Next Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Review on the Prospects of Using Hydrogen–Methane Blends: Challenges and Opportunities
Next Article in Special Issue
How the Use of Biomass for Green Energy and Waste Incineration Practice Will Affect GDP Growth in the Less Developed Countries of the EU (A Case Study with Visegrad and Balkan Countries)
Previous Article in Journal
A Hybrid Channel-Communication-Enabled CNN-LSTM Model for Electricity Load Forecasting
Previous Article in Special Issue
Energy Innovation of Polish Local Governments
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/en15062264
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Timber as a Renewable Resource for Energy Production in Sustainable Forest Management

by
Jan Banaś
1,* and
Katarzyna Utnik-Banaś
2
1
Department of Forest Resources Management, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. 29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków, Poland
2
Department of Management and Economics of Enterprises, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. Mickiewicza 21, 31-120 Kraków, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(6), 2264; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062264
Submission received: 17 February 2022 / Revised: 15 March 2022 / Accepted: 18 March 2022 / Published: 20 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Policy and Economics Analysis of Renewable Energy Sources and Bioenergy)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Using timber from multifunctional forests for energy production can be economically viable and environmentally friendly when it is consistent with the principles of sustainable management; otherwise, it could be harmful from both an ecological and commercial point of view. The objective of this paper was to present the overall balance of timber biomass from felled trees in multifunctional forests and assess what kind and how much of this biomass can be used for energy purposes. The research material consisted of data on forest resources and the volume of timber removal in Polish State Forests in 2016–2020. The biomass of branches and stumps of felled trees was determined using biomass expansion factors (BEFs). The results obtained in this study indicated that industrial timber, energy wood, and biomass left in the forest as a source of deadwood are 67%, 20%, and 13% of the total woody biomass, respectively. The Polish State Forest’s potential for energy wood is estimated at 6.18 million tonnes of biomass annually. Total available energy produced from woody biomass amounted to 104.8 PJ y−1.

1. Introduction

Climate change requires increased efforts to reduce greenhouse gases from energy production. One way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. Consumers increasingly want clean, renewable, and affordable energy from wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass sources [1]. Biomass for bioenergy feedstocks comes from the following sources: forest residues and industrial wood waste, agricultural crop residues, animal manure, energy crops and woody crops, and municipal solid waste [2].
Using biomass of different origins for energy production is often discussed in the literature. Meerbeek et al. [3] explored the biomass potential for bioenergy in the landscape beyond forests and agricultural land: gardens, roadsides, sports fields, conservation areas, etc., and stated that a large amount of biomass that is created by their regular management should not be considered as waste, but as a sustainable bioenergy resource. Wicke et al. [4] quantified the bioenergy potential from intensifying grasslands in Europe. The production potential of straw harvested over agricultural consumption in Poland and its use for energy purposes were evaluated by Gradziuk et al. [5]. Suardi et al. [6,7] pointed out that pruning residues from olive groves represent an important biomass source.
Wood biomass is particularly suitable for energy production due to its high calorific value and relatively low ash content [8]. Optimizations for different environmental indicators suggest that woody biomass is best used for combined heat and power generation if oil-, coal-, or fuel oil-based technologies can be substituted. The benefits of its conversion to synthetic natural gas (SNG) or ethanol are significantly lower [9,10,11]. One way to increase woody biomass sources is through the cascaded use of wood [12,13,14]. Höglmeier et al. [15] pointed out that wood, as a renewable, but limited and increasingly in demand resource, can be used in cascades, thereby increasing the potential efficiency per wood unit. Waste wood can be used as a secondary raw material for energetic utilization. The idea of reuse is embedded in the legal framework, which follows the EU regulation [16]. An essential source of woody biomass is especially established for this purpose in plantations of fast-growing trees, allowing producing a significant amount of biomass. Species such as eucalyptus [17], poplar [18], black locust [19], willow [20], and birch [21] are characterized by a high production of wood per unit area in short cycles and are often used in such plantations.
The primary source of woody biomass is wood from forests, but unlike plantations, the amount of biomass harvested from forests is limited and should be consistent with sustainable forest management. Some of the wood, usually of the lowest quality, is used for energy purposes and is referred to as energy wood. According to Directive 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of renewable energy sources [22], energy wood is defined as raw wood material that, due to its qualitative-dimensional and physical–chemical characteristics, has a reduced technical utility value, preventing its industrial use. A significant source of biomass that can be used for energy purposes is logging residues. The current use of forest residues for commercial and household energy production is small relative to the availability [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. Model simulations show that, with current strategies, timber overproduction will further increase in the Twenty-First Century, increasing the potential amount of biomass available for energy use [32,33,34].
Traditionally, measuring wood in a forest is performed in volume, often indicating its use (veneer log, sawlog, pulpwood). However, increased interest in the role of biomass of the whole tree and its components (roots, stem, branches, foliage) has led to the development of methods to determine woody biomass in the weight dimension. One of such methods is based on the use of coefficients called biomass expansion factors (BEFs), which allow determining the dry biomass of individual tree components (roots, foliage, branches) based on the tree stem volume. BEF values for particular species and tree components are commonly used to report the amount of carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems [35,36].
In tree plantations with a dominant economic function, most biomass components are removed from a forest area at the end of the production cycle [37]. This is related both to maximizing the financial return (commercial use of biomass) and to the management practices used, in which stumps and branches are removed during the preparation of the area for replanting. In multifunctional forests, the use of biomass should balance economic, social, and ecological functions. Part of the biomass of whole trees (retention trees) and their components (roots, stumps, branches) is left in the forest ecosystem as a source of deadwood and improvement of nutrient flows.
The objective of this paper was to present the overall balance of timber biomass from felled trees in multifunctional forests and assess what kind and how much of this biomass can be used for energy purposes. The paper is organized as follows. First, the concept of determining the residues’ biomass using the biomass expansion factor is introduced. Then, the hierarchical system of using woody biomass according to sustainable principles is presented. Finally, the obtained results are discussed with the literature, and some concluding remarks are made.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data

The study material consisted of data about the volume of timber, according to the species and assortments harvested by the Polish State Forests (PSF) in 2016–2020 (Table 1). Data taken for the calculation included 177.3 million m3 of timber harvested in 5 y, of which softwood and hardwood account for 81% and 19%, respectively [38]. General information about forest resources and the indices of sustainable management in PSF in the years 2016–2020 [39] are given in Table 2.

2.2. Calculations

Shares of particular assortments were calculated as the timber volume from the last five years divided by the total volume of industrial timber harvested in State Forests in 2016–2020. Estimates of total tree biomass were obtained by expanding the stem volume to total biomass with conversion factors called biomass expansion factors (BEFs) [40]. Stand-level BEFs allowed converting stem volume directly to the dry weight of biomass components. In this study, we used BEFs for pine, spruce, and birch developed by Lehtonen et al. [41] and for oak developed by Krejza et al. [42]. The biomass of branches and stumps of felled trees were calculated according to the following formula [41]:
W i ,   j = B E F i , j   · V j
where: Wi,j—dry weight (kg) of tree component i (branches, stump) of species j, BEFi,j—basal expansion factor (kg m−3) for tree component i of species j, and Vj—stem volume (m3) of species j.
The volume of industrial timber assortments in m3 was converted to dry biomass in tonnes multiplying the volume of the assortment by the wood density factor of a given species [43]. The amount of energy possible to obtain from individual components of biomass (Es,j) was determined according to the formula:
E s ,   j = W s , j   · γ i , j
where: Ws,j—dry biomass (kg) of assortment s and tree species j and γs,j—timber calorific value (MJ kg−1) of tree species j and assortment s.
The net calorific value of timber in an air-dried state was taken from [44]: 17.2 MJ kg−1 and 16.6 MJ kg−1 for softwood and hardwood, respectively.

3. Results

The amount of residues and stumps of the biomass of felled trees is shown in Table 3. With an average stem volume of harvested trees at the level of 38.61 million m3 (24.52 million tons of dry biomass), the dry biomass of branches and stumps was 3.52 million tonnes and 1.84 million tonnes, respectively.
The balance of woody biomass and hierarchical use of the particular biomass components according to economic and ecological sustainable principles is presented in Figure 1.
The total biomass of trees designated to be harvested consists of three main groups: industrial wood (blue in Figure 1), energy wood (red), and ecology wood (green), which represent: 67%, 20%, and 13%, respectively. We can remove the first and second groups (87%), whereas the third group (13%) should remain in the forest as a source of deadwood. Industrial wood consists of large-sized wood (veneer and saw wood 30%), medium-sized wood for mechanical processing (7%), and pulpwood 30%. According to the cascaded use of wood, these groups of assortments, due to their use in the furniture industry, construction, paper, and other wood products, are not and should not be used for energy purposes. According to the cascaded use of wood, high-quality timber should be first used for sawn wood; after that, it could be re-utilized for wood-based panels, and then, waste panels can be combusted for energy recovery. Recycled wood is not included in the woody biomass balance presented here; this would require a life cycle assessment of the individual wood products and is beyond the scope of the presented work. Low-quality wood constitutes 4% of the total biomass and, depending on demand, can be used as energy wood or for particleboard production. Fuelwood accounts for 7% of biomass and is entirely destined for energy purposes, mainly used as firewood in local households. Residues account for 11% of the total biomass, of which 80% can be used for energy purposes, while 20% should remain in the forest.
The potential of energy availability from woody biomass is presented in Table 4. The total energy of the biomass source consists of low-quality wood, firewood, and residues with shares: 20%, 34%, and 46%, respectively. The Polish State Forests’ potential for energy-wood was estimated at 6.18 million tonnes of dry woody biomass yearly, giving an average of 0.87 tonnes of biomass per 1 ha of forest. Therefore, the total available energy from woody biomass amounted to 104.8 PJ yearly. This figure shows the approximate amount of energy stored in woody biomass. Estimating the amount of energy that can be delivered to the users should consider the energy inputs incurred in producing, harvesting, and transporting the biomass [45,46]. However, presenting an energy balance of woody biomass is beyond the scope of this paper.

4. Discussion

The possibilities of using woody biomass from multifunctional forests for energy purposes were analyzed in this study. The starting point was determining the allowable level of tree felling according to sustainable forest management criteria. The total volume of felled trees in the amount of 38 million m3 yearly represents 70% of the annual volume increment in Polish State Forests [47]. The utilization on a similar level in the last five years increased the standing volume by 88 million m3. Lippke et al. [48] emphasized that forests managed for wood production are considered sustainable if the harvests are planned not to remove more timber than is grown (i.e., the forest inventory is not declining over time). Furthermore, forests managed for sustainable multiple ecosystem values would attempt to include a sustainable balance between ecosystem values, timber outputs, and economic or social values.
The results obtained in this study indicate that industrial timber, energy wood, and biomass left in the forest as a source of deadwood are 67%, 20%, and 13% of the total woody biomass, respectively. Similar results were obtained by Šafařík et al. [49], who analyzed the potential of forest biomass resources for renewable energy production in the Czech Republic, not considering the biomass of stumps. They stated that the share of industrial wood, fuelwood, and logging residues was estimated: at 74%, 14%, and 12%, respectively, and indicated that for energy, 26% of removed biomass is dedicated (fuelwood and logging residues). The results obtained in our study showed that for energy purposes, 23% of removed woody biomass (low-quality wood, firewood, and four-fifths of residues) could be used. According to the principles of forest silviculture [50], 5% of the tree volume in stands scheduled for final cutting should remain in a stand as retention trees. Stumps of felled trees constituted a significant part of total biomass (6%) and also should remain in the forest (partly because of the high energy consumption and destructive influence on the soil when harvested). Leaving some parts (20%) of the residues in the forest is intended to improve the ecological conditions.
Karjalainen et al. [51] analyzed energy wood potential in Europe and estimated yearly harvestable residues to be 63 million m3 and about 9 million m3 of stump wood for energy production. Kärkkäinen et al. [52] studied the relationships between energy timber production, wood removal, and biological diversity in North Karelia (Finland). They stated that a moderate amount of woody chips and firewood could be harvested without negatively impacting timber production’s potential or biological diversity. Dupuis et al. [53] analyzed the bioenergy conversion potential of decaying hardwoods and stated that biomass from decayed trees for bioenergy production should not alter the conversion efficiency and, hence, support their use as feedstock for bioenergy production. However, removing decaying trees is not recommended in multifunctional forests as this kind of biomass (deadwood) plays an essential ecological role in forest ecosystems.
Winder and Bobar [16] pointed out that the principal use of timber from boreal and temperate forests should be evaluated from a holistic perspective, i.e., it needs to include forest carbon flows related to forest management. They stressed that a scenario where timber is used for 100% energy production is economically unlikely and may create a significant carbon change, whereas multiple end-uses are financially feasible and typically achieve far better overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. Smeets and Faaij [34] evaluated the global energy production potential of woody biomass from forestry for 2050. They stated that forests can become a significant source of bioenergy and that the use of this bioenergy can be realized without endangering the supply of industrial wood and firewood without further deforestation. However, regional shortages in the supply of industrial timber and wood fuel can occur in some regions, e.g., the Middle East and South Asia.
The production of woody biomass and its transport requires some energy input. Energy balance in integrated commercial timber production (saw wood and pulpwood) and energy wood (small dimensions wood and logging residues) was calculated by Routa et al. The analyses considered energy inputs during the whole production cycle and harvesting and transport. The results obtained indicated that the primary energy use incurred during the entire production cycle is relatively small (less than 3%) compared to the increased potential of energy forest biomass. Therefore, the energy balance of the production and transport of woody biomass in multifunctional forestry is beyond the scope of the presented work and is not included in this article.

5. Conclusions

This paper aimed to present the overall balance of timber biomass from felled trees in multifunctional forests and assess what kind and how much of this biomass can be used for energy purposes. The total biomass of trees designated to be harvested consists of three main groups: industrial wood, energy wood, and ecology wood, which represent: 67%, 20%, and 13%, respectively. The total energy biomass source consists of low-quality wood, firewood, and residues with shares: 20%, 34%, and 46%, respectively. The Polish State Forests’ potential for energy wood is estimated at 6.18 million tonnes of biomass yearly, giving an average of 0.87 tons of biomass per 1 ha of forest. Total available energy produced from woody biomass amounted to 104.8 PJ y−1. About 13% of the woody biomass designated to felling should be left in the forest to improve ecological conditions in the stands as a source of deadwood. Further research on the effects of woody biomass harvesting costs and transport distances from the forest to the power plant on the economic viability of using different woody biomass components as bioenergy resources is needed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B.; methodology, J.B. and K.U.-B.; software, K.U.-B.; validation, K.U.-B.; investigation, J.B. and K.U.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B. and K.U.-B.; writing—review and editing, J.B. and K.U.-B.; visualization, J.B. and K.U.-B.; supervision, J.B. and K.U.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Richter, D.D.; Jenkins, D.H.; Karakash, J.T.; Knight, J.; McCreery, L.R.; Nemestothy, K.P. Resource policy. Wood energy in America. Science 2009, 323, 1432–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhao, G. Assessment of potential biomass energy production in China towards 2030 and 2050. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2018, 37, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. van Meerbeek, K.; Muys, B.; Hermy, M. Lignocellulosic biomass for bioenergy beyond intensive cropland and forests. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 102, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wicke, B.; Kluts, I.; Lesschen, J.P. Bioenergy Potential and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Intensifying European Temporary Grasslands. Land 2020, 9, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gradziuk, P.; Gradziuk, B.; Trocewicz, A.; Jendrzejewski, B. Potential of Straw for Energy Purposes in Poland—Forecasts Based on Trend and Causal Models. Energies 2020, 13, 5054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Suardi, A.; Latterini, F.; Alfano, V.; Palmieri, N.; Bergonzoli, S.; Karampinis, E.; Kougioumtzis, M.A.; Grammelis, P.; Pari, L. Machine Performance and Hog Fuel Quality Evaluation in Olive Tree Pruning Harvesting Conducted Using a Towed Shredder on Flat and Hilly Fields. Energies 2020, 13, 1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Suardi, A.; Latterini, F.; Alfano, V.; Palmieri, N.; Bergonzoli, S.; Pari, L. Analysis of the Work Productivity and Costs of a Stationary Chipper Applied to the Harvesting of Olive Tree Pruning for Bio-Energy Production. Energies 2020, 13, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. McKendry, P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Steubing, B.; Zah, R.; Ludwig, C. Heat, electricity, or transportation? The optimal use of residual and waste biomass in Europe from an environmental perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bentsen, N.S.; Felby, C. Biomass for energy in the European Union—A review of bioenery resource assessment. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2012, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Bentsen, N.S.; Jack, M.W.; Felby, C.; Thorsen, B.J. Allocation of biomass resources for minimising energy system greenhouse gas emissions. Energy 2014, 69, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Babuka, R.; Sujová, A.; Kupčák, V. Cascade Use of Wood in the Czech Republic. Forests 2020, 11, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sikkema, R.; Junginger, M.; McFarlane, P.; Faaij, A. The GHG contribution of the cascaded use of harvested wood products in comparison with the use of wood for energy—A case study on available forest resources in Canada. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 31, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Haberl, H.; Geissler, S. Cascade utilization of biomass: Strategies for a more efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecol. Eng. 2000, 16, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Höglmeier, K.; Steubing, B.; Weber-Blaschke, G.; Richter, K. LCA-based optimization of wood utilization under special consideration of a cascading use of wood. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 152, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Winder, G.M.; Bobar, A. Responses to stimulate substitution and cascade use of wood within a wood use system: Experience from Bavaria, Germany. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 90, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pari, L.; Bergonzoli, S.; Cetera, P.; Mattei, P.; Alfano, V.; Rezaei, N.; Suardi, A.; Toscano, G.; Scarfone, A. Storage of Fine Woodchips from a Medium Rotation Coppice Eucalyptus Plantation in Central Italy. Energies 2020, 13, 2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stolarski, M.J.; Warmiński, K.; Krzyżaniak, M. Energy Value of Yield and Biomass Quality of Poplar Grown in Two Consecutive 4-Year Harvest Rotations in the North-East of Poland. Energies 2020, 13, 1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Manzone, M.; Bergante, S.; Facciotto, G. Energy and economic sustainability of woodchip production by black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) plantations in Italy. Fuel 2015, 140, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Yang, S.; Volk, T.; Fortier, M.O. Willow Biomass Crops Are a Carbon Negative or Low-Carbon Feedstock Depending on Prior Land Use and Transportation Distances to End Users. Energies 2020, 13, 4251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vande Walle, I.; van Camp, N.; van de Casteele, L.; Verheyen, K.; Lemeur, R. Short-rotation forestry of birch, maple, poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) II. Energy production and CO2 emission reduction potential. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. EU, D. 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources. 2008. Available online: https://www.europeansources.info/record/directive-eu-2018-2001-on-the-promotion-of-the-use-of-energy-from-renewable-sources/ (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  23. Baral, A.; Malins, C. Assessing the Climate Mitigation Potential of Biofuels Derived from Residues and Wastes in the European Context; International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  24. Camia, A.; Giuntoli, J.; Jonsson, R.; Robert, N.; Cazzaniga, N.E.; Jasinevičius, G.; Grassi, G.; Barredo, J.I.; Mubareka, S. The Use of Woody Biomass for Energy Production in the EU; JRC science for policy report JRC122719; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  25. Long, H.; Li, X.; Wang, H.; Jia, J. Biomass resources and their bioenergy potential estimation: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fu, T.; Ke, J.H.; Zhou, S.; Xie, G.H. Estimation of the quantity and availability of forestry residue for bioenergy production in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 104993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Battuvshin, B.; Matsuoka, Y.; Shirasawa, H.; Toyama, K.; Hayashi, U.; Aruga, K. Supply potential and annual availability of timber and forest biomass resources for energy considering inter-prefectural trade in Japan. Land Use Policy 2020, 97, 104780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tan, Z.; Chen, K.; Liu, P. Possibilities and challenges of China’s forestry biomass resource utilization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yamamoto, T.; Aruga, K.; Shirasawa, H. Availability for small-scale woody biomass power generation from the view of forest resources in Tochigi Prefecture, Japan. Int. J. For. Eng. 2019, 30, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gejdoš, M.; Lieskovský, M. Wood Chip Storage in Small Scale Piles as a Tool to Eliminate Selected Risks. Forests 2021, 12, 289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Durocher, C.; Thiffault, E.; Achim, A.; Auty, D.; Barrette, J. Untapped volume of surplus forest growth as feedstock for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 120, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Müller, D.B.; Bader, H.P.; Baccini, P. Long-term Coordination of Timber Production and Consumption Using a Dynamic Material and Energy Flow Analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2004, 8, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yoshioka, T.; Hirata, S.; Matsumura, Y.; Sakanishi, K. Woody biomass resources and conversion in Japan: The current situation and projections to 2010 and 2050. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 29, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Smeets, E.M.W.; Faaij, A.P.C. Bioenergy potentials from forestry in 2050. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81, 353–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Parresol, B.R. Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and critical comparisons. For. Sci. 1999, 573–593. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wertz, B.; Bembenek, M.; Karaszewski, Z.; Ochał, W.; Skorupski, M.; Strzeliński, P.; Węgiel, A.; Mederski, P.S. Impact of Stand Density and Tree Social Status on Aboveground Biomass Allocation of Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris L. Forests 2020, 11, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, W.; Bi, H.; Watt, D.; Li, Y.; Ghaffariyan, M.R.; Ximenes, F. Estimation and Spatial Mapping of Residue Biomass following CTL Harvesting in Pinus radiata Plantations: An Application of Harvester Data Analytics. Forests 2022, 13, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. State Forests. Information on Sales of Selected Groups of Wood in Forest Districts State Forests. Available online: http://drewno.zilp.lasy.gov.pl/drewno/ (accessed on 15 July 2021).
  39. State Forests. The National Forest Inventory; State Forests: Sękocin Stary, Poland, 2021; Available online: https://www.bdl.lasy.gov.pl/portal/Media/Default/Publikacje/WISL2016_2020.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2021).
  40. Petersson, H.; Holm, S.; Ståhl, G.; Alger, D.; Fridman, J.; Lehtonen, A.; Lundström, A.; Mäkipää, R. Individual tree biomass equations or biomass expansion factors for assessment of carbon stock changes in living biomass—A comparative study. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 270, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Lehtonen, A.; Mäkipää, R.; Heikkinen, J.; Sievänen, R.; Liski, J. Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 188, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Krejza, J.; Světlík, J.; Bednář, P. Allometric relationship and biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for above- and below-ground biomass prediction and stem volume estimation for ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) and oak (Quercus robur L.). Trees 2017, 31, 1303–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. The Enginering ToolBox. Densites of Various Species. Available online: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html (accessed on 15 August 2021).
  44. Günther, B.; Gebauer, K.; Barkowski, R.; Rosenthal, M.; Bues, C.T. Calorific value of selected wood species and wood products. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2012, 70, 755–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Latterini, F.; Stefanoni, W.; Suardi, A.; Alfano, V.; Bergonzoli, S.; Palmieri, N.; Pari, L. A GIS Approach to Locate a Small Size Biomass Plant Powered by Olive Pruning and to Estimate Supply Chain Costs. Energies 2020, 13, 3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Routa, J.; Kellomäki, S.; Kilpeläinen, A.; Peltola, H.; Strandman, H. Effects of forest management on the carbon dioxide emissions of wood energy in integrated production of timber and energy biomass. GCB Bioenergy 2011, 3, 483–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Banaś, J.; Utnik-Banaś, K.; Zięba, S.; Janeczko, K. Assessing the Technical Efficiency of Timber Production during the Transition from a Production-Oriented Management Model to a Multifunctional One: A Case from Poland 1990–2019. Forests 2021, 12, 1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lippke, B.; Oneil, E.; Harrison, R.; Skog, K.; Gustavsson, L.; Sathre, R. Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: Knowns and unknowns. Carbon Manag. 2011, 2, 303–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Šafařík, D.; Hlaváčková, P.; Michal, J. Potential of Forest Biomass Resources for Renewable Energy Production in the Czech Republic. Energies 2022, 15, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. State Forests. Principles of Forest Silviculture; State Forests: Warsaw, Poland, 2012. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  51. Karjalainen, T.; Asikainen, A.; Ilavsky, J.; Zamboni, R.; Hotari, K.E.; Röser, D. Estimation of Energy Wood Potential in Europe; Finnish Forest Research Institute: Nurmes, Finland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kärkkäinen, L.; Kurttila, M.; Salminen, O.; Viiri, H. Effects of Energy Wood Harvesting on Timber Production Potential and Biological Diversity in North Karelia, Finland. For. Sci. 2014, 60, 1077–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Dupuis, É.; Thiffault, E.; Barrette, J.; Adjallé, K.; Martineau, C. Bioenergy Conversion Potential of Decaying Hardwoods. Energies 2021, 14, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 02264 g001 550
Figure 1. The balance and hierarchical use of the woody biomass according to economic and ecological principles.
Figure 1. The balance and hierarchical use of the woody biomass according to economic and ecological principles.
Energies 15 02264 g001
Table
Table 1. The timber volume harvested annually in Polish State Forests as an average from the period 2016–2020 (in thousand m3 out of bark).
Table 1. The timber volume harvested annually in Polish State Forests as an average from the period 2016–2020 (in thousand m3 out of bark).
SpeciesWB1W0S2BS2AS2APS4Total
Pine69.2210,754.603026.929405.52830.221110.0025,196.48
Spruce0.001936.82176.602008.94526.44305.004953.80
Oak0.00547.26140.72794.32178.38350.002010.68
Beech40.041018.7840.16928.66161.88450.002639.52
Birch93.70347.24104.681474.60141.68720.002881.90
Alder55.24146.3042.26418.8258.80209.00930.42
Total258.2014,751.003531.3415,030.861897.403144.0038,612.80
WB1—veneer; W0—saw wood; S2B—stacked wood for mechanical processing; S2A—pulpwood; S2AP—low-quality wood; S4—firewood.
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of forest resources in Polish State Forests in the years 2016–2020.
Table 2. Characteristics of forest resources in Polish State Forests in the years 2016–2020.
Per Total AreaPer 1 ha
Total area (ha)7.11 × 106-
Standing volume * (m3)2.07 × 109290
Volume increment (m3)6.56 × 1079.21
Removal (m3)4.96 × 1076.96
Dead wood (m3)6.14 × 1078.63
* gross timber volume under the bark.
Table
Table 3. The biomass of branches and stumps of trees felled annually in Polish State Forests.
Table 3. The biomass of branches and stumps of trees felled annually in Polish State Forests.
SpeciesVolume (m3)Biomass (Tonnes)
BranchesStumps
Pine2.52 × 1072.04 × 1061.19 × 106
Spruce4.95 × 1064.92 × 1052.42 × 105
Oak2.01 × 1062.51 × 1059.65 × 104
Beech2.64 × 1063.30 × 1051.27 × 105
Birch2.88 × 1063.07 × 1051.38 × 105
Alder9.30 × 1059.90 × 1044.47 × 104
Total3.86 × 1073.52 × 1061.84 × 106
Table
Table 4. Energy available yearly from wood biomass in State Forests in Poland.
Table 4. Energy available yearly from wood biomass in State Forests in Poland.
Biomass (Thousand Tonnes)Energy Available (PJ y−1)
Low-Quality WoodFirewoodResiduesLow-Quality WoodFirewoodResiduesTotal
Softwood814.00849.002026.2614.0014.6034.8563.46
Hardwood419.531283.85789.156.9621.3113.1041.38
Total1233.532132.852815.4120.9635.9147.95104.83
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Banaś, J.; Utnik-Banaś, K. Using Timber as a Renewable Resource for Energy Production in Sustainable Forest Management. Energies 2022, 15, 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062264

AMA Style

Banaś J, Utnik-Banaś K. Using Timber as a Renewable Resource for Energy Production in Sustainable Forest Management. Energies. 2022; 15(6):2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Banaś, Jan, and Katarzyna Utnik-Banaś. 2022. "Using Timber as a Renewable Resource for Energy Production in Sustainable Forest Management" Energies 15, no. 6: 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062264

APA Style

Banaś, J., & Utnik-Banaś, K. (2022). Using Timber as a Renewable Resource for Energy Production in Sustainable Forest Management. Energies, 15(6), 2264. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15062264

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop