Search

• Substitution factors for forest products for the Canadian context were developed. • Substitution factors ranging from 0.51 to 0.91 tC/tC were found. • They will lead to more accurate assessments of the forest GHG mitigation potential. • These factors will help governments to manage forest and fight climate change. Evaluating the climate change mitigation potential of the forest sector requires a holistic approach based on forest carbon (C) sequestration, C storage in harvested wood products (HWP) and substitution on markets. High uncertainty is associated with substitution factors, that express avoided fossil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of forest-based products in replacement of GHG-intensive materials and fossil fuels. Few studies have focused on the development of substitution factors in Canada, resulting in the use of unrepresentative generic data. Here, we provide a framework to reduce uncertainties related to substitution factors for primary wood products in a Canadian context. A life cycle assessment framework is used to quantify fossil GHG emissions for a baseline and a wood-intensive scenario. For solid product substitution, we focused on the construction sector and analyzed a range of innovative wood buildings with steel and reinforced concrete as alternative materials. We found non-weighted averages of 0.80 tC/tC for sawnwood and 0.81 tC/tC for panels. For energy substitution, we analyzed cases with different specifications on biomass product, facility type and alternative fossil fuel source in non-residential heat production and biofuel transportation sectors. We found a non-weighted average of 0.80 tC/tC for non-residential heat production and 0.51 tC/tC for biofuel transportation, that can be interpreted as 0.91 tC/tC for heavy fuel oil, 0.69 tC/tC for light fuel oil and 0.68 tC/tC for natural gas substitution. These results provide a benchmark for substitution factors in Canada, to help guide forest management strategies for climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The urgent need for climate change mitigation and the potential threat of energy crisis have allowed the popularity of biomass for biofuels to increase. However, the approaches to assess the climate change impacts of biomass utilization are still questionable. To allow a more accurate assessment, we developed a new framework by integrating six impact components including (1) fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) biogenic CO 2 emissions-loss, (3) biogenic CO 2 emissions-combustion, (4) emissions from land-use practice change, (5) regrowth for compensation, and (6) difference in carbon sequestration. To illustrate the performance of the framework, seven case studies, which covered the first-, second-, and third-generation biofuels, were conducted. The majority of the positive impacts were contributed to by the fossil fuel-derived emissions, biogenic CO 2 emissions, and regrowth for compensation. For the first-generation biofuels, the life cycle GHG emissions were much higher than those of energy-equivalent fossil fuels (144 and 218 kg CO 2 /GJ for Soybean-to-Biodiesel and Corn-to-Ethanol). The second- and third-generation biofuels had less accountable positive GHG emissions (−62 to 53 kg CO 2 /GJ) due to the offset of negative impacts from land-use practice change and difference in carbon sequestration. However, the negative effects are not determinist. High uncertainty from model-simulated carbon sequestration and decomposition is perceivable. High life cycle GHG emissions for the second- and third-generation biofuels are possible. Image 1 • A new framework was developed to estimate the GHG emissions from biomass utilization. • Different biomass feedstock and conversion technologies were studied as illustrations. • The GHG emissions from the first-generation biofuels can be higher than fossil fuels. • The second- and third-generation biofuels could have negative climate change impact. • High uncertainty is perceivable from model simulation for regrowth and decomposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]