Wood-Based Bioenergy in North America: An Overview of Current Knowledge

Abstract

Policy priorities for wood-based bioenergy in North America have undergone fluctuations over time, influenced significantly by the dynamic interplay of sociopolitical factors. Recent years, however, have seen a renewed public interest in wood-based bioenergy in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. This resurgence is driven by fluctuating energy prices and growing concerns about climate change. This review provides an overview of current energy production and consumption scenarios, and highlights critical issues related to the sustainability of bioenergy feedstocks and their economic potential across the three North American countries. Different cross-cutting issues related to public health, climate change, and social acceptance of wood-based bioenergy are thoroughly examined. Within this context, several challenges have been identified, including uncertainties in climate projections, inadequate tree inventories beyond forestlands, deforestation concerns, technological shifts in wood processing, fluctuations in bioenergy demand, and the imperative need for access to reliable markets. Addressing these challenges requires increased research and investment in wood-based energy to enhance energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve economic and social viability in bioenergy production. This proactive approach is vital for fostering a sustainable and resilient wood-based bioenergy sector in North America.

1. Introduction

Interest in wood-based bioenergy has waxed and waned over time in North America. Since the arrival of European settlers not long after Columbus’s initial landings in La Española, wood has been extensively used as a biofuel for heating homes and powering mineral smelting. European settlers, familiar with wood shortages in Europe due to new ore-smelting technologies and continuous deforestation, initially benefited from the abundance of forests in North America [1]. By the 1700s, two-thirds of the wood resource was utilized for energy in various forms [2]. Despite the continued abundance, rising hauling costs led to a shift towards converting wood into charcoal, given its resistance to decay, higher burning temperature, and ease of transport [2]. However, the surge in petroleum prices during the late 1970s and early 2000 reignited interest in wood energy as a substitute for fossil fuels.

In the US, interest in wood energy is on the rise, driven by the expanding wood pellet industries. Similarly, fluctuating energy prices have spurred interest in bioenergy in Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, each North American country faces unique circumstances influencing policies and priorities related to wood-based bioenergy. Despite the environmental and economic significance of wood-based bioenergy, there is a dearth of literature addressing its status and future on a broader scale. Only a handful of reviews, such as those focusing on sub-Saharan Africa [3], the US [4], and China [5], are currently available.

Notably, a comprehensive review specific to North America is lacking, despite the significant forest sector trade relations among the US, Mexico, and Canada. These countries have updated their trade agreement with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), replacing the old North American Free Trade Agreement [6]. In 2016, the USMCA member states traded over USD 440 million in the forestry and logging sector output [7], yielding a total value-added of USD 242 million and creating numerous full- and part-time job opportunities. Given the crucial role of the forestry and logging sector in ensuring a stable wood-based bioenergy supply, understanding the similarities and differences in forest-based energy policies becomes imperative. To address this knowledge gap, we synthesize long-term trends in energy production and consumption, with a specific focus on the feedstock sustainability, economic potential, and social acceptability of wood-based bioenergy in North America. Additionally, we explore cross-cutting issues, such as public health impacts, climate change mitigation, and social acceptance of wood-based bioenergy in North America. Furthermore, we highlight key challenges, uncertainties, and opportunities in bioenergy production and marketing, particularly in relation to environmental protection and energy security. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis that informs both scientific discourse and policy development in the field of bioenergy.

2. What Is Wood-Based Bioenergy?

Wood-based bioenergy is a renewable energy source derived from diverse woody biomass feedstocks, encompassing short rotation woody crops (SWRC), residues from timber harvest or mill processing, waste wood, yard debris, and non-merchantable stems [8]. This energy is employed as fuel, substituting for heating, electricity generation, and transportation fuels, among other applications. The fuels typically exist in three different forms: solid (wood, pellets, charcoal, biochar, biocoke, and black liquor solids), liquid (ethanol, biodiesel, butanol), and gaseous (biogas, syngas, hydrogen) fuel.

Woody feedstocks are found in different production systems, including natural forests, private forests, urban trees, and trees in agroforestry systems [9]. SWRCs, characterized by significant growth potential, include important species like poplar (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum) [8,10]. Other trees utilized for energy production encompass Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Slash pine (Pinus ellioti), and oak (Quercus spp.). It is estimated that woody resources, including SRWCs, could meet nearly 55% of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 16 billion gallons per year target for cellulosic biofuel [11].

3. Market and Trend in Production and Consumption

Over the past four decades (1980–2021), the world has witnessed a two-fold increase in annual energy production and consumption (Figure 1). Total annual energy production rose from 291.30 to 606.82 quadrillion Btu, accompanied by a corresponding rise in consumption from 292.94 to 603.32 quadrillion Btu (United States Energy Information Administration [12]). The average annual increment rates for energy production and consumption were 1.782 ± 0.299% per year (mean ± se; standard error of the mean) and 1.795 ± 0.295% per year, respectively.

Within North America, the trajectory of energy production and consumption exhibits divergence. Notably, in the US, the total energy production increased from 67.147 to 98.337 quadrillion Btu, with an average annual increment rate of 0.979 ± 0.468% per year. Likewise, total annual energy consumption increased from 78.021 to 87.906 Btu, with an average annual increment rate of 0.590 ± 0.408% per year.

In Canada, total annual energy production increased from 10.156 to 23.406 quadrillion Btu, with an average annual increment rate of 2.099 ± 0.456% per year. Similarly, total annual energy consumption increased from 9.587 to 14.171 quadrillion Btu, with an average annual increment rate of 0.989 ± 0.389% per year.

In Mexico, total annual energy production witnessed a marginal increase from 5.714 to 5.867 quadrillion Btu, with an annual increment rate of 0.206 ± 0.846% per year. Mexico observed an increase in total energy production up to 10 quadrillion Btu, but energy production decreased during the period from 2004 to 2019, largely due to a reduction in crude oil production. Nevertheless, during this period, the total annual energy consumption doubled from 3.501 to 7.049 quadrillion Btu, with an average annual increment rate of 1.589 ± 0.587% per year. In summary, the ratio of energy production to consumption suggests that both Canada (1.65) and the US (1.12) have improved energy sources and supplies over the past four decades, whereas the data suggest short-run energy volatility in Mexico (0.83).

In North America, natural gas and petroleum significantly contributed to energy production and consumption compared to other sources such as coal, renewables, and nuclear energy (Figure 2). Over the last four decades, there has been a general upward trend in the contribution of renewables to both energy production and consumption. Despite a 10% decrease in renewable energy production in Canada, an 8% increase was noted in Mexico, and a 4.5% rise occurred in the US (Figure 2). Correspondingly, energy consumption from renewables increased by 5% in the US and Mexico, while experiencing a 0.5% decline in Canada.

Biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind energy are considered renewable sources of energy. Among renewable energy sources in the US, biomass energy production and consumption are higher, with a gradually increasing trend in production (1.549 to 4.850 quadrillion Btu) and consumption (1.549 to 5.013 quadrillion Btu) apparent (Figure 3). Over 70 years, biomass energy production saw an increment of 213%, with an average annual increment of 1.775 ± 0.610% per year, while biomass energy consumption had an increment of 224%, with an increment of 1.726 ± 0.604% per year. Two sharp increments in biomass energy production and consumption were observed after 1975 and 2003, respectively, possibly attributed to various energy policies and regulations, such as the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, enacted to increase domestic energy supplies and availability, restrain energy demand, and prepare for energy emergencies.

In the US, wood energy production changed from 1549.262 to 2207.283 trillion Btu, with an increase of 42.47% over the last 70 years. Similarly, wood energy consumption changed from 1549.262 to 2087.481 trillion Btu, with an increase of 34.7% over 70 years. The annual increment rate of wood energy production is 0.626 ± 0.614% per year, while its consumption rate is 0.550 ± 0.617% per year. However, in recent years, there has been a notable surge in wind and solar energy production and consumption.

4. Country-Specific Accounting on Feedstock Sustainability and Economics

Enhancing the comprehension of the sustainability of wood-based bioenergy production and demand necessitates a more comprehensive understanding of its ecological, economic, social, and cultural dimensions (Figure 4). The assessment of the environmental costs and impacts of bioenergy production, particularly in terms of greenhouse gas savings, is a commonly employed practice to measure and attain sustainability. Equally vital are considerations of social acceptability, encompassing landowners’ willing and active participation in bioenergy initiatives. Sustainability of bioenergy market and associated value chains demands evaluation of recreational and spiritual use of wood, appreciation of labor, assurance of livelihood security, maintenance of work safety standards, and facilitation of access to energy [14].

4.1. United States of America

The recent energy accounting analysis indicates that the US has been a net exporter of biomass energy, surpassing its imports in the last two decades. In 2001, the US exported 0.218 trillion Btu while importing only 0.0001526 quadrillion Btu. In 2021, the export and import figures rose to 246.57 trillion Btu and 0.083314 quadrillion Btu, respectively [12]. Consequently, the export-to-import ratio for biomass energy increased from 1.43 in 2001 to 2.96 in 2021, signifying a growing trend in bioenergy exports and highlighting its positive net flow and economic potential.

Currently, there are 159 operational biomass power plants in the US, collectively capable of producing up to 5584 MW of energy [15]. Approximately 51% of these power plants utilize woody biomass as their primary feedstock. The woody biomass sources include forest residue, logging residue, mill residue, chips, and wood waste. The remaining power plants rely on agricultural residue and other wastes [15]. The agricultural crops commonly used in bioenergy production include corn (Zea mays L.), soybean (Glycine max L.), and herbaceous grasses, such as switch grass (Panicum virgatum L.), big blue stem (Andropogon gerardii Vitman), and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutus L. Nash).

Although agricultural crops serve as the predominant feedstock for US bioenergy production [16], woody biomass stands out as a preferred choice for several compelling reasons. Firstly, woody biomass feedstock has lower moisture content and ash and nitrogen values, along with higher energy values per ton compared to biomass derived from agricultural residues [17]. Secondly, the composition of lignocellulosic residues, including cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, is more favorable in woody biomass. This results in a more efficient conversion of biomass to energy when compared to agricultural or herbaceous crops, rendering woody biomass highly desirable as feedstock [8,18,19]. Thirdly, the ability to harvest multiple times from a single planting, coupled with the residue available from timber harvest and mill processing, contributes to the cost efficiency of procuring woody biomass compared to conventional crops [8,18].

A steady and growing supply of woody biomass is essential for the long-term sustainability of bioenergy production. According to the US Department of Energy (USDOE), annual energy feedstock supply will be between 35 and 129 million dry tons of woody biomass by 2030, including pulpwood, urban wood residue, mill residue, and forest residue [20]. Collection of wood residue from timber harvest, SWRCs, and non-merchantable timber (small sized) provides an important contribution to woody biomass supply; however, without using merchantable timber (medium size), not all regions in the US can support bioenergy plants [21]. As a result, SWRCs such as willow (Salix spp.), hybrid sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) are considered bioenergy feedstock [22,23]. Harvest residue is the second most potential source for bioenergy feedstock. Indeed, to compete with agricultural crop residue for bioenergy production, the supply chain for woody biomass feedstock should minimize the cost of collection, transportation, storage, and distribution [24].

Given the wood-based bioenergy feedstock costs, it is imperative to understand improved supply chain efficiency. To this end, Abrahamson et al. [25] discussed constraints and opportunities for ecological and environmental sustainability in willow bioenergy production in the US and highlighted the need for sound environmental policies. Dwivedi and Khanna [26] evaluated 186 different scenarios to determine GHG savings of wood-based ethanol and electricity production in the US. The scenarios included 31 different rotation ages, two forest management (intensive vs. non-intensive), and three feedstock supply opportunities (i.e., logging residues only, pulpwood only, and logging residues and pulpwood combined). They reported intensive forest management that combines logging residues with pulpwood, as a feedstock, would save the highest amount of GHG emissions on a per unit of land basis. Because combined use showed higher benefits, policies and technologies must prioritize land and energy efficiency by using a mix of logging residues and pulpwood as bioenergy feedstocks.

In the southeastern US, Dale et al. [27] employed 35 different environmental and socioeconomic indicators to assess the sustainability of bioenergy production using eucalyptus (Eucalyptus grandis) as a potential feedstock. Results indicated the potential to produce 27 to 41.3 million dry Mg year⁻¹ feedstock on 1.75 million hectares, with a farm gate value of USD 66 dry Mg⁻¹. The authors conducted a sustainability evaluation across five stages of the biofuel supply chain: feedstock production, feedstock logistics, conversion to biofuel, biofuel logistics, and biofuel end uses. Notably, there was no available feedstock to biofuel conversion process for eucalyptus, a limitation also acknowledged in other studies (e.g., Ref. [4]). Sustainability for eucalyptus was influenced by climate, management practices, land use considerations, and end-use applications. The study highlighted specific issues such as invasiveness, water usage, water quality impacts, and social acceptability as crucial factors warranting further investigation.

One of the major factors affecting wood-based bioenergy is feedstock conversion technology for wood-based ethanol, which is still under development [4]. Therefore, the cost of wood-based bioenergy production is relatively high, affecting sustainable energy production and social acceptability. Depending on woody biomass’s price, yield, and sugar content, the average maximum and minimum production costs for each megajoule of ethanol production in the US are ¢5.9 and ¢2.9, respectively. Similarly, the average maximum and minimum production costs for a megajoule of electricity in the US were ¢3.34 and ¢2.4, respectively [4]. Thus, advanced silvicultural management, treatments of tree plantations, and improved biotechnologies are necessary to improve forest productivity for bioenergy industries.

4.2. Canada

Several efforts have been made to understand the economic viability of wood-based bioenergy in Canada. For example, Kumar et al. [28] cited three reasons that can help promote wood-based bioenergy in Western Canada. First, the region needs energy due to industrial development, and an alternative form of energy is timely. Second, the region has several coal-based power plants either operating or under construction, and wood-based bioenergy can help offset additional greenhouse gas emissions. Third, Western Canada has abundant forest resources that can be used as a cost-effective source of feedstock for wood-based bioenergy. Despite these opportunities, sensitivity analysis suggests that power from wood-based biomass is not cost-effective unless governmental subsidies are provided and carbon trade values are considered [28].

A few studies attempted to quantify woody biomass available for bioenergy production in Canada. Alam [29] estimated available volumes of woody biomass for potential bioenergy production in Northwestern Ontario. The study suggests that the huge amount of woody biomass available as forest harvest residue (2.2 million green tonnes) and underutilized woody residues (7.6 million green tonnes) could potentially be used as feedstock for sustainable wood-based bioenergy production.

Mukhopadhyay et al. [30] conducted input–output modeling to reveal the macroeconomic impacts of ethanol and biodiesel policy in the Canadian economy. Several scenarios suggesting variations in ethanol and biodiesel mixes and their impact on the economy were estimated utilizing a modified version of the Leontief input–output model. Results indicated that the introduction of these industries would have the greatest impact on the agriculture sector. The authors revealed the need for government assistance to promote advanced biofuels in Canada.

Indeed, Canada has great potential for bioenergy production, particularly from agriculture, forestry, and grassland practices. The transition zone between the agricultural and forestry practices is reported to serve as a suitable hotspot for any bioenergy industry that accepts heterogeneous feedstock sources [31]. Realizing this need, Calvert and Mabee [32] conducted a mapping analysis in which the potential conflict between land uses to produce bioenergy and solar energy was assessed. The authors used GIS and the land-suitability model and identified that approximately 440,000 hectares, or 30% of total agricultural land in eastern Ontario, can be accessible for mutual uses without conflict.

Homagain et al. [33] reviewed the prospects of the biochar industry, focusing on how it can potentially impact greenhouse gas emissions and alter soil characteristics in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. The review suggested the need for comprehensive life cycle and economic impact assessments to ensure the sustainability of biochar operations. Additional efforts were made to determine the life cycle cost and economics of biochar-based energy production in Northwestern Ontario using four different scenarios of feedstock availability [34]. The profitability of biochar-based energy production was reported to be contingent upon the cost of carbon as well as the hauling distance. The desirable hauling distance and carbon price were less than 200 km and CDN 60 per tonne, respectively. Similarly, Zhang et al. [35] studied the costs of producing electricity from three competing sources: coal, natural gas, and wood pellets. Two Ontario-based existing coal plants were used as a reference in the life cycle analysis. Results suggested that while biomass utilization in existing coal-generating stations might be feasible, further studies on social acceptability and techno-economic analysis were needed. Ruhul Kabir and Kumar [36] conducted a similar study in Alberta and concluded that densification within biomass coal co-firing pathways can generate energy and have positive environmental benefits.

Wood-based bioenergy could potentially replace coal and generate several environmental and economic benefits. In an economic impact analysis, the effect of a potential coal ban in Ontario was studied [37]. Substituting coal with alternative fuel sources, such as woody biomass, has demonstrated positive effects on economic indicators, including household expenditure and employment. While the adoption of new energy production techniques may lead to short-term economic impacts and present certain societal challenges, the establishment of a woody biomass-based industry is poised to diversify the economic base in the region. Certain reforestation projects have also evaluated the potential to sequester carbon and substitute fossils [38]. In the last few years, the riparian hybrid poplar has received much interest for use as potential bioenergy feedstock. For example, Yemshanov et al. [39] highlighted the economic feasibility of growing hybrid poplar for bioenergy supply in Canada through a series of sensitivity analyses conducted in various geographic regions across the country.

Seasonality impacts feedstock supply in Canada. While average available volumes of feedstock were sufficient to introduce new forest biomass-based mills in the province of British Columbia, weather conditions largely affected the feedstock accessibility [40]. Indeed, the substantial difference in estimating the available volumes and associated delivery costs from difficulties in accessibility due to weather could be a limiting factor in introducing new mills.

Small-scale bioenergy projects appear to be cost effective in the eastern Canadian regions of Ontario and the Maritimes. In contrast, poplar plantations in the prairie provinces appear to be attractive for large-scale projects. Labrecque and Teodorescu [41] experiments to identify the best clones of willow (Salix spp.) and poplar (Populus spp.) revealed sensitivity of some clones of both species to leaf rust (Melampsora spp.), a fungal disease. In particular, landowners were advised against the use of clone SVQ (Salix viminalis) in potential wood-based bioenergy projects. Fortier et al. [42] analyzed the impact of site factors on biomass and volume yield of poplar in southern Quebec. Site fertility, particularly the nitrogen supply, had the highest impact on the overall aboveground productivity of hybrid poplar clones. The study also focused on timber product differentiation, and it was recommended that hybrid clones with the highest number of branches and leaves would be the best candidates for bioenergy or wood chip production.

In a techno-economic analysis, Agbor et al. [43] evaluated 60 different scenarios involving different variants of woody biomass co-firing with coal and natural gas, which covered all the upstream and downstream processes and the associated capital and operating costs. While standalone biomass facilities were found to be expensive, a coal-fired facility blended with forest residue would be the most cost-effective option, among others. Similarly, several case studies were conducted to better understand the price of the GHG offsets that can potentially lead to achieving GHG emission neutrality [39]. This later study estimated the transportation costs of woody biomass for co-regeneration facilities throughout Canada and included both coal and natural gas co-firing in their sensitivity analysis. Results revealed the highest impact of biomass cut to haul cost and fossil fuel’s prices on GHG pricing.

A feasibility study on the use of wood rather than other energy sources as a source of energy in remote aboriginal communities facing higher heating costs suggests the use of wood to reduce heating costs and subsidization that electrical utilities are receiving from the government [44]. Indeed, social acceptability is paramount for sustainable energy policies, energy independence, and innovation [45].

4.3. Mexico

In Mexico, the sustainable production of wood-based bioenergy and the advancement of a sustainable bioeconomy are reported to hinge on social acceptability [46,47]. Projections indicate that wood-based bioenergy could potentially replace 17% of total energy consumption by 2035 [48,49]. In 2004, woody biomass contributed nearly 67% to the bioenergy potential [48], but its contribution potential could vary due to higher estimates for forest plantation [49] and decreased natural forest area [50]. A study conducted in Jalapa, Tabasco, Mexico [51] explored the technical feasibilities of producing bioenergy from the residues of oil palm trees. The study estimated that oil palm residues could yield biomass and energy potential of approximately 33, 416 t y⁻¹ and 564 TJy⁻¹, respectively. Among the identified feasible technologies, pelletization of residues for thermal application and anaerobic digestion for processing oil palm residues showed promise. Using Aspen PlusTM software, the IMP’s (Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo) in-house software tool IMPBio2Energy^®, and the TESARREC™ CHP module, Martinez-Hernandez et al. [52] modeled and assessed the environmental sustainability of a forest-based bioenergy system. The forest bioenergy system was projected to achieve a global warming potential savings of 6 kt CO₂ eq and fossil resource savings of 74 TJ every year. Forest residue amounting to 12.47 kt yr⁻¹ could produce nearly 1 MWe electricity at a production cost of USD 0.023 per kWh. Indeed, forest-based supply chains, particularly through combined heat and power systems, have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to sustainable development goals related to affordable and clean energy.

Forest offers a major opportunity to harness wood-based bioenergy in Mexico; however, none of the 66 bioenergy plants used woody biomass as of 2013 [53]. According to an estimate, biomass has the potential to meet 28% of the principal energy demand by exploiting forest biomass and agricultural residue in Mexico [54]. Modeling of residual biomass for energy generation is primarily focused on agricultural crops [55,56] rather than woody biomass residue [57,58]. Because of the logistical challenges, variation in production, and storage of agricultural residues all year round, woody biomass provides an opportunity for continuous fuel supply. Among woody biomass residues, the pelletization of unused sawmill residue is found to be logistically cost effective [58]. Because of the low production cost, sawdust pellets have a potential market opportunity to compete with chips. Biomass pellets, as a clean, low-cost, and renewable resource, could potentially reduce 73% of LPG demand for residential and commercial heating, and utilization of woody residue may provide a solution to several of the nation’s forestry problems [49,58].

In another accounting, García et al. [49] estimated that 5.6% of Mexico’s land area would support energy plantation that also includes nettlespurges (Jatropha curcas), oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), and gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.). Tree species such as pine (Pinus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), and fir (Abies spp.) are available for wood energy production. Flores Hernández et al. [50] suggested that approximately 20.05 PJ of energy was available from forest woody biomass from north and central Mexico in 2013. Furthermore, a numerical modeling result forecasted that the technically available woody biomass energy amounts to 46.28 PJ under a business-as-usual condition and 60.22 PJ under a constant forest land expansion scenario for 2023 [53]. Sustainability constraints, including soil degradation, slope, and mechanization level, prohibit adding harvesting of forest residues.

Despite its abundant oil resources, Mexico finds itself relying heavily on imports, particularly of natural gas and gasoline, predominantly from the United States [59]. This reliance introduces a level of uncertainty to Mexico’s already existing oil dependency. Nevertheless, the country has a well-developed infrastructure comprising roadways, seaports, and industrial centers. Labor costs are also relatively low. warm and sunny climate allows year-round crop development and cultivation of fast-growing woody species [60]. As Ruiz et al. [60] suggested, Mexico stands poised to emerge as one of the most significant players in the realm of bio-economies. Energy production using residual biomass may serve as one of the best socio-environmental alternatives in the rural sector, surpassing the traditional practices associated with cooking [57].

However, the country lacks a consolidated inventory of all types of existing feedstocks [61]. Reports suggest that Mexico can produce between 2.3 and 3.7 EJ/year from biomass resources (approximately 29% to 45% of the total energy consumed in 2016; [61]). Nevertheless, figures are imprecise and sensitive to the methods the authors used for estimations. Islas et al. [48] estimated 71 PJ/year from sawmill residues and harvesting residues, 997–1791 PJ/year from natural forest, and 450–1246 PJ/year from plantations. García et al. [49] calculated an energy potential of 64 PJ/year from wood pellets burned for heat and 108 PJ/year from traditional wood fuel for efficient cook stoves. Rios and Kaltschmitt [57] showed that about 638 PJ/year can be obtained from forest and shrub residues and 26 PJ/year from mill residues. Indeed, these estimates need to be confirmed with more studies.

While it is commonly accepted that bioenergy can bring jobs in rural areas, boost their local economies, and help reduce the risk of wildfires, in Mexico, little is known about the social acceptability or the landowners’ interest in extracting the raw material. Carrasco-Diaz et al. [62] observed the willingness of 53% and 18% of landowners in extracting forest residues if they receive at least USD 12/ton and USD 6/ton, respectively. In addition, landowners were more likely to extract their forest residues if the environmental impact was low and more jobs were created. The probability decreases if the removal intensity increases. This result suggests that there is moderate interest among landowners to participate in this type of project as long as the market compensates them for the effort.

5. Cross-Cutting Issues Related to Public Health, Climate Change, and Social Acceptance

5.1. Public Health Issues

Public health concerns related to the use of wood-based bioenergy primarily arise from exposure to biomass smoke, leading to various respiratory diseases [63]. Approximately 3 billion people worldwide rely on biomass for cooking and heating, a practice more common in developing countries. Hernández-Garduño [64] suggested that exposure to wood smoke for over 50 years was associated with increased odds of lung cancer. Public health concerns related to woody biomass use for indoor heating have also been reported in Canada and the western US [65]. However, recent advancements such as forced-draft cookstoves and fabric filters are being employed to reduce household air pollution and capture particulate matter emissions [66]. These newer technologies have significantly reduced emissions and address public health concerns more effectively [67].

In the US, efforts have been made to evaluate the potential health benefits of using wood for power generation. To this end, Huang and Bagdon [68] found that using wood for electricity production resulted in lower pollutant emissions compared to a coal-based power generation scenario in Arizona. Additionally, a “thinning and bioenergy” scenario resulted in lower emissions than a “thin but pile burn with coal” scenario. In Mississippi, a life cycle analysis indicated that utilizing woody biomass for electricity generation led to reduced respiratory health effects compared to coal-produced electricity. Among wood-based alternatives, using mill residues was found to be more effective in lowering respiratory health effects than using forest residues. However, when compared to natural gas, woody biomass-based options resulted in higher respiratory effects [69]. In Canada, despite significant progress in pellet production, the contribution of woody biomass to electricity production remains minimal [70], and research on this issue has not received substantial attention.

5.2. Climate Change and Wood-Based Bioenergy

Wood-based bioenergy eliminates negative impacts associated with burning fossil fuels on human health, climate, and ecology, largely through energy substitutions and clean energy systems. A recent study conducted in Fort McPherson, Canada [71] demonstrated substantial greenhouse gas savings, reaching up to 32,166 t of CO₂ eq over 100 years when wood-based bioenergy replaced diesel fuels. Similarly, in Mexico, García et al. [49] projected that bioenergy could potentially mitigate 17% of the baseline greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, with wood pellets alone replacing 50% of the baseline emissions. Significant greenhouse gas savings and climate change mitigation targets are attained through reducing end-of-life greenhouse emissions from wood products [72]. Further, the implementation of a carbon tax could enhance the competitiveness of bioenergy against other energy sectors. For example, Masum et al. [1] reported that in Georgia, US, a carbon tax of USD 40 t CO₂ e⁻¹ could make bioenergy more competitive than coal energy for achieving greenhouse gas savings in the electricity sector, although further studies are needed.

Climate change is likely to increase temperature extremes, frequency, intensity and amount of rainfall, and occurrence of extreme events. How trees respond to such change may vary depending on sites, forest type, structure, management, and disturbance regimes. Forest–atmospheric interactions are largely complex and non-linear. On the one hand, trees may benefit from atmospheric CO₂ fertilization, leading to positive effects on carbon sequestration and evaporative cooling, especially in C3 plants in warm dry conditions [73]. Indeed, recent climate changes and associated extreme events are expected to impact biomass accumulation, wood quality, and the wood-based bioenergy supply chain in North America and globally [71]. On the other hand, climate-induced events such as forest fires, expansion and outbreaks of insects/pests, and land-use changes may disproportionately affect forest structure and composition, biodiversity, watershed processes, climate, and human values, property, health, and well-being [74,75,76]. Importantly, climate change has the potential to alter wood quality, quantity, harvesting needs, and the hauling and transportation of biomass [71]. Conducting studies that explore these impacts across time and space is crucial for better forest management in the face of climate change and extremes.

5.3. Social Acceptance

The acceptance of wood-based bioenergy within a society exhibits variations between the public and local groups, primarily driven by factors such as local job opportunities and energy independence. For instance, in a study on the social acceptability of establishing forest-based biorefineries in Maine, US, McGuire et al. [45] employed a five-factor judgment framework (technical and personal knowledge, spatial, temporal, and social context, risk and uncertainty, aesthetics, and institutional and personal trust). The research encompassed statewide residents and Mill Town residents, revealing that while both groups favored wood-based bioenergy facilities replacing idle pulp mills, Mill Town respondents were less concerned about potential negative impacts from biorefineries compared to the average statewide residents. Despite this, both groups perceived the impact of biorefineries as positive.

In the US Northern Great Plains region, Hand and Tyndall [77] evaluated the perception of farmers and ranchers regarding renewable energy production, finding that 61% of respondents expressed interest in woody biomass production. Various studies indicate that respondents’ interest in growing and harvesting trees for biomass is influenced by demographic, cultural, economic, and political factors. Factors such as age, sex, education, risk decision-making ability, perceived benefits from forests, and policy support focusing on woody biomass production and use were identified as influencing landowner willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy [77,78,79]. Constraints identified include woodland access, market accessibility, longer growing time, and higher production risk of forest crops compared to agricultural crops [77,80]. Thus, sustainable bioenergy crop production, requiring a continuous supply of bioenergy feedstock, must address these challenges. Another economically viable option is wood-based bioenergy production through afforestation and reforestation. However, social acceptance toward plantation in marginal agricultural areas appears low among farmers, with only 21% of landowners in Michigan expressing willingness to do so [81].

6. Discussion

Both wood and wood residues derived from manufacturing and processing industries serve as valuable sources for energy and materials, contributing to power generation. In rural communities, woody biomass holds significant potential for enhancing energy resilience and driving economic growth [82]. The feedstock sustainability, economic benefits, and social acceptability, however, appear to be site- and context-specific [83]. The utilization of wood-based bioenergy could affect forests, forest owners, local communities, industries, policy makers, and investors in multiple ways due to differences in feedstock sources, conversion pathways, scales of wood energy development, products, and end uses [84].

Effective forest management plays a crucial role in optimizing wood production for wood-based bioenergy. The removal of logging residues not only supplies feedstock for bioenergy production but also contributes to reducing GHG emissions through forest renewability. Across the US, substantial logging residues can be recovered from harvest sites for electricity production [85]. For instance, Gan and Smith [86] estimated that nearly 67.5 terawatt-hours of electricity could be generated from 36 million dry tons of recoverable logging residues, displacing 17.6 million tons of carbon generated from coal-fired power plants in the southern US. However, the willingness to utilize additional logging residues often depends on factors such as the quantity of residues previously used and advancements in equipment for electricity generation [85]. On the whole, wood-based bioenergy shows potential for mitigating and adapting to climate effects, improving energy independence, enhancing energy security, bolstering community resilience, fostering improved socioeconomic conditions, and promoting rural development [87]. Nonetheless, the production of wood-based bioenergy faces challenges, broadly categorized into the following areas:

• The uncertainty inherent in future climate conditions, extreme events, forest management practices, and disturbances can introduce challenges in the projections of forest growth models. For example, Petter et al. [88] conducted a comparison of four forest landscape models applied to temperate forests in Europe, revealing significant variations in forest dynamics attributed to differences in model structures (50%) and future disturbance scenarios (25%–40%), including events such as avalanches. It is imperative for future studies to concentrate on multi-model comparisons, encompassing various climate scenarios that incorporate extreme events and disturbances, in order to gain a more precise understanding of uncertainties across diverse simulations [88,89]. Adopting approaches like data fusion, which integrates inventory data and tree ring information, as well as employing model validation and uncertainty modeling, can enhance the accuracy of projections for complex ecological processes such as tree growth under future climate conditions [90].
• Deforestation and land fragmentation, primarily driven by land use change, passive forest management, urbanization, and population growth, pose significant threats to standing forest stock, wood biomass, and the carbon repositories within forests. Land use and land cover changes are expected to elevate GHG emissions. Yet multifold studies indicate uncertainties in the rates of deforestation and GHG emissions, underscoring the complexity of these processes (e.g., Ref. [91]). Additionally, the harvesting and transportation of wood, especially from remote areas experiencing deforestation, present significant challenges to the commercial utilization of forest biomass [92]. Notably, deforestation tends to be overlooked in estimates of the technical potential of wood biomass.
• Technological advancements in wood processing may alter the efficiency of converting wood into various products and, consequently, impact overall bioenergy production. The dynamic nature of global energy policies and the fluctuating prices of wood and residue wood pellets further contribute to changes in bioenergy supply chains, wood consumption patterns, and bioenergy production. These shifts have the potential to influence both greenhouse gas savings and energy security [93].
• The demand for wood in the realms of bioenergy, chemicals, and materials is susceptible to change, influenced by policies, investments, and priorities concerning sustainable bioeconomy, in addition to stochastic factors such as climate change [94]. Consequently, regular assessments of the demand for bio-based products become essential in shaping the circular economy, underscoring the need for increased research efforts in this domain [94]. Studies should also be directed towards gaining insights into post-harvest natural regeneration and assessing the impacts of genetically modified fast-growing trees [95].
• Evaluating the biomass supply chain involves the considerable challenge of pinpointing regions with a surplus of woody biomass and establishing the necessary infrastructure (transportation, logistics, and operations) to facilitate new investments and developments [96,97,98]. Proposing that such a zone could function as a local energy hub, we contend that designating it as a potential bioeconomy development opportunity zone would be particularly advantageous for distressed communities. This approach would empower economically challenged communities to harness biomass assets, fostering the creation of well-compensated jobs in the energy sector. Additionally, these communities could reap the benefits of federal, state, and local tax incentives specifically tailored for woody biomass and revitalization efforts [96].
• Access to the biomass market poses challenges to wood-based biomass production in many regions. For example, in the southeastern US, North and Pienaar [99] highlighted issues of insufficient and unreliable access to the biomass market, negatively impacting biomass production. Moreover, wood-based biomass faces the competitive challenge of fluctuating fossil fuel prices, lacks consistent incentives for production, and contends with higher harvesting costs associated with low-grade woods [99,100].
• Climate change is likely to alter forest structure, composition, biomass accumulation, ecological services, and, importantly, the wood-based bioenergy supply chain in North America. The effects on greenhouse gas savings are expected to be site-specific, influenced by tree characteristics, management practices, and methods of harvesting and transportation [101]. There is a need for more extensive research to explore the repercussions of climatic variability, land use changes, disturbance regimes, and energy policies on greenhouse gas emissions, the bioenergy supply chain, and energy security. Additionally, it is crucial to address the human health and ecotoxicological impacts of wood-based energy when formulating climate mitigation strategies [102].
• The USMCA (formerly NAFTA) has undergone several changes since its inception in 1994 to support regional supply chains, promote trade, and foster investments, among other objectives [6,103]. Despite these efforts, there appears to be limited emphasis on renewable sources and associated infrastructure development in North America [103] that would create opportunities for the advancement of wood-based bioenergy. Prestemon [104] anticipated a positive long-term impact of the USMCA on forest covers, though effects may vary between public and private forestlands. For example, higher prices for forest products could elevate the value of private forestlands. However, it is crucial to note that the potential for forest degradation may increase with trade liberalization [105]. As such, governmental policies need to be directed towards enhancing returns to timber management and exploring alternative approaches to unauthorized deforestation [104].
• Finally, it would be advantageous if the USMCA benefits all its members by creating enhanced opportunities in the bioenergy trade. For instance, Mexico has already adopted a 10% ethanol blend [106], and certain provinces in Canada have expressed interest in a 15% ethanol blend [107]. This represents a huge market potential for agricultural crops and woody biomass as trade barriers are eased.

7. Conclusions

This paper reviewed energy production and consumption, tracing the historical development of bioenergy, and examined aspects of feedstock sustainability, economic potential, social acceptability, and challenges and opportunities of wood-based bioenergy production in North America. The literature, in general, suggests that wood-based bioenergy holds significant potential for sustainable energy production and climate mitigation, contingent upon appropriate social and technological changes, effective forest management, and supportive renewable policies. This review draws the following important conclusions:

• Interest in wood-based energy in North America originated in the late 1970s and has continued to grow as a substitute for fossil fuels to address climate change.
• Over the last four decades, both the production and consumption of wood-based energy have exhibited an upward trend in North America.
• Wood-based bioenergy has the potential to positively impact economic indicators, including household expenditure and employment, while also contributing to the mitigation of climate change effects.
• Perceptions regarding the growth and harvesting of woody biomass may vary based on factors such as age, gender, education, risk decision-making ability, environmental and economic considerations, and energy policies.
• Evaluating the cost of woody biomass feedstock is crucial for its competitiveness with agricultural crop residue in bioenergy production.
• The profitability and success of wood-based bioenergy hinge on factors such as the cost of feedstock, energy and labor inputs, supportive policies, and research investments in biotechnologies.
• A sustainable wood-based bioenergy strategy must prioritize increasing energy security, enhancing profitability, utilizing locally available resources, protecting soil and water resources, minimizing environmental impacts, reducing waste disposal, and supporting rural communities.