|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|91242||159773||2016||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود کنید|
• We used a model to examine forest sector bioenergy in the Canadian Prairie Provinces.
• The availability of residual fibre for bioenergy is sensitive to lumber prices.
• New bioenergy facilities can help boost the profitability of mills that produce residual fibre.
• Competition for residual fibre can also can trigger curtailments of existing facilities.
Increasing interest in making use of forest sector processing residuals for renewable energy production has led to the need for careful analyses of fibre supply, and the ways in which existing forest sector firms could be affected by new sources of fibre demand. In this paper we present a forest sector transportation model of the three Canadian Prairie Provinces, and use the model to estimate residual fibre production, utilization and surpluses, as well as some potential forest sector impacts from bioenergy capacity additions. Under our base-case assumptions and using 2010 product prices, we estimate that 6.9 million cubic meters (round-wood equivalent) of processing residuals would be traded over the course of a year, with sawmills being the most significant source and pulp and paper mills being the most significant user. Approximately 33% of residuals would be used to produce bioenergy-related products (wood pellets, electricity sold to the grid, or internal electricity and power at pulp mills). Results show that some surpluses of processing residuals may be present in the existing supply chain, though the availability of these residuals is sensitive to lumber prices. At the same time, new bioenergy capacity itself may trigger higher sawmill output, making additional fibre available for both new and existing users. Roadside harvesting residuals are not an economically viable source of fibre under our base-case assumptions; however, their viability is sensitive to roadside processing costs and electricity prices.
Journal: Forest Policy and Economics - Volume 69, August 2016, Pages 62–72