COMMENT/IN THIS ISSUE INDUSTRY NEWS Editorial comment A
recent report by UK think-tank ‘Chatham House’ on the impact of bioenergy on the global climate adds to the increasing number of statements in the context of EU discussions about its energy future, some of which are highly debateable!
The International Energy Agency Bioenergy Technology Collaboration
Programme (IEA Bioenergy) attracted more than 125 academic signatories from both sides of the Atlantic, who consider that this report does not present an objective overview of the current state of scientifi c understanding about the eff ects of bioenergy on the climate. With forthcoming discussions on the future of European energy,
publications analysing the contribution of bioenergy have proliferated, including the recent Chatham house report entitled ‘Woody Biomass for Power and Heat: Impacts on the Global Climate’. IEA Bioenergy points out that this report does not present an objective overview of the current state of scientifi c understanding with respect to the climate eff ects of bioenergy. The report was studied by members of IEA Bioenergy, who identifi ed three
major areas of concern: the report gives an inaccurate interpretation of the impact of harvesting on forest carbon stock, proposes a misguided focus on short-term carbon balances and overstates the climate change mitigation value of unharvested forests; it considers roundwood to be the main woody bioenergy feedstock, but in the EU, by-products and residues from silviculture are, in fact, the most common type of feedstock and bioenergy can prompt forest owners to plant more trees and invest in sustainable forest management practices; and it also fails to acknowledge that forest bioenergy is not a single entity, but an integral part of the forest management system that also produces timber products. A comment by Jean-Marc Jossart, Secretary-General of the Brussels-
based European Biomass Association is well worth repeating to conclude this editorial: “Woody bioenergy is a very diverse sector, key for our future energy transition and, as such, deserves fact-based science rather than sensationalistic headlines. The IEA Bioenergy’s response is an important signal sent by the academic community to EU institutions currently debating future EU sustainability rules – to hold reasoned discussions to avoid a second biofuel scenario where many misleading statements weakened the entire sector”.
David Young Editor
FOREST BIOENERGY REVIEW Volume 7, Number 33 – Spring 2017 Contact information
PUBLISHER &
EDITORIAL DIRECTOR Vince Maynard
KVJ Enterprises, Tralee, Hillcrest Road, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 6JS, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1732 505724 Mobile: +44 (0) 7747 002286 Email:
pulppaperlogistics@virginmedia.com
EDITOR David Young
Tel: +44 (0) 1737 551687 Mobile: +44 (0) 7785 796826
ISSN 2045-8514
REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE Einar Johansson
Mobile: +46 70 234 80 85 Email:
einar.lennart@gmail.com
PRODUCTION Anthony Wiffen Anton Print Solutions Tel: +44 (0) 1622 850063 Mobile: +44 (0) 7557 280 769 Email:
anton_print_1@mac.com
PRINTING Brown Knight and Truscott
Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 3BW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1892 511678 ©2017 KVJ Enterprises
12 EQUIPMENT REVIEW
Introducing new equipment and services EVENTS
Conferences and exhibitions past and future
Front cover: The new Andritz sulphite recovery boiler and turbine-generator at Tembec in Canada is a ‘game-changing’ investment – see page 12.
Spring 2017 1 1 15 16
FOREST-BASED BIOPRODUCTS On-going growth in bio-based polymers
Red liquor = Green power GREEN ELECTRICITY
2 AEBIOM
Renewable heating and cooling: 2020-30 must not be a lost decade
Chainsaw instructor recommends HAIX boots ‘TEST DRIVE’
Rotterdam: the European hub for biomass BIOMASS PORTS
6 7 5
In this issue INDUSTRY NEWS
What’s happening in the world of forest bioenergy?
2
7 11 12
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20