Economic and Life-Cycle Analysis of Forest Carbon Sequestration and Wood-Based Bioenergy Offsets in the Central Hardwood Forest Region of United States

Abstract

This study investigates the combined impact of carbon and bioenergy markets on upland oak dominated mixed hardwood forests in the Central Hardwood Forest Region (CHFR) of the United States.A modification of the Hartman model was used for the economic analysis of carbon sequestration and using wood-based biomass for bioenergy. A life-cycle assessment was used to determine the amount of carbon sequestered due to stand growth and emitted during harvesting and decay of wood products. Two scenarios were taken, one where additionality of carbon is considered and the other where it is not. Sensitivity analysis was done with the range of carbon and bioenergy prices. The results show that net carbon payments have more impact on land expectation value (LEV) when additionality is not considered; in contrast, bioenergy payments have more impact on LEV when additionality is considered. Carbon and bioenergy prices also influenced the amount of stand level supply of forest products and carbon in both scenarios. In general, sawtimber, wood bioenergy, and carbon supply increased with an increase in carbon prices, whereas, pulpwood supply decreased. With few exceptions at higher carbon prices, bioenergy supply decreased with the increase in wood bioenergy prices, showing a backward bending supply curve in both scenarios.

Economic Impact of Net Carbon Payments and Bioenergy Production in Fertilized and Non-Fertilized Loblolly Pine Plantations

“…This result is similar to the results obtained in other studies where net carbon payments and/or bioenergy production increase LEV [19][20][21]23,43]. We also found that carbon payments have a much larger impact on the LEV than bioenergy prices.…”

Quantifying the Effects of Biomass Market Conditions and Policy Incentives on Economically Feasible Sites to Establish Dedicated Energy Crops

“…Further reducing the discount rate to 3% and increasing the delivered biomass price to 50 $·t −1 resulted in all suitable land base becoming economically feasible. Quantifying the effect of market conditions on the economically feasible area is essential to identify minimum conditions required to positively affect landowners' willingness to grow these crops and increase biomass production by making it more competitive with alternative sources [13,54]. A policy scenario where property taxes are exempted proved as an effective mechanism to promote bioenergy production by increasing the economically feasible area over four times.…”

“…The constant 1.01 multiplying represents the carbon emissions avoided by using one ton of biomass for electricity generation. It was determined by calculating the total electricity generated from biomass, following procedures outlined in Shrestha et al [54], and then multiplying it by the GHG intensity of electricity generated from coal, which was 0.001236 ton CO2e per k·Wh −1 [55].…”

Land use changes in Zhangjiakou from 2005 to 2025 and the importance of ecosystem services

“…Our research focused on the ecological barrier area of Beijing-Tianjin and Hebei, which is very important for ecological security of the capital of China. The eco-environmental effects of changes in land use are sensitive to the natural services of the ecosystems in the Beijing Tianjin Hebei region (Shrestha et al, 2015).…”