{"title":"Options to improve the carbon balance of the harvested wood products sector in four EU countries","authors":"Nicola Bozzolan, Giacomo Grassi, Frits Mohren, Gert-Jan Nabuurs","doi":"10.1111/gcbb.13104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Harvested wood products (HWP) may contribute to climate change mitigation by storing carbon and by replacing energy-intensive materials and fossil energy, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, when assessing improved HWP utilisations, interactions between wood use pathways, the carbon stock dynamics, and the resulting effect on the GHG balance are still not well-understood. This research aims to assess the carbon sequestration effects of alternative wood product utilisations in four European Union (EU) countries. We conducted a material flow analysis of wood uses in France, Finland, Germany, and Spain for 2017 taking into account national production, imports, and exports. Then, we quantified the future dynamics of carbon stock in the HWP through time, assuming the same as in 2017 input and ignoring the forest sink. We then ran six alternative scenarios: two energy-focused (Energy, Energy+), two material-focused (Cascading, Material), one with extended half-life of the wood products (HL) and one as business as usual. For the simulation period (2020–2050), the material scenario leads to the highest mitigation benefits with a cumulative HWP net CO<sub>2</sub> removals of −502 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> for Germany, −290 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> for France, −118 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> for Spain, and −116 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> for Finland over the 30 years. The Energy+ scenario with an increase in wood usage for bioenergy generates a loss of the HWP pool of 351, 80, 77, and 6 Mt CO<sub>2</sub> for the same countries, not accounting for energy substitution effects. Overall, our results suggest that the HWP carbon stock can be increased in the short-medium term by prioritizing the use of wood for material purposes, while maintaining constant harvest. The HWP mitigation potential differed greatly according to national wood industry characteristics. Hence, tailoring the HWP mitigation strategies to the specific characteristics of the national wood chain would enhance the HWP climate benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":55126,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcbb.13104","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.13104","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Harvested wood products (HWP) may contribute to climate change mitigation by storing carbon and by replacing energy-intensive materials and fossil energy, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, when assessing improved HWP utilisations, interactions between wood use pathways, the carbon stock dynamics, and the resulting effect on the GHG balance are still not well-understood. This research aims to assess the carbon sequestration effects of alternative wood product utilisations in four European Union (EU) countries. We conducted a material flow analysis of wood uses in France, Finland, Germany, and Spain for 2017 taking into account national production, imports, and exports. Then, we quantified the future dynamics of carbon stock in the HWP through time, assuming the same as in 2017 input and ignoring the forest sink. We then ran six alternative scenarios: two energy-focused (Energy, Energy+), two material-focused (Cascading, Material), one with extended half-life of the wood products (HL) and one as business as usual. For the simulation period (2020–2050), the material scenario leads to the highest mitigation benefits with a cumulative HWP net CO2 removals of −502 Mt CO2 for Germany, −290 Mt CO2 for France, −118 Mt CO2 for Spain, and −116 Mt CO2 for Finland over the 30 years. The Energy+ scenario with an increase in wood usage for bioenergy generates a loss of the HWP pool of 351, 80, 77, and 6 Mt CO2 for the same countries, not accounting for energy substitution effects. Overall, our results suggest that the HWP carbon stock can be increased in the short-medium term by prioritizing the use of wood for material purposes, while maintaining constant harvest. The HWP mitigation potential differed greatly according to national wood industry characteristics. Hence, tailoring the HWP mitigation strategies to the specific characteristics of the national wood chain would enhance the HWP climate benefits.
期刊介绍:
GCB Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers, review articles and commentaries that promote understanding of the interface between biological and environmental sciences and the production of fuels directly from plants, algae and waste. The scope of the journal extends to areas outside of biology to policy forum, socioeconomic analyses, technoeconomic analyses and systems analysis. Papers do not need a global change component for consideration for publication, it is viewed as implicit that most bioenergy will be beneficial in avoiding at least a part of the fossil fuel energy that would otherwise be used.
Key areas covered by the journal:
Bioenergy feedstock and bio-oil production: energy crops and algae their management,, genomics, genetic improvements, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation, integrated logistics, production modeling, composition and its modification, pests, diseases and weeds of feedstocks. Manuscripts concerning alternative energy based on biological mimicry are also encouraged (e.g. artificial photosynthesis).
Biological Residues/Co-products: from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (stover, sugar, bio-plastics, etc.), algae processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW).
Bioenergy and the Environment: ecosystem services, carbon mitigation, land use change, life cycle assessment, energy and greenhouse gas balances, water use, water quality, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.
Bioenergy Socioeconomics: examining the economic viability or social acceptability of crops, crops systems and their processing, including genetically modified organisms [GMOs], health impacts of bioenergy systems.
Bioenergy Policy: legislative developments affecting biofuels and bioenergy.
Bioenergy Systems Analysis: examining biological developments in a whole systems context.