S the normal deviation). Covariances amongst random variables have been assumed to be zero, reflecting

June 14, 2022

S the normal deviation). Covariances amongst random variables have been assumed to be zero, reflecting the assumption that they’re statistically independent. The sensitivity in the results towards the distance required to transport residue feedstock to a GS-621763 manufacturer bioenergy processing facility was explored, with four distance scenarios (50 km, one hundred km, 200 km, and 300 km), For CHP and pellets, the base case was 50 km, and 300 km for renewable diesel, given the distances in the study website to existing or proposed bioenergy facilities. three. Outcomes three.1. Carbon Stocks Table 3 shows the outcomes with the FullCAM simulations for the various tree fractions, forest management treatment options, and residue utilization alternatives.Table three. Carbon in forest harvest residue for two residue utilization options and forest treatments. Values would be the total residues made over the course of a single 30-year rotation. Residue Option 1 Forest Treatment Thinning Final harvest Total two Thinning Final harvest Total Stems (tC ha-1) 0.84 3.14 3.98 15.92 3.14 19.06 AGK7 Purity & Documentation Branches (tC ha-1) four.79 17.97 22.76 4.79 17.97 22.76 Bark (tC ha-1) 0.12 0.42 0.54 2.04 0.42 2.46 Total (tC ha-1) 5.75 21.53 27.28 22.75 21.53 44.(14)More than a complete rotation, 27.28 tC ha-1 of forest residue biomass is predicted to become out there for use beneath residue utilization alternative 1, and 44.28 tC ha-1 below residue utilization option 2 (Table three). Branches at final harvest comprised the largest residue element of any fraction, across all forest therapies (17.97 tC ha-1). At thinning, stems had the biggest accumulated carbon (15.92 tC ha-1) in residue utilization option 2, exactly where itForests 2021, 12,10 ofwas assumed that 95 of thinned stems were readily available for bioenergy, compared with option 1 (0.84 tC-ha-1), where just five of stems have been assumed to be available. Stems at final harvest accounted for just a smaller proportion of carbon (three.14 tC ha-1) obtainable for bioenergy, that is constant with expectations that this fraction provides the main, merchantable solution to mill. Carbon in bark accounted for a compact proportion in the total carbon in each residue utilization alternatives (0.54 tC ha-1 in option 1; two.46 tC ha-1 in option 2) out there for bioenergy. These bark volumes ranged from 2 to five.3 from the total residue material and included only bark on stems, not bark on branches. Details on previous harvesting activity for the case study area was utilized to generalize and scale the results towards the complete plantation estate (case study web-site), which suggested an average harvesting price of 3.3 , or 2833 hectares per year. Depending on the simplifying assumption of continuous harvesting and replacement, with an even representation of coppicing across the estate, an average of 77,293 tC year-1 in residues was expected to become out there across the entire plantation (average of 0.91 tC ha-1 year-1) for residue utilization option 1; and 125,460 tC year-1 (typical of 1.48 tC ha-1 year-1) for residue utilization option 2. three.two. Avoided GHG Emissions Table 4 shows the carbon dioxide emissions linked with making the equivalent power to that accessible inside the residue for the three distinct bioenergy types (or scenarios). Typical deviation values depict the effects of variation in the uncertainty analysis for power conversion efficiencies (CHP and pellets), renewable diesel intensity, and thinned stem and bark utilization. The combustion carbon dioxide emissions represent the carbon dioxide.