvested fractions, vary significantly (Abbas et al, 2011;Stupak et al, 2007;Thiffault, Béchard, Paré, & Allen, 2015;Verkerk, Lindner, Anttila, & Asikainen, 2010;Verkerk et al, 2011). Environmental considerations and regulations of forestry operations in general influence harvest rates; further, some forest residues are left on site due to technical and profitability constraints (Egnell & Björheden, 2013).…”

The Economics of Biomass Logistics and Conversion Facility Mobility: An Oregon Case Study

“…diameter. Studies typically show overall recovery of biomass in the range of 35% to 70% (of the total biomass left on site after harvesting operations) depending on the residual type, landscape and system implemented (Perlack et al, 2005;Thiffault et al, 2015;Kizha and Han, 2015). In this study, as a base case, we assume there is not an active pulp market and material traditionally meeting pulpwood specifications are not being sold at the market price for pulpwood.…”