|
|||||
|
|
Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States |
|
| Authors: | Virginia H Dale Keith L Kline Esther S Parish Annette L Cowie Robert Emory Robert W Malmsheimer Raphael Slade Charles Tattersall SMITH Jr Thomas Bently Wigley Niclas S Bentsen G?ran Berndes Pierre Bernier Miguel Brand?o Helena L Chum Rocio Diaz‐Chavez Gustaf Egnell Leif Gustavsson J?rg Schweinle Inge Stupak Paul Trianosky Arnaldo Walter Carly Whittaker Mark Brown George Chescheir Ioannis Dimitriou Caspar Donnison Alison Goss Eng Kevin P Hoyt Jennifer C Jenkins Kristen Johnson Charles A Levesque Victoria Lockhart Maria Cristina Negri Jami E Nettles Maria Wellisch |
| Institution: | 1. Center for BioEnergy Sustainability, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA;2. NSW Department of Primary Industries, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia;3. Weyerhaeuser Company, Vanceboro, NC 28586, USA;4. SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA;5. Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK;6. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3B3, Canada;7. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Clemson, SC 29634, USA;8. University of Copenhagen, DK‐1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;9. Chalmers University of Technology, G?teborg, Sweden;10. Canadian Forest Service, Québec G1V 4C7, QC, Canada;11. Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, Pulawy, Poland;12. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO 80401‐3305, USA;13. Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK;14. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;15. Linnaeus University, V?xj?, Sweden;16. Thünen Institute of International Forestry and Forest Economics, Hamburg, Germany;17. Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Inc., Washington, DC 20037, USA;18. State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil;19. Rothamsted Research, Harpenden AL5 2JQ, UK;20. University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Qld 4558, Australia;21. North Carolina State University (NCSU), Raleigh, NC 27695, USA;22. University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK;23. Bioenergy Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Washington, DC 20585, USA;24. University of Tennessee, Forest Resources AgResearch and Education Center, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA;25. Enviva LP, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA;26. Bioenergy Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, CO 80401, USA;27. Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, LLC, Antrim, NH 03301, USA;28. Resource Management Service, LLC, Birmingham, AL 35242, USA;29. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL 60439, USA;30. Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, ON K1A OC5, Canada |
| Abstract: | 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 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. |
| Keywords: | best management practices biodiversity bioenergy carbon ecosystem services forests pellets southeastern United States sustainability |