Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Webinar on Resilient Biomass Supply
Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery
Resilience of the Southeastern USA woody
pellet supply chain
Presented by Keith L. Kline, Senior Scientist
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Tennessee, USA
IEA Bioenergy Webinar, 3 June 2021
The IEA Bioenergy Technology Collaboration Programme (TCP) is organised under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA) but is functionally and legally autonomous.
Views, findings and publications of the IEA Bioenergy TCP do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or its individual member countries.
www.ieabioenergy.com
IEA Bioenergy Webinar 03 June 2021 Resilient Biomass Supply Chains in the Post-COVID Recovery: Southeastern USA woody pellet supply chain case Presenter: Keith L. Kline klinekl@ornl.gov Environmental Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, USA Coauthors: Virginia H. Dale, University of Tennessee; Erin Rose, Three-Cubed Research, Knoxville, Tennessee; and Esther Parish, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the US Department of Energy Dedicated to our grandchildren and future generations. Acknowledgements: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), IEA Bioenergy, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle for DOE under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Government, any sponsor, or agency. For more information on recent research, see https://cbes.ornl.gov/
Context: Private forests in the Southeast are a “timber
basket” for the world and source for SE US wood pellets
Private
Family
Corporate
Other private
Public
Federal
State
Local
Hewes et al. (2014)
Clearing for development and other uses represents the largest threat to SE forests
Clearing for development and other uses represents the largest threat to SE forests
Context: biomass stranded without markets (“unloved wood”) • Eventually burns or decays • Reduces incentives to keep private lands forested (see references)
SE US industrial wood pellet production and trade has
been growing
Converted power plant,
Drax, UK (www.bbc.com)
Source: E. Parish, A.
Herzberger, C. Phifer, and
V. Dale (2018) Ecology &
Society
7
Stakeholders associated with different parts of wood-based pellet
production in the SE US
Feedstock Feedstock Conversion Biofuel End
production logistics to pellets logistics uses
Stakeholders concerned with parts of supply chain:
Landowners Chippers, Pellet Member
truckers, Trains & nations
Loggers mills,
logistic and shipping that use
Sawmills workers,
certification neighbors, companies bioenergy
Pulp mills firms to displace
coal
Stakeholders with cumulative perspective:
Environmental and social NGOs
Government policy makers
Investors and stakeholders in local development
Other analyses consider potential effects of wood pellet industry in the SE US US Forest Service long-term data and other studies* examine effects and changes over time in many variables: • Forest area, composition, age class, values • Carbon stocks • Standing dead biomass • Managing for biodiversity • Effects on SDGs • GHG emissions What about supply chain resilience? See attached references e.g., Cowie et al (2021) Dispelling misconceptions… (GCB- Bioenergy); Dale et al (2017) Status and prospects for renewable wood pellets from the SE US (GCB Bioenergy); Parish et al (2020) Framework for assessing land- management effects on at-risk species: Example of SE USA wood pellet production (WIRES Energy & Environ); Parish et al. (2017) Reference scenarios for evaluating wood pellet production in the SE US (WIRES Energy & Environ); Kline & Dale (2020) Protecting Biodiversity through Forest Mgmt. DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2020.26.556194
Supply chain: wood pellets are shipped from the
Southeast US (SE US) to Europe and Asia to displace
coal for generation of heat and power.
Economic and employment data are reviewed to identify effects of COVID-19 and
better understand how the supply chain performed during the pandemic.
Figure from: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E, Tonn B. 2021. Effects of Production of Woody Pellets in the Southeastern United States on the
Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 13(2), 821; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020821 Also see, Blair et al. 2021 at ieabioenergy.comNational impacts of the pandemic: US monthly change
in employment over 20 million jobs lost in April 2020.
10000
5000
0
-5000
US national emergency
-10000
declared March 13,
-15000
2020
US unemployment rate rose from 3.5%
-20000
in Feb to nearly 15% two months later
-25000
(April, 2020)
Monthly change non-farm employment (thousands of full-time equivalent employees on payroll) for 1/2018 to 11/2020
(Bureau of Labor Statistics accessible at https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CES0000000001)Pandemic effects on the SE US pellet supply chain Covid-19 affected skilled workers across all sectors, transportation, and individual industries along the supply chain (red arrows) immediately following a declaration of emergency in March 2021. However, impacts on the SE US pellet supply chain were limited. Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
Trend data for the wood pellet supply chain
(A) Quantity (tons) of densified biomass exported from the (B) Quantity (tons) of densified biomass produced in the
US SE US
700,000 700,000
650,000 650,000
600,000 600,000
550,000 550,000
500,000 500,000
450,000
US national emergency
450,000
declared March 13, 2020
400,000 400,000
350,000 350,000
(C) Average Price (USD per ton) of densified biomass (D) Number of FTE employed in the production of
$190 densified biomass in the SE US
$185 1,600
$180 1,550
$175 1,500
$170 1,450
1,400
$165
1,350
$160
1,300
$155
1,250
$150
1,200
$145 1,150
$140 1,100
Source: Kline et al. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to COVID pandemic. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change (in review).Trend data for the wood pellet supply chain
Average monthly operational data pre-
and post-pandemic (source: US EIA January March 2020 % change
Densified Biomass Fuel Report 2021) 2018 - Feb – Nov 2020
2020
Pellet industry employees in SE US 1,357 1,407 4%
SE US Pellet production (metric tons) 606,181 643,422 6%
Average USD price pellet exports $167.05 $165.64 -1%
Average US pellet export volume (tons) 536,147 576,771 8%
Source: Kline et al. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to COVID pandemic. Frontiers in
Forests and Global Change (in review).Factors increasing resilience of the SE US wood
pellet supply chain during the pandemic
Harvest/ Transportation
Conversion to Transportation Bioenergy
Collection Pellets
Industrial Facility Wood Residues
Lumber & other wood products
Disruptions to pellet industry jobs and exports were limited thanks to several mitigating factors
(green arrows) including federal and state programs such as those that facilitated the provision
of personal protective equipment, the Paycheck Protection Program, and the classification of
workers in this sector as essential.
Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the Covid-
19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.Factors increasing resilience of the SE US wood
pellet supply chain during the pandemic
Harvest/ Transportation Conversion Transportation Bioenergy
Collection to Pellets
Industrial Facility Wood Residues
Lumber & other wood products
Disruptions to pellet industry jobs and exports were also limited by:
• automated/mechanized approaches for field operations and logistics
• open-air work environments
• an established culture of safety
• long-term contracts
• vertical integration & partnerships Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the
southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the
Covid-19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.IEA Bioenergy case studies identify positive contributions
supporting SDGs
o SDG-7 Affordable & Clean Energy
o SDG-8 Decent Work & Economic Growth
o SDG-9 Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure
o SDG-12 Responsible Production & Consumption
o SDG-15 Life on Land (especially with properly-managed forestry supply chains)
o And others, e.g., SDG-2 Zero Hunger and SDG-6 Clean Water & Sanitation (especially with agricultural,
energy crops and residues)
o Risks and precautions are identified to mitigate potential negative effects.
o Sustainability requirements for bioenergy influence wider forestry and agricultural biomass management
practices, increase investments in conservation, and provide incentives for ‘natural climate solutions’ (see
references including Griscom et al PNAS 2017) .
US FWS
Distrust persists despite evidence of support for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) when done right
Bioenergy supply chains around the globe showed remarkable variability in
terms of resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic. Can lessons be drawn by
examining and comparing distinct cases?
For more information, please see IEABioenergy.com (publications) Blair et al. 2021; Kline et al. 2021; and References listed at end of presentation.Discussion and preliminary recommendations
To increase resilience to future disturbances…
• Establish trade schools for specialized labour
• Increase local capacities for services in logistics and transportation
• Engage and build trust with stakeholders
• Transparent and timely communication of pellet industry plans,
activities, and effects in communities
• Ensure timely policy responses from government
Source: Kline KL, Dale VH, Rose E. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response
to the Covid-19 pandemic. In review, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.
18 www.ieabioenergy.comThank you! (-:
For more information:
Keith L. Kline, ORNL: klinekl@ornl.gov
Virginia H. Dale, vdale@utk.edu
Erin Rose, erose@threecubed.org
Esther Parish, parishes@ornl.gov
Mark Brown, Lead for IEA Bioenergy Task 43 Biomass:
mbrown2@usc.edu.au
https://task43.ieabioenergy.com/
www.ieabioenergy.com
And see the references listed on the final slidesReferences supporting materials used in this presentation • Blair et al. 2021 Contribution of Biomass Supply Chains for Bioenergy to Sustainable Development Goals. Land 10(2):181 • Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: national, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011-2013. Res. Bull. NRS-99. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 39 p. • Dale VH, KL Kline, ES Parish, AL Cowie, TC Smith, NS Bentsen, G Berndes, et al. (2017). Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12445. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full • Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 396: 143-149. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 Griscom et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11645 • Dale VH et al. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171. http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215 • Duden AS, PA Verweij, HM Junginger, RC Abt, JD Henderson, VH Dale, KL Kline, D Karssenberg, JA Verstegen, APC Faaij, F van der Hilst. 2017. Modelling the impacts of wood pellet demand on forest dynamics in southeastern United States. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1803/full • Hewes J, Butler B, Liknes GC, Nelson MD, Snyder SA (2014) Map of distribution of six forest ownership types in the conterminous United States. Res. Map NRS-6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. [Scale 1: 10,000,000, 1: 34,000,000.] https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/46386 • Hudson B. 2021. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/to-keep-forests-intact-we-must-use-them/ [finds “demand for wood leads to increased forest area and productivity. Wood-based bioenergy supports markets that help protect our forests from conversion to other uses”] • Kline et al. 2021. Effects of Woody Pellets in the Southeastern United States on the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 13(2):821 • Kline et al. Resilience lessons from the southeast US wood-pellet biomass supply chain response to the Covid-19 pandemic (in review with Frontiers in Forests and Global Change) • Kline and Dale 2020. Protecting Biodiversity through Forest Management: Lessons Learned and Strategies for Success. DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2020.26.556194 • Kline and Simon, 2020. What really works to conserve biodiversity & tropical forests? EurActiv.com • Parish E, Baskaran L, Dale V. (2020) Framework for assessing land-management effects on at-risk species: Example of SE USA wood pellet production and gopher tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus). WIREs Energy and Environment 10(1):e385. • Kline, Parish, Dale. 2018. The importance of reference conditions in assessing effects of bioenergy wood pellets produced in the SE US https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1474471 • Kline et al. 2017. Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy 9(3):557-576. • Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P. 2009. In Defense of Biofuels, Done Right. Issues in Science and Technology 25(3): 75-84. http://www.issues.org/25.3/kline.html • Parish ES, Dale VH, Kline KL, Abt R (2017) Reference scenarios for evaluating wood pellet production in the Southeastern United States. WIRES Energy and Environment. • Wear DN, Coulston JW (2015) From sink to source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518; doi:10.1038/srep16518 • Weir D, Greis J. (2013) The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report Gen. Tech. Pre. SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Research and Development, Southern Research Station, 553 pg
Additional references – related reading • 2016 Billion-Ton Report. Volume 2: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy. Volume 2. Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios: https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/downloads/2016-billion-ton-report-volume-2-environmental-sustainability-effects & https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/2016-billion-ton-report • Cowie A, Berndes G, Smith T (2013) On the timing of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of forest based bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy ExCo: 2013:04. Available at: www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/on-the- timing-of-greenhouse-gas-mitigationbenefits-of-forest-based-bioenergy . • Dale B et al. 2014. Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13):7200-7203 • Dale VH, Kline KL, Parish ES, Eichler SE. 2019. Engaging stakeholders to assess landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-019-00848-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980- 019-00848-1 • Dale B et al. 2014. Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13):7200-7203 • Dale VH, Kline KL, Parish ES, Eichler SE. 2019. Engaging stakeholders to assess landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-019-00848-1. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980- 019-00848-1 • Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest Ecology and Management 396: 143-149. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V • Dale VH et al. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171. http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215 • Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13(6): 297-299. • Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, and M Davitt (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1562; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1562/epdf • Dale, VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014 • Davis MB (editor) (1996) Eastern old growth forests: prospects for discovery and recovery. Island Press, Washington, DC. 383 p. • Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13(6): 297-299. • Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, and M Davitt (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1562; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1562/epdf • Dale, VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014 • Dale VH, Kline KL et al. (2010) Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and Biodiversity. Ecological Society of America special report: http://www.esa.org/biofuelsreports • Dale VH, KL Kline et al. (2013) Communicating about bioenergy sustainability. Environ. Mgmt. 51(2)Dale VH, KL Kline, LL Wright, RD Perlack, M Downing, RL Graham. 2011. Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics and land use. Ecological Applications 21(4):1039-1054. • Dornburg et al. 2010. Bioenergy revisited: Key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ. Sci., 2010,3, 258-267..
Additional references – related reading (continued) • Efroymson, R. A., V. H. Dale, K. L. Kline, A. C. McBride, J. M. Bielicki, R. L. Smith, E. S. Parish, P. E. Schweizer, D. M. Shaw. 2012. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9907-5 http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/Publications/Efroymsonetal2012biofuelindicatorcontextEMfinal10%201007_s00267-012-9907-5.pdf • Ellefson PV, Moulton RJ, Kilgore MA (2002) An assessment of state agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry 100 (6), 35-41. • Hodges DG, Larson EC, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Willcox AS, Gordon JS (2016) Wood bioenergy and private forests: perceptions of owners in the eastern United States. In: Forest Economics and Policy in a Changing Environment: How Market, Policy, and Climate Transformations Affect Forests—Proceedings of the 2016 Meeting of the International Society of Forest Resource Economics. Frey, Gregory E.; Nepal, Prakash, eds. 2016. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-218. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. • Hodges DG, Chapagain B, Watcharaanantapong P, Poudyal NC, Kline KL, Dale VH. 2019. Opportunities and attitudes of private forest landowners in supplying woody biomass for renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 113:10925 (Oct 2019) doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.012 • Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA, McBride A (2016) A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the potential role of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy (59) 31 (Dec 2016) 516–527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.009 • Giglio L., J. T. Randerson, G. R. van derWerf, P. S. Kasibhatla, G. J. Collatz, D. C. Morton, and R. S. DeFries. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences, 7, 1171–1186, 2010. • Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, et al. Natural climate solutions [published correction appears in Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2776]. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(44):11645-11650 • Hanssen S, Duden, Jungninger, Dale, van der Hilst. Wood pellets, what else? Greenhouse gas parity times of European electricity from wood pellets produced in the south-eastern United States using different softwood feedstocks. GCB Bioenergy 9(9) DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12426 • Hoekman K, Scott D and Kline KL. 2019. Summary of the NBB Sustainability and Land Use Change Workshop held September 26-27, 2018, in St. Louis, MO. Available at Center for BioEnergy Sustainability 2019 publications website http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/ • IRENA (Jeff Skeer) (2016) Boosting Biofuels: Sustainable paths to greater energy security. www.irena.org • Jonker GG, van der Hilst, Markewitz, Faaij, Junginger. 2018. Carbon balance and economic performance of pine plantations for bioenergy production in the Southeastern United States. Biomass and Bioenergy 117, 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.06.017 • Junginger M, Fritsche U, Mai-Moulin T, Thrän D, Thiffault E, Kline KL, Dale VH. 2019. Measuring, governing and gaining support for sustainable bioenergy supply chains: IEA Bioenergy Sustainability Inter-Task (web site: http://itp-sustainable.ieabioenergy.com/ • Kline KL, Dale VH (2008) Biofuels, causes of land-use change, and the role of fire in greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 321, 199. • Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4488-4491 • Kline KL et al. (2017) Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full • Kline, KL and MD Coleman, (2010) Woody energy crops in the southeastern United States: Two centuries of practitioner experience, Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(12). • Kline, K. L., V. H. Dale, and A. Grainger. (2010) Challenges for Bioenergy Emission Accounting. Science e-letter (2 March 2010) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/326/5952/527#13024 • McBride A, VH Dale, L Baskaran, M Downing, L Eaton, RA Efroymson, C Garten, KL Kline, H Jager, P Mulholland, E Parish, P Schweizer, and J Storey. 2011. Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.
Additional references – related reading (continued) • Miner RA, Abt RC, Bowyer JL et al. (2014) Forest carbon accounting considerations in US bioenergy policy. Journal of Forestry, 112, 591–606. • Oladosu D, KL Kline, P Leiby, R Martinez, M Davis, M Downing, L Eaton. 2012. Global economic effects of the US biofuel policy and the potential contribution from advanced biofuels. Biofuels 3(6):703-723. http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdfplus/10.4155/bfs.12.6 • Oladosu, G., and Msangi, S. (2013). Biofuel-food market interactions: a review of modeling approaches and findings. Agriculture, 3(1), 53-71. • Oswalt SN, Smith WD (2014) US forest resources facts and historical trends. USDA Forest Service FS-1035. https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf • Parish ES, M Hilliard, LM Baskaran, VH Dale, NA Griffiths, PJ Mulholland, A Sorokine, NA Thomas, ME Downing, R Middleton. 2012. Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a watershed. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 6(1):58-72. • Parish ES, Kline KL, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, et al., (2013) Comparing Scales of Environmental Effects from Gasoline and Ethanol Production. Environmental Management 51(2):307- 338 • Rainforest Alliance (2008) Impact of FSC Certification on Deforestation and the Incidence of Wildfires in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. http://www.rainforest- alliance.org/forestry/documents/peten_study.pdf • Roser M (2015) Our World in Data. www.OurWorldinData.org • Souza GM, Victoria RL, Joly CA and Verdade M, editors 2015. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Bioenergy & Sustainability: bridging the gaps. SCOPE 72. Paris, France and Sao Paulo, Brazil. ISBN: 978-2-9545557-0-6. http://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/index.php • Strassburg BBN, Latwiec AE, et al., 2014. When enough should be enough. Improving the use of current agricultural lands could spare natural habitats in Brazil. Glob.Env.Change 28 84-97. • Sumner DA (2009) Recent commodity price movements in historical perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5) 1250-1256 • Stewart, P., 2015. Wood Supply Market Trends in the US South: 1995–2015. Forest2Market, Inc., Report prepared for the National alliance of Forest Owners. 109 pages. • Thurow R, Kilman S (2009) Enough: Why the World’s Poor Starve in an Age of Plenty. BBS Public Affairs, New York. • UNEP (2016) Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. Working Group on Land and Soils, International Resource Panel (IRP UNEP). Herrick, JE, O Arnalds, B Bestelmeyer, S Bringezu, G Han, MV Johnson et al. , ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9 • USDA Economic Research Service (2015) Definitions of Food Security: Ranges of Food Security and Food Insecurity. U.S. Department of Agriculture • USDOE 2011. U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. ORNL. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf • Varner JM, Gordon DR, Putz E, Hiers JK (2005) Restoring fire to long-unburned Pinus palustris ecosystems: Novel fire effects and consequences for long-unburned ecosystems. Restoration Ecology, 13, 536-544. • Wear, D.N., Greis, J.G., 2013. The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report - Gen.Tech.Pre.SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Research and Development, Southern Research Station. 553 p. • Wear, D.N., Huggett, R., Ruhong, R., et al., 2013. Forecasts of forest conditions in regions of the United States under future scenarios: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2012 Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-170. Asheville, NC: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 101 p. (accessed February 19, 2017). • Woodall et al. 2015. Monitoring Network Confirms Land-Use Change is a Substantial Component of the Forest Carbon Sink in eastern United States
Thanks again
Acknowledgements: Support for the research and presentation provided by the US
Department of Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) with special thanks to Alicia
Lindauer and Jim Spaeth (BETO), ORNL colleagues Esther Parish, Rebecca Efroymson, Erin
Webb, and Matt Langholtz, IEA Bioenergy collaborators around the globe, and Virginia Dale,
University of TN Knoxville.
Copyright statement: This material is based upon work supported by the US Department of Energy under the Bioenergy
Technologies Office (BETO) and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725.
The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.You can also read
