United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-600/7-91-003
February 1991
Research and
Development
GLOBAL WARMING MITIGATION
POTENTIAL OF THREE
TREE PLANTATION SCENARIOS
Prepared for
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
Prepared by
Air and Energy Engineering Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. “Special” Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA’s mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-91-003
February 1991
GLOBAL WARMING MITIGATION POTENTIAL
OF THREE
TREE PLANTATION SCENARIOS
Rebecca L. Peer, Darcy L. Campbell,
and William G. Hohenstein
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
FINAL REPORT
EPA Contract Number
68-02-4286
Work Assignment Nos. 97 and 112
EPA Project Officer:
Christopher D. Geron
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The report gives results of an analysis of three alternative uses of forests in
the U.S. to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) concentrations: (1) planting
trees with no harvestIng, (2) traditional forestry. and (3) short-rotation intensive
culture of trees for blomass. Increasing concentrations of CO 2 and other
radiatively important trace gases (R1TGs) are of concern due to their potential to
alter the Earth’s climate. Some scientists, after reviewing the results of general
circulation m6dels, predict rising average temperatures and alterations in the
Earth’s hydrologic cycle. While the debate continues over the actual magnitude of
global warming, most scientists agree that some change will occur over the next
century. This places a burden on policymakers to address global warming and to
develop mitigation measures. Since forests provide a sink for carbon by fixing CO 2
to produce biomass, halting deforestation and creating new forests have been
proposed as ways to slow the buildup of carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract
Figures
Tables
1. Introduction I
2. Overview and Results 3
Emissions Analysis Results 6
Cost Analysis Results 9
3. Yields and Emissions Methodology. 1 5
Land Availability and Yields 1 5
Carbon Dioxide Uptake . 18
Plantation Establishment and Maintenance Emissions 20
Fertilizer Production Emissions 23
Pesticide Production 23
Emissions from Fertilizer Usage 25
Emissions from Prescribed Burning 25
Hydrocarbons Emitted from Trees 26
Harvesting Emissions 26
Transportation Emissions 27
Displacement of Coal Mining Emissions 27
Displacement of Coal Transportation Emissions 29
Displacement of Coal Combustion Emissions 30
Emissions from Wood Combustion 30
4. Cost Analysis Methodo]o ’ .32
SRJC Cost Analysis Methods and Assumptions .33
Detailed Costs of Traditional Forestry .35
Detailed Costs of No Harvest Scenario 35
Electricity Generation 37
Ethanol Production 37
5. Key Assumptions and Limitations of This Study 38
Implications of Some Key Assumptions 38
Limitations of This Study 39
References 41
Appendices
A Coal Displacement by Wood Burned for Ener r 44
B Annual Emissions by Source 46
C Regional Costs Spreadsheets 50
Iii
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Map of Regions Used for Establishment of Tree Plantations . 4
iv
-------
TABLES
Page
i Forest Management Activities and Pollutants Emitted 7
2 Summary of Reforestation Scenarios: Emissions 8
3 Anthropogenic Emissions from Tree Plantation Scenarios
Expressed as Percentage of 1985 NAPAP Anthropogenic
Emissions 10
4 Discounted Costs of Biomass Production (per Mg) . . . ... .,. .••, . .. . .. ii
5 Cost of Electricity Production from Wood Biomass (per MWH). . 14
6 Hectares of Land .
7 Traditional Forestry Yields, Species, and Rotation Lengths •17
8 SRIC Yields, Species, and Rotation Lengths 19
9 Machine Hours and Application Frequencies for SR1C Scenario 22
10 Diesel Farm Tractor Emission Factors .. . .. . .,. 22
11 Fertilizer Production Emission Factors •. . 24
12 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Energy Production (kg/MW-hr) 24
13 Prescribed Burning Pollutant Ernission.Factors 28.
14 Exhaust Emission Rates forHeavy Duty Powered Vehicles 28
15 Average Locomotive Emission Factors 31
16 Emissions from Wood Combustion •Facffities . . . .. ., - . 31
17 Short Rotation Intensive Culture Cost and Schedulè Data 34
18 Traditional Forestry and No Harvest Cost and Schedule Data 36
A-i Heat Values and Power Plant Efficiency for Coal and
Wood Fu s 45
V
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) and other radiatively-
important trace gases (RITGs) are of concern due to their potential to alter the
earth’s climate. Some scientists, after reviewing the results of general circulation
models, predict rising average temperatures and alterations in the earth’s
hydrologic cycle. While the debate continues over the actual magnitude of global
warming. most scientists agree that some change will occur over the next century.
This places a burden on policymakers to address global warming, and to develop
mitigation measures. To support the decision-making process, the U.S. EPA’s Air
and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory is providing technical analyses of a
variety of global warming mitigation measures. This report describes the results
of an analysis of some alternate uses of forests in the United States to reduce
atmospheric CO 2 concentrations.
Since forests provide a sink for carbon by fI.xing carbon dioxide (C0 2 ) to
produce biomass, halting deforestation and creating new forests have been
proposed as means of slowing the buildup of carbon (Flavin, 1990). In addition to
acting as a carbon sink, trees planted around buildings provide shade and can
reduce energy required for cooling in the summer. However, using trees to scrub
CO 2 from the atmosphere is a near-term solution. During the early, high-growth
phase of life, a forest serves as a carbon sink. Eventually, the rate of growth slows,
and the death and decay of branches and leaves begins to offset the carbon sink
effect. Finally, as trees die and decompose. much of the sequestered carbon
returns to the atmosphere.
An alternative is to harvest the trees periodically and replant. This
maintains the forest in its active growth phase. maximizing the carbon uptake. In
order for this to be effective, the harvested wood must be used in a way that
conserves RJTGs. If the wood is used for fuel, replacing fossil fuels, then although
carbon dioxide is released, no “new” carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.
On the other hand, if it is used to make disposable paper products. the carbon will
again be released Into the atmosphere without offsetting other carbon dioxide
sources. If the wood is used in a form that delays Its eventual decay and release to
the atmosphere, then some mitigative effect will be realized.
1
-------
The purpose of the work described in this report was to analyze three
reforestation scenarios that are potential global warming mitigation methods: (1)
planting trees with no harvesting, (2) traditional forestry, and (3) short-rotation
intensive culture (SRIC) of trees for biomass. In addition to the cycling of CO 2
through the trees, all other sources of CO 2 and other RITGs associated with site
preparations tree planting, harvesting, and other activities specific to each
scenario also were estimated. The costs associated with each scenario were
estimated, and the cost of using wood biomass as an alternative to fossil fuel was
evaluated.
An overview of the approach used in this study along with a discussion of the
results is given in Section 2. The details of the analyses are described in Sections
3 and 4, and Appendices A, B, and C. Section 5 presents a brief discussion of
some of the key assumptions and limitations of this study.
2
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
The choices of tree species. land base, and end-use of the wood will
dramatically affect the results of an analysis such as this one. In this study, a
common land base was used to evaluate three very different planting and end-use
scenarios: No Harvest (NI-I), Traditional Forestry (TF), and Short-Rotation
Intensive Culture (SRIC). In both the NH and TF scenarios, trees are planted in
plantations at densities that average 1,000 trees/ha. The SRIC scenario assumes
an average density of 2100 trees/ha. The NH scenario assumes the tree
plantations are never harvested, but are left to follow a natural successional
pattern. Trees are harvested every 6-8 years under the SRJC scenario, as
compared to 35-80 year rotations under the TF scenario.
Existing forest land was not included in the land base. Since mature forests
store large amounts of carbon, replacing these forests with plantations may
actually increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (Harmon et al.,
1990). This issue was avoided in this study by creating new forests on unforested
land: crop and pasture land In the United States. Land that is in need of erosion
control was used as the land base for all three scenarios. A total of 40.4 million
hectares in ten geographical regions was used for this study (Figure 1).
In the NH scenario, mitigation of global warming is achieved by the
sequestering of carbon in growing trees. In an actively growing forest, carbon (as
CC ) is removed from the atmosphere at a much higher rate than It is released (as
CO 2 or methane) by decomposition. After some period of time, the growth rate
slows, dead biomass accumulates, and decomposition processes become more
predominant. For this study, it was assumed that a steady-state carbon balance
(i.e., no net flux) Is reached at maturity. In fact, It is not known whether mature
forests continue to sequester carbon, become a source of carbon, or reach a steady-
state. Also, the exact length of time that a young forest acts as a net sink is
unknown. In this analysis, the length of one rotation in traditional forestry was
assumed to represent the period of active growth. Therefore, in the NH scenario,
carbon is sequestered for a period of time equal to the length of one TF rotation
for the region.
3
-------
PNW-E
flM
‘H ” : - •‘• ‘
L ,asS
FIGURE 1. MAP OF REGIONS USED FOR ESTABLISHMENT UP TKtt PLANTATIONS
P 1 1 0
P 1 10 -f
NC-LS
NC- IL l
Sc,
S E
SE-MYS
SE-CST
FLA
‘SE
Pacific Northn.t
Pacific Northn.t (East)
North C.ntral Lake Stat..
North C.ntrai Non-Lak. Stat..
South C.atrai Plain.
South.a.t
South.a.t Pbtmta ins
Southoast Coast
FLorida
Noxth.a. t
I t
‘ P
- -
NC-MS
SE-cST
SE
cST
-sc
-------
It should be noted, however, that traditional forestry rotation lengths are
based on the period of time it takes to maximize mean annual growth increment.
Active growth periods may be twice as long, although growth rates decline over
time.
The TF scenario, in effect, extends the carbon sink indefinitely by
maintaining the forest In the active growth phase. It is assumed that the wood is
used In such a way that carbon is not immediately returned to the atmosphere.
This may be by using the wood to build houses, furniture, or other durable items,
or by storing it in some manner which would prevent its decomposition. The
practicality and cost of storing the wood are not considered. Also, the economic
effect on the wood market are not factored into the cost analysis. Yields were
derived from p .iblished data and were assumed constant over time. These same
yields were used for the NH scenario, but were assumed to apply only to the
young, rapidly growing forest.
The Short Rotation Intensive Culture (SRIC) scenario assumes that trees are
grown solely for the production of biomass. The biomass will be burned to
produce electricity, replacing coal as a fuel. In this scenario, mitigation is
achieved by the displacement of coal emissions. Although combustion of wood
releases CO 2 . It is fixed in new plantations, resulting In no net Increase of CO 2 in
the atmosphere. If it is assumed that coal would have been used to produce the
same amount of electricity, then wood combustion actually results in negative CO 2
emissions. SRIC is largely experimental and untested commercially, so few data
on yields were available. Yields were estimated for the next twenty years (Near-
term) and, assuming continued research, for twenty years and beyond (Mid-term).
In order to compare the SRJC and TF scenarios better, the use of wood
produced under TF conditions as a fuel was also analyzed. This is referred to as
‘TF burn” throughout this document. Again, it is assumed that the wood would be
used in place of coal to produce electricity.
Air pollutants are emitted from forest management activities due to machine
use, production and use of fertilizers and herbicides, and the end-use of forest
products. Activities varied by scenario: for example, harvesting occurred more
often In the SRJC scenario than in the TF scenario, and did not occurEed at all in
the NH scenario.
Table 1 lists the forest management activities included in this analysis, and
the pollutants emitted from these activities that were included in the analysis.
5
-------
Table 1 lists the fc re st management acUvities
the pollutants emitted from these activities that wereinciuded ln..the.an.a1 &is- A
few emissions were not included because the data were Inadequate to calculate a
reliable emission factor.
Emissions Analysis Results
The annual emissions for each scenario are shown In Table 2. The
cumulative emissions are also shown for the years 2050 and 2100. The cumulative
numbers were derived as follows:
• for SRIC, the near-term yields were assumed for the first 20 years. the
mid-term yields thereafter;
• for TF and TF (burn), yields were assumed constant over time; and,
• for Nil, TF yields were assumed through 2050, when carbon cycling
was assumed to reach a steady-state. VOCs continue to be produced,
however.
In Table 2, a negative number indicates a sink, a positive number Indicates a
source. Choosing the best mitigation scenario depends on the criteria used. If
CO 2 reduction alone Is considered, the SRIC scenario Is clearly the most effective.
This result is driven entirely by the high yields assumed for SRJC. Using the TF-
produced wood for combustion Is not nearly as effective, but only because yields
are lower.
The TF scenario does appear to be a good long-term solution if only CO 2
reduction is considered. However, the periodic harvesting and planting emissions
result in greater emissions of CO. CH 4 , NON, N 2 0, and SO 2 for the TF scenario than
for the Nil. Since the first four are greenhouse gases with radiative forcing values
higher than CO 2 . the relative contribution of these emissions should not be
ignored. Furthermore, SO 2 is a contributor to acid precipitation. Overall, the NB
scenario may be a better choice for RJTG reduction than the TF.
6
-------
TABLE 1. FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND POLLUTANTS EMITrEDa
Activity
co
VOC
NO,
CH 4
SO
N 2 0
Planting
X
X
X
X
X
Fertilizer Production
X
X
Pesticide Production
X
X
X
X
Fertilizer Use
X
Hydrocarbons Emitted
from Trees
X
Prescribed Burning
X
X
X
X
X
Harvesting
X
X
X
X
X
Wood Transportation
X
X
X
X
\Vood Combustion
X
X
X
Coal Mining (Displacement)
X
Coal Transportation
(Displacement)
X
X
X
X
Coal Combustion
(Displacement)
X
X
X
X
aOnly those pollutants and activities quantified in this study are shown.
7
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF REFORESTATION SCENARIOS: EMISSIONS
Total Annual
Scenario CO 2 CC)
Emissions
(1000
Mp/Yr)
NO N 2 0 SO 2
VOC
CI-L
SR1C
Near-term -980000 2006 8037 -2867 -1004 0.7 -4865
Mid-term -1700000 3045 8005 -5038 -1720 0.7 -8275
TF -210000 2376 7884 104 63 0.3 1.4
TF (burn) -90000 2597 7873 -240 -81 0.3 -566
NH -260000 0 7740 1.5 0.3 1.0
Total Emissions by Year 2050 (1000 Mg )
SRIC -8.8E+07 176400 490000 -258900 -8894 42 -428300
TF -1.3E+07 142600 473100 6240 3786 18 84
TF(burn) -5400000 155900 472400 -14440 -4872 18 -34010
NH -1.6E+07 12 464400 0 90 18
Total Emissions by Year 2100 (1000 Mg )
SRIC -1.7E-4-08 348600 881300 -510800 -174900 77 -842100
TF -2.3E+07 271500 867300 11440 6941 33 154
TF (burn) -9900000 285800 866100 -26470 -8932 33 -62360
NH -1.6E+07 12 851400 0 90 18 6)
8
-------
The SRIC and TF (burn) scenarios result in decreased CH 4 , NOR, and SO 2
emissions. The latter two are reduced because wood combustion releases
somewhat less NO and significantly less SO 2 than coal combustion. The CH 4
reduction occurs because less coal has to be mined (methane Is released when
coal is mined).
All scenarios result In Increased CO. VOC arid N 2 0. The Increase in VOC
comes almost entirely from the trees in the form of terpenes and Isoprenes. The
increase in CO is partly due to the combustion of diesel fuel In the machinery used
for planting and harvesting, but is mostly attributable to wood combustion. In the
two cases where wood replaces coal, a net increase in CO occurs because wood
combustion produces relatively high amounts of CO. Also, prescribed burning In
the TF scenario contributes some CO.
To put these results in perspective, Table 3 shows the anthropogenic
emissions of four of the pollutants expressed as a percentage of the 1985 NAPAP
annual anthropogenic emissions. VOC emitted from trees were not included since
biogenic sources are not included in the NAPAP inventory. Also, CO 2 . N 2 0, and
CI-L 1 are not in the inventory. All scenarios result In a small Increase In CO
emissions, but significant reductions In SO 2 are achieved in the SRJC scenario.
Cost Analysis Results
Costs of Biomass Production
To adjust for differences in the rotation length and annual yields between
the investment scenarios, present net costs for each investment scenario were
found and annualized over the investment’s length. The method used to annualize
the Investments converted cash streams, which were variable over time, into even
flow cash streams. The annualized values were then divided by the annual blomass
yields to give the annualized cost of producing a Mg. of blomass. These costs are
reported In Table 4.
9
-------
TABLE 3. ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS FROM TREE PLANTATION
SCENARIOS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF 1985
NAPAP ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS
Scenario
cC
NO
SRIC
Near-term
3.62
-5.38
-23.21
-.23
Mid-term
6.14
-9.21
-39.47
-.39
TF
4.29
0.34
0.01
.72
TF (burn)
4.68
-0.43
-2.70
.67
NH
0.00
0.01
0.00
0
1985 NAPAP Annual
Anthropogenic
Emissions
(1000 Mg/year)a
55.460
18,670
20,960
20,080
aDerived from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989.
10
-------
TABLE 4. DISCOUNTED COSTS OF BIOMASS PRODUCTION
(per Mg)
Near-term
Region
Mid-term
SRIC
Traditional
SPJCa
Forestry
South Florida
$51.45
$38.17
$51.48
Southeast Coast
53.15
39.91
51.48
Southeast
57.65
42.41
33.48
Southeast Mountains
60.66
44.16
35.12
Northeast
57.30
45.94
63.13
North Central Lake States
54.44
43.95
36.08
North Central Non-Lake States
49.16
41.08
50.57
South Central PlaIns
64.34
49.32
b
Pacific Northwest-West
49.28
39.11
12.46
Pacific Northwest-East
59.25
49.28
87.13
aYields projected to be obtainable In 20 years.
blraditional forestry not practical In this region.
11
-------
Market values of the products from each scenario were not included. It was
assumed that a unit of biomass was equally valuable toward mitigating C02
concentrations in the atmosphere regardless of its value as a forest product. Experts
estimate large increases in the productivity of SRIC forestry. Separate cost analyses
were conducted for the SRIC scenario using the higher mid-term yields. No increases
in productivity were assumed for traditional forestry.
Management costs, Including planting and harvest costs, for traditional forestry
and no harvest scenarios were lower than for the SI 1C scenario. This is countered by
higher yields and shorter rotations for the SR1C scenario. Biomass can be grown
more cheaply under the traditional forestry option in the following regions: All
Southeast regions, the North Central Lake States, and the Pacific Northwest. These
regions have been Important historically for producing forest products. The results
for these regions were consistent for both the current and mid-term SRIC yields.
Growing blomass using SRIC technologies is competitive in other regions. This
is the case for the Pacific Northwest-East, the Northeast, and North Central Non-lake
States. In these regions the difference in yields per acre between the SRIC and
traditional forestry are great enough to counter the lower management costs for
traditional forestry.
In the South Florida region, high land costs also favor SRJC forestry (although
high land costs could lead to the elimination of forestry altogether). Higher annual
expenditures in general tend to favor shorter rotations. Using the current SRIC
yields, there is virtually no difference between the costs of producing biomass with
SRIC and traditional forestry in South Florida. The mid-term SRIC yields
significantly reduce the costs of producing biomass below what can be accomplished
with traditional forestry methods for the region.
12
-------
The Costs of Using Biomass as Fuel
Additional CO 2 emissions savings can be obtained by using biomass instead of
fossil fuels. Both electricity and ethanol can be produced using wood as the
feedstock, These fuel costs are reported as a function of feedstock price. Given
the unit costs of producing biomass under the scenarios, the viability of producing
electricity and ethanol from wood was determined.
The costs of producing electricity from wood biomass are reported In Table
5. In order for biomass to be competitive with coal for producing electricity, the
blomass must be available for less than $25.78/Mg. This occurs only In the Pacific
Northwest. However, as the technology of wood fired power plants Improves, the
economics of producing electricity from wood biomass are likely to Improve as
well. If credits are given to utilities for using wood instead of coal, the economics
could Improve further.
1’wo methods of producing ethanol from wood biomass were examined. The
costs of these methods were compared to the costs for producing ethanol from
corn. For both of the wood based systems, the capital costs and non-feedstock
operating costs were too high to make these technologies competitive with
ethanol produced from corn. Ethanol from corn can be produced for $.41 a liter.
The capital and non-fuel operating costs for producing ethanol using the acid
hydrolysis and enzymatic hydrolysis are $.52 and $62 per liter respectively
(Williams, 1988).
General Conclusions
On a per acre basis, growing blomass using traditional forestry methods
appears to be cheaper than SRJC methods. However, the total potential
productivity of the land is much higher for SRIC. Because of this high
productivity, SRIC appears to best choice for mitigating emissions of greenhouse
gases. However, if a variety of other factors are considered (including some
discussed here and in Section 5), the “best” mitigation method is likely to be a
composite scenario with different methods implemented In different regions.
13
-------
TABLE 5. COST OF ELECTRJC 1Y PRODUC ON FROM WOOD BIOMASSa
(per MV T H)
Region Ne
Forestry
ar-term
SR IC
Mid -term
SRICb
Traditional
Forestry
South Florida
$73.69
$61.45
$73.71
Southeast Coast
75.25
63.06
57.78
Southeast Piedmont
79.40
65.37
57.14
SoutheastMountains
82.18
66.97
58.65
Northeast
79.08
68.62
84.45
North Central Lake States
76.44
66.78
59.53
North Central Non-Lake States
71.58
64.14
72.88
South Central PlaIns
85.57
71.73
--.--
Pacific Northwest-West
71.70
62.32
37.77
Pacific Northwest-East
80.87
71.70
106.56
aUsing the feedstock costs per Mg given in Table 3.
bYields projected to be obtainable in 20 years.
14
-------
SECTION 3
YIELDS AND EMISSIONS METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the activities that produce pollutants, the methods
and assumptions used to quantify these emissions, and the methods and
assumptions used to estimate land availability and yields. For ease of comparison,
all of the emission estimates presented in this report are annualized. This was
necessary because rotation length, treatment frequencies, and yields vary by
scenario and by region.
Land Availability and Yields
Data from 1982 National Resources Inventory were used to develop a land
base for this study.I Crop and pasture land classified as needing erosion control
was determined for each Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). MLRAs (rather than
state groupings) were used because they are defined partly on the basis of climate
and soils (United States Department of Agriculture 1981), both important
determinants of tree growth. Some MLRAs were eliminated as being unsuitable
for forestry, either due to climate or unsuitable terrain. The remaining MLRAs
were grouped into regions wherein biomass yields could be assumed to be
reasonably homogeneous. Total hectares available in each region are shown in
Table 6.
Yields and rotation lengths for the TF scenario were derived primarily from
United States Department of Agriculture (1982). More recent data for the
Southeast was obtained from McClure and KnIght (1984). These yields assume
the use of currently available cultivars and the use of fertilizers and weed
suppression. Yields, rotation lengths, and species planted in each region are
shown in Table 7.
IPersonal communication from Jeff Goebel, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, to Rebecca Peer, Radian Corporation, October 13,
1989.
15
-------
TABLE 6. HECTARES OF LAND
Hectares
Region (000s)
Florida (FLA) 87
North Central, Lake States (NC-LS) 3,415
North Central, Non-Lakes States (NC-NLS) 21,924
Northeast (NE) 3,265
Pacific Northwest (PNW) 125
Pacific Northwest, East (PNW-E) 14
Southeast, Coast (SE-CST) 2,305
Southeast, Mountains (SE-MTS) 2,450
Southeast (SE) 5,115
South Central Plains (SCP) 1,719
TOTAL 40,419
16
-------
TABLE 7. TRADITIONAL FORESTRY YIELDS, SPECIES,
AND ROTATION LENGTHS
Annual Yield
Rotation
Regiona
(dry Mg/ha) Species Length
(Years)
SE-CST 4.1 Loblolly Pine, 30
Longleaf Pine,
Slash Pine
SE 3.9 LobIolly Pine 35
SE-MTS 3.5 Shortleaf Pine 45
FLA 4.1 Slash Pine 30
SCP 0
NE 2.2 Red Pine, 60
White Pine
NC-LS 3.8 Red Pine, 60
Jack Pine
NC-NL .S 2.6 Red Pine, 80
Jack Pine
PNW 10.6 Douglas FIr 85
PNW-E 1.4 Ponderosa Pine, 120
Lodge Pole Pine
aSee Table 6 for complete region names.
17
-------
The SRIC yields were estimated from field trials and expert judgments. 2
Two sets of yield estimates were developed (Table 8). The near-term yields are
probable yields achievable in the next 5 to 10 years. The mid-term yields are
target yields that should be achievable in 20 years, assuming additional research. 2
The rotation lengths used are estimates based on field trials.
The SRIC yields assume two coppice rotations per planting with harvesting
done in the winter In aU regions except the Pacific Northwest. In the Pacific
Northwest. winters are too wet and harvesting must take place in the summer.
Since photosynthesis occurs mostly In the summer, and a large proportion of the
tree’s energy is stored in the leaves rather than in the roots, summer harvesting
stresses the roots and reduces subsequent yields. Therefore, plantations must be
replanted after every harvest (every 8 years). In all other regions. a cycle of plant-
coppice-coppice is assumed.
The yield estimates used In this study are within the range of other recently
published data. Eucalyptus randis yields in experimental studies in Florida
ranged from 17.6 to 71.2 Mg/ha after two years (Rockwood and Rippon, 1989).
Yields of 14.2 Mg/ha for Robinia pseudoacacia (black locust) in Kansas trials have
been reported (Geyer. 1989). Other recent yield data (Wright et al., 1989) were
considered in the development of the yields used in this study.
Carbon Dio,dde Uptake
The percent of carbon in biomass varies from species to species: the
percent carbon content of wood has been estimated to be between 47% and 52%
of the dry mass (summarized in Marland, 1988). Following Marland’s example. in
this study, the amount of carbon sequestered in the wood was assumed to be 50°/b
of the dry weight.
2 Personal communication from Lynn Wright. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. to
Rebecca Peer, Radian Corporation. February 12. 1990.
18
-------
TABLE 8. SRIC YIELDS, SPECIES, AND ROTATION LENGTHS
Regiona
Annual Yield
Near-term
(dry Mg/ha)
Mid-term
Species
Rota
Length
Lion
Years
SE-CST
10
18
Sweet gum, black locust
6
SE
10
18
Sweet gum, black locust
6
SE-MTS
10
18
Sweet gum, black locust
6
FLA
15
3
Eucalyptus
6
SCP
6
9
Mesquite
6
N E
10
15
Poplars, silver maple
8
NC-LS
10
17
Poplars, silver maple
8
NC-NLS
12
20
Poplars, silver maple
8
PNW
15
30
Poplars
8
PNW-E
10
15
Poplars, red alder
8
aSee Table 6 for complete region names.
19
-------
Yield estimates used for the TF scenario include only the bole (stem) of the
tree. Leaves, branches, and roots are not included. In the SRIC scenario, yield
estimates include all above-ground biomass. Carbon sequestering calculations
were based on these yields alone. Carbon dioxide uptake in the soil was not
counted in any scenario due to the difficulty of quantifying it for the TF and SRIC
scenarios. For the NH scenario, the carbon stored in branches and roots was
included by assuming that roots and branches are 22% and 10% of the above-
ground biomass, respectively. The exact ratio of total tree biomass to bole varies
with species, age and site. The ratio used here is a median value derived from
various sources (Hyde and Wells, 1979; Harmon et al., 1990).
This approach underestimates carbon sequestering, particularly in the two
harvesting scenarios. For SRIC, some carbon storage in the roots occurs but root
systems are not as well-developed as in natural forests or traditional plantations.
This is partly due to the short rotation length, and partly due to the stress of
coppicing on root systems. In this study, replanting was assumed after every
second coppice, so no root system could ever have more than 24 years to develop.
No estimates of the whole-tree to root ratio for SRIC trees were available. In the
TF scenario, some soil disturbance occurs when trees are harvested and
replanted. However, some root material is likely to remain undisturbed in the
soil. Since the amount is unknown, no attempt was made to quanuf ’ it for this
study.
In addition to their role in the CO 2 cycle, forests may serve as CH 4 sinks:
however, the application of nitrogenous fertilizers may reduce the amount of CH 4
consumed by solid microorganisms (Steudler Ct al. 1989). The addition of
fertilizer may also increase aerobic decomposition of organic matter in the forest
floor, thereby reducing the carbon storage of the soil. None of these potential
effects could be quantified for this analysis.
Plantation Establishment and Maintenance Emissions
SRJC Scenario--
Plantation establishment and maintenance emissions for the SRIC scenario
are calculated by multiplying total machine hours per hectare planted by pollutant
emission factors (kg/hr) and by the total number of hectares to be treated. The
equation Is as shown:
20
-------
hrs/ha x kg/hr x ha = Pollutant emissions, kg/yr
(annualized)
(Total (Pollutant (Hectares
annualized emission to be
number of factor) treated)
hours)
Planting machine hours, fertilizer application machine hours, and weed and
pest control machine hours are shown in Table 9, along with the application
frequencies per rotation.
Pollutant emission factors for carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NO,J. and sulfur oxides (S0J were based on
estimates for diesel farm tractors (70 horsepower) Table 10. Emissions for CO 2
were calculated using the ratio of C0 2 /CO estimated for transportation emissions
(see Table 14).
Traditional Forestry and No Harvest Scenarios--
Plantation establishment and maintenance emission estimates for these two
scenarios were based on the assumption that machine planting (1.85 hrs/ha)
Blankenhorn et al., 1983) and one fertilization treatment occurred In the life of
every stand. Herbicide treatment for the TF and NH stands will be done manually.
To annualize the machine hours for the TF scenario, it was necessary to calculate
an average weighted rotation length by region. The average weighted rotation
length was 65.32 years.
The diesel farm tractor emission estimates used are also shown in
Table 10. For the NH scenario, the plantation establishment emissions (planting
and fertilizing once) are annualized In the same way that the TF scenario is
annualized.
21
-------
TABLE 9. MACHINE HOURS AND APPLICATION FREQUENCIES
FOR SRIC SCENARIO
Type of Machine Hours No.
Hours/ha
Reference
PLANTING
Frequency: Varies by Region
2.51
Blankenhorn et al., 1985
WEED CONTROL
Frequency: Once per rotation
0.31
Blankenhorn et al., 1985
FERTILIZATION
Frequency: Twice per rotation
0.66
Blankenhorn et al., 1985
Perlack and Ranney, 1987
PEST CONTROL
Frequency: Twice per rotation
0.31
Blankenhorn et al., 1985
Perlack and Ranney, 1987
TABLE 10. DIESEL FARM
TRACTOR
EMISSION FACTORS
Pollutant
Emission Factor
(kg/hr)
Carbon MonoxIde
0.161
Volatile Organic Compounds
0.079
Nitrogen Oxides (as NO 2 )
0.452
Sulfur Oxides (as SO 2 )
0.422
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985.
22
-------
Fertilizer Production Emissions
Fertilizer used on forest stands is typically urea and/or triple
superphosphate (TSP). For the short rotation plantations. the fertilizer
application rate (urea only) per hectare is assumed to be 65 kg/ha (derived from
Perlack and Rarmey (1987) and Wright et al. (1989)).
Emission factors for fertilizer production are based on energy required
(assumed to be from fossil fuels) to produce a Mg of TSP or urea
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, 1985). The emission factors for
CO and NO from fertilizer production are shown in Table 11.
These emissions factors are then multiplied by the fertilizer application rate
and the number of hectares treated, as shown in the equation below to yield total
emission estimates:
kg/ha x kg/Mg x ha = Emissions
(Annualized (Emission (Area from fertilizer
application factor for treated) treatment
rate) fertilizer
production)
The use of fertilizer for forest plantation establishment or intermediate
stand treatments is more common for the short rotation plantations than it is for
TF plantations. Currently, traditional commercial forests only use fertilizers on a
small scale, but yields have been shown to increase significantly with their use (40
percent in the southeast and 20 percent in the northwest) (North Carolina State
University Forest Cooperative, 1988). Urea and TSP are commonly used
fertilizers, and the assumption was made that 359 kg of urea and 196 kg of TSP
are applied per hectare treated in the southern states, and 487 kg/ha of urea are
applied to the rest of the country.
Pesticide Production
Pesticide use frequencies for the SRIC scenario are given in Table 9.
Herbicides for weed control are used once per rotation on the TF and NH
scenarios. Pesticide production emission estimates are based on the average
amount of energy required (49,020 Kcal/kg active ingredient) for production of
herbicide or insecticide (Pimentel, 1980). Table 12 presents the emission factors
used to calculate emissions associated with energy use in pesticide production.
23
-------
TABLE 11. FERTILIZER PRODUCTION EMISSION FACTORS
Emission Factor (kg/Mg produced )
Pollutant Urea TSP
Co 2
861.0
851.1
NO
1.5
0.6
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, 1985.
TABLE 12. EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY PRODUCTION
(kg/MW-hr)
Pollutant
Natural Gasa
Ojib
Coalc
Co 2
539
752
909
co
0.18
0.14
0.14
NO
1.22
2.04
2.68
so,
----
1
1.07
3.99
a38% of fuel used for pesticide production (Pimentel, 1980).
b42% of fuel used for pesticide production (Pimentel, 1980).
c20% of fuel used for pesticide production (Pimentel, 1980).
Source: Bechtel Group Inc., 1988: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982, 1985; 40 CFR6O, 1989.
24
-------
According to Blankenhorn et al. (1985), about 3 kg/ha of herbicide active
ingredients are applied. Thus, 0.17 MW-hr/ha of energy are required. The total
emissions associated with pesticide production and application were calculated as
shown:
MW-hr/ha x kg/MW-hr x ha = Total pollutant
emissions
(Energy (Pollutant (Area
required/ha) emission treated)
factor by
fuel usage)
These emissions are annualized estimates based on the treatment regime
discussed previously.
Emissions From Fertilizer Usage
Field studies following the application of nitrogen fertilizers have shown that
nitrous oxide is produced due to nitrification (Breitenbeck et al.,1980). The
application of urea is estimated to release approximately 0.13% of the nitrogen
applied as nitrous oxide (Breitenbeck et al., 1980). Nitrous oxide emissions are
thus calculated as:
kg/ha x ha x 0.0013 x 0.46 x 44/28 = N 2 0
Emissions
(Fertilizer (Area (Proportion (Proportion (1 kg.mol
application treated) of applied of nitrogen N 2 0/2
rate) nitrogen in urea) kg.mol N)
emitted as
N 2 0)
Emissions from Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning is used for stand establishment and intermediate control
of competing vegetation. This treatment is used only in the TF scenario. It is
assumed that burning is used twice in the life of a stand, and emissions are
estimated by combining pollutant emission factors per amountof fuel consumed
with an estimate of the litter or logging debris consumed. Table 13 presents the
emissions factors for prescribed burning (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985).
25
-------
The amount of fuel consumed during prescribed burning operations will vary
by type of burn (control of competing vegetation or logging debris removal).
Estimates of fuel consumed are derived from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(1976) estimates for southern pine fuel. Other regions will vary and will probably
be lower, but the southern pine estimate was used in all regions.
For intermediate burning operations. 17 Mg/ha of fuel will be consumed. For
combustion of logging debris, the fuel consumed is based on the yield harvested- -
0.19 Mg/green Mg harvested. The emission factors presented in Table 13 were
then combined with area burned and yields to prepare total emissions associated
with prescribed burning treatments.
Hydrocarbons Emitted From Trees
Several researchers have estimated VOC emissions from growing trees.
Lamb et al. (1987) estimated that coniferous and deciduous trees will emit 204.22
kg/ha/yr and 108.27 kg/ha/yr VOC, respectively. The difference In total
hydrocarbons emissions between coniferous and deciduous trees is due primarily
to higher density of coniferous stands. Because densities of short rotation stands
are higher than typical hardwood stand densities, the VOC emission estimate for
coniferous stands is used. For the traditional forestry and NH scenarios, conifers
are planted. so the 204.22 kg/ha/yr emission factor is also used for these
scenarios. Total VOC emissions are estimated by combining the VOC emission
estimate with the number of hectares planted. The VOC emissions from this land
previous to tree planting are assumed to be negligible.
Harvesting Emissions
Emissions associated with the harvesting of SRIC stands are related to the
number of machine hours required. The pollutant emission factors are the same
as those used to calculate planting emissions. Harvesting rates will vary by stand
density, slope, method of harvesting, and other factors, but an average harvesting
rate of 13.6 green Mg/hr has been reported (Blankenhorn et al., 1985). The
annualized emissions are based on this harvesting rate (converted to 6.8 dry
Mg/hr) and the emission factors presented in Table 9.
The amount of time It takes to harvest forest stands in the TF scenario is
estimated by assuming skidding and loading hours will be the same across the
country. These estimates actually will vary by region and stand. It is assumed that
26
-------
felling will be done manually and that TF harvesting can be accomplished twice as
fast as SRIC harvesting. 3 Thus, an average harvesting rate estimate of 27 green
Mg/hr is assumed. This estimate is combined with total yield and hectares
harvested to estimate harvesting emissions.
Transportation Emissions
For all scenarios except the NH scenario, emissions associated with
transporting the wood to a mill or power plant must be estimated. It is assumed
that a 161 km round trip 4 is required whether the wood Is taken to a mill for
processing or to a power plant. Emission factors for C0 2 , CO. VOC, and NO are
shown in Table 14 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985). These
emission estimates are based on the assumptions that vehicle mileage averages
2.12 km/liter, average green weight of wood transported is 29.94 Mg.
Displacement of Coal Mining Emissions
If the wood grown in the SRIC or traditional forestry scenarios Is used for
power generation, some other form of fuel will be required in lesser amounts. If it
is assumed that coal use is displaced by wood, then emissions associated with coal
production, transportation, and combustion will be reduced. Coal mining is a
source of atmospheric methane (CH 4 ), but there Is large variation in the emission
estimates. Emissions are affected by type of coal, depth of the vein, and type of
3 Personal communication from Nels Christofferson, U.S. Forest Service,
Houghton, Ml, to Darcy Campbell, Radian CorporatIon, January 11. 1990.
4 Personal communication from Earl Deal, North Carolina Extension Service,
Raleigh, NC, to Darcy Campbell, radian Corporation, May 31, 1989.
27
-------
TABLE 13. PRESCRIBED BURNING POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
Emission Rate
Pollutant (kg/kg fuel)
Co 2
1.375
co
0.135
Methane
0.00575
Other VOC
0.0083
NO
0.0025
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1976; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1985.
TABLE 14. EXHAUST EMISSION RATES FOR
HEAVY DUTY POWERED VEHICLES
Average Emission Factor
Pollutant (kg/Mg green wood)
C02
6.65a
CO
0.3
VOc
0.006
NO
0.07
aCalculated by mass balance based on density of diesel fuel of 0.84 kg/liter.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.
28
-------
mining (surface or underground). Using an estimate of 8.4 m 3 /Mg coal mined for
methane (Robertson and Rightmine, 1986), approximately 5.5 kg CR 4 are emitted
with every Mg of coal mined. Wood burned to generate electricity will substitute
for coal at a ratio of
0.4915 Mg coal 5
1 Mg wood
This information was then incorporated with the annual yields of the SRIC (near-
and-mid terms) and traditional forestry scenarios for an estimate of CR4 j
emitted.
Displacement Of Coal Transportation Emissions
If wood displaces the need for coal for energy production, then emissions
will also be saved from the transport of coal. Assuming that coal is typically
transported by locomotive, It Is estimated that nationwide, the average length of a
coal haul by major freight railroads was 1619 km roundtrlp. 6 Fuel usage is
calculated to be 106,458 km-kg per liter of fuel.7 Average locomotive emission
factors are provided In Table 15. These estimates were then used to estimates
emissions displaced by replacing coal with wood as shown in the equation:
kg/103 liter x 1619 km ÷ 106.458 km-kg x 0.4915 Mg coal
liter Mg coal
(Average (Round- (Fuel usage) (Ratio of wood/coal
pollutant trip energy production)
emission distance)
factors)
x yield = Displaced coal transportation emissions
(Mg dry
wood)
5 See Appendix A for calculation.
6 Personal Communication from Carol Perkins, Association of American
Railroads, Washington, DC, to Ed Moretti, Radian Corporation, June 9, 1989.
7 Personal communication from Dick Cataidi, Association of American Railroads,
Washington, DC, to Ed Moretti, Radian Corporation, June 9, 1989.
29
-------
Displacement of Coal Combustion Emissions
As presented in Table 12, air pollutant emissions are generated from coal
usage for energy production. Carbon dioxide, CO, NOR, and SO 2 emissions will be
reduced if less coal is burned because wood is used to generate this energy. The
calculation shown th Appendix A for coal displacement by wood for energy
generated is used to estimate the magnitude of coal combustion emissions
displaced by wood combustion as shown in the equation:
kg/MW-hr out as coal x 0.3493 MW-hr out x 6.4 MW-hr in x
MW-hr in Mg coal
(Pollutant emission (Coal plant efficiency) (Heat value of coal)
factors)
0.4915 Mg coal x Yield = Displaced coal combustion emissions
Mg wood
VOC and N 2 0 are also emitted, but the emission factors are of doubtful quality.
Since VOC and N 2 0 emission factors for wood combustion in a power plant are
also of poor quality, these two gases were not quantified for either fuel type.
Emissions From Wood Combustion
Air pollutant emissions will occur due to energy production from a wood-
fired boiler. Table 16 shows the emissions factors used to quantify these
emissions. These factors take into account the efficiency of the facility.
Emissions from industrial wood boilers are estimated as shown in the
equation:
kg/MW-br out as wood x 0.204 MW-hr out x 5.4 MW-hr in x
MW-hr in Mg wood
(Pollutant emission (Wood plant efficiency) (Heat value of wood)
factors)
Yield Pollutants emitted from wood plant
(Mg dry wood)
30
-------
TABLE 15. AVERAGE LOCOMOTIVE EMiSSION FACTORS
Average Emissions
Pollutant (kg/103 liter)
CO 2 2636
cü 16.0
vOC 11.0
NO 44.0
(as NO 2 )
SO 6.8
(as SO 2 )
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985.
TABLE 16. EMISSIONS FROM WOOD COMBUSTION FACILITIES
Emission Factor
Pollutant (kg/MW-hr out)
1758
Ct) 2.68
NO 1.90
SO 2 --
aCalculated by mass balance of carbon, assuming VOC Is emitted as pentane
(72g/g.mol) and particulate matter Is 95% riaphthaiene (128g/g.mol).
Source: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1985, 1982: North Carolina Department of
Environmental Management, 1982.
31
-------
SECTION 4
COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the cost of growing biomass under the three
scenarios discussed in Sections 2 and 3. Costs were calculated for the three
scenarios using existing published data sources and information obtained from
contacts with experts In the field. The cost of using wood biomass as an input to
producing electricity was included as part of the analysis. The cost of converting
wood biomass to ethanol was examined as an ancillary to the primary research.
While the value of the biomass product is not included In the cost analysis, the
breakeven costs of producing electricity and ethanol using the wood biomass
feedstock were calculated and give a proxy of market biornass value for producing
these goods.
The value of the products produced for SRIC and TF were not Included in
this study. Large differences exist between values of products from these two
methods. Currently, little or no market value exists for woody biomass fuels.
Wood used for fuel in the United States is a residual forest product, and is
primarily waste wood from other production processes or surplus growing stock.
Costs were analyzed for the average treatment of cost on the average hectare
in each region. The present net cost (PNC) of each scenario was calculated.
However, the use of PNC alone is not an adequate investment analysis criterion.
This is because PNC cannot be used to compare costs of investments having
different lengths. Furthermore, the PNC calculation on a per hectare basis does
not account for the greater yields per hectare associated with SRJC forestry.
To account for the differences In rotation age, yields, and timing of costs
between the scenarios, the PNC was used to calculate the annual equivalent cost
(AEC) of producing a metric ton of biomass on an average hectare for each region.
The AEC is a discounted measure of the investment cost annualized over the life of
the Investment. This annualized cost is divided by the annual yield to determine
the cost per unit of biomass produced.
Also calculated was the total cost per acre of continuing with the investment
into perpetuity. This measure accounts for the differences in rotation length, but
does not account for the differences in yield per acre.
The TF scenario had lower yields and took longer to mature than SRJC
investments. Because the value of the product was not included in the analysis.
32
-------
the comparison of AEC for SRIC and traditional forestry is misleading from an
investor’s standpoint. Harvesting the biomass occurs later for the traditional
forestry scenario than for the SRIC scenario. The investor realizes the value of the
product produced at harvest. Because the harvests occur at different times, the
discounted value per ton harvested is different for the two scenarios. Because
global mitigation occurs when the biomass is produced, not when it is harvested,
this does not impact the biomass value for global climate change mitigation. It is
important to note however that AEC reported in this document represents only
the costs and not the financial returns from growing biomass.
Costs were converted to 1988 dollars using the producer price index for
lumber and wood products (CEA, 1989). The following sections report the
assumptions and data used to calculate the costs of producing biomass for the
three scenarios. In addition, the methods for deriving the costs of producing
electricity and ethanol using wood feedstocks are described for the SRIC and
traditional forestry scenarios.
SRJC Cost Analysis Methods and Assumptions
Two sets of cost were derived for the SRIC scenario. The first is the cost of
producing a ton of biomass given yields which are currently obtainable. The
second set is the costs associated with the mid-term yields. The costs for the
SRIC scenarios were initially derived from Perlack (1986). SRIC schedules were
divided into planting sequences with each planting sequence consisting of one
planted rotation and two coppice rotations except in the PNW-East and West.
Conditions in the PNW are not favorable to coppicing. As a result, each successive
rotation will need to be planted after harvest. Scheduled costs include:
administration, land, planting, herbicide, pesticide, fertilizer, road, and harvest
costs. Table 17 lists SRIC costs and schedules by region.
33
-------
TABLE 17. SHORT ROTATION INTENSIVE CULTURE COST AND SCHEDULE DATA
Region’
Natnes
Hectares
Avail
(xl000)
Land Rentb
Admin Costs
(S/ha)
Site Prep. &
Plant Costs
(S/ha)
Weed Control’
Cost
(S/ha)
Fertilize
Costs
(S/ha)
Pest Controld
Cost
(S/ha)
Harvest
Cost
(S/dry
•
Mg)
Road
Cost
(S/ha)
Near—Term
Yia ld5
(Mg/ha/yr)
Mid—Term
Yields
(Mg/ha/yr)
Rotation
Length
NC—LS
3,415.7
89.0
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.8
10.0
17.0
8
NC—NLS
21,923.8
89.0
612.8
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.9
12.0
20.0
8
NE
3,264.7
89.0
763.5
128.2
212.0
5D.2
29.5
83.8
9.0
15.0
8
PNW
124.6
77.8
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.9
15.0
30.0
8
PNW—E
13.8
77.8
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.8
10.0
15.0
8
SC?
1,718.8
66.7
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.8
8.0
12.0
6
SE—CST
2,305.6
66.7
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.8
12.0
22.0
6
St—MTS
2,449.6
66.7
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.8
9.0
16.0
6
SE
5,115.4
66.7
763.5
128.2
212.0
50.2
29.5
83.8
10.0
18.0
6
FLA
87.0
138.4
612.8
0.0
212.0
See Table 6 for complete region names.
Schedule
Arinua1 costs.
‘Incurred in year 2 of each rotation.
1 lncurred In year 2 and 4 of each rotation.
lncurred each harvest.
-------
Detailed Costs of Traditional Forestry
The schedule of treatments for the traditional forestry scenarios varied
greatly between regions. Rotation ages varied from 30 years in the Southeast
Coast and Florida regions, to 120 years in the Pacific Northwest (East) Region.
Land and administration costs were assumed to be the same as in the SRIC
scenario. Table 18 presents the cost and schedules associated with this scenario.
Traditional forestry planting cost are lower than those for the SRJC
scenarios because less intensive site preparation is needed and fewer stems per
hectare are planted. Data on harvest costs were derived from Deal.8 Harvest costs
are roughly a third lower per Mg than the SRIC harvest costs. This is a function of
the volume of biomass per hectare at. harvest, and the size of the stems being
harvested. Delaying harvest far into the future substantially lowers the discounted
cost of harvesting.
Detailed Costs of No Harvest Scenario
The costs of the NH scenario are the same as the traditional forestry option
until the point of harvest. No harvest costs and harvest road costs are included in
this scenario and no further rotations are assumed. The land rent costs are
assumed to continue into perpetuity. Schedule and cost information is reported
in Table 18.
Because no product is produced at the end of the NH scenario, no value can
be obtained from selling woody biomass. This is an additional cost Incurred by the
investor. Since the values of the product being produced is not included in any of
the analyses, the opportunity cost of the foregone harvest is also not included.
8 Personal communication from Earl Deal, North Carolina Extension Service, to
Darcy Campbell. Radian Corporation, May 31, 1989.
35
-------
TABLE 18. TRADITIONAL FORESTRY AND NO HARVEST COST AND SCHEDULE DATA
Traditional Forestry Schedule:
Annua1 costs
‘Incurred in year 0.
Incurred in year 2.
‘Incurred at end of rotation.
No Harvest Schedule:
Annual cost.
‘Incurred in year 0.
1 lncurred in year 2.
Region
Narses
Hectares
Avail
(xl 0 0 0)
Land Rent
Adjeinis Costs
(S/ha)
Site Prep. ‘
Plant Costs
(S/ha)
Weed Control
Cost
(S/ha)
Fertlli2e
Costs
(S/ha)
Harvest
Cost
(S/dry
Mg)
Yields
(Mg/hs/yr)
Rotation
NC—LS
3,415.7
89.0
227.3
128.0
211.8
19.7
3.8
60
NC .-NLS
21,923.8
89.0
227.3
128.8
211.8
19.)
2.6
80
NE
3,264.7
89.0
227.3
128.8
211.8
19.7
2.2
60
PNW
124.6
77.8
363.2
128.0
211.8
19.7
10.6
85
PNW—E
13.8
77.8
303.9
128.0
21L8
19.7
1.4
120
SCP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SE—CS?
2.305.6
66.7
288.3
128.8
211.8
19.7
4.1
30
SE—MTS
2 ,449.6
66.7
349.0
128.0
211.8
19.7
3.5
45
SE
5,115.4
66.7
288.3
128.0
211.8
19.7
3.9
35
FLA
87.0
138.4
288.3
128.0
211.8
19.7
4.1
30
comolere
ypnlr,n name.
-------
Electricity Generation
The cost of producing electricity using woody biomass as the feedstock was
compared to the cost of generating electricity using coal. Costs and plant
efficiencies were obtained from EPRI (1986). A model coal plant arid wood
burning plant were selected for the cost analysis. The two plants had significant
differences: the coal plant was much bigger than the wood burning power plant
(500 versus 24 MW capacity); and, the wood burning plant was assumed to have co-
generation capabilities. While these differences Impact the economics of
producing electricity, they do represent typical coal and wood burning units in the
United States. Size of woodburnlng plants will vary with local criteria.
The total cost (including fuel and non-fuel costs) for producing electricity
from a 500 MW subcritical bituminous coal power plant with a flue gas
desuLfurlzation unit was calculated to be $50.04 dollars per MWh. The non-fuel
costs associated with producing electricity from a wood burning co-generation
power plant were calculated to be $26.29 per MWh. Fuel costs were calculated as
a function of feedstock price: in this case,
Fuel Cost (s/Mg) = .92 13 Mg/MWH * Cost (5 /Mg Biomass)
This assumes 15.4x10 6 Btus/Mg and 16.74x 106 Btus/MWH. The breakeven cost
for biomass fuel is the cost which results In the same final cost per MWh as can be
obtained using coal as the feedstock. Using this calculation, the breakeven
biomass cost for producing electricity is $25.78 per Mg. Since no viable CO 2
controls currently exist, none are assumed in this analysis.
Ethanol Production
The cost of producing ethanol from wood blomass was calculated from
published cost algorithms (Williams, 1988). The cost algorithms were converted
to 1988 dollars and the annualized capital costs were recalculated using a 6%
Interest rate. Two options for producing ethanol were analyzed: acid hydrolysis,
and enzymatic hydrolysis. Ethanol can be produced from corn for $1.60 a gallon
($.42. per liter). The non-fuel costs of producing ethanol from wood using either
wood biornass technology are higher than the cost of producing ethanol from corn.
In order for these technologies to be competitive with ethanol from corn, the
wood feedstock value must be negative.
37
-------
SECTION 5
KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
This study is the first In-depth evaluation of alternative biomass-based
mitigation possibilities. Although other estimates of the carbon sequestering
potential of trees have been published (e.g., Flavin 1990; Marland, 1988; Harmon,
et. al., 1990), none have included the other emissions associated with planting
and harvesting. While the results of this study may be the most comprehensive to
date, many factors need to be weighed in evaluating them. In this section, the
major assumptions and limitations not addressed previously in this report are
discussed.
implications of Some Key Assumt)tions
Since this study included establishment of the plantations in some areas not
generally considered forest land (such as the Midwest) and evaluation of
commercially untried methods (SRIC), many assumptions had to be made that
affect productivity calculations. For both harvesting scenarios (TF and SI 1C). no
decline in productivity of the land over time was assumed. How this might be
achieved is not addressed. Fertilizer applications rates do not increase over time
in this study, so if declining soil fertility is corrected with fertilizers, an increase
in fertilizer effectiveness must also be assumed.
While an increase in productivity of SRJC is assumed, no increases in TF
yields are allowed to occur. In fact, silviculturalists continue to Improve yields of
traditional timber species (Farnum Ct al. 1983). If the target yields (as high as 25-
30 Mg/ha) can be achieved, the yields from traditional forestry methods become
comparable to those of SRJC. Experimental trials have achieved yields of 50% of
the target (Farnum Ct al. 1983) in more productive regions. However, these
increased yields do not necessarily mean more carbon is being fixed; many of the
improvements in yield are due to changes in the partitioning of carbon. If more
carbon is being stored in stem wood and less In rapidly-decomposing tissues such
as fine roots and leaves, then the net CO 2 sink may be increased.
The SRIC yields also assume that researchers can overcome the potential
threat of pests. As agricultural research has sometimes shown, the development
of high-yielding clones is sometimes difficult to achieve without loss of disease
resistance. Methods for discouraging the evolution of pest biotypes (selection for
38
-------
insect populations which can tolerate a given pest resistance property of a plant)
in SRIC plantations include alternating resistant genotypes and mixing clonal
varieties as well as the use of biological, cultural, and chemical controls (Raffa,
1989).
Limitations of This Study
The accuracy of the emissions and costs estimates are limited by the data.
This is particularly true for estimating yields and costs for the commercially
untried SPJC scenario. Also, emission factors for many sources and pollutants had
to be developed for this study, often from scanty data. The emissions of
hydrocarbons from trees, for example, is by no means well-quantified. Whenever
possible, emissions estimates were checked by using alternative methods of
calculation (see Appendix B for an example).
Other environmental impacts were also not considered. The land base used
in this study represents roughly 4% of the total U.S. land area. Although this is
not a very large percentage of the total, some regions would have significant
increases in forested land. The effect of these large forest areas on microclimate
and the hydrologic cycle are unknown. Also, the additional chemical burden from
pesticid s and fertilizers may cause increased contamination of the groundwater.
However, since most of this land is already used as cropland, changing to
silviculture may actually reduce chemical inputs to ground water. In choosing the
“best” scenario, only air pollution mitigation was considered. If other criteria are
included, the N I - I scenario may be preferable. For example, the value of forest as
wildlife habitat or for recreation was not included. In addition, either of the
harvesting scenarios may require building more roads. However, since the land is
currently agricultural, the amount of new roads needed is probably very small.
Finally, the terrain will affect the choice of scenario. The steeper slopes in
mountainOus regions may be unsuitable for SRIC. Although the southeastern
mountains have been included in this study, In reality, SRIC may be Impractical
here.
As shown in the regional breakdown of costs (Appendix C), some regions are
economically more attractive than others. However, given the current costs of
producing biomass and the value of biomass for producing electricity and ethanol.
landowners cannot be expected to undertake these investments without additional
incentives.
39
-------
As has been noted above, SRIC is still experimental. The costs used in this
study are based on field trials and are likely to be reduced as SRIC becomes
commercialLzed. In fact, given the trend towards more intensive culture in
traditional forestry, the distinctions between TF and SRIC are likely to become
blurred in the future.
40
-------
REFERENCES
Bechtel Group, Inc. 1988. An Evaluation of Integrated-Gasification-Combined-
Cycle arid Pulverized-Coal-Fired Steam Plants, Volume 1: Base Case Studies.
Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI-AP-5950.
Blankenhorn, P. R., T. W. Bowersox, C. H. Strauss, L. R. Stover, S. C. Grado, G. L.
Stimely, M. L. DiCola, C. Hornicsar, and B. E. Lord. 1985. Net Financial and
Energy Analyses for Producing Populous Hybrid Under Four Management
Strategies: First Rotation. ORNL/Sub/79-07928/ 1.
Breitenbeck, G. A., A. M. Blackmer, and J. M. Bremmer. 1980. Effects of Different
Nitrogen Fertilizers on Emission of Nitrous Oxide from Soil. Geophysical
Research Letters, 7: 85 - 88.
Electric Power Research Institute. 1986. TAG - Technical Assessment Guide,
Volume 1: Electricity Supply - 1986: EPRI P-4463-SR.
Farnum. P., R. Timmins, and J. L. KuIp. 1983. Biotechnology of Forest Yield.
Science. 119: 694 - 702.
Flavin, C. 1990. Slowing Global Warming. pp. 17 - 58 in State of the World 1990:
A Woridwatch Institute Report . W. W. Norton & Company. New York.
Geyer, W. A. 1989. Biomass Yield Potential of Short-Rotation Hardwoods in the
Great Plains. Biomass 20: 167 - 175.
Harmon. M.E.. W. K. Ferrell, arid J. F. Franklin. 1990. Effects on Carbon Storage
of Conversion of Old-Growth Forests to Young Forests. Science 247: 699 - 702.
Hyde. W. F. arid F. J. Wells. 1979. The Potential Energy Productivity of U.S.
Forests. Energy Services, 4: 231 - 257.
Lamb, B., A. Guenther, D. Gay, and H. Westberg. 1987. A National Inventory of
Biogenic Hydrocarbon Emissions. Atmos. Environ. 21: 1695-1705.
Marland, G. 1988. The prospect of solving the CO 2 problem through global
reforestation. Report TR039, prepared for Carbon Dioxide Research Division, U.S.
Department of Energy. DOE/NBB-0082.
McClure, J. P., and H. A. Knight. 1984. Empirical Yields of Timber and Forest
Biomass in the Southeast. United States Department of Agriculture - Forest
Service. Research Paper SE-245.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Management. 1982. A POM
Emissions Study for Industrial Wood-Fired Boilers. Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development. Raleigh. NC.
North Carolina State Forest Nutrition Cooperative. Seventeenth Annual Report:
College of Forest Resources. North Carolina State University. 1988.
41
-------
PEI Associates, Inc. 1988. BACT/LAER (Best Available Control Technology,
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate) Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control
Technology Determinations. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/450/3-85/016-Supp 13 (NTIS PB89109060).
Perlack, R. D., and J. W. Ranney. 1987. Economics of Short Rotation Intensive
Culture for the Production of Wood Energy Feedstocks, Energy 12(12): 12 17-
1226.
Pimentel, D. 1980. Energy Inputs for the Production, Formulation, Packaging,
and Transport of Various Pesticides. In Pimentel, D., ed. Handbook of Energy
Utilization in Agiiculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Raffa, K. F. 1989. Genetic Engineering of Trees to Enhance Resistance to Insects.
Blo Science, 39: 524 - 534.
Robertson, R. L., and C. T. Rightmire. 1986. Commercial Development of Coal
Bed Methane. CEP February: 48-53.
Rockwood, D. L,, and D. R. Rippon. 1989. Biological and Economic Potentials of
Eucalyptus grandis and Slash Pine as Biomass Energy Crops. Biomass 20: 155 -
165.
Seudler, P.A., R.D. Bowden, J.M. Melillo, and J.D. Aber. 1989. Influence of
nitrogen fertilization on methane uptake in temperate forest soils. Nature, 341:
314-316.
Stockton, M. B., and J. H. E. StellIng. 1987. CriterIa Pollutant Emission Factors
for the 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory. Prepared for the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-600/7-87-015 (NTIS PB87-198735). pp. 29.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1982. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the
United States, 1952-2030. Forest Service Report No. 23.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. Land Resource Regions and Major Land
Resource Areas of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 296, Soil Conservation
Science, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 156 pages.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management
Guidebook. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-lO.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. The 1985 NAPAP Emissions
Inventory (Version 2): Development of the Annual Data arid Modelers’ Tapes. EPA-
600/7-89-012a (NTIS PB91-119669) .
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors; Vol. 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Vol. II: Mobile
Sources. EPA-AP-42 (NTIS PB86-124906).
42
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982a. Fossil Fuel Fired Industrial
Boilers -Background Information. Volume 1. EPA-450/3-82-006a (NTIS PB82-
202573).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Nonfossil Fuel-Fired Industrial
Boilers: Background Information. EPA-450/3-82-007 (NTIS PB82-203209).
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Industrial Process Profiles for
Environmental Use: Chapter 22. The Phosphate Rock and Basic Fertilizer
Materials Industry, EPA-600/2-77-023v (NTIS P8281489), pp. 73 - 74.
Wright, L. L., T. W. Doyle, P. A. Layton, and J. W. Ranney. 1989. Short Rotation
Woody Crops Program: Annual Progress Report for 1988. Environmental
Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Publication No. 3373, Oak
Ridge, TN. 74 pages.
40 CFR 60. 1989. Subpart Da - Standards of Performance for Electric Utility
Steam Generator Units for Which Construction Is Commenced After September
18, 1978. Section 60.43a Standard for Sulfur Dioxide, Section 44a. Standard for
Nitrogen Oxides.
43
-------
APPENDIX A
COAL DISPLACEMENT BY WOOD BURNED FOR ENERGY
Wood grown in the SRIC or TF scenario can be burned in a wood-fired boiler
for energy. It is assumed that the energy supplied can replace the same amount of
energy supplied by a coal-fired power plant. To estimate the amount of coal
displaced by wood, the different heat values of the two fuels must be taken into
account, as well as the different efficiencies of the power plants. Table A-i shows
the factors used to compare the two fuels.
To compare the energy supply of coal and wood (MW-hr out). the following
equation is used:
18,739,100 Btu x MW-hr wood x 0.204 MW-hr out as wood x
Tonne wood 3,472,191.6 Btu MW-hr in as wood
MW-hr in as coal x 3.472 19i.6 Btu x Tonne coal
0.3493 MW-hr out as coal MW-hr coal 22,266,460 Btu
0.4915 Tonne coal
Tonne wood
(To supply the same amount of energy)
44
-------
TABLE A-i. HEAT VALUES AND POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY
FOR COAL AND WOOD FUELS
Fuel
Heat Value (Btu/tonne)
Plant Efficienc
v
out)
(MW-hr
in/MW-hr
Coal
22,266,460
0.3493
Wood
18,739,100
0.204
45
-------
APPENDIX B
ANNUAL EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
The following spreadsheets show the annual emissions of each gas by
source and scenario. Note that some inconsistencies occur. For example, the
total amount of carbon released when wood is burned in slightly greater than the
amount of carbon sequestered. This reflects the uncertainty in either or both sets
of assumptions used to calculate the emission factors (see Section 3). Since the
two values are within 5% of each other, and neither set of assumptions could be
shown to be obviously wrong, these two numbers were not altered.
Clearly, some uncertainty exists for all these emissions factors.
Comparisons such as the one discussed above give some magnitude of the
Un certain ty.
46
-------
Pollutants by source
TOTAL EMISSIONS (Mg/ycar)
SRIC
Source Pollutant (Near-term) (Mid-Term) TF TF (Burn) NH
Wood Trans. CO 2 14615000 24800000 17000(X) 1700000
CO 76900 131000 8940 8940
VOC 33000 56000 3830 3830
NO 143000 243000 16600 16600
R piration
VOC 8080000 8080000 7740000 7740000 7740000
Fert. Prod.
SRIC CO2 606000 606000
NO. 1060 1060
Fert. Prod.
TF,NH CO 2 269000 269000 269000
NO
438 438 438
Fert. Use
SRIC N 2 0 662 662
Fert. Use
TFJ’JH N p 261 261 261
Coal Miruiig CH 4 -2970000 -5040000 -345000
Displacement
Coal Trans.
Displacement CO 2 -2.2E+07 -3.7E+07 -2550000
CO -127000 -216000 -14800
VOC -92300 -216000 -10700
NO. -363000 -616000 •370000
so, -56000 -95200 -6510
Coal Comb.
Displacement CO -169000 -284000 -19700
NO. -3190000 -5430000 -370000
SO -4840000 -8210000 -562000
CO 2 -1. IE+09 - 3.9E+09 - 13E+08
Wood Comb. NO 2310000 3920000 268000
CO 2180000 3730000 255000
502 0 0 0
CO 2 2 . lEs -09 3.6E+09 23E+08
47
-------
TOTAL EMISSIONS (Mg/year)
SRIC
Source Pollutant (Nearterm) (Mid-term) TF TF(Burn) NH
Post-Harvest and
Prescribed Burning
TF & NH Pine Only ISI
CO 14100000 14100000
CO 13600000 13600000
58000 58000
voc 82900 82900
NO 23700 23700
Slash
Burning
CO 2 10200000 10200000
CO 1000000 1000000
CH., 46000 46000
VOC 56900 56900
NO 17100 17100
Harvesting Machine
Hours
TF&NH CO 1530 1530
VOC 727 727
NO 4210 4210
SQ 395 395
CQ 255000 255000
SR IC CO 26400 26400
VOC 12600 21500
NO 73000 124000
SO. 6813 11600
CO 2 4400000 7470000
Planting Machine
Hours
SR IC CO 750 750
voc 362 362
NO 2100 2100
SO. 1970 1970
CO 2 125000 125000
TF&NH CO 177 177 177
VOC 59.2 592 59.2
NO 473 473 473
SQ 473 473 473
CO 2 29600 29600 29600
48
-------
TOTAL EMISSIONS (Mg/year)
SRIC
Source Pollutant (Near-term) (Mid-term) TF TF(Burn) NH
Weed Control
Machme Hours
SR IC CO 276 276
VOC 133 133
NO 776 776
SQ 724 724
CO 2 46000 46000
Pest Control
Machine Hour-s
SR]C CO 522.9 522
VOC 267.2 267
NO 1550 1550
SQ 1450 1450
CO 2 87200 87200
Herb Prod.
SRIC CQ 1960000 19600(X)
CO 4-41 441
NO 16300 16300
SQ 14700 14700
TF,NH CO 2 71100 71100 71100
CO 15.9 15.9 15.9
NO 592 592 592
SQ 533 533 533
C Sequestering
NH CO , -2.6E+08
SRIC CO , •20E+09 -3.4E+09
TF CO 2 -23E+08 -2.3E+08
49
-------
APPENDIX C
REGIONAL COSTS SPREADSHEETS
50
-------
SNOST tOtA l ION INTENSIVI CULTURE
FORESTIT 0GA*$ COSTS *.m PR00IJCIIVITY
Region:
Acres available:
A&.nn/ I si
Site prep/plant:
tired control:
fertil Itat Ion:
Pest Control:
N.rvest Colt:
load
Yield I
Yield 2
lotat Ion Age
te ll on:
Acres available:
A ln/Ised:
Sit. prep/plant:
Weed control:
FertilIzation:
P*st Control:
Narvest Cost:
toed
Yield:
101.1 IOfl Age
Pactf Ic NorthweSt
308000 ic
31.5 S/sc/yr
309 1 ./sc
51.9 i/ac
85.8 Sac
20.3 Sac
32.5 S/ton
33.9 S/harvest
6.69 Ton/.cfyr
l3.39 Ton/sc/yr
I
Pacific Northwest
S O l 0 0 0 sc
31.5 S/sc/yr
IS? S/ac
SI.$ S/sc
85.7 S/ic
o S/ac
21.7 S/ton
o S/hsr-v*st
4.725 Dry tons/sc/yr
IS tesrA
Present Net Coat:
Colt per TO,yip teSt):
Cost into Perpetuity:
A,fs*t Yield:
CostS and Yiet for legion
Present Net Cost:
Cost into Perpetuity:
*.vsl Yield
A,va*i Ethanol Pro jctiøn
V I. Acid NVdrelysis
Wtit Cost
legion Cost
Potential Pro ictlon
Via EfttytIc Rydrotysla
Ihtlt Cost
legion Cost
Potential Pro jction
) 24 151 Wood Power Plant
Cost per 151
s0.T7
5284.000,000.00
367,000,000
to. 87
5427.000,000.00
493 ,000 ,000
$1 • 841 ,000 ,000.00
$2,443,000,000.00
3,75 1 • 000
$072
5 53 1 ,000,000.00
735,000.000
$0.83
I II 7, 000, 000 . 00
987,000,000
TIADITIONAL FOIESTIY
12, 182.80
$12.46
$2, 198.33
10.59
5273,000,000.00
$275,000,000.00
1,323,000
$0.59 per liter
5152,000,000.00
259,000,000 lIters per yesr
$0.73 per liter
5253 , 000. 000 . 00
348,000.000 lIters per year
NO HAIVEST I
12,046.93 per N ct.re
per Toiv e
12,056.09 per Nectare
10.59 Dry torr.ec/Na/yr
(1NPWGII 85 ‘tEAlS)
$256,000,000.00
$257,000,000.00 I
1,323,000 T vei
(TNRtUGN 85 YEAtS) I
legion: Pacific Northwest
Nectifti in legion: 125,000
Costs u Yl l per Nectare
01
SIIC NW TElls
514,728.43
139.11
$19,559.11
30
TRADITIONAL FORESTRY
Slit NEAR TElls
19,272.39
1.49.2 8
$12,313.59
15
II , 159,000,000.00
I I , 539,000,000.00
1,874,000
$71.70 $62.32 $37.77 per 151
-------
SHORT ROTA! ION INTENSIVE CUI.TIJRE
I FORESTAY PROCIAM COSTS ANt) PRCEUCTIVITY
Region: Patti it Northwest Esatside
Acres ava tsb(e: 34000 Sc
Adeinhl’s : 31.5 $ sc/yr
Sit. pr.p pIsnt: 309 Sl.t
Weed control: 51.9 I/sc
Fertjtttition: 85.8 I/ac
Pest ContrOt: 20.3 $Fac
Harvest Cost: 32.5 S/ton
load: 33.9 I/harvest
YIeld 1 4.69 Ton/*clyr
YIeld 2 6.*g Tori/sc/yr
Rotation A9e: 8 Years
TRADITIONAL FORESTRY
Region: P.ctf Ic Northwest E..tslde
Atres .v.Itibt .: 34000 at
l n/lsrd: 31.5 S/ac/yr
Sit. prep/plant: 123 Slat
Weed control: 31.8 S/ac
FertIlIzatIon: 83.7 S/sc
Pest Control: 0 S /.c
hives! Cost: 21.7 S/ton
loud : 0 $/Ii.rve,t
Yield: 0_SI Ory t /at/yl
Rotation *9 .: 120 Years
Costs sod Yields for Region
I Ans ,.l Ethanol Production
VI. Acid Itydrolyals
Wolt Coet
Region Cost
I Potential ProcAxtion
Ylu Ent tic hydrolysis
Woit Cost
legion Cost
Potential Production
I 24 hA l Wood Power Plant
Cost per hAl
50.71
532,000, 000.00
41,000.000
$0.87
S 48 , 0 0 0, DUO. OO
55, 000,000
51,995.61 per Hectsre
per Verne
$1,996.81 per Hectare
1.37 Dry tomes/Ha/yr
(THl JGH 120 YEARS)
i2 8,0 0 0, 000 .00
128,000,000.00
19,000 Tomi
(TNRcRJGH 120 YEARS)
!egon: P.cif Ic Northwest testsidp
H.ct.res in Region: ¶4,000
Costs atW Yields per Hectare
Present Net Cost:
Cost per Tome (AEC):
Cost intO Perpetuity:
Areluil Yield:
U i
SRIC WEAl TERN SRIC MID TERN TRADITIONAL FORESTRY NO HARVEST
PrWE nt NC! Cost:
Cost Into Perpetuity:
*sv ial Yield:
59,272.39
1 .49.28
$12,313.59
is
5130,000,000.00
1172 • 000,000.00
210,000
51,983.04
1*7.13
$1,984.87
1.37
$28,000,000.00
$28,000,000.00
19,000
$7,480.06
1.59.25
59 93.4 L6
10
1105,000 • 000.00
5139,000,000.00
141 ,000
$0.83
523,000. . 00
28.000,000
50.90
533,000,000.00
37,000,000
$0.97 per liter I
$4,000,000.00 I
4,000,000 titers per year I
$1.01 per titer
$5,000,000.00
5,000,000 tIters per yell -
$106.56 per I
$71.70
-------
SNORT ROTATION INTENSIVE CU .TUR€
TORESTRY PROClAIM COSTS AND PRCEUCTIVITY
Region ’
Acres avilsble:
AcCuinI lard:
Site pr. /plant ’
Weed control:
f It*I lt.(ion:
Pest Control:
Harvest Cost:
Rod:
Yield
Yield 2
Rotation Age:
Nor th st
8067000 ic
36 tFsc/yr
309 1, c
51.9 S /ac
85.8 F .c
20.3 1/ac
32.5 titan
33.9 S/P arve*t
4.01 Ton/sc/yr
6.69 Ton/sc/yr
8 Year,
TRADITIONAl. FONESTRY
legion: Northeest
Acrel avsllable: 8067000 ac
Ad.in/lsrd:
Site prptIplant:
Weid control:
Fertil Itatfon:
Pelt Control:
HarveSt Colt:
load
Yield:
Notation Age:
36 C/sc/yr
110.5 S/sc
51.8 8/ac
85.7 S/ac
0 1/ac
21.7 S/ton
0 1/Piarvest
0.96 Dry tono/ac/yr
60 Yesri
I Present Net Cost:
Coat per Toene (ARC):
I Coat Into Perpetuity:
*ivsal Yield:
Costs sod Yields (or Region
I Present Wet Cost:
I Coat into Perpetuity:
I Aiv,*( Yield:
I A.vial Ethanol Pro& . tion
VI• Acid Hydrolysis
Wilt Cost
legion Cost
Potential Proitj tien
VI. Enzy tic Ilydrolyii
IktIt Cost
legion Coit
Potential ProcAjction
I 24 IS Wood Power Plant
I Cost per i’J
SAIC NEAR TERN
16,461.29
157.30
58,500.40
9
121,096.000.000.00
128,015,000,000.00
29, 538.000
.689.000.000.00
5.752.000.000
$0.90
56,974. .000.00
7,721 • 000 • 000
SIIC ItID TERM
58 ,6.43.70
5 /.5 .94
Sit, 478. 70
IS
$28,222,000,000.00
137,4 70,000,000.00
48,945,000
10. 76
57,268,000,000.00
9,597,000,000
$0.85
110,994,000,000.00
12.880 • 000,000
TRADITIONAL FORESTRY
17, 194.70
163. IS
12, 263 . 40
2.15
10.92 per liter
NO MACVEST
$2,119.68 per MeCt Sre
per Tone
17,16.4.61 per Mectare
2.15 Dry tomes/MS/yr
(TWRI3JGH 60 TEARS)
16,921,000,000.00
$7,067,000,000.00
7,024,000 Tomes
(TKREUGN 60 YEARS)
Region: Northeast
Mactires in legion: 3,265,000
I Costl ard Yields per Nectare
I . -;’
CA)
$7, )66,000,000.00
$7,390,000,000.00
7,024,000
$0.84 per lIter
$1 16 1. ,000,000. 00
1,377,000,000 lIters per ye.r
II .698,000,000.00
1,848,000.000 liters per ye.r
17908 568.62
184.45 per IAI
-------
5N00Y loiN 108 5 1 1 1 5 1 W aL151
1001511Y PiOo*an COSTS * Pt(1)1JC IVITT
le lon. North Centrel LMe State, I
Acre, i v . liable: DM0000 se J ls$i on: Worth Cent rul a e St •te
Ad,lnl I . .‘.d: 36 $I.clyr I
Site prep/plant: 309 $l.c J Noctare, in leqion 3.416.000
‘deed control: 51.9 t/c I
Yertilhjatlon: 851 S/ac Colts Yields per lest..’.
Pest Control: 20.3 1/ ac I Slit 51*1 TDII SIIC lID TE ll T 1ADITIOWAI t(PtStlT 50 IIAIVEST
Pryelt Cost: 32.3 A/ton
load: 33.9 5/hirveit Present Net Cost: $6,627.74 $9,368.46 $2,221.23 $2,073.99 per Necta,r
Yield I 4.46 Ton/at/yr Cost pr Toene (AEC): $54.44 343.93 136.08 pp.’ icr . ’ .
Yi.ld 2 7.58 fon /c/yr Cost into Perpetuity: 19,067.13 $12,441.16 $2,290.67 $2,118.91 per Nectar
lotetion *5 .: I Ye..’, kr. l Yield: 10 IT 3.81 3.81 Dry tornoc/PIa/yr
I (TWICIJGN 60 TEnd
1 Couts and Yield, ta.’ le ior
01 I
Present Sit Cost: 123,374,000.000.00 $32,003,000,000.00 ST,580 .000.0 00.00 $7,085,000,000.00
Cost Into Perpetuity: $30,973,000,000.00 342,499,000.000.00 57.823,000,000.00 37,238,000,000.00
VIADITIOUAL tONESTIT MWI I Yield: 3.4,139,000 58,021,000 13,013,000 13,013,000 torv e
I (131 (31011 60 11*1 5)
North Central Lake States I
Acre, e,silsbl .: 61 .40000 at Ethanol Pro .*jctlon
A InFIarud : 36 S/acfyi
Sit, prep/plant: 92 1 c Vi. Acid Nydroly.l,
‘deed control: 31.1 Uac 11th Cost 10.60 1 0.75 10.71 per titer
terti I listion: 65.7 $ .c le,ion COst 15,359,000,000.00 10,499,000,000.00 11,804,000,000.00
Pest Control: 0 1/at Potential Pro xt4on 6,694,000,000 11,376,000,000 2,551.000.000 titer, pet’ year
N.i ’vest Cost: 21.7 IIton I
bitt : 0 1 /harve ,t Vi. Ee, tic Wydralyils
Yield: 1.? Dry tou /atfyr lA lt Cost $0.89 $0.85 $0.62 per liter
botat Ioø *qe: 60 V i i . ’ , le lon Cost $7,959,000,000.00 112,9I0.000 ,000.00 $2,795,000,000.00
Potential Pr tAjctlon D ,9e 4,000.000 15,269,000,000 3,425.000.000 liters per year
I 2 /. I II l .d P q Plant
Cost per 176.U 5 8 6.76 159.53 pP.’ *1
-------
SWAT eo1AtI INtIWSIW ATI*1
I sIo.t:
Acres .v,tt.bt .
SIte pe.Wp fl:
peed contrOt:
.r tiUiZ.tioll:
P.51 Col,troL:
Nsrvslt Cost:
Yie ld:
lotatfan *09
20.3 A/sc
32.5 S/ttr
33.? A/harvest
331 tcIUaciyr
5.36 ton/sc/yr
6 tear.
SeuttI Cflr.l 9 1 .1 , .
u/A at
I/A S/ac/yr
N/A S/ac
U/A use
U/A 1/ac
N/A Slat
N/A S/ton
N/A
u/a
I/A
ie tw : Seuth Central Pls na
N tsr $ In te ion 1 ,719,000
Cat. Ti.i per Nectare
j Pr.su,it Net Cntt:
Lost par for.,. tAlC):
Cost Into Perpetuity:
S.ei 1 Yls Id:
Costs YIeld, for teion
Pr,.,nt Net Cost:
Cost Into Perpetuity:
vv.l Yield:
M tI Eth. 1 Pre tion
Vi i Acid Ppdrolysia
$ IMII Cast
Usgion Cost
Pot.itl.l Pr tlnt
VI. £se tIc Nydrolysis
1*1 11 Cost
Isgion Cost
Potett tat Protkact ion
I 24 I i i I l iad Pol.er PIwlt
Cost per Isi
$1 I ,MO ,000 ,000.00
S 15 , 257.000,000.00
20,646,000
$3,214,000, __ .00
4,046,000,000
10.55
14,756,000,000.00
5,433,000,000
per N.ct.re
per Vorvw
per Nectare
Dry tari.eS/N./yr
N/A YVAIS)
N/A TEASS) I
Isgion: Solsth Central Pill
Acres .e.jiabt,: 4247000 se
Ad, in/I d: 21 t#sc/yr
Site prep/pI wtt: 309 usc
bleed control: 51.9 I/ac
f,rtiII,.tion: $5.6 A/sC
Pest Control:
Ilervest Cost:
toad:
Ytald I
Yield 2
Iot*tiol Ae:
F S1IT PIOCIAM COSTS A00 PIIXIUCTIV ITY
SIIC NUN IFIN
SNIC MID T I l l
56,911.25
453. IS
110,635.37
12
fi*O1ti0N*t F00fS T
15,577.99
$64.34
$8, 576.36
A
19, 50, 000,000.00
116,746.000 • 000.00
13,151 , 000
lOSS
$2,295 , 000,000.00
2,696,000,000
10.92
$3,342. 000,000.00
3,619,000,000
$85.37
sm.rv.et
Dry tol/ac/yr
la irs
T 550 11100A 1. VSNLST NO WAIVEST
per titer
titer, per year
per titer
titers per year
per N W
115.25
-------
SHOIT ROTATI $I IMTtWS lvt CUI.tlJCt
F SYlY P,OC*m COSTS 1 1W PR00IJCTIVITY
MSctsret in teqton : 21,924,000
touts aid Yields per Mactare
Peesant N,t Cost:
Cost per T ’ine (Alt):
Cost into Perpetuity:
‘gsal held:
Costa and Yield, for leqion
Present Mat Cost:
Coal into Perpetuity:
) Pav*.l Yield:
A,va ai Ethanol Pro xt ion
i vi . Acid Nrdrolysis
ails Coat
l ian Cost
Potentl•l Prothxtlon
Via E ai t4c Wydrolysis
dt Cost
*i,lcn Cost
Potential Pro jction
24 I S V Weed Poesr Plans
Cost per W4
SPtC NYAC TIRM
$7,409.91
1 1.9.16
$9,840.32
12
1162,456,000,000.00
121 5.739 ,000.000.00
263,320,000
159,996,000,000.00
69,295,000.01)0
1226, 1 3,000,000.00
$300,301,000,000.00
1.38 .204 ,000
$0.84
196,413,000,000.00
its , 41.9, 000, 000
TR IO S I blAt FOPESTIY
$2,132.82
$50.57
12,152.97
2.55
1 /.6,756,000,000.00
11.7 ,202.000,000.00
56,005,000
12,104.90 per WectSre
per Torw e
$2,118.91 per Hectire
2.55 Dry torvles/M.fyrI
(TWP HJGK 80 YEARS)
$46, 11. 1 , 000, 000 . 00
$46,455,000,000.00
56,005,000 T y1eg
(THRWGH 80 TEARS)
R 1on: Worth Central Non-L.ke States
U’
0)
Region: North C*ntr.l Non’take StAles
*crs available: 56173000 Sc
A Acinfiutu:I: 36 1/ac/yr
Site prep/plant: 248 s/sc
Weed control: 51.9 I/ac
teitUlistion: 83.8 1/ac
Peit Control: 20.3 1/ac
WSrvegt Cost: 32.5 S/ton
load: 33.9 I/harvest
Tield I 5.36 Ton/ac/yr
YIeld 2 8.93 ten/sc/yr
lotstton Age: 8 Years
115011 iONAt 50115115
atgi en : Uo th C.ntr.i Non-tHe States
Acres avsilabl : 36173000
Ain/lai f: 36 1 /Sc/SI ’
Site prep/plant: 92 uSc
Weed controt: 51.8 1 /se
Vertitizatlon: $5.7 S/ac
Pst Control: 0 1/ac
Naryest Cost: 21.7 S/tan
load : 0 5/larveat
Yield: 1.14 Dry 10F41Sc1yr
tot at ion Age: $0 YeSes
SCIC MID TER$
110,317.14
11.1.08
513,700.99
20
HO ISAIVEST
$0.77
50.73
10.18 per liter
139,91.6.000,000.00
563,009,000,000.00
18 • 575,000.000.00
51,629,000,000
86,017,000,000
10,981,000,000
liters per year
$7158
$0.81 per titer
112.839.000.000.00
14,738,000,000 titers per year
112.86 per MW
$61.11.
-------
SNORT ROTATION INTCISIVt CUtTLE
FOlfSTlY PROGRAM COSTS aim PRCX)UCTIVIIT
Region:
Icree available:
AcSiin/ I sr :
Site pc p/pIant:
Weed control:
rertil stion:
Pest Control:
N.rv elt Cost:
load:
Yield 1
Yield 2
lot.tion Age:
legion:
Acres s,.llabl.:
* iii n/l.nd:
SIte prip/ptiiit :
Weed control:
F,rt il l t.tI i:
Pest Control:
Nervelt Colt:
laid
Yield:
Rotat ion *95
Southeset P,eóuont
12640000 ac
27 S/ac/yr
309 S/ac
51.9 S/ac
85.8 S .c
20.3 S/ac
32.5 S/ton
33.9 5/hirvest
4.1 .6 Ton/sc/yr
6.04 Ton/ac/yr
6 Years
Southeast Pi. it
12640000 ac
21 Siaciyi’
116.66 S/s e
51.8 S/sc
85.7 S/IC
o SI
21.7 S/ton
o 5/Rarvest
1.75 Dry tons/sc/yr
33 tiers
Presint Net Cost:
Cost per To. ’vip (Alt):
Cost into Perpetuity:
5.vsal Yield:
Costs v Yields for legion
I Prisint Net Colt:
I Cost Into Perpetuity:
I vsjsl Yield:
*mal £thsnol Pro t Ion
I ts ACId Nydrotysis
I Wilt Cost
leØen Cost
Potential Proójctlm
I via £n eatic Nydrotysis
Wilt Cost
leglen Colt
Potential Proójction
24 Wi Ifood Pos.er Plant
Cost per PAt
$8,914.99
$45.70
$13, 722.63
t o
545.61)0,000,000.00
$70, t91,000,00tLOO
92,151,000
50.76
$13,661,000,000.00
18,068 • 000,000
T l*O1TIONAI. FORESTRY
$2,051.12
$36.08
$2,357.90
3.92
510,1.91 • 000,000.00
$12,061,000,000.00
20,058,000
$0.71 per titer
$2,781,000,000.00
3,933,000,000 liters per yesr
50.82 per titer
54,307,000,000.00
5,278,000,000 liters per year
51,637.86 per Nectar,
per Toivie
$1,782.47 per Hectic.
3.92 Dry torwi .,/He/yr
(TNIPXJGH 35 TEARS)
legion: Southeast Pi dis,nt
I Necteres in legion: 5,115,000
I costs sod Yields per Nectar,
SRIC MID TERM
TRADITIONAl, FOREsTlY
NO HAIVTST
SIIC NIAR TERM
56,238.40
557.65
$9,602.61
10
$31,909,000,000.00
549,117,000,000.00
51,119,000
$0.82
$8,189,000,000.00
10,023,000,000
$0.90
$12,081 .000,000.00
13,452,000,000
$8,378,000,000.00 I
$9,117,000,000.00 I
20,058,000 Tiwvies I
tTNIPJJGN 35 YEARS) I
$0.85
$20,677,000,000.00
26,250,000,000
$79.40 $6830 $59.53 per M W
-------
Sa l? ROISTIl IHT$NSIV$ DJt .Tt*E
ei i on:
Acres .vsiI.ble:
A inI I
SIt, pre1 iptNn:
U d control:
r ert$l tat iOfl
Pest Control:
Harvest Cost:
!Ie(d I
Yield 2
Rot.t on *9
Souttiolit MOIIItsinl
6053000 at
27 Usc, yr
309 S /sc
51.9 Usc
es. Usc
20.3 S /ac
32.5 S /tm
33.9 5/harveit
4.0* Tm/sc(yr
7.14 1on .c/yr
6 Ysers
o $(li.rvest
1.54 01 ’y tor4lac/yr
AS Teats
Colts s$ TICIdI for •e9im
Pr.snt let Cost:
Cost into Perpetuity:
Areusi Yield:
kviml 8thiot Prodjct ton
I V s Aeld Hydrolysis
tktit Cost
la im CoSt
Potential Pr tlon
Vi. £nr s.tic Hydrolysis
tM t Cost
l.qion Colt
J Potentist Pr t ion
24 MW Wood Po r Ptsnt
I Cost per MW
SIIC HISS ITeM
55.90195
$60.66
59,084.73
9
$14,460,000 • 000.00
$22. 256, 000, 000 00
22.015,000
SHIC MID TIRM
55,242.11
$67.58
$12,686.57
16
520. 193,000 , 000.00
$3 I • 083,000,000.00
39.195.000
10.77
15,585.000,000.00
7.686.000,000
$0.56
58,869,000,000.00
10,315,000.000
$2,015.37
137.1 4
52,176.49
3.45
$4,945,000,000.00
13,332,000,000.00
8,454,000
ao esivtsr I
11,762.38 per lectare
per tome
$1,843.13 per Hectare
3.45 Dry t rsw ul4s(yr
tTl4HøJ1 H 45 ‘TARS)
$4 .315,000,000.00
$6,516,000,000.00
5,454,000 toiytp ’i
(TI4,t JI N 45 YEARS)
I FIESTIT PIOCRAM COSTS IWO PIWUCT IV ITT
I leqion : Southeist H tsins
$ect.res in PeHion : 2,450,000
I Costs .d YIptd per Hctsp
3 Pr,snt let Cost:
3 Cost per T ’vip tAlC):
Cost Into Perpetuity:
3 A,ve. I Yield-
01
TI*OI?I0NAL TOIESI SY
Sellon: Scuttt.set N aflslns
Acres sysitablet 6053000 at
AdI in(t*rs*: 21 S/sc/yr
SIts prep/plutt: 168.22 S/sc
Used control: 518 Usc
Tertilitation: 65.7 Sf.c
P t Control: 0 Usc
Harvest Cost: 21.7 S/ton
Hoed
held:
Rotation A’ e:
$0.53
$3,593,000,000.00
4,316.000 • 000
$0.91
$5,269,000,000.00
5,793,000,000
552. 18
10.72 per tIter
11, 181,000.000.00
1.658.000,000 titers per year
$0.82 per titer
$1,831,000,000.00
2.225,000,000 liters per yesr
$61.15 per MW
$70.12
-------
SHolT ROTaTION INTENSIVE CULTURE
I FONESTRY PROGRAM COSTS AND P100t,CTTVITY
l eg ton:
AcreS av.i table:
Site prep/plant:
Weed contr t:
trtiI itition:
Pest Control:
Harvest Cost:
load:
Yield 1
YieLd 2
Rotation Age:
legion:
AcreS available:
Aduin/ lied:
Site prep/plant:
Weed control:
Ferti I itStioi ’l:
Pest Control:
Hal-vest tost:
Road
Yield:
Rotation *9* !
South Florida
215000 ‘C
56 1/ac/yr
248 1/ac
0 A/ac
85.8 1/ac
203 A/ac
12.5 titan
33.9 A/harveSt
6.69 Ton/sc/yr
1L39 Son/sc/yr
6 Ye*t ’S
South Flori
215000 ac
56 AFac/yr
116.66 1# ’ac
¶1.8 1/ac
85.7 i/sc
0 Alec
21.7 AlI en
0 S/hsrvest
184 Dry taos/ac/yr
30 Yers
ligion: South Florid.
Nectar. in Region:
Costi aed Yields per NiCESt
Prisent Set Coat:
Coat per ToH i* tAlC):
toet into Perpetuity:
.eviiat Yield:
I Costa d YIelds for legion
Present Net Cost:
Cost into Perpetuity:
An’iil Yield:
A,vs l Ethanol Pro xtion
V I. Acid Hydrolysis
Unit Cost
legion Cost
Potent i I Pro jct ion
Vi. Enz wtic Hydrolysis
Unit Cost
legion Coat
Potential Pra jctian
I 26 IS a laood Paver Plant
Cost per 15 1
$274 . 000 000 . 00
I3 2 ,0OO,O00.O0
359.000
10.81 per titer
136,000.000.00
70,000,000 titers per year
12,661.64 per H.ct,r.
per Tonni
13,062.53 per NectSre
4.12 Dry torw*s/W./yr
(TeS(IJGN 31) YEARS)
$232,000,000.00
1266,000,000.00
359,000 Toiv,pt
(THICUGH 30 YEARS)
87.000
c i i
r ,o
TRAOITIOMAI. FOREStRY
T IRDITTONA L FORESTRY
13,147.82
$55.47
13,511.43
4.12
NO HARVEST I
Silt NEAR TERIL
18,350.95
%51.4 5
112,654.66
15
1727. 1)00, 000 .00
11, 115, 000 . 000.00
1,304,000
$0.79
1201.000,0 00.0 O
256,000.000
10.87
1300 , 000 . 000 . 00
343,000,000
Silt HID TERN
$13,360.23
141.12
120,565.12
30
11,162,000.000.01)
$1,789,000,000.00
2.610,000
$0.73
$373,000,000.00
512,000,000
10.84
1574,000,000.00
687,000.000
10.89 per liter
184,000,000.00
94,000,000 liter, per year
173.69 164. 16 177.39 per 1 14
-------
SIItT COTATION INTENSIVE *Tl*E
legion:
Acres available:
Site prep/plant:
Weed control:
Ferti I iiation:
Pest Control:
Narvest Cost:
load:
Yield I
Yield 2
lotation Age:
Southeast C citt
5697000 Sc
27 S/sc/yr
309 1/sc
51.9 S/ac
85.8 1/sc
20.3 S/sc
32.5 S/ton
33.9 1/harvest
5.36 Ton/ac/yr
9.82 Ton/sc/yr
Peasant let Coat:
Coat par Tome (AEC):
Cost into Perpetuity:
Aresial Yield:
Costa •rd Yields for legion
Present Met Coat:
Coat into Perpetuity:
A.Tsl Yield:
vsml ftti.noi Pro jctior,
I Via Acid hydrolysis
(kilt Cost
legion Cost
Potential Pro&ction
Vi. Ensyastic Nydrolysis
(kilt Cost
legion Cost
Potential Procliction
24 Wood Pover Plant
Cost per i ’d
S 15,937,000 ,0 00.00
524 • 532 , 000, 000 . 00
27,696,000
SMIC MID TECh
110,245.81
145.00
$15,771.13
22
123.627.000.000.00
136,368,000,000.00
SO, 742,000
10.86
511, 249, 000. 000 . 00
13,3 53 .000,000
TlADtTI AL FOIESIIY
12,090.22
536.83
52 , 530.86
4.12
14 820,090,000.00
15836,000,000.00
9.50 6, 000
NO MACVEST
11588.95 per Nectare
per torn,
11,782.47 per M ,ctsre
4.12 Dry toor.es/Ns/yr
(TMCWGN 30 YEAtS)
13,664.000,000.00
$4 • 110 • 000,000.00
9,506,000 Tornet
(TNIIXIGN 30 TEAlS)
FciEST IY Pt0GlR COSTS ANO PCCEIJCIIVFTY
legion: Southeast Coast
I Nectsrfl in legion: 2.306.000
I Costs ard Yields per N,ctsre
I SAIC NEAl TEIM
0)
0
16,911.28
153.15
110,638.37
12
6 Tests
TlADI V tONAl. FOIESTCY
legion: Southaust Coast
Acres available: 5691000 ac
Adsin/lsnd: 21 S/sc/yr
Site prep/plant: 116.66 1/sc
Weed control: 51.8$/sc
Fertilization: 85.7 S/sc
Pest Control: 0 1/ac
Narveat Cost: 21.7 S/ton
load : 0 5/harvest
Yield: 1.86 Dry tone/sc/yr
lotat ion Age: 30 Tears
10.74
17.385,000. 000.09
9,949,000,000
50.79
$4 • 312.000,000.00
5,430,000.000
$0.68
16,420,000 • 000.00
7,288,000,000
175.25
10.71 par liter
$1,325,000,000.00
1 ,864,000 000 liters per year
10.82 per liter
$2,869,000,000.00
2.502,000.000 lIters per year
160.22 per i’d
565.91
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
IPiea.ce read Ifl&i.e!UCtiOflS on the reEerse before coin pie ting,
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/7--91-003
3. RECIPIENT’S ACCESSIOF+NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Global Warming Mitigation Potential of Three Tree
Plantation Scenarios
5. REPORT DATE
February 1991
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Rebecca L. Peer, Darcy L. Campbell, and
William_G._Hohenstein
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
P. C. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACTJGRA ) NO.
68-02-4286, Tasks 97 and
112
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task final; 9/89 - 6/90
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/60 0/ 13
15.SuPPLEMENTARY NOTES AEERL project officer is Christopher D. Geron, Mail Drop 63,
919/541-4639.
16. ABSTRACT The report gives results of an analysis of three alternative uses of forests
in the U. S. to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations: (1) planting
trees with no harvesting, (2) traditional forestry, and (3) short-rotation intensive
culture of trees for biomass. Increasing concentrations of C02 and other radiatively
important trace gases (RITGs) are of concern due to their potential to alte.r the
Earth’s climate. Some scientists, after reviewing the results of general circulation
models, predict rising average temperatures and alterations in the Earth’s hydro-
logic cycle. While the debate continues over the actual magnitude of global warming,
most scientists agree that some change will occur over the next century. This pla-
ces a burden on policymakers to address global warming and to develop mitigation
measures. Since forests provide a sink for carbon by fixing C02 to produce biomass
halting deforestation and creating new forests have been proposed as ways to slow the
buildup of carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Climatic
Changes
Pollution Control
l3B 04B
Carbon Dioxide
Stationary Sources
07B
Carbon
Global Climate
Reforestation
02F
Wood
ilL
Biomass
08A,06C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
Release to Public
Unclassified
66
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
—
22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220.1 (9-73)
61
------- |