The ongoing debate about costs and benefits of wood-pellet based bioenergy production in the southeastern United States (SE USA) requires an understanding of the science and context influencing market decisions associated with its sustainability. Production of pellets has garnered much attention as US exports have grown from negligible amounts in the early 2000s to 4.6 million metric tonnes in 2015. Currently, 98% of these pellet exports are shipped to Europe to displace coal in power plants. We ask, 'How is the production of wood pellets in the SE USA affecting forest systems and the ecosystem services they provide?' To address this question, we review current forest conditions and the status of the wood products industry, how pellet production affects ecosystem services and biodiversity, and what methods are in place to monitor changes and protect vulnerable systems. Scientific studies provide evidence that wood pellets in the SE USA are a fraction of total forestry operations and can be produced while maintaining or improving forest ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are protected by the requirement to utilize loggers trained to apply scientifically based best management practices in planning and implementing harvest for the export market. Bioenergy markets supplement incomes to private rural landholders and provide an incentive for forest management practices that simultaneously benefit water quality and wildlife and reduce risk of fire and insect outbreaks. Bioenergy also increases the value of forest Bioenergy (2017Bioenergy ( ) 9, 1296Bioenergy ( -1305Bioenergy ( , doi: 10.1111 land to landowners, thereby decreasing likelihood of conversion to nonforest uses. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to verify that regulations and good practices are achieving goals and to enable timely responses if problems arise. Conducting rigorous research to understand how conditions change in response to management choices requires baseline data, monitoring, and appropriate reference scenarios. Long-term monitoring data on forest conditions should be publicly accessible and utilized to inform adaptive management.

No abstract

A life cycle assessment study of the biomass‐to‐oil (BTO®) process based on the fast ablative pyrolysis of wood chips from forest residues has been performed. The planned system consists of eight pyrolyzers with a throughput of 6 tpd each. The bio‐oil will be burnt in eight modified diesel engines with a capacity of 315 kWhel each. The results were compared with a reference system (fossil diesel‐fueled CHP). The comparison is made for the production of 1 kWh of electrical energy (kWhel) and shows significant differences for global warming potential (GWP100: −87.7%), eutrophication potential (EP: +23.2%), acidification potential (AP: −44.6%), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP: −63.6%), and ozone depletion potential (ODP: −92.4%). The results of the BTO‐CHP‐system show lower environmental impact values in all environmental impact categories except for the EP‐value, which exceeds the reference due to the application of bio‐oil additives derived from agricultural production. © 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 2010

This research investigates how biomass supply chains (BSChs) for bioenergy within the broader bioeconomy could contribute to the post-COVID-19 recovery in three dimensions: boosting economic growth, creating jobs, and building more resilient and cleaner energy systems in four future scenarios, in the short term (by 2023) and long term (by 2030). A SWOT analysis on BSChs was used for generating a questionnaire for foresight by a two-round Delphi study. To interpret the results properly, a short survey and literature review is executed to record BSChs behavior during the pandemic. In total, 23 (55% response rate) and 28 (46% response rate) biomass experts from three continents participated in the Delphi and the short survey, respectively. The strongest impact from investment in BSChs would be on economic growth, followed by a contribution to the resilient and cleaner energy systems and job creation. The effects would be more visible in the long- than in the short-term period. Investments with the most impact on recovery are those that improve biomass material efficiency and circularity. Refurbishment of current policies to enhance the supply of biomass as a renewable resource to the future economy is a must.

No abstract