Recording available: Canada’s forests: Our greatest carbon asset or liability? Fast Track #5

Canada’s Forests: Our Greatest Carbon Asset or Liability?

Did you miss our event?

Good news, the recording is now available here from the webinar on June 16th. With subject matter experts:

Dr. Jamie Stephen, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TORCHLIGHT BIORESOURCES,
Dr. Peter Holmgren, FOUNDER, SENIOR ADVISOR, FUTUREVISTAS INC. F. DIRECTOR-GENERAL, CIFOR,
Kjell Andersson, POLICY ADVISOR, INFORMATION SECRETARY, SVEBIO, SWEDISH BIOENERGY ASSOCIATION

Q&A

So emitting more CO2 through the burning of biomass and scale up the carbon capture tech is viable solution to you? It seems based on the assumption that the technology cab ne scaled up quickly and effectively. Perhaps a bet that could worsen climate change and disturbances, no?

Biomass displaces fossil fuels. Removing low-grade timber from the landbase increases forest health and productivity – carbon uptake. Trees need light and space to grow. BECCS uses the same CCS technology deployed multiple times at very large scale in Canada (e.g, QUEST, ACTL).

It all comes down to good, active forest management. If you want low carbon buildings, they need to be made with wood (e.g., mass timber). Bioenergy is one key pillar. The other is solid wood products that store carbon for centuries.

/ Dr. J Stephen

How do you see the outlook for BECCS in places such as Southwestern Ontario? Lots of heavy industry (cement, steel etc.) with low access to forest biomass, and poor geology to support CO2 sequestration (with some potential near Lake Erie).

BECCS is very geology specific. 95% of Canada’s CO2 storage potential is in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (Alberta, southern SK, NE BC). Options are limited in Ontario, but there could be options in Lake Erie. There is a lot of storage potential in Michigan. Norway is liquefying CO2 and shipping for storage in the North Sea.

/Dr. J Stephen

What is the economic tool that will allow low value material to be harvested and utilized in energy systems? Thinning and/or removal of this material is often uneconomic in Canada due to haul distuance and low prices. It is increase community heating systems that increase demand/price or some kind of CC funding?

Over the past 15 years, the economics have been very challenging due to low natural gas prices and no carbon price. A carbon price of $170/t CO2e adds $10/GJ to the price of natural gas. We are currently at $10-25/GJ for delivered natural gas in Canada. This $20-35/GJ is the equivalent of $200-350/m3 for wood fibre. This is much more than the delivered cost of chips for most sites. The economics are now totally different than they were 5 years ago. We do need government to invest in district energy systems to distribute the thermal energy. That is Canada’s missing infrastructure.

/ Dr. J Stephen

Should active forest management should maybe be supported by stringent frameworks that help prioritize the use of bioenergy domestically and limit its export, not only for carbon purposes, but also to protect other services provided by forests? Decarbonizing regions and countries at the scale of China and the EU should rely on other sources of energy to make sure the fragile balance between carbon sinks and carbon sources through forests is respected?

I don’t see decarbonizing the EU, UK, Japan, and S. Korea as a bad thing. Climate change is a global issue. Good forest management doesn’t change just because the product is exported.

I would ask what other energy resources do you think the EU and Japan/S. Korea will use? They are energy poor regions of the world. At the same time, even if we had 100% low carbon energy from other resources, we would still want to do much more active forest management (increased thinnings, etc.) for the sake of the forest in a changing climate. As I said, bioenergy is about mitigation AND adaptation. It isn’t only about replacing fossil fuels. Again, just because the product is exported doesn’t change what good vs. poor forest management looks like.

/ Dr. J Stehpen

Do you believe that private forest ownership directly contributes to increased investment in forests? If so why?

Yes is the short answer. As long as there is a good case for investing in long-term forest management, the opportunities will probably be better taken care of by provate land ownsers. Within appropriate regulations of course.

/ Dr. Peter Holmgren

Using bioenergy domestically for heating purposes instead of diesel for example is a definitely a good option, but this is not what I am questioning, I am questioning the fact the use of bioenergy can be scaled up globally? Recent study on BC wood use and trade impacts has shown that the reach of mitigation benefits needs to limit the use of waste and other bioenergy, while focusing on solid wood and composites.

There will always be large residue streams at different stages of the product flow, so again there is not really a contradiction.

One doesn’t exclude the other. Normally, solid wood products provide the biggest climate benefit and also the most revemue, so it is a non-issue policy-wise. But the main benefit is from displacement, rather than storage though. The “long-lived productss” argument is a bit misleading in that way.

/ Dr. Peter Holmgren

What’s the report the Peter was referring to i his talk?

Here’s a link to the report I referred to in my talk: https://www.forestindustries.se/news/

/ Dr. Peter Holmgren