biopathways: carbon footprint report - fpac › ... › carbon_footprint_report_feb28_2011.pdf ·...

Biopathways: Carbon Footprint Report

February 28, 2011

i

Executive Summary

The environmental performance of forest products are of keen interest to markets, public

policy decision-makers and stakeholders alike. One environmental parameter of

particular interest is carbon. This carbon footprint analysis was conducted to highlight

the footprint of a sub-set of the pathways considered during Phase 1 of the Biopathways

Project. Results are shown at a normalized mill level. It is important to note that lower

carbon footprint numbers indicate better results, with a negative result being ideal. The

findings include:

All pathways analyzed have a negative net carbon footprint. Thus, carbon storage

and/or the substitution effects are more than compensating for the positive

emissions from manufacture.

With respect to the biopathway product manufacturing emissions, there is

considerable variability among the pathways and the types of emissions (i.e.

direct and indirect). Some pathways have predominantly direct emissions while

others have more indirect than direct emissions.

Emissions breakdown – while not explicit in some of the results shown – suggests

that the downstream destiny of the product (i.e. in use and end of life) can have a

significant impact on their individual footprints.

Wood product pathways tend to have the greatest negative carbon footprints

potential due to their ability to store carbon over the long term (i.e. 100 years).

Bioenergy products benefited from significant avoided emissions when compared

with fossil fuel combustion.

The substitution effects of biomass-based products and production can represent a

significant benefit when compared with products produced from other materials.

Based on the three fibre supply regions (BC Interior, NW Ontario, and

Saguenay/Lac St. Jean Quebec), Quebec most frequently had the best cradle-to-

gate emission performance due to the low carbon intensity of its electricity grid.

However, British Columbia was close on many pathways.

This analysis does not cover all of the pathways considered by the Biopathways project.

Nor does the analysis fully consider substitution effects for biochemical pathways. More

analysis is required to address these shortcomings.

ii

Acknowledgements

FPAC would like to thank Irene Coyle, Rory Gilsenan and Greg Rampley at the

Canadian Forest Service for their significant contributions to this initiative and report. In

particular, Irene conducted the cradle-to-gate analysis. FPAC would also like to thank

Caroline Gaudreault, Kirsten Vice and Reid Miner at the National Council for Air and

Stream Improvement for their expert advice and analysis of the substitution effects.

Paul Lansbergen

Association Secretary,

Director, Energy, Economics and Climate Change

Forest Products Association of Canada

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii

Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 1

Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................... 2

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 3

Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5

Results & Discussions......................................................................................................... 7

Mill Level Results ........................................................................................................... 7

Direct and Indirect Emissions ......................................................................................... 9

Regional Results ............................................................................................................. 9

Product Level Results ................................................................................................... 11

Substitution Effects ....................................................................................................... 11

Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................................................... 13

Appendix A – Detailed Results from CFS and NCASI Carbon Footprint Analyses ........ 14

Appendix B – Additional Notes on Pathways .................................................................. 23

Appendix C - NCASI‟s Substitution Effects Analyses ..................................................... 24

iv

List of Tables Table 1: A Description of FICAT‟s 10 Steps ..................................................................... 4 Table 2: Substitution Effects for Various Products (see Appendix B for more details) ... 12

Table 3 Mill Level Results - British Columbia ................................................................. 14 Table 4 Mill Level Results – Ontario ............................................................................... 15 Table 5 Mill Level Results – Quebec ............................................................................... 16 Table 6 Product Level Results – British Columbia .......................................................... 17 Table 7 Product Level Results – Ontario .......................................................................... 19

Table 8 Product Level Results – Quebec .......................................................................... 21

List of Figures Figure 1: A forest product life cycle ................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Products and pathways selected for the carbon footprint analysis ...................... 5

Figure 3: Mill level (multi-product) net carbon footprint (cradle-to-grave) results for all

regions ................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4: Scope 1-3 breakdown of mill-level emissions (Steps 3-7). Calculated using

average product values of the three regions. ....................................................................... 9

Figure 5: Regional comparison of normalized Cradle-to-Gate (mill level) emissions

(Steps3-7)………………………………………………………………………………...10

Figure 6: Average net carbon footprint (cradle-to-grave) of products per over dry tonne

of wood input. Calculated using average product values of the three regions………….11

1

Objectives Phase 1 of the Bio-Pathways Project was intended to consider the socio-economic and

environmental attributes of the individual bio-pathways. Given the importance of climate

change to society, the marketplace, and governments, the carbon footprints of the

pathways and products are significant considerations to stakeholders.

The objective of this particular analysis is to provide a region-specific assessment of the

carbon footprints of individual bio-pathway products and mill configurations. This will

expand the scope of information, enabling comparisons across pathways and relative to

their socio-economic attributes.

In addition, since the a priori expectation is that the indirect component of the life cycle

carbon impact of some bio-based products could be significant, it is important to include

an assessment of the potential substitution effects of emerging bioproducts (versus

existing products based on different feedstocks and/or processes) in order to fully

quantify the carbon benefits of using woody biomass to produce a range of consumer

goods and products.

This information could be valuable for three audiences:

Public policy decision-makers – Industry programs and climate

policies/regulations are being developed and could benefit from this information,

particularly as it enables carbon price sensitivity analyses. In addition,

governments are interested in knowing what the policy tradeoffs and/or co-

benefits of supporting industry transition might be. Aspects of interest may

include – trade-offs between financial, socio-economic and environmental

outcomes; rational for industry support; analysis for standards and regulations;

analytical framework to support IPCC negotiations; and rigorous analysis to

promote green credentials;

Industry - Company strategies are integrating potential regulatory compliance

requirements, and are working hard to improve their green credentials. This

analysis will enable companies to consider the carbon impacts of adopting these

technologies. This may include optimization of pathway preferences based on

carbon footprint, minimizing carbon-intensive processes and understanding

regional differences; and,

Marketplace – The environmental attributes of products play a role in some

markets. This information will inform potential buyers of Canadian forest

products and enable Canadian companies to market their products appropriately.

2

Scope of Analysis

This work was completed to assess the carbon footprint of various product pathways

identified in the Biopathways analysis. The carbon footprints were completed on a mill

level in each of the three case study regions used in Biopathways: 1) Central Interior, BC;

2) Northwestern, ON; and, 3) Saguenay / Lac St. Jean, QC. The approach used here to

calculate the carbon footprint is similar in approach to the cradle-to-grave of a Life Cycle

Assessment (LCA); however, it is narrower in its scope, since it focuses only on the

carbon component of product life cycles. A simplified example of the life cycle of a

forest product is provided in Figure 1.

Wood Extraction

Transportation

Processing

Product Manufacturing

Packaging & Distribution

Product Use

Disposal Recycling Incineration

Figure 1: A forest product life cycle

This analysis is a complete cradle to grave footprint. Three greenhouse gases were

considered in the scope of this work, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and

nitrous oxide (N2O). To calculate carbon equivalencies, the global warming potentials

utilized are those identified from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in

2006 where CH4 is 25 times and N2O is 298 times more potent greenhouse gases than

carbon dioxide.

3

Methodology

The carbon footprints were prepared using the Forest Industry Carbon Assessment Tool

(FICAT)1 with input data from the Biopathways Model. FICAT was developed by

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Inc. (NCASI) and the International

Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group (IFC) to perform screening-level

assessments of the effects of forest-based manufacturing activities on carbon and

greenhouse gases along the value chain. This model is recognized globally and is well

populated with default values from the IPCC. However, the model also permits the user

to change many of the inputs from default values to specific site accurate data, which

allowed the analysis of emerging technologies and the integration of mill sizes and

locations specific to Biopathways. The analysis went through the ten steps outlined by

FICAT which are described in Table 1.

Carbon footprints were prepared on a normalized mill-level – scaled to 100,000 oven-

dried-tonnes per year (odt/yr) of wood input – to allow for comparisons between

pathways. Steps 1-7 were undertaken by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) using the

FICAT model. Steps 8-10 were undertaken by NCASI, primarily by reviewing existing

research and using existing LCA databases, based on substitute products identified by the

project team. The substitution effects2 for multi-product pathways were separated for

each product stream. Moreover, certain products could substitute for more than one

product. For example, wood products are compared to the use of steel and concrete,

while bioenergy products are compared to a number of fossil fuels, such as coal, heavy

oil and natural gas. Rationales for assumptions have been documented. For example, the

heat and power substitutions tend to be region specific corresponding to the marginal fuel

commonly utilized in the individual case-study areas. For the summary results, the

averages of the multi-product substitution scenarios were used. The individual results are

in Appendix A.

Due to time and budget constraints, it was not possible to conduct this analysis on all 27

pathways considered in Phase 1 of the Biopathways project. In order to narrow the scope

of the carbon footprint analysis, the project team selected 16 pathways that were based on

the outcomes of the financial analysis, specifically the Return on Capital Employed

(ROCE). Only pathways with a ROCE above 11% (considered to be the cost of capital)

were included in the carbon footprint analysis. More pathways will be analysed in the

future.

1 See www.FICATmodel.org for more information.

2 The substitution effect is calculated based on the emissions associated with each component of the following equation:

SE = use of biopathway product + end of life of biopathway product – use of substitute – end of life of substitute – manufacturing of substitute.

http://www.ficatmodel.org/

4

Table 1: A Description of FICAT’s 10 Steps

5

Figure 2 provides an illustration of some of the pathways and products that were analysed. No

inference was made as to the carbon footprint of the excluded pathways.

Figure 2: Products and pathways selected for the carbon footprint analysis

Assumptions

The boundaries drawn around a given product‟s life cycle and the processes considered are major

factors in influencing a carbon footprint calculation. In order to be very clear regarding what

was included in the footprint work, this section will outline the major assumptions of the

analysis. Additional notes on the pathways can be found in Appendix C. Assumptions used for

the substitution analysis are included in Appendix B.

Most of the pathways identified in the Biopathways model produced products and residues,

which are considered “co-products” as defined in the ISO 14044. In the Biopathways model,

these residues have a value attributed to them and what was not used in the process for heat or

power was assumed to be sold. This is represented in the carbon footprint mill level analysis by

showing two products in Step 2. For example, a sawmill will produce 1) Lumber and 2)

Residues. Residues were considered to be a “bioenergy product”. On a product level analysis

these residues, since they are “co-products”, carry a carbon footprint based on a mass fraction for

steps 4 and 7 (wood production and transportation). Any carbon footprint from the

manufacturing step was not attributed to the residues because the data was not provided at that

detailed level of resolution.

6

Below is a list of the ten steps in FICAT, and the major assumptions that were followed:

1. Land Based Carbon a. This step has a result of zero because it is assumed that there is no permanent land use

change associated with harvesting. It is assumed that sustainable forest management

practices are employed and that the volume of biomass on the forested landscape remains

identical before and after harvesting (i.e. the volume harvested is replaced by growth in the

forest landscape). Also, each pathway is normalized to 100,000 odt of wood input (ie.

harvested). So the relative performance of each pathway would be the same.

2. Carbon in products

a. The size of the mills used is based strictly on the odt/yr of production in the Biopathways

model, which is clearly denoted as recovered volumes. Residues are also clearly separated,

and the sum of chips, shavings, dust and bark are summed to arrive at the number used for

total residues.

b. End of life assumptions are based on the NCASI industry-wide report3:

i. Lumber: 5% recycled; 10% burned; 85% landfilled with 40% methane capture;

ii. Paper/pulp: 54% recycled; 9% burned; and 37% landfilled with 40% methane

capture;

c. Product half-life data utilized are the IPCC defaults provided by FICAT4:

i. Solid wood products: 30 years

ii. Pulp & paper products: 2 years

iii. Bioenergy products: 0.01 years.

iv. The values for carbon that is permanently sequestered in products are also generated

using default FICAT values.

3. Manufacturing a. Natural gas or wood waste usage is based on the Biopathways model. Where syngas or

non-condensable gases are burned, the emissions are modified to use the CO2 production

from wood waste and the methane and nitrous oxide equivalent to that of natural gas. This

modification is required because one cannot create a new fuel in this step of the model and

syngas is not an existing fuel within FICAT.

4. Wood Production a. Detailed analysis has been completed by FPInnovations with each region having unique

carbon intensities for the harvesting of wood. Volumes are based on the whole log (bark

included); wood density is 0.4 odt/m3, as per the Biopathways model.

5. Other Raw Material/Fuels a. Nothing was added in this step, but default values from FICAT were automatically

included for upstream non-fibre sources – including fossil fuels - (for those products that

have this component in their make-up).

3 NCASI. 2007. The Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Profile of the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Research Triangle Park, NC:

National Council for Air and Steam Improvement, Inc., 4 This bioenergy half-life default value is used because a non-zero value must be used in the model.

7

6. Electricity & Steam Production a. Grid factors (kg CO2/MWh) have been determined for each region using values from

NRCan‟s GHGenius model. Values for the three provinces used were: British Columbia,

110.105 kg CO2/MWh; Ontario 207.472 kg CO2/MWh; Quebec 48.772 kg CO2/MWh. The

FICAT default for “Canada” (as a whole) is 198.664 kg CO2/MWh. The MWh used were

calculated for each pathway based on information existing in the Biopathways model such

as kW/Mfbm.

7. Transportation a. Detailed analysis has been completed by FPInnovations that incorporates distance, tonnage,

types of equipment used, road types, vehicle efficiency and finally carbon intensity. The

raw wood volumes transported are based on whole tree, with bark as per the Biopathways

model.

b. Only relevant differences in transportation to final market between the bio-product and its

substitute were considered. The information is based on the US Commodity Flow survey5,

and has been incorporated into the substitution effect analysis.

8., 9., and 10. Substitution Effects

a. Differences in product use (Step 8) and end-of-life (Step 9) between the bio-product and its

substitute were aggregated with avoided emissions (Step 10) from the production of the

substitute product. More information is found in Appendix B.

Results & Discussions

It is important to remember that lower carbon footprint numbers indicate better results, with a

negative result being ideal. Results were produced for the three case study areas 1) Central

Interior, BC; 2) Northwestern, ON; and, 3) Saguenay / Lac St. Jean, QC. The pathways were

analysed on a mill level. The results are provided in four components: cradle-to-gate; carbon

storage in use and landfill; substitution effect; and overall net carbon footprint. The cradle-to-

gate emissions are divided into direct and indirect emissions. Additional details of the

substitution effects analysis can be found in Appendix B. Further analysis on the benefits of

substituting these bioproducts for fossil based products is also highlighted later in this section.

Selected graphical results are displayed in this section and detailed results for all regions,

pathways and products analysed can be found in Appendix A.

Mill Level Results

5 U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Commerce. 2004. 2002 Economic Census - Transportation -

Commodity Flow Survey.

8

Mill level results (i.e. incorporating all products produced at the facility and not separated into

product-by-product) are provided in Figure 3 for all of the pathways analysed and for all three

regions. These results are the „net‟ carbon footprint as a sum of FICAT Steps 1 through 7 and

the including substitution effects estimated by NCASI for the respective pathways. Some

pathways involve products for which there is more than one possible substitution. In these cases,

an average of the possible substitutions is used. Analysing the mill level results indicates the

importance of carbon storage in products during their life time and how products are treated at

the end of their useful life. Lumber and other solid wood products sequester carbon which

contributes to their negative carbon footprint. Bioenergy products are not considered to store

any carbon, have a very short half-life, and their end of life emissions are predominantly in the

form of CO2. However, the substitution effect against the use of fossil fuels is significant. The

full fractionation pathway slightly benefits from substitution on its other products. Electricity is

another variable that affects the products‟ carbon footprints. LVL and the panel wood products

had the most carbon intense cradle-to-gate footprint due to greater reliance on fossil fuels

compared to biomass energy.

Figure 3: Mill level (multi-product) net carbon footprint (cradle-to-grave) results for all regions

9

Direct and Indirect Emissions

Analysing the scope of the emissions in the carbon footprint is important for identifying the areas

where a mill would have control over decreasing its carbon emissions. FICAT provides details

on the “scope” of the emissions that are being calculated, which provides an indication of who

has control over the production of the emissions. Scope 1 represents direct emissions that are

under the control of the industrial facility. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions associated

with the purchase of electricity, steam and heat. Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect

upstream and downstream emissions that result from production activities. In this analysis, Steps

2-7 were used. Scope 1 emissions are calculated in Steps 3, 4 and 7 of the FICAT model; Scope

2 emissions in Step 6 of the FICAT model; and Scope 3 emissions are calculated in Step 5.

Steps 8-10 are omitted from this analysis. Figure 4 illustrates the scope breakdown of the cradle-

to-gate emissions. LVL and MDF pathways stand out due to their higher dependence on

electricity relative to other pathways, while particleboard mills stand out as having the largest

scope 1 emissions per 100,000 odt of wood delivered.

Figure 4: Scope 1-3 breakdown of mill-level emissions (Steps 3-7). Calculated using average product values

of the three regions.

Regional Results

Direct Indirect

10

Given that the carbon footprint analysis was undertaken on a normalized basis (100,000 odt

wood input/yr) direct comparison between regions was possible. The mill level analyses that

were completed illustrate that there is some regional variation in the carbon footprints and is

shown in Figure 56. Of the ten steps identified in FICAT, four steps capture regional differences:

Step 4 “Wood Production”, Step 6 “Electricity, Steam and Heat” and Step 7 “Transportation”,

and Step 10 Avoided Emissions within the “Substitution Effect”. Quebec provided the lowest

carbon intensity when it came to wood production and electricity grid, largely due to the large

proportion of hydro power in their electricity grid. British Columbia provided the lowest carbon

intensity for transportation, primarily because of the size of the trees harvested and associated

decreased transportation distances. Ontario‟s electricity grid has a carbon intensity over four

times that of Quebec‟s. Overall, Quebec was the region that is able to produce the most products

with the smallest carbon footprint, though British Columbia was very close on many pathways.

Figure 5: Regional comparison of normalized Cradle-to-Gate (mill-level) emissions (Steps 3-7).

6 The pathways “Pellets Medium” and “Sawmill Large & Pellets Large” were not applied to BC.

11

Product Level Results

This analytical approach allows for the comparison of the carbon footprints of the individual

products that have been produced from the various pathways. Figure 6 illustrates the average net

carbon footprint of the products and the ranges of the results across the relevant pathways.

Carbon footprint range for selected products per ovendry tonne of

wood fibre allocated to the product

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Eth

ano

l

Fu

rfu

ral

Lig

nin

LV

L

MD

F

OS

B

Part

icle

board

Pellets

Pulp

Pyro

lysis

Oil

SP

F

Pellets

Product

t o

f C

O2e /

od

t

Figure 6: The carbon footprint range (cradle-to-grave including substitution effects) for selected products per

oven dry tonne of wood utilized in product manufacturing derived from the set of industrial configurations

simulated in all three Biopathway case study regions. The carbon footprint estimate is sensitive to energy

use, operational configuration, and substituted product assumptions and should be interpreted with caution.

Substitution Effects

In all cases the substitution of biopathways products for other products currently used in existing

markets results in avoided emissions. Table 2 summarizes the per unit results for selected

products.

12

Table 2: Substitution Effects for Various Products (see Appendix B for more details)

Product Substitution Effect

ETHANOL 0.346 kg CO2e/L gasoline

LIGNIN 5.7 kg CO2e/kg Polyacrylonitrile (carbon

fibre)

WOOD BOARDS 2 kg C avoided/kg C wood

LUMBER 2.04 kg CO2e/kg steel

0.1-1.2 kg CO2e/kg concrete

POWER 1,219 kg CO2e/MWh Lignite coal

1,110 kg CO2e/MWh coal mix

962 kg CO2e/MWh HFO

751 kg CO2e/MWh NG

PELLETS NG: -0.89 t CO2e/t pellets

HFO: -1.36 t CO2e/t pellets

Lignite coal: -2.18 t CO2e/t pellets

In order to put these results in a more complete context, the avoided emissions (substitution

effects) from certain pathways have been aggregated to the production level of the pathway or

calculated on an emissions equivalency basis to the number of cars that would need to be taken

off the road in order to achieve comparable reductions.

Producing 140,000 litres of ethanol per year via fermentation would displace 48,440 t

CO2e OR 12,110 cars off the road.

The carbon fibre market is estimated to be roughly 100,000 t annually. If a 10%

market penetration could be achieved in the short term, that would result in displaced

emissions of 57,000 t CO2e OR 14,250 cars off the road.

If a two-level 40,000 square foot commercial building in St-Laurent, QC was made of

wood versus steel, it would result in a carbon savings of 398 t CO2e OR 99 cars off

the road.

Using wood pellets to replace lignite coal in generating electricity, as is currently

being proposed in some jurisdictions (e.g., Ontario), would displace 1,219 kg

CO2e/MWh. So, a medium-sized pellet plant would displace 109,482 t CO2e OR

27,370 cars off the road.

13

Conclusions & Recommendations

All of the pathways have negative net carbon footprints due to carbon storage and/or

substitution effects.

Regional variations in carbon footprints occurred due to: wood production, electricity

production, transportation carbon intensity variations and different substitution effects.

Quebec produced the lowest carbon intensity for wood and electricity production. British

Columbia produced the lowest transportation carbon intensity, due to transporting larger trees

and shorter haulage distances. Ontario suffered the greatest carbon footprint, largely because

of its carbon intensive electricity production.

There is considerable variability in the scope of emissions associated with the various

products and pathways analysed. The type of fuel and the carbon intensity of the electricity

used in the manufacture of the product are significant drivers of direct and indirect emissions,

respectively. Substitution effects, carbon storage and how products are managed at the end

of life are also significant factors in the overall carbon footprint.

Wood and bioenergy substitution from fossil-based products leads to significant carbon

benefits. Solid wood products sequester carbon, which strongly contributes to their negative

carbon footprint. Energy products are not considered to sequester any carbon but do

substitute fossil fuels, creating a negative net footprint.

Not all of the pathways investigated as part of BioPathways were analysed. It would be

worthwhile to expand the analysis to cover the remaining 11 original pathways and nine

subsequent pathways. Doing so would provide a more complete information base.

More analysis is required to fully assess the substitution effect for biochemicals. Insufficient

information was available within the project timeframe to make such assessments.

14

Appendix A – Detailed Results from CFS and NCASI Carbon Footprint Analyses Table 3 Mill Level Results - British Columbia

Biopathway Total wood input

Emissions scope (Steps 3-7)

(t CO2e)

Total cradle-to-

gate emissions

Normalized cradle-to-

gate emissions

7

Carbon stored in use and in

landfills8

Substitution effect

9

Net carbon footprint

# Name odt 1 2 3 t CO2e t CO2e/FU10

t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU t CO2e/odt

1 CHP via gasification 1,063,636 81,439 1,228 6,878 89,545 8,419 -50,442 -34,204 -76,227 -0.762

2 Full fractionation 905,536 63,320 21,052 52,857 137,229 15,154 -11,080 -30,335 -26,263 -0.263

3 LVL large 161,590 11,040 21,470 24,929 57,439 35,546 -48,703 -63,012 -76,169 -0.762

4 NBSK + CHP large11

1,066,667 84,842 0 80,000 164,842 15,454 -7,837 -23,936 -16,319 -0.163

5 OSB large 542,031 27,883 1,156 80,585 109,624 20,225 -93,869 -97,934 -171,579 -1.72

6 MDF 406,800 24,869 59,457 62,258 146,584 36,033 -95,607 -116,048 -175,622 -1.76

7 Particleboard 723,200 237,267 3,523 114,058 354,848 49,066 -98,478 -130,837 -180,250 -1.80

8 Pellets large 601,923 27,367 8,808 0 36,175 6,010 0 -73,474 -67,464 -0.675

9 Pellets medium No biopathway #9 for BC

10 Pyrolysis standalone 98,315 4,356 1,515 0 5,871 5,972 0 -138,305 -132,334 -1.32

11 Sawmill large 1,063,636 99,373 11,928 10,820 122,121 11,481 -50,442 -29,899 -68,859 -0.689

12 Sawmill large + pellets large

No biopathway #12 for BC

13 Sawmill large + pellets small

1,063,636 99,541 13,344 10,820 123,705 11,630 -50,442 -35,932 -74,743 -0.747

14 Sawmill large + pyrolysis 1,063,636 99,374 13,443 10,820 123,637 11,624 -50,442 -43,034 -81,852 -0.819

15 Sawmill medium 409,091 38,953 9,542 4,161 52,656 12,871 -50,442 -30,654 -68,225 -0.682

16 Syngas 1,063,636 88,450 12,000 8,419 108,869 10,236 -50,442 -29,604 -69,881 -0.698

7 Steps 3 to 7.

8 Step 2.

9 Includes: cradle-to-gate emissions for the substituted products and differences in use and end-of-life emissions for the biopathway products and substituted product. Does not include

carbon storage. 10

FU : functional unit (100,000 odt of wood input). 11

Assuming no substitution effect for the pulp.

15

Table 4 Mill Level Results – Ontario



(t CO2e)

Total cradle-to-

gate emissions


gate emissions

12


landfills13

Substitution effect

14



t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU T CO2e/FU t CO2e/odt

1 CHP via gasification 848,864 73,395 2,313 3,549 79,257 9,337 -43,757 -25,500 -59,920 -0.599


3 LVL large 161,590 13,560 40,457 24,929 78,946 48,856 -48,703 -76,322 -76,169 -0.762


1,066,667 121,844 0 80,000 201,844 18,923 -7,837 -17,826 -6,740 -0.064

5 OSB large 542,031 38,076 2,178 80,585 120,839 22,294 -93,869 -27,147 -98,722 -0.987

6 MDF 542,031 32,208 112,035 62,258 206,501 38,098 -71,754 -98,149 -131,806 -1.32

7 Particleboard 723,200 198,177 6,639 114,058 318,874 44,092 -98,478 -125,863 -180,250 -1.80

8 Pellets large 601,923 40,950 17,383 0 58,333 9,691 0 -180,484 -170,793 -1.71

9 Pellets medium 481,539 12,257 5,563 0 17,820 3,701 0 -72,194 -68,493 -0.685

10 Pyrolysis standalone 98,315 5,824 2,856 0 8,680 8,829 0 -138,305 -129,477 -1.29

11 Sawmill large 848,864 91,329 15,592 7,490 114,411 13,478 -43,757 -22,945 -53,244 -0.532


848,864 94,430 34,645 7,490 136,565 16,088 -43,757 -170,862 -198,531 -1.99


848,864 91,497 18,259 7,490 117,246 13,812 -43,757 -41,331 -71,276 -0.712

14 Sawmill large + pyrolysis 848,864 91,330 18,447 7,490 117,267 13,815 -43,757 -39,603 -69,545 -0.695

15 Sawmill medium 471,591 48,932 8,645 4,161 61,738 13,091 -43,757 -47,827 -78,493 -0.785

16 Syngas 848,864 80,405 15,727 5,090 101,222 11,924 -43,757 -22,374 -54,207 -0.542

12

Steps 3 to 7. 13

Step 2. 14

Includes: cradle-to-gate emissions for the substituted products and differences in use and end-of-life emissions for the biopathway products and substituted product. Does not include carbon storage. 15



16

Table 5 Mill Level Results – Quebec



(t CO2e)

Total cradle-to-

gate emissions


gate emissions

17


landfills18

Substitution effect

19



t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU T CO2e/FU t CO2e/odt

1 CHP via gasification 848,864 48,907 544 3,549 53,000 6,244 -43,757 -25,517 -63,030 -0.630


3 LVL large 161,590 11,576 9,511 24,929 46,016 28,477 -48,703 -55,943 -76,169 -0.762


1,066,667 89,100 0 80,000 169,110 15,854 -7,837 -110,962 -102,945 -1.03

5 OSB large 542,031 30,531 512 80,585 111,628 20,594 -93,869 -25,448 -98,722 -0.987

6 MDF 542,031 26,745 26,337 62,258 115,340 21,279 -71,754 -81,330 -131,806 -1.32

7 Particleboard 723,200 132,866 1,561 114,058 248,485 34,359 -98,478 -116,130 -180,250 -1.80

8 Pellets large 601,923 32,485 4,086 0 36,571 6,076 0 -92,849 -86,773 -0.868

9 Pellets medium 481,539 9,880 1,308 0 11,188 2,323 0 -37,139 -34,816 -0.348

10 Pyrolysis standalone 98,315 4,661 671 0 5,332 5,423 0 -138,305 -132,882 -1.32

11 Sawmill large 848,864 79,574 3,665 7,490 90,729 10,688 -43,757 -21,682 -54,751 -0.548


848,864 81,092 8,144 7,490 96,726 11,395 -43,757 -91,755 -124,117 -1.24


848,864 78,667 4,292 7,490 90,449 10,655 -43,757 -31,123 -64,225 -0.642

14 Sawmill large + pyrolysis 848,864 79,575 4,337 7,490 91,402 10,768 -43,757 -38,182 -71,171 -0.712

15 Sawmill medium 471,591 43,258 2,032 4,161 49,451 10,486 -43,757 -45,316 -78,587 -0.786

16 Syngas 848,864 68,651 3,697 5,090 77,438 9,123 -43,757 -21,062 -55,696 -0.557

17

Steps 3 to 7. 18

Step 2. 19

Includes: cradle-to-gate emissions for the substituted products and differences in use and end-of-life emissions for the biopathway products and substituted product. Does not include carbon storage. 20



17

Table 6 Product Level Results – British Columbia

Pathway Total

delivered Wood (odt)

Products Fraction of Functional

Unit

C stored in products and

landfills

FICAT Steps 3-7 Substitution effect by main

product

Substitution effect by mass

fraction

net Carbon footprint (allocation benefit to main

product)

net Carbon footprint (allocation benefit by

mass fraction) Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU t CO2e/FU t CO2e/odt t CO2e/FU t CO2e/odt

CHP via gasification 1063636 SPF 0.64 -50442 4900 107 647 -34204 -50570 -78992 -1.23 -95358 -1.49

Chips 0.36 0 2756 8 0 16365 2764 0.08 19130 0.53

Full Fractionation 905536 Lignin 0.05 -4980 366 100 0 -10860 -4514 -0.86 -15374 -2.93

Furfural 0.17 0 1185 120 0 -2486 1305 0.08 -1181 -0.07

Pulp 0.75 -6100 5257 2066 5837 -30335 -15407 -23275 -0.31 -8346 -0.11

Ethanol 0.03 0 183 40 0 -1584 223 0.09 -1316 -0.52

LVL large 161590 LVL 1.00 -48703 6832 13287 15427 -63012 -63012 -76169 -0.76 -76169 -0.76

NBSK & CHP Large 1066667 Pulp 1.00 -7837 7954 0 7500 -23936 -23936 -16319 -0.16 -16319 -0.16

OSB Large 542031 OSB 1.00 -93869 5144 213 14867 -97934 -97934 -171578 -1.72 -171578 -1.72

MDF 406800 MDF 1.00 -95607 6113 14616 15304 -116048 -116048 -175622 -1.76 -175622 -1.76

Particleboard 723200 Particleboard 1.00 -98478 32808 487 15771 -130837 -130837 -180249 -1.80 -180249 -1.80

Pellets Large 601923 Pellets 1.00 0 4547 1463 0 -73474 -73474 -67464 -0.67 -67464 -0.67

Pellets Medium N/A

Pyrolysis Stand Alone 98315 Pyrolysis Oil 1.00 0 4431 1541 0 -138305 -138305 -132333 -1.32 -132333 -1.32

Sawmill Large 1063636 SPF 0.64 -50442 5979 1043 1017 -29899 -46264 -72301 -1.13 -88666 -1.39

Chips 0.36 0 3363 79 0 16365 3442 0.10 19807 0.55

Sawmill Large & Pellets Large

N/A

Sawmill Large & Pellets Small 1063636 SPF 0.57 -50442 5334 1054 926 -35932 -46444 -79060 -1.39 -89572 -1.57

Pellets 0.07 0 655 113 92 -5853 860 0.12 -4993 -0.71

Chips 0.36 0 3369 88 0 16365 3452 0.10 -19822 0.55

Sawmill Large & Pyrolysis 1063636 SPF 0.57 -50442 5325 1070 1071 -43034 -46615 -86063 -1.51 -89644 -1.57

Pyrolysis Oil 0.07 0 654 105 0 -12784 759 0.11 -12025 -1.72

Chips 0.36 0 3363 88 0 16365 3452 0.10 19817 0.55

Sawmill Medium 409091 SPF 0.64 -50442 6094 1889 1017 -30654 -46958 -72096 -1.13 -88400 -1.38

18

Chips 0.36 0 3428 443 0 16304 3871 0.11 20175 0.56

Syngas for dryer 1063636 SPF 0.53 -50442 4372 1061 792 -29604 -45907 -73822 -1.40 -90188 -1.72

Chips 0.47 0 3944 68 0 16365 4011 0.08 20377 0.43

Notes:

FU = Functional Unit = 100,000 odt of wood delivered to mill

Scope 1 emissions were allocated based on fraction of delivered wood fibre allocated to co-products in the case of multiple products.

Scope 2 emissions were allocated based on fraction of electrical energy used in manufacturing the product in the case of multiple products

Scope 3 emissions were allocated to products using purchased materials with upstream emissions

Net carbon footprint (Net CF) is calculated this way:

Net CF = Cradle-to-gate emissions + carbon stored in use and in landfills + SE

Substitution Notes (NCASI, 2011):

In all scenarios, excess residues are assumed to be disposed off.

Substitution effect (SE) is calculated as follows:

SE = Use wood product + EOL of wood product - Use of substitute - EOL of substitute - Manufacturing of substitute

SE is the most uncertain parameter of the analysis. For this reason, net carbon footprint should be interpreted with caution. However, comparison of the biopathways can be performed only on the basis of

net CF, otherwise they are not functionally equivalent.

SPF substitution effect assumes 0.71 tonnes of CO2e avoided per tonne of wood substituted for steel and 1.4 tonnes of CO2e avoided per tonne of wood substituted for concrete. Calculation based on Miel,

J., Lippke, B., Perez-Garcia, J., Bowyer, J. and Wilson, J. 2004. Module J: Environmental Impact of a Single Family Building Shell - From Harvest to Construction. Phase I Final Report. Draft Review.

CORRIM.

When residues are consumed internally for heat, no additional substitution effect is estimated for not using fossil fuels as it is already considered by not having it in the cradle-to-gate footprint.

When residues are consumed internally for power, substitution effect accounts for the difference between grid power and marginal technology.

End-of-life of product with lignin assumed the same as product with PAN, transportation differences neglected because no information.

Assumes 5.7 tonnes of CO2e avoided per tonne of lignin substituted for PAN, 0.4 tonnes of CO2e avoided per tonne of furfural substituted, and 2.95 tonnes of CO2e avoided per tonne of ethanol substituted

for gasoline as E10 fuel.

For sawmills, residues are composed of chips and residues. Chips are assumed to be 60% of total residues (and not excess residues).

For pulp, no substitution effect is considered i.e.,

Paper Production + Paper Usage + Paper EOL = Production of Substitute + Use of Substitute +EOL of Substitute

Chips are assumed to be used in bleached kraft market pulp, hence additional gate-to-grave foot print is estimated using 2 ton chips/ton pulp, and 0.905 t CO2 eq./ton pulp. The resulting gate-to-grave C

footprint does not include the benefit of biomass generated heat & power, an important distinction from the NBSK simulated biopathways.

19

Table 7 Product Level Results – Ontario

Pathway Total


Products

Fraction of

Functional Unit


landfills


product


fraction


product)





Chips 0.53 0 3718 29 0 17794 3747 0.09 21541 0.50

Full Fractionation 905536 Lignin 0.05 -4980 550 205 0 -10670 33 0.01 -10637 -2.03

Furfural 0.17 0 1779 246 0 -2883 2024 0.12 -420 -0.05

Pulp 0.75 -6100 7889 4239 5837 -26535 -11476 -18928 -0.25 -10167 -0.05

Ethanol 0.03 0 275 82 0 -1508 357 0.14 3891 -0.44

LVL large 161590 LVL 1.00 -48703 8392 25037 15427 -76322 -76322 -76169 -0.76 -76169 -0.76


OSB Large 542031 OSB 1.00 -93869 7025 402 14867 -27147 -27147 -98722 -0.99 -98722 -0.99

MDF 542031 MDF 1.00 -71754 5942 20669 11486 -98149 -98149 -131806 -1.32 -131806 -1.32



Pellets Medium 481539 Pellets 1.00 0 2545 1155 0 -72194 -72194 -68493 -0.68 -68493 -0.68



Chips 0.43 0 4626 197 0 17794 4823 0.11 22617 0.53

Sawmill Large & Pellets Large 848864 SPF 0.34 -43757 3782 1796 882 -170862 -42579 -208159 -6.12 -79876 -2.35

Pellets 0.66 0 7342 2286 0 -128282 9628 0.15 -118654 -1.80


Pellets 0.09 0 970 280 0 -17959 1205 0.14 -16709 -1.86

Chips 0.43 0 4635 194 0 17794 4828 0.11 22622 0.53


Pyrolysis Oil 0.09 0 968 283 0 -16018 1251 0.14 -14767 -1.64

Chips 0.43 0 4626 196 0 17794 4822 0.11 22616 0.53

20


Chips 0.43 0 4462 348 0 576 4810 0.11 5386 0.13


Chips 0.43 0 4073 185 0 17794 4258 0.10 22052 0.51

Notes:















CORRIM.











21

Table 8 Product Level Results – Quebec

Pathway Total


Products

Fraction of

Functional Unit


landfills


product


fraction


product)





Chips 0.43 0 2477 7 0 17794 2484 0.06 20278 0.47

Full Fractionation 905536 Lignin 0.05 -4980 405 205 0 -10845 -4371 -0.83 -15216 -2.90

Furfural 0.17 0 1309 246 0 -2418 1555 0.09 -863 -0.05

Pulp 0.75 -6100 5805 4239 5837 -30065 -15093 -20283 -0.27 -5311 -0.07

Ethanol 0.03 0 202 82 0 -1578 284 0.11 -1294 -0.49

LVL large 161590 LVL 1.00 -48703 7164 5886 15427 -55943 -55943 -76169 -0.76 -76169 -0.76


OSB Large 542031 OSB 1.00 -93869 5633 94 14867 -25478 -25478 -98752 -0.99 -98752 -0.99

MDF 542031 MDF 1.00 -71754 4934 4859 11486 -81331 -81331 -131806 -1.32 -131806 -1.32



Pellets Medium 481539 Pellets 1.00 0 2052 272 0 -37140 -37139.6 -34816 -0.35 -34816 -0.35



Chips 0.43 0 4031 46 0 17795 4077 0.09 21872 0.51

Sawmill Large & Pellets Large 848864 SPF 0.34 -43757 3248 365 882 -91755 -40235 -131017 -3.85 -79497 -2.34

Pellets 0.66 0 6305 595 0 -51520 6900 0.10 -44621 -0.68


Pellets 0.09 0 834 66 106 -7344 1006 0.11 -6329 -0.70

Chips 0.43 0 3985 46 0 17795 4030 0.09 21825 0.51


Pyrolysis Oil 0.09 0 844 66 106 -16018 1016 0.11 -15002 -1.67

22

Chips 0.43 0 4031 46 0 17795 4077 0.09 21872 0.51


Chips 0.43 0 3944 82 0 576 4206 0.09 4602 0.11


Chips 0.43 0 3478 44 0 17795 3521 0.08 21316 0.50

Notes:















CORRIM.











23

Appendix B – Additional Notes on Pathways

Pathway # 1 - CHP via gasification:

• Since energy demand curves do not exist for the sawmills, the electricity

produced by the gasifier was simply deducted from the total mill requirements.

• The economic model indicates that the mills are hooked up to the grid for net

metering.

• Heating demand of the kilns would be on a similar 24hr/day schedule as the

gasifier and operates weekends etc when the sawmill is down, but the gasifier is

operating.

Pathway # 4 - NBSK & CHP Large:

• FICAT does not have a product as specific as NBSK, therefore the market pulp is

represented by Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) pulp.

• It was assumed that there is no substitution effect for pulp.

Pathway # 12 - SPF Large & Pellets Large:

• More wood was required to fulfill the production than was currently met by the

large sawmill. 14,290 odt of additional pulp logs were brought in to meet the

production of lumber, pellets and heat from wood.

Pathway # 13 - SPF Large & Pellets Small:

• Integrated pellet production uses residual wood from SPF production and heat

energy is derived from wood waste.

• SPF large sawmill has lots of residues for which a portion was subtracted for

pellets and another portion subtracted for heat/process requirements for pellet

production.

Pathway # 16 - SPF Large & Syngas Dryer:

• Integrating this size of a gasifier into large sawmills only accounts for roughly

30% of the natural gas requirements of the mill.

• The gasifier operates on a different number of days/shifts per year, which

according to FPI represents the kiln operation as opposed to the mill operation.

• The syngas is represented as a fuel in Step 4 as wood waste with the CH4 and

N20 values representing natural gas (0.001 and 0.0001 respectively).

• The input wood for the gasifier is subtracted from the residue production of the

mill and the resulting quantity of residue is what appears as the “product” in the

FICAT model.

24

Appendix C - NCASI’s Substitution Effects Analyses

ncasi

Substitution Analysis for BioPathways Opportunities Main Assumptions for Carbon Footprint of Substituted Products

Project undertaken for FPAC

NCASI

January 26, 2011

BIOPATHWAY #1: COMBINED HEAT AND POWER VIA GASIFICATION

Products: - SPF - Heat - Power Regions: All

2

Substitution Effect for SPF

• Regions: All • Substituted product:

– Steel and concrete

• Rationale: – Canadian product largely exported to US – Competes with steel and concrete sourced from NA mills

• Estimated substitution effect: – Based on wood-based house versus steel/concrete-based house

(CORRIM) – Steel: -0.712 t CO2 eq./t wood substituted – Concrete: -1.40 t CO2 eq./t wood substituted

• Including cradle-to-gate emissions • Excluding carbon storage

3

Substitution Effect for Heat

• Regions: All

• Substituted product:

– On-site heat

• Rationale:

– Direst internal substitution of boiler fuel

• Estimated substitution effect:

– Reduction of natural gas consumption internally

4

Substitution Effect for Power


– Purchased power (ON & BC: coal and natural gas, depending on the conditions*, QC: heavy fuel oil, natural gas or coal mix*)

• Rationale: – Based on marginal fuel/technology

• Estimated substitution effect: – 1110 kg CO2 eq./MWh electricity from coal mix – 751 kg CO2 eq./MWh electricity from natural gas – 962 kg CO2 eq./MWh electricity from HFO

5

*See notes on marginal technologies at the end

BIOPATHWAY #2: FULL FRACTIONATION

Products: - Lignin - Furfural - Ethanol - Heat - Power Regions: All

6

Substitution Effect for Lignin

• Regions: All


– Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber from petrochemical feedstock

• Rationale:

– FPInnovations analysis


– 5.7 kg CO2 eq./kg PAN displaced

7

Substitution Effect for Furfural

• Regions: All

• Substituted product: – Furfural from corn cobs, Chinese production

• Rationale: – FPInnovations analysis

• Estimated substitution effect: – Data is not readily available and would need more

work to be generated

– Since it is also produced from a biomass feedstock, an assumption could be to assume no substitution effect

8

Substitution Effect for Ethanol

• Regions: All

• Substituted product: – Gasoline produced in Canada

• Rationale: – FPInnovations analysis

• Estimated substitution effect: – 0.346 kg CO2 eq./L gasoline displaced

– Combustion efficiency in vehicle engines and emissions differences also need to be accounted for in the substitution analysis (not included here)

9


• Regions: All

• Substituted product: on-site heat

– BC and ON: Natural gas

– QC: Natural gas or HFO

• Rationale:

– Direct internal substitution of boiler fuel


– Reduction of on-site fuel consumption

10



– Purchased power (BC/ON - coal and natural gas; QC -heavy fuel oil, natural gas or coal mix*)



*See notes on marginal technologies at then end 11

BIOPATHWAY #3: LVL LARGE Regions: All

12

Substitution Effect for LVL


– Steel beams sourced in North America

• Rationale: – Canadian products largely exported to U.S. – Competes with steel beams

• Estimated substitution effect: – Based on wood-based house versus steel-based house

(CORRIM) – -0.712 t CO2 eq./t wood substituted


13

BIOPATHWAY #4: NBSK + H&P LARGE

Products:

- NBSK

- Heat

- Power

Regions: All

14

Substitution Effect for Pulp

• Identification of substitute and its carbon profile: – Very hard to identify a good substitute for pulp and to calculate the

difference in carbon footprint between using the pulp and the identified substitute

• Approach proposed and information required: – Consider that there is no difference between using the pulp and using

the substitute i.e.:

– Acknowledge the uncertainty and the fact that the comparison with the pulp biopathway will be more difficult

Paper Production + Paper Usage + Paper EOL = Production of Substitute + Use of Substitute +EOL of Substitute Therefore: Substitution Effect (SE) = (Paper Production + Paper Usage + Paper EOL) – (Production of Substitute + Use of Substitute +EOL of Substitute) = 0


• Regions: All

• Substituted product: on-site heat

– BC and ON: Natural gas

– QC: Natural gas or HFO

• Rationale:



– Reduction of on-site fuel consumption

16



– Purchased power (ON & BC: coal and natural gas, depending on the conditions*, QC: heavy fuel oil, natural gas or coal mix*)



17

*See notes on marginal technologies at the end

BIOPATHWAY #5: OSB LARGE

Products:

- OSB

Regions: All

18

Substitution Effect for OSB


– OSB does not have a direct substitute but rather has some substitutes when used in building assemblies (wood versus concrete or steel)

• Estimated substitution effect: – The substituted product not being known the average

of steel and concrete is used (based on wood-based house versus steel/concrete-based house, CORRIM)

– -1.05 t CO2 eq./t wood substituted • Including cradle-to-gate emissions • Excluding carbon storage

19

BIOPATHWAY #6: MDF

Products:

- MDF

Regions: All

20

Substitution Effect for MDF


– MDF does not have a direct substitute but rather has some substitutes when used in building assemblies (wood versus concrete or steel)




21

BIOPATHWAY #7: PARTICLEBOARD

Products:

- Particleboard

Regions: All

22

Substitution Effect for Particleboard


– Particleboard does not have a direct substitute but rather has some substitutes when used in building assemblies (wood versus concrete or steel)




23

BIOPATHWAY #8: PELLETS LARGE

Products:

- Power from wood pellets

- Heat from wood pellets

Regions: All

24


• Regions: ON

• Substituted product: – Power from lignite coal

• Rationale: – Specified purpose

• Substitution effect: – -2.18 t CO2 eq./t pellets

– The power substitution effect is based on a more specific fuel switch than more generic power displacement from other pathways

25


• Regions: QC

– Heat: heavy fuel oil or natural gas

• Rationale:

– Based on marginal fuel/technology


– Natural gas: -0.89 t CO2 eq./t pellets

– HFO: -1.36 t CO2 eq./t pellets

26


• Regions: BC


– Heat from natural gas

• Rationale:

– Marginal fuel in BC

• Substitution effect:

– -0.89 t CO2 eq./t pellets

27

BIOPATHWAY #9: PELLETS MEDIUM

Products:

- Power from wood pellets

- Heat from wood pellets

Regions: ON & QC

28


• Regions: ON


– Power from lignite coal

• Rationale:

– Specified purposes


– -2.18 t CO2 eq./t pellets

29


• Regions: QC

• Substituted product: – Heat from HFO

– Heat from natural gas

• Rationale: – Marginal fuel in QC

• Substitution effect: – Natural gas:-0.89 t CO2 eq./t pellets

– HFO: -1.36 t CO2 eq./t pellets

30

BIOPATHWAY #10: PYROLYSIS STANDALONE

Products:

- Heat

Regions: All

31


• Regions: All


– Heat from HFO

• Rationale:



– 111 kg CO2 eq./GJ HFO energy

32

BIOPATHWAY #11: SPF LARGE

Products:

- SPF

Regions: All

33



– Steel, concrete





34

BIOPATHWAY #12: SPF LARGE + PELLET LARGE

Products: - SPF - Heat from wood pellets - Power from wood pellets Regions: ON & QC

35

Substitution Effects for SPF

• Regions: ON & QC • Substituted product:

– SPF: steel and concrete

• Rationale: – Canadian SPF largely exported to US; competes with steel and

concrete sourced from NA mills




36

Substitution Effects for Heat & Power

• Regions: ON & QC • Substituted product:

– QC: heat from natural gas (boiler fuel) – ON: power from lignite coal

• Rational: – Marginal use fuel except in ON where based on

specified purpose

• Substitution effect: – QC: -0.89 t CO2 eq./t pellets – ON: -2.18 t CO2 eq./t pellets

37

BIOPATHWAY #13: SPF LARGE + PELLET SMALL

Products: - SPF - Heat from wood pellets - Power from wood pellets Regions: All

38

Substitution Effects for SPF



• Rationale: – Canadian SPF largely exported to US; competes with steel and

concrete sourced from NA mills




39

Substitution Effects for Heat & Power


– BC: heat from natural gas – QC: heat from natural gas – ON: power from lignite coal

• Rational: – Marginal use fuel except in ON where based on specified

purpose

• Substitution effect: – QC: -1.36 t CO2 eq./t pellets – BC: - 0.89 t CO2 eq./t pellets – ON: -2.18 t CO2 eq./t pellets

40

BIOPATHWAY #14: SPF LARGE + PYROLYSIS

Products:

- SPF

- Heat from pyrolysis fuel

Regions: All

41


• Regions: All



– Heat from pyrolysis: heat from HFO

• Rationale:

– Canadian SPF largely exported to US; competes with steel and concrete sourced from NA mills

– Pyrolysis: direct substitute for boiler applications

42



– SPF:

• Based on a wood-based versus steel/concrete-based house

• Steel: -0.3989 t CO2E/t wood

• Concrete: -0.1993 t CO2E/t wood

– Pyrolysis – Heat:

• 111 kg CO2 eq./GJ HFO energy displaced

43

BIOPATHWAY #15: SPF MEDIUM

Products:

- SPF

Regions: All

44



– Steel, concrete





45

BIOPATHWAY #16: SYNGAS FOR DRYER

Products: - SPF - Heat from syngas Regions: All

46



– Steel or concrete






• Regions: All


– Heat from natural gas (internal substitution)

• Rationale:

– Marginal fuel use


– Reduction of internal fuel combustion

48

DATA SOURCES COMBINED HEAT AND POWER VIA GASIFICATION

49

Substitution Effect for SPF and LVL

• Cradle-to-gate substitution effect: – Miel, J., Lippke, B., Perez-Garcia, J., Bowyer, J. and Wilson, J.

2004. Module J: Environmental Impact of a Single Family Building Shell - From Harvest to Construction. Phase I Final Report. Draft Review. CORRIM.

• End-of-life: – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Municipal Solid

Waste (MSW) in United States - 2008 Facts and Figures. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm (accessed May 19 2010).

– NCASI. 2007. The Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Profile of the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Steam Improvement, Inc.

– Modeled with ecoinvent

50

Substitution Effect for Power Notes on Marginal Technologies

• The exact fuel displaced may vary depending on several factors. However, the primary marginal power technologies are: – ON: Coal mix and then natural gas

– BC: Electricity production in BC will be injected in the Western Interconnection and will replace coal or natural gas

– QC: heavy fuel oil, Ontarian coal or natural gas

• The mix of coal is an approximation of the average intensity across the regions.

51

Substitution Effect for Power Assumptions and Data Sources

• Electricity fuel mixes are from: – Statistics Canada. 2009. Electric Power Generation, Transmission and

Distribution 2007. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

• Emissions by power technologies are from the U.S. LCI database (American data) for which the data gaps were filled using the ecoinvent database

• Transmission losses are based on the ecoinvent database • Marginal technologies:

– http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketSurv/ms_mspReport-20041213.pdf

– Zareipour, H., K. Bhattacharya, and C. A. Cañizares. 2007. Electricity market price volatility: The case of Ontario. Energy Policy 35(9): 4739-4748.

– http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2009/DOC_22471_LTAP_Decision_WEB.pdf (mainly p. 169)

– Amor, M.B., Pineau, P.O., Gaudreault, C., Samson, R. 2010. Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008). Submitted to Energy Policy.

52

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketSurv/ms_mspReport-20041213.pdf



http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2009/DOC_22471_LTAP_Decision_WEB.pdf

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2009/DOC_22471_LTAP_Decision_WEB.pdf

Substitution Effect for HFO Heat Assumptions and Data Sources

• Emissions (based on liters of burned RFO, used as a proxy for HFO) from HFP combustion are from the U.S. LCI database (American data) for which the data gaps were filled using the ecoinvent database

• Heat content: 41.73 GJ HHV/m3

– Canadian GHG Challenge Registry Guide for Entity & Facility-Based Reporting, version 4, 2005.

• Assumed efficiency: 82% – 34.2 GJ produced energy/m3

53

Substitution Effect for Natural Gas Heat

• Emissions (based on m3 of burned NG) from NG combustion are from the U.S. LCI database (American data) for which the data gaps were filled using the ecoinvent database

• Heat content: 0.03809 GJ HHV/m3 – Canadian GHG Challenge Registry Guide for Entity

& Facility-Based Reporting, version 4, 2005.

• Assumed efficiency: 80% – 0.0305 GJ produced energy/m3

54

Substitution Effect for Lignin Assumptions and Data Sources

• Assumed to be: – Polyacrylonitrile fibres (PAN) from acrylonitrile and

methacrylate

• Data source: – ELCD database/PE International – http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/p

rocesses/db00901a-338f-11dd-bd11-0800200c9a66_02.00.000.xml

– Data is representative of production in EU-27 countries and cannot be modified to more specific geographic conditions

55

http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/processes/db00901a-338f-11dd-bd11-0800200c9a66_02.00.000.xml










Substitution Effect for Ethanol Assumptions and Data Sources

• Emissions for gasoline production are from the U.S. LCI database (American data) for which the data gaps were filled using the ecoinvent database

• Electricity consumed at production was changed from US to Canadian to reflect production in Canada

• Electricity fuel mixes are from: – Statistics Canada. 2009. Electric Power Generation, Transmission

and Distribution 2007. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

• Data for corn ethanol production is from the ecoinvent database that has been modified: – Canadian electricity grid consumed at production – North American electricity grid for other background processes

56

Additional Information on Ethanol

• Because of the large demand for bio-based ethanol, corn-based ethanol is not likely to be substituted by wood-based ethanol (unless political decision against corn-based ethanol)

• However, for comparison purposes, it could be interesting to compare wood- and corn-based ethanol production

• Corn-based ethanol: 1.85 kg CO2 eq./kg ethanol produced – Notes: while there are many published LCAs on corn-based

ethanol, this is based on one data source only rather than a synthesis of the existing literature; the result does not include CO2 emissions from land use change

57