Social Implications of Forest Energy Production

Borsboom, N. W. J.; Hektor, Bo; McCallum, Bruce; Remedio, Elizabeth M.

doi:10.1007/0-306-47519-7_6

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In remote forestry-dependent regions, this goal can be achieved by converting available forest and wood residues into energy, which consequently supports the economic viability of forest operations (i.e. reducing cost and/or generating new revenue streams for forestry companies) and increases the development opportunities for communities (Borsboom et al 2002). In addition, previous studies have reported that net GHG emissions of generating electricity from biomass-based sources could be less than 10% of that from fossil fuels, thus the substitution of current low-quality fossil fuels with forest and wood residues in these regions, could significantly reduce the negative environmental impacts (Cherubini et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: A case study in British Columbia, Canada

Cambero

Alexandre

Sowlati

2015

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilization of forest and wood residues as bioenergy feedstock in some remote communities could reduce environmental burdens and increase development opportunities. In a thorough bioenergy project planning, in addition to the economic performance, the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from investment alternatives should be considered. We present an economic assessment and a life cycle analysis of GHG emissions of alternative bioenergy systems, which include four combustion and gasification technologies with different capacities (0.5 MW, 2 MW and 5 MW), in two remote communities in British Columbia, Canada. In the analysis, all stages from harvesting to energy production are included, and the GHG emissions of the baseline system in each community (the current situation with all the products and services it provides) is used as the reference for comparison. Results of this study show that for small scale alternatives (0.5 MW and 2 MW), cogenerating plants using boiler/steam turbines generate the cheapest electricity, while for larger scale alternatives (5 MW), the most economical plant alternative is a gasification cogeneration system. In the community where all energy needs are currently satisfied using fossil fuels, and all biomass residues (forest and sawmill residues) are currently disposed by burning, net reductions of up to 40,909 t of CO 2 equivalent GHG emissions could be achieved with the installation of a 5 MW boiler/steam turbine cogenerating heat and electricity. In the community where the current energy mix is mostly supplied from other renewable sources (i.e. hydro), and where forest residues are disposed by burning and sawmill residues are landfilled, the net GHG emission reductions that can be achieved with a bioenergy system are considerably lower (2,535 t of CO 2 equivalent emissions with a 5 MW cogenerating gasification system) or null, since the carbon capture of current biomass disposal in landfill outweighs the carbon emission reduction of most bioenergy alternatives.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: A case study in British Columbia, Canada

Cambero

Alexandre

Sowlati

2015

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to dendroremediation of reclaimed water, SRWC production can generate employment (Borsboom et al, 2002) and sequester carbon in above-and below-ground biomass and soil organic carbon (Eriksson et al, 2002). If the Florida Department of Environmental Protection mandates renewable portfolio standards, SRWC biomass may be used to displace fossil fuels in electricity generation, providing additional benefits including reduction of CO 2 , NO x , and SO x emissions and diversification of domestic energy resources (Roth and Ambs, 2004;Stricker et al, 2000;Segrest et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of dendroremediation incentives on the profitability of short-rotation woody cropping of Eucalyptus grandis

Langholtz

Carter

Rockwood

et al. 2005

Forest Policy and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The social and economic benefits can be separated into two categories: (i) those that occur at the national scale, associated with a reduction in the use of nonrenewable fossil fuels (Domínguez, 2002;Eriksson et al, 2002;IDAE, 2005a), and (ii) those that occur at the local scale, as the utilization of a waste product leads to increasing harvests, transportation, and utilization of forest residues in power stations, which also leads to an increase in rural employment. These considerations are important for rural areas in which the level of unemployment and depopulation is a public policy issue, and where increased employment can help to support a population that can maintain the natural environment (Borsboom et al, 2002;Domínguez, 2002;IDAE, 2005aIDAE, , 2007. Despite the benefits outlined above, previous studies conducted before the subsequent revision of PPRE, the Plan to Renewable Energies 2005, showed that the use of FRB had a long way to go in achieving the anticipated objectives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%