miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Costs, CO2- and primary energy balances of forest-fuel recovery systems at different forest productivity
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Engineering and Sustainable Development.
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Engineering and Sustainable Development.
2010 (English)In: Biomass and Bioenergy, ISSN 0961-9534, Vol. 34, no 5, 610-619 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Here we examine the cost, primary energy use, and net carbon emissions associated with removal and use of forest residues for energy, considering different recovery systems, terrain, forwarding distance and forest productivity. We show the potential recovery of forest fuel for Sweden, its costs and net carbon emissions from primary energy use and avoided fossil carbon emissions. The potential annual net recovery of forest fuel is about 66 TWh, which would cost one billion 2005 to recover and would reduce fossil emissions by 6.9 Mt carbon if coal were replaced. Of the forest fuel, 56% is situated in normal terrain with productivity of >30 t dry-matter ha (-1) and of this, 65% has a forwarding distance of <400 m. In normal terrain with >30 t dry-matter ha (1) the cost increase for the recovery of forest fuel, excluding stumps, is around 4-6% and 8-11% for medium and longer forwarding distances, respectively. The stump and small roundwood systems are less cost-effective at lower forest fuel intensity per area. For systems where loose material is forwarded, less dry-matter per hectare increases costs by 6-7%, while a difficult terrain increases costs by 3-4%. Still, these systems are quite cost-effective. The cost of spreading ash is around 40 2005 ha (-1), while primary energy use for spreading ash in areas where logging residues, stumps, and small roundwood are recovered is about 0.025% of the recovered bioenergy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier , 2010. Vol. 34, no 5, 610-619 p.
Keyword [en]
Forest fuel; Logging residues; Stumps; Thinnings; Small roundwood; Recovery systems; Costs; Primary energy use; CO2 balance; Carbon emissions
National Category
Other Environmental Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-349DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.003ISI: 000277918300004Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-77951025858OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-349DiVA: diva2:1962
Available from: 2008-11-18 Created: 2008-11-17 Last updated: 2010-06-11Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Forest-Fuel Systems: Comparative Analyses in a Life Cycle Perspective
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Forest-Fuel Systems: Comparative Analyses in a Life Cycle Perspective
2008 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Forest fuels can be recovered, stored and handled in several ways and these different ways have different implications for CO2 emissions. In this thesis, comparative analyses were made on different forest-fuel systems. The analyses focused on the recovery and transport systems. Costs, primary energy use, CO2 emissions, storage losses and work environment associated with the use of forest fuel for energy were examined by using systems analysis methodology in a life cycle perspective. The bundle system showed less dry-matter losses and lower costs than the chip system. The difference was mainly due to more efficient forwarding, hauling and large-scale chipping. The potential of allergic reactions by workers did not differ significantly between the systems. In difficult terrain types, the loose material and roadside bundling systems become as economical as the clearcut bundle system. The stump and small roundwood systems showed the greatest increase in costs when the availability of forest fuel decreased. Stumps required the greatest increase in primary energy use. Forest fuels are a limited resource. A key factor is the amount of biomass recovered per hectare. Combined recovery of logging residues, stumps and small roundwood from thinnings from the same forest area give a high potential of reduced net CO2 emissions per hectare of forest land. Compensation fertilization becomes more cost-effective and the primary energy use for ash spreading becomes low – about 0,25‰. The total amount of available forest fuel in Sweden is 66 TWh per year. This would cost 1 billion €2007 to recover and would avoid 6.9 Mtonne carbon if fossil coal were replaced. In southern Sweden almost all forest fuel is obtainable in high-concentration areas where it is easy to recover. When determining potential CO2 emissions avoidance, the transportation distance was found to be less important than the other factors considered in this work. The type of transportation system did not have a significant influence over the CO2 avoided per hectare of forest land. The most important factor analysed here was the type of fossil fuel (coal, oil or natural gas) replaced together with the net amount of biomass recovered per hectare of forest land. Large-scale, long-distance transportation of biofuels from central Sweden has the potential to be cost-effective and also attractive in terms of CO2 emissions. A bundle recovery system meant that more biomass per hectare could be delivered to end-users than a pellet system due to conversion losses when producing pellets.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Östersund: Institutionen för teknik, fysik och matematik, 2008
Series
Mid Sweden University doctoral thesis, ISSN 1652-893X ; 56
Keyword
forest fuels, recovery systems, transportation, cost, primary energy use, CO2 emission, forest-fuel potential, life cycle perspective
National Category
Other Environmental Engineering
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-206 (URN)978-91-86073-00-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2008-06-05, Q221, Q, Akademigatan 1, Östersund, 12:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2008-05-14 Created: 2008-05-14 Last updated: 2009-03-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Näslund Eriksson, LisaGustavsson, Leif
By organisation
Department of Engineering and Sustainable Development
In the same journal
Biomass and Bioenergy
Other Environmental Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 154 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf