Tracking Economic and Environmental Indicators of Exported Wood Pellets to the United Kingdom from the Southern United States: Lessons for Policy?

Published Date
September 2016, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 907–916

Article

First Online: 

12 May 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s12155-016-9749-8

Cite this article as: 

Dwivedi, P., Johnson, E., Greene, D. et al. Bioenerg. Res. (2016) 9: 907. doi:10.1007/s12155-016-9749-8

Author

• Puneet DwivediEmail author
• Eric Johnson
• Dale Greene
• Shawn Baker

Abstract

This study estimates the abatement cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for a unit of electricity generated in the UK from wood pellets imported from Southern USA. We assumed that only pulpwood obtained from loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations was used for manufacturing exported wood pellets. The use of imported wood pellets for electricity generation could save at least 69.9 % of GHG emissions relative to coal-based electricity in the UK. The average unit production cost of electricity generated from imported wood pellets (US$222.3 MWh−1) was higher by 30.0 % than the unit production cost of electricity generated from coal (US$171.0 MWh−1) without any price support. In the presence of payments from the established price support mechanisms of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs), the unit production cost of electricity generated from imported wood pellets (US$142.9 MWh−1) was lower by about 16.0 % than the unit production cost of electricity generated from coal. Policy makers should consider 1 MWh of electricity generated from imported wood pellets equivalent to 0.58 ROCs or 0.71 ROCs in presence and absence of payments from LECs, respectively. This will ensure zero abatement cost and lead to economic efficiency in reducing GHG emissions. However, a more in-depth analysis focusing on the market risks for power-generating companies and other wood pellet supply chains is required before modifying existing equivalency factors for ensuring continuous use of imported wood pellets for displacing coal-based electricity in the UK.

References 

1. USEIA (2015) UK’s renewable energy targets drive increases in U.S. wood pellet exports. United States Energy Infomration Adminstration. Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20912. Accessed 24 Jun 2015
2. 2.
   Greene J (2015) Q1 2015 Recap: global wood pellet demand creates US opportunities. Forest 2 Market. Charlotte, NC. http://blog.forest2market.com/wood-pellet-demand-creates-opportunity. Accessed 15 Mar 2016
3. 3.
   USEIA (2014) U.S. wood pellet exports double in 2013 in response to growing European demand. United States Energy Infomration Adminstration. Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=16391.
4. 4.
   Damen K, Faaij A (2006) A greenhouse gas balance of two existing international biomass import chains. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 11:1023–1050. doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9032-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. 5.
   Dwivedi P, Khanna M, Bailis R, Ghilardi A (2014) Potential greenhouse gas benefits of transatlantic wood pellet trade. Environ Res Lett 9:024007. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/2/024007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. 6.
   Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Bush TG, Marinescu M (2011) Quantifying GWI of wood pellet production in the southern United States and its subsequent utilization for electricity production in the Netherlands/Florida. BioEnergy Res 4:180–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. 7.
   Magelli F, Boucher K, Bi HT et al (2009) An environmental impact assessment of exported wood pellets from Canada to Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 33:434–441. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.08.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. 8.
   Röder M, Whittaker C, Thornley P (2015) How certain are greenhouse gas reductions from bioenergy? Life cycle assessment and uncertainty analysis of wood pellet-to-electricity supply chains from forest residues. Biomass Bioenergy 79:50–63. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.03.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. 9.
   Galik CS, Abt RC (2016) Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: an assessment of European Union pellet demand in the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy 8:658–669. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. 10.
    Hoefnagels R, Resch G, Junginger M, Faaij A (2014) International and domestic uses of solid biofuels under different renewable energy support scenarios in the European Union. Appl Energy 131:139–157. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.05.065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. 11.
    Lamers P, Hoefnagels R, Junginger M et al (2014) Global solid biomass trade for energy by 2020: an assessment of potential import streams and supply costs to north-west Europe under different sustainability constraints. GCB Bioenergy 7:618–634. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. 12.
    Frank S, Böttcher H, Havlík P et al (2013) How effective are the sustainability criteria accompanying the European Union 2020 biofuel targets? GCB Bioenergy 5:306–314. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01188.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. 13.
    Jonker J, Junginger M, Faaij A (2014) Carbon payback period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in the south-eastern United States. GCB Bioenergy 6:371–389. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. 14.
    Dwivedi P, Bailis R, Khanna M (2014) Is use of both pulpwood and logging residues instead of only logging residues for bioenergy development a viable carbon mitigation strategy? Bioenergy Res 7:217–231. doi:10.1007/s12155-013-9362-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. 15.
    Dwivedi P, Khanna M (2014) Abatement cost of GHG emissions for wood-based electricity and ethanol at production and consumption levels. PLoS One 9:e100030. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100030CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
16. 16.
    Dwivedi P, Khanna M (2015) Abatement cost of wood-based energy products at the production level on afforested and reforested lands. GCB Bioenergy 7:945–957. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. 17.
    Kumar A, Cameron JB, Flynn PC (2003) Biomass power cost and optimum plant size in western Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 24:445–464. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00149-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. 18.
    Smith W, Miles P, Perry C, Pugh S (2009) Forest resources of the United States, 2007: a technical document supporting the forest service 2010 RPA assessment. Washington DC
19. 19.
    PMRC (1996) Yield prediction and growth projection for site-prepared loblolly pine plantations in the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. Plantation Management Research Cooperative, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Athens
20. 20.
    Dwivedi P, Khanna M, Sharma A, Susaeta A (2016) Efficacy of carbon and bioenergy markets in mitigating carbon emissions on reforested lands: a case study from southern United States. For Policy Econ 67:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. 21.
    Stephenson AL, MacKay DJ (2014) Life cycle impacts of biomass electricity in 2020. United Kingdom, LondonGoogle Scholar
22. 22.
    TMS (2014) Supplemental report: logging rates, whole-tree chips, biomass fuel, process residuals, and species stumpage. Timber Mart South, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia. Athens
23. 23.
    Baker S, Greene D, Harris T (2012) Impact of timber sale characteristics on harvesting costs. In: Proc. South. For. Econ. Work. 2012. Mississippi State University, Charlotte, NC, pp 94–105
24. 24.
    Qian Y, McDow W (2013) The wood pellet value chain. US endowment for forestry and communities. Greenville
25. 25.
    Argusmedia (2014) Argus Biomass Markets. London
26. 26.
    DECC (2012) Electricity generation costs. Department of Energy and Climate Change. London
27. 27.
    OFGEM (2014) Renewable obligations (RO). In: Off. Gas Electr. Mark. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/renewables-obligation-ro
28. 28.
    OFGEM (2014) Climate change levy exemption. In: Off. Gas Electr. Mark. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/climate-change-levy-exemption
29. 29.
    Ginther S (2013) UK sustainability criteria provide policy certainty. In: Biomass Mag. http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/9454/uk-sustainability-criteria-provide-policy-certainty
30. 30.
    Mobini M, Meyer J-C, Trippe F et al (2014) Assessing the integration of torrefaction into wood pellet production. J Clean Prod 78:216–225. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. 31.
    Tsalidis G-A, Joshi Y, Korevaar G, de Jong W (2014) Life cycle assessment of direct co-firing of torrefied and/or pelletised woody biomass with coal in the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 81:168–177. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. 32.
    KPMG (2014) Taxes and incentives for renewable energy - United Kingdom. http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/taxes-and-incentives-for-renewable-energy/pages/united-kingdom.aspx. Accessed 4 Apr 2015.

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12155-016-9749-8