Author:
Elias Micah,Dees John,Cabiyo Bodie,Saksa Phil,Sanchez Daniel L.
Abstract
Abstract
Traditional funding strategies of grants, congressional appropriations, and income from timber sales are insufficient to complete the level of forest restoration necessary throughout California. Stimulating investment into markets for low-value biomass—such as tops and branches of trees, small trees, and dead trees—will add value to forest raw materials and provide additional revenue streams to pay for forest restoration. We evaluate the investment potential of products made from low-value biomass using a discounted cash-flow analysis of several possible forest products including fuels and nonfuels under various climate policy and market scenarios. We demonstrate the carbon benefits provided by these products, attributed to their substitution for fossil-fuel feedstocks and long-term carbon storage. Our work finds that there is an opportunity to develop several highly profitable products, most notably fuels, many of which are eligible for energy and climate policy programs such as California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the federal Renewable Fuel Standard. Nonfuel products have an average internal rate of return (IRR) of 13 percent, whereas fuels have an average IRR of 19 percent in our baseline scenario. Although products ineligible for government incentives are generally less profitable, income from the voluntary carbon market greatly increases the IRR. Fostering investment into these products can encourage critically needed funding for forest management while developing a high-impact carbon removal solution enabled by state, federal, and voluntary climate initiatives. On this basis, we conclude that climate policy can support forest restoration in California.
Subject
Plant Science,General Materials Science,Forestry
Reference46 articles.
1. Baker,
S.,
Stolaroff,
J.
Peridas,
G.
Pang,
S.
Goldstein,
H.
Lucci,
F.
Li,
W.
Slessarev,
E.
Pett-Ridge,
J.
Ryerson,
F.
Wagoner,
J.
Kirkendall,
W.
Aines,
R.
Sanchez,
D. L.
Cabiyo,
B.
Baker,
J.
McCoy,
S.
Uden,
S.
Runnebaum,
R.
Wilcox,
J.
and
McCormick.C.
2020.
Getting to neutral: Options for negative carbon emissions in California.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California.
https://doi.org/10.2172/1597217
2. Barros,
A. M. G.,
Ager,
A. A.
Day,
M. A.
Krawchuk,
M. A.
and
Spies.T. A.
2018.
Wildfires managed for restoration enhance ecological resilience. Ecosphere 9(3):e02161.https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2161
3. Bergman,
R.,
Puettmann,
M.
Taylor,
A.
and
Skog.K. E.
2014.
The carbon impacts of wood products.
Forest Prod. J.
64(7–8):
220–
231.
https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-14-00047
4. Bhave,
A.,
Taylor,
R. H. S.
Fennell,
P.
Livingston,
W. R.
Shah,
N.
Mac Dowell,
N.
Dennis,
J.
Kraft,
M.
Pourkashanian,
M.
Insa,
M.
Jones,
J.
Burdett,
N.
Bauen,
A.
Beal,
C.
Smallbone,
A.
and
Akroyd.J.
2017.
Screening and techno-economic assessment of biomass-based power generation with CCS technologies to meet 2050 CO2 targets.”Appl. Energy190(March):
481–
489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.120
5. The Beck Group.
2015. California assessment of wood business innovation opportunities and markets (CAWBIOM). Phase II report: Feasibility of potential business opportunities. https://www.nationalforests.org/assets/pdfs/Phase-II-Report-MASTER-1-4-16.pdf. Accessed October 26,
2021.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献