trees: from wind farms waste to biomass energy source: a greenhouse gases analysis. griffin wind...
TRANSCRIPT
i
TREES: FROM WIND FARMS WASTE TO
BIOMASS ENERGY SOURCE. A GREENHOUSE GASES ANALYSIS OF GRIFFIN WIND FARM IN
SCOTLAND AS CASE STUDY
EVA MARÍA FERNÁNDEZ MORÁN
A dissertation submitted by Eva María Fernández Morán to the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, in part completion of the
requirements for the MSc in Environmental Entrepreneurship.
I, Eva María Fernández Morán, hereby state that this report is my own work and that all
sources used are made explicit in the text.
16,186 words of script (excluding tables, footnotes, boxes, references and appendices).
August, 2014
ii
The copyright of this dissertation belongs to the author under the terms of the United
Kingdom Copyright Acts as qualified by the University of Strathclyde Regulation 3.49.
Due acknowledgement must always be made of the use of any material contained in, or
derived from, this dissertation.
iii
ABSTRACT
Trees near wind turbines create air flow disturbances, hindering turbines' correct
operation. Therefore, woodlands clearance is needed before wind turbines deployment.
Large areas of Scottish forests have been felled, to allow the expansion of the growing
wind energy sector. From early 2014, concerns about this impact in Scottish landscapes
have been raised by experts and the media.
This dissertation intends to analyse the biomass sector as an option to destine the wood
extracted in wind farms' developing areas. The analysis will be focused on the impact in
GHG emissions of using the wood for biomass energy generation.
The research aimed to assess GHG emissions in the specific process of converting the
wind farms' “waste” into biomass. The methodology is described in such a way that can
be generally applicable in future wind farm projects, or even different projects that also
involve woodlands clearance.
As an aid to future developers that might be interested in providing their wood waste to
the biomass sector, a Google Maps based interactive map was created. This map has the
localization of 50 biomass producers in Scotland, linked to each company’s information
and links.
From the application of the methodology designed to a case study, it was found that
GHG emissions savings due to biomass energy displacement of traditional UK grid
energy generation is quite remarkable. Besides, extra GHG emissions of harvesting and
transporting trees to biomass centres are largely compensated.
Recommendations for a future economic analysis -of the process studied- are given in
the final chapter. As well, recommendations for future practice mainly focused on
encouraging conversation between government, wind farm developers and biomass
sector are given. One aim should be to discuss how cost, benefits and carbon saving
merits should be accounted so a greater good is sought, but no one loses out.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express special gratitude to Mr Kenneth Taylor, Policy and
Advice Officer at Scottish Natural Heritage. Not only for being the person who initially
introduced the concerns regarding wood waste management in wind farms
developments, but for the guidance and expert advice given along the research process.
Many thanks as well to Mr Neil McKay and Ms Michelle Morton from SSE
Renewables, for gently bringing their time to share their professional expertise and; for
their help facilitating data from Griffin wind farm project, to be used in the case study
analysis.
Special thanks to Dr Elsa João, course leader for the MSc in Environmental
Entrepreneurship and supervisor of the present dissertation. For having been the
cornerstone to keep the research focus; and for all the help, guidance and great advice
given during the research and writing processes.
I would like to express many thanks to my family and friends, because their support has
been the key to recover the strength in moments of weakness. Thank you all, for
believing in my capabilities and my willpower even when I doubted, your words gave
me that “extra” I needed in the key moment.
v
CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
List of Boxes ................................................................................................................................... x
Glossary & Acronyms .................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Woodlands Clearance in Wind Farms Sites. .................................................................. 1
1.2 Recent Concerns about Trees and Wind Farms ............................................................ 2
1.3 The importance of Preserving Wood Resources ........................................................... 3
1.4 Defining the Research Topic .......................................................................................... 4
1.5 Dissertation Structure ................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and Climate Change. ........................................................... 6
2.2 Wind Farms and Trees ................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Forestry Waste from Wind Farms ......................................................................... 7
2.3 The Biomass Energy Sector ........................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) ........................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Biomass Suppliers List ........................................................................................... 9
2.4 The Carbon Calculators ................................................................................................. 9
2.4.1 UK Solid and Gaseous Biomass Carbon Calculator .............................................. 10
2.4.2 Scottish Wind Farms Carbon Calculator .............................................................. 10
Chapter 3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Case Study: Griffin Wind Farm in Scotland ................................................................. 12
3.2 Developing a Method to Assess GHG Emissions of Transforming Wood Waste into
Biomass Energy ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Sources of Information and Data ........................................................................ 16
3.2.2 Assumptions for Carbon Factors Calculation ...................................................... 20
3.2.3 Calculating Carbon Emission Factors .................................................................. 22
3.3 Scottish Biomass Producers Map & Database ............................................................ 29
3.4 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 34
Chapter 4 Carbon Implications of Sourcing the Biomass Market with Wind Farms’ Timber.
Griffin Wind Farm Case Study ..................................................................................................... 36
vi
4.1 Estimation of GHGs Emission Factors by Activity ........................................................ 36
4.1.1 Mulching Emission Factor ................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 Harvesting Works Emission Factor ...................................................................... 38
4.1.3 Carbon Emission Factor for Transport ................................................................ 40
4.1.4 Biomass Production Emission Factors ................................................................. 43
4.1.5 Biomass Combustion Emission Factors ............................................................... 44
4.1.6 Emissions Saved in Energy Generation from the UK Mix. Emissions Savings
Factor ............................................................................................................................. 45
4.1.7 Forests Carbon Capture Potential Losses ............................................................ 46
4.1.8 Summary of GHG emission factors estimated by activity ................................... 47
4.2 GHG Analysis of Alternative Scenarios Based on Griffin Wind Farm Case Study ........ 49
4.2.1 Scenario 1: The Real Case .................................................................................... 49
4.2.2 Scenario 2: 100% Mulching ................................................................................. 51
4.2.3 Scenarios 3a, 3b and 3c: All to Biomass Production ........................................... 52
4.2.4 Further Analysis and Comments ......................................................................... 54
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................... 58
5.1 Summary of Key Findings ............................................................................................ 58
5.1.1 GHG savings due to grid energy generation displaced by biomass .................... 58
5.1.2 Transport GHG emissions. Acceptable for a greater saving? .............................. 59
5.1.3 Clearance processes. Mulching vs. Harvesting for Energy harnessing ............... 60
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................................... 60
5.3 Recommendations for Future Practice ....................................................................... 61
5.3.1 Recommendations for Developers ...................................................................... 62
5.3.2 Recommendations for Biomass Industry ............................................................ 62
5.3.3 Recommendations for Governmental Organisations ......................................... 62
5.4 Summary of Key achievements ................................................................................... 63
References ................................................................................................................................... 65
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix I: Ethics Form for Meetings with Experts .................................................................... 69
Appendix II: Participants Information Sheet for Interviewees and Experts ................................ 80
Appendix III: Consent Form for Interviewees and Experts ......................................................... 83
Appendix IV: Scottish Biomass Producers Database ................................................................... 84
Ordnance Survey Map with Scottish Biomass Producers Back Pocket
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Location of Griffin Wind Farm in Scotland, United Kingdom. (Modified
from Bing.com/maps on 21/04/2014) ............................................................................. 13
Figure 3.2: Bird's eye view of the area before the deployment of the Griffin Wind farm.
Perthshire, Scotland. (Modified from: maps.google.co.uk. Aerial photo from 2011 or
before) ............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3.3: Figure 3: Bird's eye view of the area with the Griffin Wind farm turbines
already deployed. Perthshire, Scotland. (Modified from: Bing.com/maps. Aerial photo
from 2012 or after) ......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.4: Diagram of the process under study, showing the alternative clearance
procedures and wood waste management being assessed. ............................................. 15
Figure 3.6:Biomass Producers Map and Database. With location of all producers. ...... 32
Figure 3.7: Biomass Producers Map and Database. Detail of the popup information box.
........................................................................................................................................ 33
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Summary of the data used in the analysis. With sources and use references. 18
Table 3.2: Summary table of the assumptions done for the analysis. With
recommendations to adapt the method to other projects. ............................................... 21
Table 3.3: Life cycle GHG emissions from the combustion of a selection of wood chips
and pellets. (kg CO2 e per MWh fuel). Data extracted from table 5.3, in Bates & Henry,
2009. ............................................................................................................................... 24
Table 4.1: Parameters of machinery used to calculate CO2 emissions factors per tonne of
wood mulched. ............................................................................................................... 38
Table 4.2: Parameters of machinery used to calculate CO2e emissions factors per tonne
of wood harvested. .......................................................................................................... 39
Table 4.3: Parameters used to calculate CO2e emissions factor per kilometre and tonne
of wood transported. ....................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.4: Distances from Griffin wind farm to the 10 nearest companies that
manufacture logs............................................................................................................. 41
Table 4.5: Distances from Griffin wind farm to the 10 nearest companies that
manufacture wood chips. ................................................................................................ 42
Table 4.6: Distances from Griffin wind farm to the 10 nearest companies that
manufacture pellets. ........................................................................................................ 42
Table 4.7: Parameters used to calculate CO2 emissions factor per tonne of biomass
produced. ........................................................................................................................ 43
Table 4.8: Parameters used to calculate CO2 emissions factor per tonne of biomass
burned. ............................................................................................................................ 44
Table 4.9: Biomass net calorific values. ......................................................................... 45
Table 4.10: Summary table with all emission factors estimated by activity. ................. 47
Table 4.11: Site clearance methods distribution and final destination of wood extracted
in Griffin wind farm. ...................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.12: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest
clearance process. ........................................................................................................... 51
Table 4.13: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest
clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were mulched. .......................... 52
ix
Table 4.14: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest
clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were sent to logs production. ... 53
Table 4.15: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest
clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were sent to chips production. .. 53
Table 4.16: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest
clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were sent to pellets production. 54
Table 4.17: Comparison of GHG emissions due and increase on the distance of
transport, due to the increase in the number of companies to allocate the wood; from the
5 to the 10 nearest ones................................................................................................... 55
Table 4.18: Summary of carbon savings and losses due to trees carbon capture potential
preservation in biomass sector’s commercial forests. .................................................... 57
x
LIST OF BOXES
Box 3.1: Equation to calculate forestry equipment emission factors. ............................ 22
Box 3.2: Equation to calculate transport emission factor. .............................................. 23
Box 3.3: Re-calculation of biomass (chips and pellets) processing emission factors; and
estimation of logs processing emission factor. ............................................................... 25
Box 3.4: Re-calculation of biomass (chips, pellets and logs) combustion emission
factors. ............................................................................................................................ 26
Box 3.5: Equation to estimate emissions saved from the UK grid mix energy generation,
due to the same amount of energy being produced from one tonne of biomass. ........... 27
Box 3.6: Equation to estimate carbon capture potential loss due to trees felling. .......... 28
Box 4.1: Recovery of the “carbon capture potential losses” concept used to estimate its
value to be included in the GHG emissions balance. ..................................................... 56
xi
GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS
Terms and acronyms included in this glossary were extracted or modified by the author
from the glossaries on the EEA1 and the NRDC
2 sites.
BSL Biomass Suppliers List.
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent. A metric measure used to compare the
emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global
warming potential.
DEFRA Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, United
Kingdom.
Emission
Factors
An emission factor is defined as the average emission rate of a given
GHG for a given source, relative to units of activity3.
EU-ETS European Emissions Trading System
GHG Greenhouse Gas. Gas involved in the greenhouse effect, namely
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons,
ozone and water vapour.
Greenhouse
effect
The process that raises the temperature of air in the lower atmosphere
due to heat trapped by greenhouse gases.
Mulching Forestry mulching is a land clearing method that uses a single
machine to cut, grind, and clear vegetation4.
RHI Renewable Heat Incentive.
1 European Environmental Agency. Environmental Terminology and Discovery Service:
http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/ 2 Natural Resources Defense Council. Glossary of Environmental Terms:
http://www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/a.asp 3 Data definitions. Framework Conventions on Climate Change (United Nations, 2014)
4 Definition taken from Wikipedia.
1
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this dissertation was to research and analyse biomass markets as
a final destination for the timber extracted in on-shore wind farm deployment process.
Within this framework, wood is at once, raw material for biomass production, and
unwanted by-product for wind farms developments. This opposed classification
provides the ideal frame to evaluate how to apply a circular model, providing someone's
waste as some other's resource. The model seeks to close the loop of the linear chain of
materials, avoiding waste generation and preventing natural resources depletion (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2013).
However, not only to find a further use for the wood is important, analyse the impacts
of the different possibilities is crucial to make better informed decisions. This
dissertation intends to identify to which extent, allocating the timber in the biomass
sector to produce energy, affects the project’s GHG emissions balance and helps
reducing overall GHG emissions to the atmosphere.
This introductory chapter will offer an overview of the woodlands clearance process in
wind farms development sites (section 1.1). Concerns about how trees are managed in
wind farm projects with examples that recently appeared in the press will be presented
in section 1.2. The importance of preserving wood resources and the trees carbon
capture potential to help reducing GHG emissions to the atmosphere, will be outlined in
section 1.3. To finalise the introduction, how the research was designed and how the
dissertation is structured will be explained in sections 1.4 and 1.5 respectively.
1.1 WOODLANDS CLEARANCE IN WIND FARMS SITES.
Woodland clearance is a normal and almost inevitable practice in wind farms pre-
construction phase; to allow the transportation of the materials, to install the equipment
and improve the wind flow quality needed in the operation phase (Forestry Commission
Scotland, 2009; Rajgor, 2011). Trees are obstacles that induce turbulence in the air
flow, impeding wind turbines good operation (Meier, 2011), so the area has to be felled.
The felling process generates an unwanted product for the wind farm, which is an
additional issue to be managed. Sometimes, the wood generated is classified as waste
2
(K. Taylor, Scottish Natural Heritage, personal communication, interview 1 July2014);
losing the potential value it has as raw material for other activities or products. It was on
this potentiality where the basis of this research was initially set. Seeking and assessing
alternative destinations for the unwanted timber generated would bring a number of
benefits; not only for the project development but also for the environment and other
commercial activities in the surroundings.
A common practice in forestry clearance is forestry mulching, a clear felling process
used when the wood is not harvested for further uses. This process facilitates woodlands
clearance as trees are shredded while standing. At present there is still no consensus on
whether it is a beneficial or harmful practice (K. Taylor, Scottish Natural Heritage,
personal communication, seminar 21 March 2014). Mulching advocates underline its
positive effects as environmentally friendly; as soil’s upper layer protection; as a help
with erosion and run offs problems or; as a more efficient practice that eliminates costs
of hauling and transport of debris. However, there are studies stating mulching might be
ecologically damaging and recommending to minimise mulching practices in wind
farms, to reduce impacts it might have on phosphorus concentration on stream water
(Murray, 2012).
Seeking and assessing alternative destinations for the unwanted timber generated would
bring a number of benefits; not only for the project development but also for the
environment and other commercial activities in the surroundings.
1.2 RECENT CONCERNS ABOUT TREES AND WIND FARMS
In early 2014, some digital media raised the alarm on a growing concern regarding rapid
wind farms deployment in Scotland. Those media stated that the large number of trees
being cut in Scotland to install wind farms, might be a high cost for Scottish landscapes
(Bastasch, 2014). According to “The Telegraph”, there are Forestry Commission
figures showing that, only in Scotland, more than five million trees have been felled to
give space to wind farms since 2007, but fewer than a third have been replanted (Amos,
2014; Johnson, 2014; McIntosh, 2014).
UK and Scotland’s governments has been set for themselves an ambitious GHG
emissions reduction targets (APS Group Scotland, 2011; Fankhauser, Kennedy, & Skea,
2008), there is a big number of wind farm projects being planned or already consented,
3
so the wind energy growth will inevitably continue. So, the impacts wind farms might
have in Scottish forests stocks must be prevented or at least decreased. However, the
wind energy development should not be drastically stopped, if the 100% target of gross
consumption delivered from renewables by 2020 (Committee on Climate Change, 2014;
Scottish Government, 2011b) wants to be achieved.
There must be a number of options to make wind farms less damaging, but to harness
the wood extracted from wind farms, to supply other sectors that uses wood as raw
material, should be a good starting point. The idea of not wasting the trees in wind
farms, saving the resource and keeping commercial forests equivalent stock capturing
CO2 for a longer time, should at least be helpful.
1.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING WOOD RESOURCES
Nowadays, there are many industries that use wood as raw material. But is not only now
that is it being widely used, wood has been historically utilized by people in a wide
range of economic activities and to manufacture goods like; furniture, construction
materials, pulp and paper, tools, sports equipment, etc. Furthermore, it can be said that
wood has been the first source of man-controlled energy, as humans have being
obtaining light and heat from its combustion since the prehistoric age. At the present
time, biomass is still the main energy source worldwide (Clean Energy World News,
2014)
Human population have been experiencing a rapid growth in the last decades. As a
consequence, pressure on the finite natural resources has been increasing (Jackson,
2009), and forest resources are not an exception. As stated before, timber is needed for
many human activities, and population growth means that pressure on wood resources is
also increasing.
Biomass is considered as a renewable carbon-neutral source of energy, manly for two
reasons; trees grow in forest and can be replanted, and it is supposed that the CO2
emitted when burning it has already been compensated with the CO2 it has been
capturing from the atmosphere during its whole life.
It is important to remark, that even though wood is considered as a renewable source; in
fact, it is only a “potential” renewable resource. Meaning this that it can be considered
as renewable, but only if its consumption rate is slower than its regeneration capacity.
4
Otherwise, wood consumption is not sustainable and the resource could be eventually
depleted.
Having said that, should be stated that wood regeneration capacity relates to trees pace
of grow. Trees growth rates depend itself on the species; ranging from slow, medium
and fast growing species. Trees with fast growing rates will capture more carbon in less
time, but there are still needed at least 26 years for a fast growing species of tree to be
fully grown (Cannell, 1999 in Scottish Government, 2011).
1.4 DEFINING THE RESEARCH TOPIC
The interest on researching the use of trees felled within wind farms developments
arouse during a seminar carried out by Mr Kenneth Taylor from SNH, held in the
University of Strathclyde as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment module.
At a subsequent meeting with Mr Taylor held on SNH premises in Stirling (1 July
2014), concerns about how wood waste in wind farms is currently managed were
discussed and a number of options to address this problematic were debated. Finding
viable markets for the wood extracted, was then identified as a priority to harness the
wood that might be difficult to sell due to not being widely usable. This would give a
reason for not mulching it on-site and help preserving wood resources in other forests,
Griffin wind farm was suggested by Mr Taylor as good to be used as a case study in this
research; because the amount of trees felled was important, and due to the considerable
amount of mulching done during the wind farm deployment process.
The main objective for this dissertation was then defined as assessing the option of
biomass sector for the wood destination. A methodology to assess the impacts on GHG
emissions of the process that should be carried out -to send the wood to the biomass
sector- was developed to investigate the impacts on GHG emissions the process might
have, and to decide whether recommending that practice to wind farms developers
would be beneficial of not.
The idea of bringing something that would help avoiding trees wastage in future wind
farms developments was kept always in mind. Seeing the difficulties encountered to
access information about biomass producers, the idea of collecting the information and
putting it all together in a comprehensive tool came into mind, with the aim to ease
future wind farms trees clearance management strategies.
5
1.5 DISSERTATION STRUCTURE
The present dissertation consists of 5 chapters including the introductory one. Chapter
two will cover the review of the literature directly related to the dissertation research.
Topics such as GHG emissions and climate change, linked to the relevant legislation;
and the state of wind farms, biomass and the energy sector will be covered.
Chapter three details the design of the methodology, with a description of how it was
developed and how it could be used in the future for other projects’ assessments.
Besides, the map and database of Scottish biomass producers created will be presented.
Links to the on-line site where this map can be found are provided at the end of the
chapter.
Chapter four will review the analysis and results of the carbon implications of sourcing
the biomass market with wind farms timber, with a case study based on Griffin wind
farm where the methodology developed will be used.
To finalise, chapter five will start with a summary of the research’s key findings,
followed with recommendations for future research and future practice for developers,
biomass industry and governmental organisations.
6
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The research undertaken was focused on the concerns about large woodlands areas
being felled, to allow the rapid growth wind energy is experiencing in Scotland at
present. The literature review covered in this chapter will discuss the main aspects of
woodlands clearance in wind farms development process; the biomass sector as a
potential destination of the trees felled in wind farms and; and the importance of taking
into account the potential of trees as carbon sinks.
2.1 GREENHOUSE GASES (GHG) AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
Since industrial revolution, GHG emissions have been raising and triggering climate
change. In 1998 The United Nations Convention for Climate Change, under the Kyoto
protocol, established an emission reduction commitment that each signing party agreed
to achieve, pursuing sustainable development (United Nations, 1998). The UK
legislation developed since -to tackle climate change and to achieve GHG emissions
reductions- is one of the most advanced worldwide (Fankhauser et al., 2008).
Scottish Government has also taken serious commitments with GHG emissions
reduction, setting a 42 % reduction target for 2020 -on the 1990 base line- and at least
an 80% reduction for 2050 (APS Group Scotland, 2011).
In order to plan for this reduction targets and in light of the powerful Scottish wind
resources, renewable wind energy has been seen by the Scottish government as a great
opportunity to meet the commitments made (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2014). As a
consequence, wind farm developments have been increasing through all Scottish
landscape. In fact, there is already a large number of projects being constructed and
under consent that will enlarge the area of Scottish landscapes being felled to be
occupied by wind turbines. To have an idea of the magnitude of the wind energy growth
in Scotland, a spreadsheet facilitated by Mr Kenneth Taylor from SNH, in 2011 there
were in Scotland 60 wind farms already installed, 56 approved for construction, 105 in
application and 153 under scoping process.
7
2.2 WIND FARMS AND TREES
Wind farms deployment process normally needs a pre-clearance process of the
woodlands in the development site. This felling works are done for diverse reasons; to
allow construction operations, to reduce air turbulence, to allow wind yield and to carry
out agreed works of mitigation and habitat enhancement (Scottish Renewables, et al.,
2010). It is advised by relevant governmental organisations that when woodlands
removal is unavoidable, restoration and compensation plans, and the avoidance of wood
waste generation should be pursued (Scottish Renewables et al., 2010; SEPA, 2013).
2.2.1 Forestry Waste from Wind Farms
Projects involving forest felling activities and likely to produce forestry waste materials
-such as wind farms- are subject to comply with EU Waste Framework Directive 2008.
However, article 2 of the Directive sets that “…straw and other natural non-hazardous
agricultural of forestry material used in farming, forestry or for the production of energy
such biomass…” are excluded from the Directive scope (Official Journal of the
European Union, 2008: p. 7).
So, forestry residues from wind farm developments that cannot be sent to other markets
could be considered to be allocated into the biomass sector to avoid its classification as
waste. Otherwise guidance on forestry waste management from SEPA should be
followed (in Scotland). This guidance require the application of the waste hierarchy of
prevention, waste management and avoidance of waste disposal on wind farm
development site (SEPA, 2013).
However there are a number of situations where timber is harvested but branches and
smallest parts are left on site because it has no marketable value. The “Good practice
during wind farm construction” recommends “in-situ chipping” as one of the possible
felling operations (Scottish Renewables et al., 2010). Commercial harvesting technics
combined with “in-situ chipping” could be combined to harness a greater amount of
wood; not wasting it on site and avoiding further waste management costs. Material
chipped on-site could then be transported to a biomass centre to be seasoned and
prepared to be used as biomass fuel (Francescato et al., 2008).
8
2.3 THE BIOMASS ENERGY SECTOR
In line with the case of wind farms development to achieve GHG emissions reduction
targets, the biomass energy sector is also being widely promoted by the Scottish
Government. According to the “Biomass Action Plan for Scotland”, Forestry
Commission Scotland has been seeking how to increase supply, looking with special
attention at forestry residues to meet future biomass demand (Donnelley, 2007).
At this point, the ideal framework for the present research has been established. On one
side, there are concerns expressed by experts and media about wind farms development
regarding trees clearance management. On the other side, the government intentions on
boosting the biomass market, trying to prioritise forestry wastages harnessing. So, the
potential benefits of recommending wind farm developers to provide their wood wastes
to biomass energy sector, should be analysed.
Furthermore, there are some concerns about whether biomass energy can be called
renewable, or energy generated from it can be considered carbon neutral (Clean Energy
World News, 2014). So, an assessment of the GHG implications of this process seems
to be an interesting topic, as the central reason for incentivizing both renewable energy
sources is the reduction of GHG emissions.
Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 discuss some of the latest government’s efforts to promote
biomass energy use, the renewable heating incentive and the biomass suppliers list.
2.3.1 Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)
UK Government has launched in April 2014 the domestic RHI, the first scheme to
promote heating systems fuelled with renewable sources, through a long term economic
support for private households. This measure follows the lead of the non-domestic RHI,
lunched in November 2011 (UK Government, 2014c).
The RHI is another strategy government has implemented to reduce national GHG
emissions and tackle climate change. During seven years, the government commits to
quarterly pay participants in the scheme a fixed tariff depending on the clean heating
technology chosen. Eligible heating systems are heat pumps (air, ground and water
sourced), biomass boilers and pellets stoves with incorporated boiler and solar thermal
panels (UK Government, 2014c).
9
This incentive will really boost the demand on biomass products and biomass producers
should be prepared for it. Commercial forest could start to feel the demand pressure and
a good idea might be that part of this demand was supplied with the wood from forests
that the increasing wind energy sector will need to fell to deploy its turbines. Something
clear is that two activities that are expected to have such a big growth, bot pressuring
forest resources, should be controlled. Otherwise, Scottish forests might soon start
suffering depletion, as even it is considered that are renewable sources, in reality, they
are semi-renewable resources. If human pressure starts consuming it faster than its
growing rate, forest depletion or scarcity might appear. So, it is not a bad idea that the
wood waste from wind farms is suggested to be sent to biomass, as a priority when not
finding a better market for it. Both sectors will be benefited and Scottish forests as well.
2.3.2 Biomass Suppliers List
UK government states that all users claiming the RHI should fuel their biomass boilers
and pellets stoves with accredited sustainable biomass (UK Government, 2014c). In
order to have control on the biomass lifecycle, and check that the biomass used meet the
sustainability criteria, savings of 60% in GHG emissions in comparison with the EU
fossil fuel average are met, suppliers must meet the “Timber Standard for Heat and
Electricity under the Renewables Obligation and the RHI” (Department of Energy &
Climate Change, 2014b). These criteria will come into force on spring 2015. However,
the list is being created now, and applications for to be included in the accredited
biomass suppliers list is open since April 2014.
From the “Timber Standards for Heat and Electricity” document it is not possible to
assure if the wood, biomass producers could receive from the wind farms, could meet
the criteria, it should be accepted as a sustainable source, as otherwise a valid raw
material would be wasted.
2.4 THE CARBON CALCULATORS
UK Government has been developing a set of toolkits to facilitate private households,
companies and projects GHG emissions reporting. The implementation of this system
seeks to reduce common activities carbon footprint, achieve the national GHG
emissions reduction targets and help companies to reduce costs (UK Government,
2014a). Since October 2013 the GHG emission reporting has become mandatory to
10
businesses listed in the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Director’s Report)
Regulations 2013 (Secretary of State, 2013; UK Government, 2014a). However, there
was not a unique valid tool to estimate the GHG emissions implications of the process
intended to be analysed. So, some of these calculators’ methodology was analysed, in
order to design an accurate method to determine GHG balance of using wind farms trees
to produce biomass energy.
2.4.1 UK Solid and Gaseous Biomass Carbon Calculator
A carbon calculator for the UK Solid and Gaseous Biomass sector was developed as
well in 2012. This set of guidance and calculation toolkit is designed to estimate GHG
emissions and carbon intensity of electricity generation from solid biomass and biogas
(Ofgem, 2012).
It seemed that this toolkit could be used to do the GHG emissions intended to be
estimated for this research. On the contrary, it was not possible, as this tool has been
specifically developed by E4tech to estimate GHG emissions and carbon intensity for
the precise process of energy generation in biomass and biogas power plants (E4tech, et
al., 2014). Therefore, it was not possible to adapt it to calculate GHG emissions of the
process intended to be evaluated for this research. However, some parts of the tool and
the manual were studied to inspire the design of some stages of the methodology
presented in this dissertation.
2.4.2 Scottish Wind Farms Carbon Calculator
A carbon calculator to evaluate wind farms carbon savings was designed for Scottish
wind farms projects. Concerns raised by planned large scale wind farms in Scottish peat
lands; and the lack of confidence in the reliability of the methods used to calculate wind
farms carbon savings; increased the interest for designing the wind farms carbon
calculator (Nayak, et al., 2008).
The original design of the tool for wind farms did not allow either the direct calculation
of the process that was intended to be assessed, as it is a tool designed to calculate the
emission savings related to the wind farms whole lifespan. Still, some parameters and
calculations methods were common or similar to the ones needed for this research; so,
by modifying some aspects were tailored for the process of using trees from wind farms
as biomass raw material.
11
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology described in this chapter was developed, as a way to assess the GHG
emissions/savings of allocating the wood waste from wind farms into the biomass
energy sector. It was designed in such a way that could be generally applicable to
different projects. It could be used in the future by other wind farm projects, but might
be also applicable to other developments that need to clear fell woodlands, and manage
as waste5 the wood extracted from the working site.
Just to name a few, here are some examples of projects that might use this methodology
to assess the possibility of sending its wood waste to biomass; railroad and roads
construction, power transmission lines undergrowth clearing, forests transformation into
agricultural land or civil construction.
The methodology will be presented in a way that anyone desiring to calculate the GHG
emissions of a specific case, would be able to make the calculations by applying their
project’s specific parameters.
In order to get a general idea of the changes in the GHG emissions balance, derived
from placing the wood waste into the biomass sector, the method was applied to the
specific case of Griffin wind farm. This allowed evaluating the potential impact the
process might have in wind farms’ GHGs emissions balance, if the wood is sent to the
biomass market instead of managing it as waste.
This chapter will firstly introduce some aspects of the Griffin wind farm, as it was the
case study used to lately test the methodology and estimate the impact in the GHG
emission, when assessing the option of harnessing wood for biomass energy. Then, the
methodology designed will be presented as a generally applicable method to assess the
process, so it can be used in the future for project developers or planners, wishing to
evaluate the benefits (or drawbacks) of sending the wood waste (or not) to the biomass
energy sector. Finally, a database and complementary interactive map of Scottish
biomass producers will be presented. They were developed to ease projects managers
5 For this purpose, waste is understood as the unwanted material that cannot be used for the project being
carried out, so it has to be managed in order to take it away from the developing site.
12
and planners work, when evaluating the possibility of sending the developments site’s
trees to the nearest biomass producer.
3.1 CASE STUDY: GRIFFIN WIND FARM IN SCOTLAND
Griffin Wind Farm is located in Perthshire, just south of Aberfeldy city. It comprises 68
of 2.3 MW turbines, with a total installed capacity of 156.4 MW. The deployment phase
was completed in early 2012, covering an area similar to the city of Perth size (SSE,
2014). Figure 3.1 shows the location of the Griffin wind farm in the area of Perthshire
in Scotland.
According to the Griffin wind farm’s ES and Forestry Felling Plan, the main part of the
trees to be felled were conifer, most of them were Sitka spruce with minor proportion of
Lodgepole Pine, Japanese Larch, Scots Pine, Douglas Fir, Grand Fir, Noble Fir and
small amount of broad-leaved species (Green Power, 2004). The majority of trees were
from mature or semi-mature commercial forests, so trees were noted to be of
merchantable size (SSE Renewables, 2011). Forestry felling plan already envisaged the
allocation of the marketable timber in the Scottish timber industry.
The size of the wind farm forestry clearance area was 524, 35 ha, from which 17 ha
were mulched (M. Morton, SSE Renewables Environmental Manager, personal
communication, interview 17 July 2014) and 507,35 ha were harvested and allocated in
various timber markets. From the 507.35 ha harvested, 108,706.85 tonnes of wood
“were extracted and delivered to markets throughout Scotland” (N. McKay, SSE
Renewables Forestry Manager, personal communication [E-mail], 15 July 14).
Although the percentage of mulching seems to be small (3.2%) in comparison with the
timber harvested, there were 17 hectares mulched, the equivalent to 38 American
football fields. This amount of forest wasted was a big concern for SNH, and was the
main reason Mr Kenneth Taylor suggested Griffin wind farm as a case study for this
research (K. Taylor, Scottish Natural Heritage, personal communication, interview 1
July 2014).
Figure 3.1 locates Griffin wind farm in Scotland, UK. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show a bird’s
eye view of the Griffin wind farm site before and after the forestry clearance and the
deployment of the wind turbines.
13
Figure 3.1: Location of Griffin Wind Farm in Scotland, United Kingdom. (Modified from Bing.com/maps on
21/04/2014)
Figure 3.2: Bird's eye view of the area before the deployment of the Griffin Wind farm. Perthshire, Scotland.
(Modified from: maps.google.co.uk. Aerial photo from 2011 or before)
14
Figure 3.3: Figure 3: Bird's eye view of the area with the Griffin Wind farm turbines already deployed.
Perthshire, Scotland. (Modified from: Bing.com/maps. Aerial photo from 2012 or after)
15
3.2 DEVELOPING A METHOD TO ASSESS GHG EMISSIONS OF
TRANSFORMING WOOD WASTE INTO BIOMASS ENERGY
The main objective of the research was to assess the overall GHG emissions balance
implications of using or not the wood extracted from wind farms as biomass energy
source. For that purpose the whole process was delimited, from clearing the site to
generating energy from the biomass produced, and broken down into smaller activities.
Diagram in figure 3.4 shows all the activities identified within the alternatives assessed.
Figure 3.4: Diagram of the process under study, showing the alternative clearance procedures and wood waste
management being assessed.
To better understand the differences in carbon emitted to the atmosphere by the
different alternatives assessed, the process studied was considered as a closed system
delimited by clear boundaries. This system comprises from the site clearance to the
energy generated (or not) from the biomass produced with the wood extracted.
Considering it as a closed system will allow making a balance, determining whether the
16
whole process saves or emits GHG to the environment, and facilitating the comparison
of the different alternatives proposed.
In order to build a more detailed analysis of the GHGs emissions, the process was
broken down into activities, and those activities were themselves broken down into the
individual sources of GHG, such as forestry equipment, freight transport or machinery
used to produce the biomass. GHG savings in other activities as a side effect of using
the wood to produce energy, as well as trees carbon capture potential losses/savings due
to woodlands clearance, were also taken into account.
Defining the analysis this way makes possible to identify each source of emission,
estimate it and then start adding up the GHG contributions to the balance, according to
the processes involved in each particular case or scenario.
3.2.1 Sources of Information and Data
Although the main analysis was specifically developed for this research purposes,
several documents were consulted to look for relevant data and information, to carry out
the analysis the most accurately and with the most updated data possible. Below, a brief
description of the documents used is presented.
The “Wood Fuel Handbook” is a document arisen from the Biomass Trade Centres
project, supported by the European Agency for Innovation and Competitiveness
(EACI). It was a project developed within the Intelligent Energy Europe programme to
promote the growth of local biomass market by bringing useful information about the
ins and outs of the biomass industry (Francescato et al., 2008). Data of forestry
machinery productivity and consumption, loading capacities and wood density used for
the analysis were taken from this document.
The “2014 Government GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting:
Methodology Paper for Emission Factors” and the “2014 DEFRA’s Greenhouse gas
Conversion Factor Repository” were the main documents consulted to get the official
emission factors for UK emissions accounting on 2014. The DEFRA GHG conversion
factor repository has more than 4000 conversion factors for company reporting on GHG
emissions. The methodology paper was used to consult how emission factors are
calculated and understand what sources of GHG each data takes into account.
17
The “Carbon Factor for wood fuels for the supplier obligation. Final report” is the
document created under DEFRA request to estimate the CO2e factor for wood chips and
pellet, including GHG emissions from the wood cultivation to the final biomass
combustion (Bates & Henry, 2009). This document was used to re-calculate
independent emission factors for biomass production and combustion, by separating the
emissions from cultivation and transport that DEFRA factors have embedded
(Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2014a).
The document “Calculating potential carbon losses and savings from wind farms on
Scottish Peat Lands” is a technical note from the Scottish government which presents
the methodology to calculate GHG emission savings attributable to wind farms in
Scottish peat lands. This document was used to obtain data and the method to calculate
the carbon capture potential lost/saved due to forestry clearance.
The “Guidance on measuring and reporting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from
freight transport operations” is a UK Government’s guidance to aid transport companies
GHG reporting process (Leonardi, McKinnon, & Palmer, 2011). Calculations for
transport emission factors were one using data form the DEFRA conversion factors
repository and the aid of this guidance.
A summary table of the data used for calculating the emission factors (EF)6, and the
final GHG emissions in the case study analysis is presented table 3.1. The last column
in the table indicates what each data was used for.
6 EF=Emission Factor, normally expressed in ⁄ , except for transport ⁄ ) or carbon
capture potential that will be expressed in ⁄ .
18
Table 3.1: Summary of the data used in the analysis. With sources and use references.
DATA SOURCE DATA VALUE USED FOR
2014 DEFRA's
Greenhouse Gas
Conversion
Factor Repository
(Department of
Energy &
Climate Change,
2014a)
HGV (all artics) EF 1,13085
⁄ Transport EF
Diesel (average
biofuel blend) EF 2,6024
⁄ Forestry Machinery EF
Wood logs EF 48,339856
⁄ Logs EF and emissions
displaced from the UK
generation
Wood logs net
calorific value 4,08
Emissions displaced
from the UK generation
Wood chips EF 46,037958
⁄ Chips EF and emissions
displaced from the UK
generation
Wood chips net
calorific value 3,89
Emissions displaced
from the UK generation
Wood pellets EF 55,903235
⁄ Pellets EF and
emissions displaced
from the UK generation
Wood pellets net
calorific value 4,72
Emissions displaced
from the UK generation
Electricity
Generation UK EF 0,49426
⁄ Emissions displaced
from the UK generation
Wood Fuels
Hand Book
(Francescato et
al., 2008)
Harvester
productivity 8 ~ 3,5
Mulching and
Harvesting Works EFs
Harvester fuel
consumption 16
Mulching and
Harvesting Works EFs
Chipper (high
power) productivity 13
Mulching and Chips
Production EFs
Chipper (high
power) fuel
consumption
38 Mulching and Chips
Production EFs
Combined saw-split
wood productivity 12 Logs Production EF
Combined saw-split
wood fuel
consumption 8 Logs Production EF
Forwarder
productivity 12 ~ 5,4 Harvesting Works EF
Forwarder fuel
consumption 11 Harvesting Works EF
Truck and Trailer
(HGV) loading
capacity 81 ~ 20 Transport EF
Spruce density 450 Calculate equivalence
tonnes- bulk or solid m3
19
DATA SOURCE DATA VALUE USED FOR Calculating
potential carbon
losses and
savings from
wind farms on
Scottish Peat
Lands
(Scottish
Government,
2011a)
Carbon
Sequestration for
Sitka Spruce
13,2
⁄ Carbon Capture
Potential
Carbon Factor for
wood fuels for
the supplier
obligation. Final
report
(Bates & Henry,
2009)
Total GHG
emissions per
MWh generated
from chips
22,96
⁄ Chips Production and
Combustion EF
GHG emissions per
MWh from
cultivation and
transport of chips
13,59
⁄ Chips Production and
Combustion EF
GHG Emissions for
chips processing 3,14
⁄ Chips Production EF
GHG Emissions for
chips combustion 6,23
⁄ Chips Combustion EF
Total GHG
emissions per
MWh generated
from pellets
106,54
⁄ Pellets Production and
Combustion EF
GHG emissions per
MWh from
cultivation and
transport of pellets
14,85
⁄ Pellets Production and
Combustion EF
GHG Emissions for
pellets processing 85,46
⁄ Pellets Production EF
GHG Emissions for
pellets combustion 6,23
⁄ Pellets Combustion EF
SSE Renewables
(requested
information)
Total Area Felled 524,35 ha Case Study Analysis
Area Mulched 17 ha Case Study Analysis
Tonnes Harvested
(sent to markets) 108706,84 t Case Study Analysis
20
3.2.2 Assumptions for Carbon Factors Calculation
There are several factors that, depending on the situation, will change the result
obtained. For example, productivity and fuel consumption rates of the equipment used;
the type of trees felled; or the real distances to be covered to transport the wood. These
are variables that differ depending on each project and situation.
As the work presented intends to evaluate different alternatives for a process and not to
be a precise calculation for a specific project, some assumptions were needed. This
section states all general assumptions done to run the analysis. To adjust the method for
other projects, these assumptions should be revised and the specific values for the real
development should be used.
Type of wood
According to the Griffin wind farm Environmental Statement, the area felled was
predominantly a conifer commercial forest plantation comprised mainly of Sitka
Spruce, with smaller areas of Lodgepole Pine, Japanese Larch, Scots Pine, Douglas Fir,
Grand Fir, Noble Fir and some broad-leaved (Green Power, 2004; Griffin Wind Farm
Ltd, 2010; SSE Renewables, 2011). For this reason, the wood mass density used in this
analysis for calculations related to wood weights and volumes was 450 ⁄ ,
indicative density for Spruce species (Francescato et al., 2008).
Choosing a value from a range
In the literature some parameters are presented as ranges instead of specific values.
Doing the calculations using ranges instead of unique values, would make the analysis
too complicated, while not increasing the quality of the result. To choose specific values
from that ranges, the “worst case” criterion was used in order to avoid underestimations
of GHG emissions. As an example, for productivity rates the smaller number was used,
while for fuel consumptions the value taken was the higher one.
Type of fuel burned for forestry activities and transport
For the present study, machinery and equipment for forestry work and freight transport
are considered Heavy Goods Vehicles. The DEFRA’s “2014 Methodology Paper for
Carbon Calculation” determines Heavy Goods Vehicles emission using the standard
fuel conversion factor for diesel. Accordingly, emission factors for activities involving
21
forestry equipment in the analysis below (section 4.1) were calculated using DEFRA’s
diesel (average biofuel blend) factor, as it is considered the standard diesel served in
local filling stations. For freight transport, the emission factor for an average Heavy
Good Vehicle articulated, diesel and 100% loaded was used. Table 3.2 shows a
summary of the assumptions done.
Table 3.2: Summary table of the assumptions done for the analysis. With recommendations to adapt the
method to other projects.
ASSUMPTION VALUE RATIONALE RECOMMENDATION FOR
OTHER PROJECTS
Mass density of Spruce
species will be used to
calculate factors related
to wood weights and
volumes.
Spruce mass
density:
⁄
Each specific type of
forest and wood has a
different mass density
value. Depending on
this value, the same
volume of wood would
be more or less heavy.
Spruce was chosen
because it was the main
species in the case study
area (Griffin wind farm)
Use the mass density value
of the specific trees species
in the project area.
Mass density values for
different conifer and broad
leaved species can be found
in the “Wood Fuels
Handbook” (Francescato et
al., 2008)
When instead of specific
numbers, ranges are
given as indicative data,
the worst option was
chosen.
Higher number for
consumption
ranges or lower
number for
productivity
ranges.
Sometimes data is given
in ranges as the exact
value depends on the
variability of other
factors. However, to
make calculations a
specific number is
needed, so it was
assumed the “worst case
scenario” to avoid
underestimations of
GHG emissions.
When possible, try to define
the most likely value, and
use it. Sometimes,
professional experience, or
data from previous similar
works can be more helpful to
estimate machinery
productivity and fuel
consumption.
The 2014 emission
factor for diesel was
used to calculate
machinery emission
factors. Diesel average
fuel blend was chosen,
as it is the one supplied
in most of the filling
stations. (Department for
Environment Food &
Rural Affairs, 2014)
Diesel (average
biofuel blend) EF
⁄
According to DEFRA’s
guides, most
agricultural and forestry
machinery is diesel-
fuelled. (Leonardi et al.,
2011)
Determine which fuel each
machine uses and look for
the specific emission factor
for the fuel that will be used.
It is recommended to use the
last DEFRA emission factor
available. Factors are
normally revised each year.
(Department for
Environment Food & Rural
Affairs, 2014)
22
3.2.3 Calculating Carbon Emission Factors
Each emission factor was estimated in order to give the CO2 equivalent emissions per
tonne of wood “processed” in each identified activity, i.e: mulching, harvesting,
transport, biomass production or biomass energy generation. In every activity likely to
release GHG to the atmosphere, more than one source might be acting, so the emission
factors defined in this section are estimated for each emission source. Then it is possible
to calculate the activity emissions factor by adding the individual factors of the
emissions sources involved in each activity.
Having the tonnes of wood as a constant in each factor and all of them in the same units
( ⁄ ) will simplify the calculations when entering them into the
entire process’ GHGs balance. Subsections below detail the specific emissions factors
developed to estimate potential emissions from each source of GHG.
3.2.3.1 Emissions per tonne of wood processed by forestry
machinery
GHG released to the atmosphere by the equipment needed for forestry works can be
estimated from the mean emissions of each machine per tonne of wood processed. The
calculation for estimating these emissions factors is detailed in box 3.1.
𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙 × 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑙
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡
The equation presented here can be used to calculate the emission factor of each
forestry machine used for the clear felling works in the wind far development site.
The resultant factor indicates the kilograms of CO2e emitted to the atmosphere, per
tonne of wood processed by each forestry machine.
Where:
Equipment EF = GHG Emission Factor per machine used in the forest
clearance.
Fuel Consumption = Fuel consumption rate of the specific machine for
which the EF is being calculated.
Fuel EF = Emission factor of the specific type of fuel the machine uses. It is
recommended for calculations on UK projects, to use the most recent
DEFRA’s emission factor.
Productivity = Quantity of wood (tonnes) the machine can process per hour.
Box 3.1: Equation to calculate forestry equipment emission factors.
23
3.2.3.2 Emissions per tonne of wood transported and per
kilometre driven
As distances for transport are a variable that will change between scenarios in the
analysis, the carbon emission factor for transportation will be the only one not
expressed in ⁄ but in ⁄ . The DEFRA emission factor selected to
estimate the emissions per tonne transported, was the one for articulated Heavy Good
Vehicles, fuelled with diesel and 100% loaded. Box 3.2 Shows the equation to calculate
the transport emission factor.
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 𝑘𝑚 =
𝐻𝐺𝑉 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 1 % 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑘𝑚
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡)
This equation can be used to calculate the emission factor of transporting the wood
extracted from the working site to a biomass production centre. The resulting factor
indicates the kilograms of CO2e emitted to the atmosphere, per tonne of wood
transported and per kilometre. Being estimated this way, the factor can be used for
different amounts of expected wood extraction and for different combinations of
distances between the working site and the nearest biomass producer.
Where:
Transport EF = GHG emission factor for transporting per tonne of wood and per
kilometre.
HGV articulated 100% loaded EF = GHG emission factor for a Heavy Goods
Vehicle, articulated and loaded to its maximum capacity.
Fuel EF= Emission factor of the specific type of fuel the machine uses. It is
recommended for calculations on UK projects, to use the most recent DEFRA’s
emission factor.
Load Capacity = Quantity of wood (in tonnes) the vehicle can transport.
Box 3.2: Equation to calculate transport emission factor.
24
3.2.3.3 Emissions due to energy generated from biomass.
Disjoining biomass production and combustion factors
Biomass carbon emission factors provided by DEFRA include emissions related not
only to biomass combustion for energy generation, but emissions from cultivation,
transport and the biomass production process (Bates & Henry, 2009; Department of
Energy & Climate Change, 2014a). This means that the “official” emission factors from
the DEFRA repository have 4 components of emission sources related to biomass
energy: cultivation, transport, wood processing and combustion. Table 3.3 contains the
data of GHG emissions of chips and pellets, separated by GHG emitting component.
Table 3.3: Life cycle GHG emissions from the combustion of a selection of wood chips and pellets. (kg CO2 e
per MWh fuel). Data extracted from table 5.3, in Bates & Henry, 2009.
Feedstock Cultivation Processing Transport Combustion Total
Short rotation coppice chips 11.13 3.14 2.46 6.23 22.96
Short rotation coppice pellets 10.16 85.46 4.69 6.23 106.54
Cultivation of the trees occurs way before the initial stage of the process subject of
study, the wood harvesting. Therefore, emissions due to cultivation will not be taken
into account, as it is outside of the boundaries of the system being analysed in this
dissertation. Transport will be accounted using the specific emission factor estimated
in section 3.2.3.2 above, so it will be also excluded from the biomass production and
combustion emission factors.
In order to allow specific calculations in different scenarios and compare them, the other
two components, wood processing and combustion, were recalculated. The factors re-
calculation for chips and pellets, were done in line with the original estimation of the
biomass carbon factors, prepared by AEA under DEFRA’s request (Bates & Henry,
2009). Logs processing emission factor was estimated as the GHG emissions generated
by the machinery needed to cut the wood in logs, because there are no data for logs in
the AEA report. Boxes 3.3 and 3.4 show the re-calculation done to calculate biomass
processing and combustion factor.
25
𝐶 𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝐶 𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
Chips Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
× 𝐶 𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡
𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑘𝑊
Pellets Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
× 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡
𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑊 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 l
CSSW Productivity t
× 𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑙
In this box the calculations done to estimate the emission factors for the biomass
production are detailed. The resulting factors indicate the kilograms of CO2e emitted
to the atmosphere, per tonne of biomass produced (logs, chips and pellets). Being
estimated this way, it is possible to compare the impacts in GHG emissions of each
biomass type, and make more detailed analysis of the different options for the final
timber destination.
Where:
Chips/Pellets/Logs Prod. EF = GHG emission factor per tonne of wood processed
as chips/pellets/logs, estimated in 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2𝑒
𝑡 .
Chips/Pellets Process. Emissions = Portion relative to chips/pellets processing, from
the GHG emissions per kWh generated with the chips/pellets.
Chips/Pellets Total Emissions = GHG emissions per kWh generated with the
chips/pellets.
Chips/Pellets EF = GHG emission factor per tonne of chips/pellets converted into
energy.
CSSW Fuel Consumption = Fuel consumption rate of the Combined Saw-Split
Wood machine, supposed to be used to cut the wood into logs.
CSSW Productivity= Quantity of wood (in tonnes) the Combined Saw-Split Wood
machine can convert into logs in one hour.
Fuel EF= Emission factor of the specific type of fuel the machine uses. It is
recommended for calculations on UK projects, to use the most recent DEFRA’s
emission factor.
Box 3.3: Re-calculation of biomass (chips and pellets) processing emission factors; and estimation of logs
processing emission factor.
26
𝐶 𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
Chips Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
× 𝐶 𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡
𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑘𝑊
Pellets Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
× 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡
𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 =
𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑘𝑊
∗ Pellets Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊
× 𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑠 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡
In this box the calculations done to estimate the emission factors for the biomass
combustion are detailed. The resulting factors indicate the kilograms of CO2e
emitted to the atmosphere, per tonne of biomass burned (logs, chips and pellets).
From the AEA report (Bates & Henry, 2009) for the DEFRA carbon emission
factors it is extracted that the combustion emissions per MWh generated are equal
for every form of biomass, so same assumption was used for these calculations.
Where:
Chips/Pellets/Logs Comb. EF = GHG emission factor per tonne of chips/pellets/logs
combusted as chips/pellets/logs, estimated in 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂2𝑒
𝑡 .
Biomass Comb. Emissions = Portion relative to chips/pellets/Logs combustion, from
the GHG emissions per kWh generated with the chips/pellets/Logs.
Chips/Pellets Total Emissions = GHG emissions per kWh generated with the
chips/pellets.
Chips/Pellets/Logs EF = GHG emission factor per tonne of chips/pellets/Logs
converted into energy.
*Note: The AEA report (Bates & Henry, 2009) do not give values for the emissions per MWh
generated with logs. In order to make the calculations -and assuming that the error should be
contemptible- the logs total emissions are assumed to be like the chips total GHG emissions.
Box 3.4: Re-calculation of biomass (chips, pellets and logs) combustion emission factors.
27
3.2.3.4 Emissions saved from energy generation
displaced from the UK grid mix
Energy generated by burning biomass produced from the wood extracted from wind
farms development sites, should displace energy that would have been generated from
the UK grid mix. Box 3.5 details how this emission savings can be estimated.
3.2.3.5 Carbon capture potential saved/lost
Trees act as natural carbon sinks capturing it from the environment. Clear felling forests
to allow wind farms deployment causes losses in carbon capture potential. These losses
should be accounted as permanent because the area need to remain cleared, allowing the
wind farm to operate effectively. Using the wood harvested to generate energy instead
of mulching it; not only prevents cutting trees from biomass companies’ commercial
forests, but allows those commercial forests to keep capturing CO2, during the period
the wind farm is supplying the biomass market.
Both activities -clearing the wind farm site and harvesting wood from commercial
forests to produce biomass- fall within the system boundaries previously defined in
section 3.2 for the process subject to study. However, due to the nature of this factor, a
time boundary must be set. Carbon capture is a continued over time process that should
not be accounted as a punctual loss or saving. Hence, a time boundary should be set not
to skew the delimited process CO2 balance. It is worthwhile to remember at this point,
that the objective of this study is to estimate the emissions balance of a specific process
and not the carbon footprint of the wind farms' lifespan.
To calculate the carbon capture potential losses, it will be considered that two similar
forest areas –both the same size as the area felled- come into play. The wind farm
cleared area is considered as a permanent lost, whilst the equivalent area from the
commercial forest is considered variable, depending on the final destination of the wood
harvested in the first area. If the wood is used to supply the biomass industry, there
would be no need to harvest it from commercial forests, so its carbon capture potential
will remain undamaged. But, if the wood in the wind farm site is managed as waste, i.e.
mulched, the biomass industry would need to harvest it from commercial forests, thus
losing its capture potential.
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑆𝐹 𝑘𝑔𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑡 = 𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐶𝑉
𝑘𝑊
𝑡 × 𝑈𝐾 𝐸.𝐺𝑒𝑛. 𝐸𝐹
𝑘𝑔𝐶𝑂 𝑒
𝑘𝑊
In order to quantify emissions saved from displacing conventional energy
generation, the potential energy produced per tonne of biomass can be calculated
using the net calorific value for each form of biomass (wood logs, wood chips and
wood pellets). Then, emissions that would have been generated if the equivalent
amount of energy was produced by the UK grid mix, can be calculated using the
convenient DEFRA emission factor (for electricity generated in the UK).
Where:
Emissions SF = Emissions savings factor. GHG not released to the atmosphere by
generating energy from other source, because it was produced from one tonne of
biomass.
Biomass Net CV = Net Calorific Value of each form of biomass.
UK E. Gen. EF= Emission factor of the energy generated for the grid supply, taking
into account the UK grid mix.
Box 3.5: Equation to estimate emissions saved from the UK grid mix energy generation, due to the same
amount of energy being produced from one tonne of biomass.
28
This factor is one of the most intricate to estimate due to the complexity of the process.
However, it is important to keep the trees carbon capture potentiality in mind, as its
protection carries a double benefit; not releasing its carbon stock to the atmosphere,
while capturing carbon from other human activities. The factor was estimated as
detailed in Box 3.6.
𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑂 𝑡 𝐶𝑂
𝑦𝑟 = 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑
𝑡 𝐶𝑂
𝑎 𝑦𝑟 × 𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑎)
The factor can be calculated with a simple method that uses estimates, provided by
Cannell (1999), of the average carbon sequestered per year by different species of
trees (Scottish Government, 2011a).
Where:
Loss CO2 = GHG not captured from the atmosphere (in one year) by the trees felled
in the development area.
Carbon Sequestered = Tonnes of CO2 the forest can potentially capture from the
atmosphere, per hectare and year. This value will depend on the type of forest that
will be felled.
Felling Area= Total area from the development site that need to be clear-felled.
Box 3.6: Equation to estimate carbon capture potential loss due to trees felling.
29
3.3 SCOTTISH BIOMASS PRODUCERS MAP & DATABASE
Looking for possible markets to allocate the wood, the biomass sector was spotted and
further researched, because it was seen as a growing market. The biomass demand is
being promoted by the UK Government through the RHI7 (Ofgem, 2014; UK
Government, 2014b). Furthermore, supported by the official BSL8 the demand of
sustainably sourced biomass will increase, since to be eligible for the RHI scheme,
biomass burned by users should meet specific sustainability criteria (Department of
Energy & Climate Change, 2014b).
The stated above makes biomass markets one of the best options to allocate the timber,
avoiding its wastage; the market is already working; the infrastructure is already there
and is being incentivized by the government. Therefore, it is expected that the biomass
sector will grow in the near future, and sustainability will be a must to comply with
government’s requirements.
Nowadays, government efforts are being put in developing the BSL. Since 30th
April
2014, biomass suppliers can apply to be included in the list that will provide biomass
users with information on where to find a RHI certified biomass supplier (UK
Government, 2014c).
However, there is not such a list for biomass producers, and it would be certainly useful
for wind farms developers, to easily plan its wood waste management. It will also be on
the biomass producers’ interest, as the list will put them in the map, to be seen and
easily contacted by developers who need to get rid of wood, biomass products main raw
material.
Biomass Producers Map & Database Usefulness
There are quite a few companies in Scotland (about 50) working with wood and
producing biomass to supply the increasing demand. However, it was found difficult to
find, conveniently structured and compiled information about biomass production
companies. There was not a single information source that could be efficiently used by
7 Renewables Heat Incentive.
8 Biomass Suppliers List.
30
developers, when deciding what to do with projects’ wood waste. This might certainly
make difficult and time consuming for them, to plan and implement a strategy to
allocate the wood in the market.
Due to the foregoing, the need of having a comprehensive database with biomass
producers was detected. In order to satisfy this need, the “Scottish Biomass Producers
Map & Database” was developed. The objective is to facilitate access to useful
information compiled in the same place, and provide a comprehensive map to easy spot
potential biomass producers to assume the projects’ unwanted wood. Easing the access
to biomass companies’ information and contact details, should make this process easier
and encourage developers to send the unwanted wood to biomass producers, and not
waste it by mulching the trees on-site.
How the Map & Database Were Designed
The “Scottish Biomass Producers Map & Database” was created from data extracted
from the Carbon Trust and the Biomass Energy Centre’s “National Biomass Suppliers
Database” (Biomass Energy Centre & Carbon Trust, 2012; Carbon Trust, 2011).
Companies in the NBSD were scrutinised9 and only biomass manufacturers were
included, discarding companies that only supply the biomass but do not have biomass
production facilities.
A previous map was created using a regular Ordnance Survey Map10
-Scotland Travel
Map (Scale 1:500.000), pinpointing the biomass producers and Griffin wind farm with
stickers. Then it was realised the potential usefulness it could have for the future if it
was implemented on-line and made it publicly accessible. It was devised as a tool that
could be used to locate current Scottish biomass producers, and link their information so
they can be “seen” and contacted by future wind farms projects’ developers.
Hence, the on-line interactive map was created and the database was integrated, to
provide information of each biomass producer when clicking on its location. The map
was created using Google Maps Engine, an online Google tool that allow to create
9 The selection was based on each company’s website information, so one-off inaccuracies might appear
within the final list. In absence of corporate website or lack of information the criteria used was to include
the company in the list. 10
www.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk
31
personalised maps on top of a regular Google base map. A database with all the
information to be included in the interactive map was created in Microsoft Excel, and
then integrated within the on-line application. The database with all the information
included in the interactive map is enclosed in Appendix IV.
Accessing the On-Line Scottish Biomass Producers Map & Database
The online map developed contains information from fifty Scottish biomass production
companies. The map initially shows the location of each company and, when clicking
the place marks, a popup box shows the company’s information stored in the database.
Hyperlinks to the companies’ websites are included in the popup box, so users can
access directly from the map to the desired company’s website, to have more
information about it. Direct email contacts are also included to save time browsing on
the website, in case users want to directly contact them.
Figure 3.5 shows a map’s screenshot displaying the location of all Scottish biomass
producers. Figure 3.6 shows an example of the popup box with the company
information.
32
Figure 3.5:Biomass Producers Map and Database. With location of all producers.
33
Figure 3.6: Biomass Producers Map and Database. Detail of the popup information box.
34
To access the on-line “Scottish Biomass Producers Map & Database” from a PC
connected to internet, click the following shortened URL or copy it in the browser’s11
address bar: http://goo.gl/XDX88c
It is also possible to access it from a Tablet or Smartphone (with access to internet data),
scanning the QR Code with the built in camera (with a QR Code Reader App). It will
redirect the mobile browser directly to the map. To have better functioning in mobile
devices, it is preferable to open it with the Google Engine mobile app.
3.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
It is not possible, or at least very difficult, to make precise estimations of GHG
emissions without all the specific information and data required. The methodology was
created as detailed as possible, but assumptions were needed as there are some factors
that strongly depend on the precise project that should be evaluated.
Having said that, emission factors calculated in chapter 4 are valid accordingly to the
assumptions explained in section 3.2.2, however, to apply the method to other projects,
emission factors should be revised and recalculated using the precise data and
specifications of the particular project being assessed.
Furthermore, the dissertation is focused on a specific process with specific activities
involved. Any changes on machinery used for any activity, or if there are different
11 Google Maps Engine supported browsers: Google Chrome version 10 and later and Mozilla Firefox
version 3.6 and later. Microsoft Internet Explorer version 8 and later should normally work, but might
give some problems (Google Help Center, 2014)
35
activities involved, should be taken into account when assessing the overall process, as
each source of GHG on each activity should be taken into account to achieve reliable
results.
The “Scottish Biomass Producers Database and Map” were designed with attention to
detail. However, some companies might have remained unnoticed. This does not mean
the database and map are less useful, it just means that there might be a company that
can offer the service, but it is not yet included in the database. If finding it useful to be
widely used, with help of government organisations, the map and database could be
upgraded with more biomass companies and more detailed information.
36
Chapter 4 CARBON IMPLICATIONS OF SOURCING THE
BIOMASS MARKET WITH WIND FARMS’ TIMBER. GRIFFIN
WIND FARM CASE STUDY
In this chapter, the GHG emissions associated to the process from clearing the wind
farm area to the final allocation of the wood in the biomass market will be analysed.
Different options will be included; from managing all the trees as waste to allocating all
the wood extracted into the biomass market, including intermediate solutions between
these two extremes.
To make the analysis, clear boundaries in the scope of the analysis were needed in order
to clearly define which aspects and to which extent will be taken into account. As
explained in section 3.2, the analysis will cover from the clearance of the wind farm
development area, to the final generation of the biomass produced from the timber
extracted -to the extent the timber was derived to biomass production or not.
This chapter is structured in two main sections, it will commence with the estimation of
the GHG emission factors by activity (section 4.1) that will be then used to make the
case study GHG analysis, covered in section 4.2.
4.1 ESTIMATION OF GHGS EMISSION FACTORS BY ACTIVITY
In order to assess the differences in the carbon balance of different alternatives, an
initial breakdown of the operations involved in the processes was done. Resulting GHG
emitting activities were:
Mulching (section 4.1.1)
Harvesting works (section 4.1.2)
Transport (section 4.1.3)
Biomass production (section 4.1.4)
Energy generation (section 4.1.5)
Apart from the forestry and biomass energy generation activities, the trees’ carbon
capture potential (section 4.1.7) and savings from grid energy generation (section
37
4.1.6) -displaced by energy generated through biomass burning- were taken into
account.
Data and figures from a diverse range of documents were used to estimate the emission
factors for each stage of the process. In order to keep consistency along the calculations,
and obtain a better set of results to compare; data from similar sectors, or regarding the
same activity, were taken (when possible) from the same source. A summary of the
data, with the values and sources of information used, can be found in table 3.1 in the
methodology chapter.
Carbon emissions factors for each activity were calculated and presented in kg CO2e per
tonne of wood, except for transport that were calculated in kg CO2e per tonne of wood
and kilometre, and the carbon capture potential that was calculated in kg CO2e per year.
4.1.1 Mulching Emission Factor
By mulching the trees, the wood is managed as waste material, chopping it and
spreading the mulch around the area, not harvesting the wood for further uses. Forestry
mulchers, called as well masticators or brushcutters are normally mulching heads
mounted on a tractor or an excavator. Depending on the size and thickness of the
material to be processed, there are different combinations with different working powers
and consumptions.
In absence of standardised data of productivity and fuel consumption for forestry
mulching equipment, for this study purposes, this process will be equated to the
combined job of a harvester and a chipper. To calculate the CO2 emission factor for
mulching, it is considered that the time, resources and energy required to shred a
standing tree is comparable with felling and chipping it.
CO2 emissions factor of mulching is calculated below according to the productivity and
the fuel consumption specifications of the machinery involved in the process. The
productivity, fuel consumption and fuel emission factor used to make the calculations
are summarized in table 4.1.
38
Table 4.1: Parameters of machinery used to calculate CO2 emissions factors per tonne of wood mulched.
Productivity ⁄ ) Fuel Consumption ⁄ )
Harvester
3.6 a
16
Chipper (high power)b
13 38
Diesel (average biofuel
blend) Emission Factor 2.6024
2
a The productivity of the harvester is 8 m
3 per hour. This value was converted into tonnes per hour using
the Spruce density, 450 kg per m3 (Francescato et al., 2008).
b The “Wood Fuel Handbook” (Francescato et al., 2008) includes 3 categories of chipper, small power,
medium power and high power. For this case, the high power chipper was chosen because is the one that
allow processing trees with a wider diameter, >30 cm.
Mulching emission factor was calculated by adding the emission factors of the forestry
machinery involved, i.e: harvester and chipper.
=
Machinery EFs were calculated as indicated in Box 3.1 in the methodology chapter.
Introducing the specifications data for the machinery involved, mulching emission
factor is calculated as:
=
1 ⁄ × .
⁄
. ⁄
⁄ × .
⁄
1 ⁄= 1 .1
⁄
This parameter can be used to calculate the carbon emissions related to the work
undertaken to only clear the area -mulch it- when not harvesting the wood for
commercial used.
4.1.2 Harvesting Works Emission Factor
Wood harvesting operations, in contrast to mulching, imply that the trees have to be cut
and prepared to be transported to its final destination, where it will be used as raw
material. To calculate harvesting works EF it was considered that this process involves:
cutting the trees; preparing the wood to be transported, i.e: separating branches from the
trunks and topping them (delimbing) and; hauling the prepared material to the loading
for transportation zone (Francescato et al., 2008). Table 4.2 shows the parameters used
to calculate harvesting emission fators.
39
Table 4.2: Parameters of machinery used to calculate CO2e emissions factors per tonne of wood harvested.
Productivity ⁄ ) Fuel Consumption ⁄ )
Harvester
3.6 a
16
Excavator-mounted
Processor b
4.5 a
17
Forwarder 5.4 a
11
Diesel (average biofuel
blend) Emission Factor 2.6024
2
a The productivity of the machinery is given in the literature in m
3 per hour. This values were converted
into tonnes per hour using the Spruce density, 450 kg per m3 (Francescato et al., 2008)
b The “Wood Fuel Handbook” (Francescato et al., 2008) includes 2 options for delimbing machines;
excavator-based and tractor-mounted processors. For this case, the excavator-based processor was chosen
because is the one that allow bigger cutting (65 cm) and delimbing (60 cm) diameters.
The harvesting works emission factor was estimated by adding the emissions per tonne
of trees felled with the harvester, emissions per tonne of wood prepared to be
transported (by the excavator m-mounted processor), and the emissions per tonne of
wood hauled with the forwarder.
=
Machinery EFs were calculated as indicated in Box 3.1 in the methodology chapter.
Introducing the specifications data for the machinery involved, harvesting emission
factor is calculated as:
= 1 ⁄ × .
⁄
. ⁄
1 ⁄ × .
⁄
. ⁄
11 ⁄ × .
⁄
. ⁄= .
⁄
This parameter can be used to calculate the carbon emissions related to clearing the area
by harvesting the trees. It takes into account the equipment that was considered
appropriate to: fell the trees, prepare the trunks and branches to be transported, and haul
the wood to the transport loading area.
40
4.1.3 Carbon Emission Factor for Transport
It is considered that transport emissions are the ones that take place, when transporting
the wood from the extraction site to the final destination where that wood will be used
(Francescato et al., 2008).
To calculate the GHG emissions due to transport of wood, it was considered that lorries
(truck and trailer) were HGVs (all diesel) articulated and 100% loaded. The DEFRA’s
emission factor was accordingly selected to make the calculations. Factors provided
already account for some empty running (Leonardi et al., 2011), so it was considered
that there was no need to add extra “no loaded” mileage to the carbon emissions account
for transport. Table 4.3 shows the data used to calculate transport CO2e emissions factor
Table 4.3: Parameters used to calculate CO2e emissions factor per kilometre and tonne of wood transported.
Load Capacity
(t)
DEFRA’s Emission Factor (kg
CO2e/km)
Truck and Trailer a
20 1,13085 b
a According to the “Wood Fuels Handbook” (Francescato et al., 2008), wood (independently if it is in
logs or chips form) is normally transported by truck and trailer type of lorry.
b The DEFRA factor used is for HGVs diesel fuelled and 100% loaded, as those are the c
The emission factor for transport was done according to the methodology described in
Box 3.2, and it is detailed below.
=
1.1
= .
⁄
Distances from Griffin Wind Farm to the companies that manufacture biomass in
Scotland, were estimated using Google Maps. All distances are in kilometres and were
measured from the entrance of the wind farm facilities to the exact address of each
company, as it appears in the “National Biomass Suppliers Database”. When more than
one route was suggested by Google Maps, the criterion used was to pick the shortest,
not the fastest one. It is considered for this study that shorter distances should prevail
for freight transport when choosing a route.
41
As not every biomass company produces all three types of biomass studied, distances
for wood transportation were calculated for the 5 and 10 nearest companies producing
logs, the 5 and 10 nearest producing chips, and the 5 and 10 nearest producing pellets.
More than one company for the wood destination was taken into consideration, because
being most of them small-family businesses, it is supposed that a single company would
not be able to assume the quantity of raw material at the pace it would be extracted from
the felling site. This way, the emission factor for transport will take into account the
exact distance the wood would have to be transported for each type of final product, and
will be possible to estimate which biomass option is better. There are more companies
producing logs and chips than producing pellets. In consequence, wood intended to
manufacture pellets normally travel more kilometres, and that has to be embedded in the
GHG emissions of energy generated from pellets. Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 contain the
distances to the 10 nearest biomass companies to Griffin wind farm, according to the
biomass product they manufacture.
Table 4.4: Distances from Griffin wind farm to the 10 nearest companies that manufacture logs.
Logs Companies Distance to Griffin WF (km)
RTS Ltd Woodland Managers and Consultants 30,4
Sawdust Woodfuels Scotland 33.5
Reith Partners (Woodfuel) Ltd 34.8
Baledmund Estate 45
Community TreeCycle 47.5
Glendoick Estate/Forestry 58,5
AC Gold Energy 64.6
UPM Tilhill 66,1
Scot Heating Company Ltd 68.6
Burnlogs 98.6
Mean distance to the nearest 5 38.24
Mean distance to the nearest 10 54.76
42
Table 4.5: Distances from Griffin wind farm to the 10 nearest companies that manufacture wood chips.
Wood Chips Companies Distance to Griffin WF (km)
RTS Ltd Woodland Managers and Consultants 30,4
Reith Partners (Woodfuel) Ltd 34,8
Angus Biofuels 71,3
Strathmore Briquette 65,1
Our Power c/o Here We Are 122
AC Gold Energy 64,6
UPM Tilhill 66,1
Scot Heating Company Ltd 68,6
Champfleurie Estate 105
Alvie Woodfuel 115
Mean distance to the nearest 5 64.72
Mean distance to the nearest 10 74.29
Table 4.6: Distances from Griffin wind farm to the 10 nearest companies that manufacture pellets.
Pellets Companies Distance to Griffin WF (km)
Reith Partners (Woodfuel) Ltd 34,8
AC Gold Energy 64,6
Scot Heating Company Ltd 68,6
Champfleurie Estate 105
Alvie Woodfuel 115
HWEnergy Ltd 136
Pentland Biomass 122
Arbuthnott Wood Pellets Ltd 115
Harper Contracts 173
Balcas brites Scotland 216
Mean distance to the nearest 5 77.6
Mean distance to the nearest 10 115
43
For the GHG emissions related to transport analysis, transport EF was multiplied by the
distance the wood has to be transported to be converted into each type of wood fuel.
This gives the GHG emissions that have to be accounted in relation to transport, for
each scenario.
4.1.4 Biomass Production Emission Factors
Processing raw wood to convert it into biomass that can be used to generate energy, is
also energy consuming. GHG emissions due to this procedure should be accounted as
well if a detailed analysis of the GHG emissions is wanted.
As explained in section 3.2.3.3, biomass emission factors from the 2014 DEFRA
repository (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2014) take into account
-in the same factor- emissions related to cultivation, transport, wood processing and
combustion. In this section the emission factor for processing the wood to obtain each
form of biomass is estimated following the methodology detailed in Box 3.3.
The data used to calculate biomass production emission factors is summarised in table
4.7.
Table 4.7: Parameters used to calculate CO2 emissions factor per tonne of biomass produced.
Processing
Emissions
Total Emissions
DEFRA biomass EF
Chips 3.14 22.96 46,038
Pellets 85.46 106.54 55,903
Combined saw-
split wood
productivity
⁄
Combined saw-
split wood fuel
consumption
⁄
Diesel (average biofuel
blend) EF
Logs 12 8 2.6024
44
Calculations done to estimate production EFs for wood chips, wood pellets and logs are
detailed below.
=
.1
.
× .
= .
t⁄
=
.
1 .
× .
= .
t⁄
=
⁄
1 ⁄× .
= 1.
t⁄
4.1.5 Biomass Combustion Emission Factors
All combustion processes release GHG to the atmosphere, burning biomass is not an
exception. Emission factors for burning logs, chips and pellets are calculated in this
section, following the methodology detailed in Box 3.4.
The data used to calculate biomass combustion emission factors is summarised in table
4.8.
Table 4.8: Parameters used to calculate CO2 emissions factor per tonne of biomass burned.
Combustion
Emissions
Total Emissions
DEFRA biomass EF
Chips 6.23 22.96 46,038
Pellets 6.23 106.54 55,903
Logs 6.23 - 48.340
Calculations done to estimate combustion EFs for wood chips, wood pellets and logs
are detailed below.
45
=
.
.
× .
= 1 .
⁄
=
.
1 .
× .
= .
⁄
=
.
.
× .
= 1 .1
⁄
4.1.6 Emissions Saved in Energy Generation from the UK Mix.
Emissions Savings Factor
Normally energy is generated from a mix of “common” energy sources. These forms of
energy generation are big GHG emissions sources. According to the 2014 DEFRA
GHG conversion factor repository for each kWh generated by the traditional UK mix,
0.494 kgCO2e are released to the atmosphere. Nevertheless, emissions per kWh
generated from biomass combustion are in the range of 0.012 kg CO2e, a number almost
50 times smaller. This is a huge difference not to be taken into account when deciding
how to manage wood waste.
If the wood extracted from wind farms sites, is sent to generate energy from the biomass
produced from it, savings in energy generation from other sources have to be accounted.
Table 4.9: Biomass net calorific values.
Wood Logs Wood Chips Wood Pellets
Net Calorific Value kWh/t
4,080 3,890 4,720
The emissions saving factor regarding the traditional energy generation displaced by
tonne of biomass combusted was calculated following the methodology detailed in Box
3.5.
=
× .
= 1 .
⁄
46
=
× .
= 1 .1
⁄
=
× .
= . 1
⁄
4.1.7 Forests Carbon Capture Potential Losses
By deploying a wind farm or other project for which there is the need to clear-fell
woodlands; certain amount of trees –depending on the project size- are being lost, and
with them, their carbon capture potential. These losses have to be seen as permanent for
the process being study, as the projects' area normally remains without trees during the
project life span. Carbon capture potential losses for Griffin wind farm were calculated
following the method explained in Box 3.6.
For the precise case of Griffin wind farm, the value for the carbon sequestered per
hectare and year will be 13.2, the carbon Sitka Spruce (the main species in Griffin
woodlands) carbon sequestration estimate given by Cannell in his work “Growing Trees
to sequester carbon in the UK: answers to some common questions”.
) = 1 .
× . ) × 1 yr = 1.
The calculation of this parameter was done for one year period for the Griffin wind farm
case study. It was the time it took for the real project -Griffin wind farm- to finish the
felling works, according to data provided by the developer (SSE Renewables).
The value of 6921.42 tCO2 losses corresponds to the carbon that might have been
captured -but was not- by trees in Griffin forest area for having been felled. This value
will be accounted in the case study as a fix loss. Further losses in other commercial
forests due to different decisions on wood management will be accounted as losses or
savings depending if the wood was wasted or used. If the wood was managed as waste,
the corresponding amount of CO2 will be accounted as a loss, and if it was used, will be
accounted as a saving, because that decision would cause that a similar amount of trees
remain capturing CO2 because there was not need to harvest it, because the wood from
the wind farm was used instead.
47
4.1.8 Summary of GHG emission factors estimated by activity
In this section a summary table with all factors calculated to be used in the analysis in
chapter 4 is presented. The table shows all activities identified in the process studied –
from trees felling to biomass energy generation. Shaded in red are emission sources, and
shaded in green are emission savings or carbon capture, i.e: red shaded are GHG inputs
to the system, and green shaded are GHG savings to the system.
It has to be taken into account, for the subsequent analysis, that all wood mulched will
not pass through the rest of the process to be converted into biomass. This means that
for the quantities of wood mulched, emissions accounted are only the ones
corresponding to mulching process and the carbon capture potential lost.
Table 4.10: Summary table with all emission factors estimated by activity.
Activity GHG Emission
Sources
Emission
Factor Units
Mulching
Mulching
equipment –
Equivalent to
Harvester and
Chipper
19,17
⁄
Harvesting
Harvester
Processor
Forwarder
26,70
⁄
Transport
Logs Lorry (Truck
and Trailer) 0,05654
⁄
Chips Lorry (Truck
and Trailer) 0,05654
⁄
Pellets Lorry (Truck
and Trailer) 0,05654
⁄
Biomass
Production
Logs Production
equipment 1,73
⁄
Wood Chips Production
equipment 6,30
⁄
48
Activity GHG Emission
Sources
Emission
Factor Units
Wood Pellets Production
equipment 44,84
⁄
Biomass
Combustion
Logs Combustion
Process 13,12
⁄
Wood Chips Combustion
Process 12,49
⁄
Wood Pellets Combustion
Process 3,27
⁄
Equivalent
Energy Saved
from
Conventional
Mix
Logs
Carbon from
conventional
energy sources
generation is
saved
2018,23
⁄
Wood Chips
Carbon from
conventional
energy sources
generation is
saved
1922,12
⁄
Wood Pellets
Carbon from
conventional
energy sources
generation is
saved
2334,01
⁄
Carbon Capture Potential
Trees act as
carbon sink,
capturing
carbon
13,2
⁄
49
4.2 GHG ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS BASED ON
GRIFFIN WIND FARM CASE STUDY
This section will cover the analysis of the case study. The methodology developed to
assess the GHG emissions balance of the proposed process will be applied in a real case
–Griffin wind farm- in section 4.2.1.
Four “extreme” scenarios were also developed, named as the “all to…” scenarios, as a
theoretical approach to what would happen if all wood was managed as waste “100%
mulching” –section 4.2.2- or all was sent to produce biomass energy. For the biomass
cases, three options were envisaged; all to logs, all to wood chips and all to pellets –
sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 respectively-. This would give an idea of the gross impact
on GHG emissions each managing option might have.
Some theoretical intermediate alternatives and extra interesting calculations outside of
the scenarios (section 4.2.6) were also analysed to test, to which extent different mixes
of wood management options, and how some activities analysed affect to the process’
GHG emissions balance. The aim is to understand to which extent each part contributes
to the final balance, and to which extent it is possible to modify aspects of the process to
have significant savings. In short, it is intended to determine, where is worth it putting
efforts to cut emissions or, where big efforts would be needed to achieve small savings.
4.2.1 Scenario 1: The Real Case
The scenario was developed to analyse what was done in Griffin wind farm, and the
carbon implications of the decisions taken when it was deployed. A previous description
of the specific parameters from the wind farm to be taken into account for the analysis
will be done. Then, results arising from the application of the method and factors
developed or this dissertation will be presented and discussed.
Griffin Wind Farm Forestry Clearance Process
The real case scenario was designed and evaluated according to information extracted
from the project’s Forestry Felling Plan (SSE Renewables, 2011), Land Management
Plan (Griffin Wind Farm Ltd, 2010), and data provided directly by Mr Neil McKay and
Ms Michelle Morton from SSE Renewables, the Griffin wind farm developer.
50
The total extension of forestry clearance in Griffin wind farm project was 524.35 ha.
Table 4.11 summarizes the final distribution of the wood from the area felled, according
to the clearance method used and the final destination of the wood harvested.
Table 4.11: Site clearance methods distribution and final destination of wood extracted in Griffin wind farm.
Clearance
Process Extension Final destination Quantity Percentage
Mulching 17 ha Discarded 3642.49 t 3%
Harvesting 507.35 ha
Logs production 12211.88 t 11%
Chips Production 76017.24 t 68%
Other wood
products, not
biomass
20389.78 t 18%
Griffin Wind Farm Clearance Process’ GHG emissions analysis
GHG emission related to each activity supposed to be undertaken for mulching,
harvesting and further wood processing, were calculated applying the emission factors
estimated in section 4.1. Results obtained for each activity GHG emissions; GHG
savings and; carbon potential saved and lost during the process, are detailed in table
4.12. It has to be stated that this numbers are estimations calculated using the emission
factors created for this dissertation, and should not be understood as real measures on
GHG emissions from the real project.
Results show that there are savings on GHG emissions due to the wood sent to biomass
production (shaded in green). However, carbon capture lost due to the hectares mulched
are reflected in the results, because of the carbon potential lost in biomass commercial
forests, to supply the demand that was not covered by the wood that was mulched on-
site. This wood could have also increased the savings on the GHG emissions
attributable to the process; if were converted into biomass and energy generation from
traditional sources were displaced.
51
Table 4.12: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest clearance process.
Activity
Emission Factor
⁄
Tonnes of wood Processed
GHG Emissions
Mulching 19,17 3642,49 69838,29
Harvesting Works 26,70 108620,90 2900036,42
Transport (100 km)
Logs 0,06 12211,88 69049,02
Wood Chips 0,06 76019,24 429831,79
Wood Products (not biomass)
0,06 20389,78 115288,91
Biomass Production Logs 1,73 12211,88 21186,80
Wood Chips 6,30 76019,24 478627,16
Wood Products Production(not biomass) 6,30 20389,78 128376,74
Energy Produced from Biomass Combustion
Logs 13,12 12211,88 160178,43
Wood Chips 12,49 76019,24 949632,87
Equivalent Energy Saved from UK Conventional
Mix
Logs 2018,23 12211,88 -24646362,22
Wood Chips 1922,12 76019,24 -
146118270,52
Losses on Carbon Captured Carbon Capture Potential of Griffin Wind Farm
Forest Area = 6921.42 kgCO2
7140,53 kgCO2
Carbon Captured (Saved) -6697,02
kgCO2
Carbon Capture Balance 443,51 kgCO2
Process GHG Balance (not taking into account the savings in the UK grid mix) 5322489,95
Process GHG Balance (including savings from displacing Energy generation from the UK mix)
-165442142,79
4.2.2 Scenario 2: 100% Mulching
The theoretical “all to mulching” scenario was designed to see the impact on the
process’ GHG emissions balance if all the wood is wasted and not harnessed for
biomass. Results show that all tonnes mulched contribute only with GHG emissions to
the atmosphere, not reporting any savings to the process’ balance.
52
Table 4.13: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest clearance process, in the
theoretical case that all trees were mulched.
Activity
Emission Factor
⁄
Tonnes of wood Processed
GHG Emissions
Mulching 19,17 112349,33 2154100,36
Harvesting Works 26,70 0,00 0,00
Losses on Carbon Captured Carbon Capture Potential of Griffin Wind Farm Forest
Area = 6921.42 kgCO2
13842,84 kgCO2
Carbon Captured (Saved)
0
Carbon Capture Balance 13842,84
kgCO2
Process GHG Balance 2167943,20
4.2.3 Scenarios 3a, 3b and 3c: All to Biomass Production
The “all to biomass production” scenarios were designed to evaluate the impacts it
might have for the process all the wood as biomass. Tables 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16
summarize the results of GHG emissions due to each process that have to be done to
allocate the wood in the biomass sector and convert it into energy.
The three scenarios will be analysed together, to compare which differences would have
if the decision was to send all the wood for a specific wood fuel production. In the three
alternatives, the carbon capture losses balance is null. It is considered that the carbon
capture potential lost in the wind farms area, is compensated by the carbon that remains
being captured in the “saved” trees from biomass sector commercial forests, because the
biomass demand, for certain period of time, was supplied by the wind farm trees.
In the light of the results of the overall GHG emissions balance, bigger savings are
achieved with the option of producing pellets and generating biomass with it. However,
if savings from the displacement of the UK energy generation is not taken into account,
the process of transporting wood for making pellets is the one that most GHG releases
to the atmosphere.
53
Table 4.14: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest clearance process, in the
theoretical case that all trees were sent to logs production.
Logs production
Activity Emission Factor
Tonnes of wood Processed GHG Emissions
Mulching 19.17 0 0
Harvesting Works 26.70
112349
2,999,581
Transport 0.06 242,920
Biomass Production 1.73 194,919
Energy Produced from Logs Combustion
13.12 1,473,642
Equivalent Energy Saved from UK Conventional Mix
2018.23 -226,746,597
Losses on Carbon Captured Carbon Capture Potential of Griffin Wind Farm
Forest Area = 6921.42 kgCO2
6,921 kgCO2
Carbon Captured (Saved)
-6,921 kgCO2
Carbon Capture Balance 0
CO2 Balance (not taking into account the savings in the UK grid mix) 4,911,061
GHG Balance with savings for displacing Energy generation from the UK mix
-221,835,536
Table 4.15: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest clearance process, in the
theoretical case that all trees were sent to chips production.
Wood Chips production
Activity Emission Factor Tonnes of wood Processed
GHG Emissions
Mulching 19.17 0 0
Harvesting Works 26.70
112,349
2,999,5801
Transport 0.06 411,135
Biomass Production 6.30 707,366
Energy Produced from Wood Chips Combustion
12.49 1,403,469
Equivalent Energy Saved from UK Conventional Mix
1922.12 -215,949,140
Losses on Carbon Captured
Carbon Capture Potential of Griffin Wind Farm Forest Area = 6921.42 kgCO2
6,921kgCO2
Carbon Captured (Saved) -6,921 kgCO2
Carbon Capture Balance 0
CO2 Balance (not taking into account the savings in the UK grid mix) 5,521,550
GHG Balance with savings for displacing Energy generation from the UK mix
-210,427,590
54
Table 4.16: Summary of GHG emissions estimated for Griffin wind farm forest clearance process, in the
theoretical case that all trees were sent to pellets production.
Wood Pellets production
Activity Emission Factor Tonnes of wood Processed GHG Emissions
Mulching 19.17 0 0
Harvesting Works
26.70
112349
2,999,581
Transport 0.06 492,955
Biomass Production
44.84 5,037,994
Energy Produced from Logs
Combustion
3.27 367,268
Equivalent Energy
Saved from UK
Conventional Mix
2334.01 -262,223,956
Losses on Carbon
Captured Carbon Capture Potential of Griffin Wind Farm Forest Area = 6921.42 kgCO2
6,921 kgCO2
Carbon Captured (Saved)
-6,921 kgCO2
Carbon Capture Balance 0
CO2 Balance (not taking into account the savings in the UK grid mix) 8,897,797
GHG Balance with savings for displacing Energy generation from the UK mix
-253,326,158
4.2.4 Further Analysis and Comments
This section will cover some alternative scenarios and extra analysis carried out to
determine which activities are more GHG intense, and where efforts might be useful to
achieve noticeable changes.
Alternative intermediate scenarios
In between the original “all to mulching” and “all to biomass scenarios”, alternative
combinations of wood processing were evaluated. The percentage of mulching was
gradually diminished in 10% intervals, while increasing the same amount in biomass
production.
55
Not big surprises were found from these scenarios results, as percentages of emission
savings were raising, as the percentage of wood destined to biomass was being
increased. The only remarkable thing to highlight is that bigger savings are achieved
from pellets energy generation, and with not big differences the worst savings rates
achieved are from energy produced from wood chips.
Due to the big amount of data arisen from this analysis and not having any special
issues to stand out, results are not included.
Transport
Two different analyses were done for transport GHG emissions. The idea was to
increase the number of biomass companies, from the 5 nearest to the 10 nearest ones, to
check if an increase in the distances covered in transport had a big impact on the GHG
emissions of the process. Table 4.13 shows the impact on transport emissions due to
increasing the mean distance of the final destination of the wood to be processed as
biomass.
Table 4.17: Comparison of GHG emissions due and increase on the distance of transport, due to the increase
in the number of companies to allocate the wood; from the 5 to the 10 nearest ones.
Transport (5 nearest biomass companies to Griffin Wind Farm)
Logs Wood Chips Pellets
Mean Distance (km) 38.24 64.72 77.6
GHG emissions (kgCO2e) 242,920 411,135 492,955
Transport (10 nearest biomass companies to Griffin Wind Farm)
Logs Wood Chips Pellets
Mean Distance (km) 54.76 74.29 115
GHG emissions (kgCO2e) 347,864 471,928 730,539
Sometimes, constant Heavy Goods Vehicles traffic is seen as a drawback when
transporting the wood, from the extraction site to the market. Different reason as social
concerns for traffic annoyances to local population, or the possible deterioration of
roads infrastructure, may force to distribute HGVs traffic through different routes.
As can be seen from the table, increasing the number of companies where the wood
could be sent have a greater impact on emissions from pellet biomass. The reason is
because there are fewer companies that manufacture pellets in Scotland, and to be able
to send it to 10 different companies producing pellets, the mean distance covered
increases a lot. However, in light of the results achieved from savings in GHG
56
emissions from the traditional UK energy generation; emissions due to transport
distances -being kept inside Scotland- should not be an excuse for not allocating the
wood in the biomass market, as they are in the order of 20 times smaller than the
emissions saved to the atmosphere, by producing energy from the biomass
Carbon Capture Potential
To better understand the results presented in this section, it should be recovered the way
this estimation was conceived. To avoid going back to chapter 3, a summary of the
explanation given in section 3.2.3.5 about the concept used to calculate carbon capture
potential losses is presented in Box 4.1.
Table 4.14 shows the losses and savings in carbon captured from the atmosphere,
depending on the percentage of wood (in relation to Griffin wind farm felling area) that
might have been sent to the biomass sector. As the amount of wood sent to biomass
increases, the losses on carbon captured decrease, and carbon captured from biomass
commercial forest increase, to finally being neutralized if the carbon potential lost in the
wind farm is completely saved in other forests, by sending 100% of the wood to
biomass production.
“Trees act as natural carbon sinks capturing it from the environment. Clear
felling forests (…) causes losses in carbon capture potential. These losses
should be accounted as permanent because the area need to remain cleared…
Using the wood harvested to generate energy instead of mulching it (…) allows
those commercial forests to keep capturing CO2, during the period the wind
farm is supplying the biomass market.”
*Fragment extracted from section 3.2.3.5 in the methodology chapter.
Box 4.1: Recovery of the “carbon capture potential losses” concept used to estimate its value to be
included in the GHG emissions balance.
57
Table 4.18: Summary of carbon savings and losses due to trees carbon capture potential preservation in
biomass sector’s commercial forests.
Scenario Losses on Carbon
Captured Carbon Captured
(Saved) Carbon Capture Losses Balance
100% Mulching - 0% Biomass 13,843 0 13,843
90% Mulching - 10% Biomass 13,151 -692 12,459
80% Mulching - 20% Biomass 12,459 -1,384 11,074
70% Mulching - 30% Biomass 11,766 -2,076 9,690
60% Mulching - 40% Biomass 11,074 -2,769 8,306
50% Mulching - 50% Biomass 10,382 -3,461 6,921
40% Mulching - 60% Biomass 9,690 -4,153 5,537
30% Mulching - 70% Biomass 8,998 -4,845 4,153
20% Mulching - 80% Biomass 8,306 -5,537 2,769
10% Mulching - 90% Biomass 7,614 -6,229 1,384
0% Mulching - 100% Biomass 6,921 -6,921 0
58
Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This Chapter intends to be a comprehensive compilation of the most important findings
and conclusions from the study; this will be covered in section 5.1 “Summary of key
findings”. Section 5.2 contains some suggestions that might be interesting for future
research. Recommendations for future practice, with separate recommendations for
developers, biomass companies and governmental organisations are described in section
5.3 of the present chapter.
5.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
This section will serve as a summary and reflection on the key aspects arisen from the
study. Savings from the energy that could be generated from the biomass produced with
the trees felled are highlighted and discussed, due to the significance of the results
obtained and explained in section 4.2.
The effects of transport on the GHG emissions balance of the process (described in
section 3.2 and depicted in figure 3.1) will be also argued, as it could be thought that
emissions from transporting the wood from the clearance site should be avoided and
that for this matter, the option of mulching could be more environmentally friendly.
However, in light of this study results, this believe might not be totally true, something
that will be also discussed in this section.
5.1.1 GHG savings due to grid energy generation displaced by
biomass
The most relevant outcome arisen from the analysis was to realise the magnitude of the
CO2e emissions that might be saved from UK mix energy generation, if the unwanted
wood from wind farms was directed to biomass energy production. Some demand
would be supplied by the biomass energy from the wood extracted in wind farms areas;
so the same amount of energy should not be needed to be generated from other
traditional carbon intense sources.
These savings in GHG released from conventional energy generation are indirect, and
sometimes difficult to “see at first sight”. However, savings are so large that should not
59
be ignored. It would not be difficult to think that by mulching the trees all emissions
from transport and biomass processing would be saved, and putting the timber into the
market would be worst in terms of GHG emissions. However, looking a couple of steps
ahead in the process, it is possible to see that those emissions are too small in
comparison with savings that would be achieved from the displacement of energy
generation from common fossil fuel sources.
As per the calculations done using official factors for GHG emissions; per kWh
generated from biomass and saved from the UK generation mix, there are 0.48 kg CO2e
not being released to the atmosphere. Having in mind that one tonne of wood might
generate between 3900 and 4700 kWh it is possible to realise the magnitude of GHG
savings that might be achieved. Per one tonne of wood converted into biomass energy,
the amount of GHG not released to the atmosphere could be in the range of 1800-2250
kgCO2e. But emissions from harvesting works, transport and biomass processing and
combustion do not reach, in the worst case, 75 kgCO2 per tonne of wood converted into
biomass energy. The magnitude in the difference of GHG emissions per kWh generated
by biomass or by the UK mix.
Sometimes, to solve environmental problems, or think on what and how to change
things to protect the present and future environment; the best thing to do is to see the
problem as a whole, break it down to solve part by part, and then bring the pieces back
together, to see to which extent, smaller solutions/decisions affect the system as a
whole. This breakdown should also help to determine which parts are more harmful for
the environment, and should serve as guidance to lead government and companies
efforts on cutting GHG emissions, not only where it seems to be obvious, but where
cutting will really have a significant effect.
5.1.2 Transport GHG emissions. Acceptable for a greater
saving?
Transport is one of the activities that more concerns have given rise regarding GHG
emissions. Big efforts have been put in the past and are being done in the present, to
reduce fossil fuels consumption due to goods and people transporting. However,
transport is essential for allocating the resources in the place they are needed. In the case
of woodlands clearance in wind farms, if the wood is not transported it becomes a waste
material. As a consequence, a valuable resource is being just wasted to not contribute
60
with certain amount of GHG to the atmosphere. Well, as it is understandable that efforts
should be put to cut unnecessary transport mileage, the actual situation is not the best to
keep wasting resources, so the decision should be balanced looking it from the bigger
perspective.
If harnessing the wood value would cause more harm than good, it should not be
harvested and transported, so leaving it in the extraction place would be the best option.
Though, in the light of this study's results, destining the wood to biomass leads to
greater GHG emissions savings. The numbers show that GHG emissions due to
transport are a thousandth part of the potential savings in energy generation if the wood
is converted to biomass energy. So, when feasible, wood from clearing projects’ sites
should be harnessed for energy generation.
5.1.3 Clearance processes. Mulching vs. Harvesting for Energy
harnessing
As explained before in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, mulching trees on site is considered that
implies less forestry equipment than harvesting them. According to the emission factors
estimated, mulching one tonne of wood would release almost 20 kgCO2e to the
atmosphere, whilst harvesting one tonne of wood would emit around 27 kgCO2e. So,
harvesting wood is a more GHG emissions intense activity. But, as for the transport
case, if harvest works are done to produce biomass and generate energy from it; the
GHG emissions are more than compensated by the savings achieved by displacing
energy generation from fossil sources, that would be around 2000-2400 kgCO2e per
tonne of wood converted into energy.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Undertake an economic analysis for the same process would be really interesting and
useful for developers and biomass industry. It has been demonstrated that using the
wood to produce biomass would certainly reduce the overall GHG emissions, both for
the wind farm and in the generation of energy in UK. A detailed analysis of the
economics of allocating the timber into the biomass sector would bring an idea of the
cost and the general economic benefits this process might produce. In the light of the
results obtained for the GHG emissions balance, it is not very adventurous to imagine
61
that, if taking into account carbon trading prices, the economic balance should be
positive, i.e: economically beneficial.
The economic analysis could be done following the same initial premises used in the
GHG inquiry presented in this dissertation. The initial breakdown done in this study
could be maintained and should serve as the initial step to define the economic factors.
As a recommendation, it would be interesting to keep economic factors dependant on
tonnage, so they would be also generally applicable to other wind farms or similar
projects.
Another topic for future research could be to study the option of allocating the wood in
biomass power plants (e.g: E.ON Steven’s Croft in Lockerbie, Balcas in Invergordon or
UPM in Irvine - Scotland) and coal-fired power plants with biomass co-firing, as final
destinations for the timber. Both systems use wood wastes to generate energy, some of
the activities analysed in this dissertation would coincide when allocating the timber in
biomass power plants and co-firing stations, but processes related to the specific
functioning of this plants should be investigated. Bespoken calculations should be done,
to find the GHG emission factors for the activities undertaken, in each of them, to
produce the energy.
The GHG and economic effects of sending the wood to other markets in the forest based
industry, that uses wood as raw material, could be also be studied. Timber is used in
wide spectrum of economic activities such as furniture manufacturing, paper and pulp,
printing, building materials. Especially for woods of singular quality or very demanded
in specific sector, it is advisable to make a more conscious look into more specific
markets that might give better value for specific types of wood.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE
It is clear that the costs-benefits distribution of the process might not be equitably
distributed if wind farms developers have to assume the whole cost or felling, preparing
and transporting the timber to the biomass industry and is the biomass industry the one
receiving all the economic benefits by selling the product extracted while saving their
own resources.
The same should occur with the GHG emissions ownership, in the different stages of
the process. Wind farms should not be the only responsible for the GHG emitted in
62
activities leading to put the wood into the biomass market; as well as, biomass sector
should not be the only ones accounting as their own, emissions saved from generating
energy form the wood extracted from the wind farm.
5.3.1 Recommendations for Developers
Promote conversations with governmental institutions -such as SNH, SPA and the
Forestry Commission- and the biomass industry to achieve a consensus on how costs
and benefits of the process should be equitably distributed.
Look for incentives such as government funds for activities that promote low carbon
activities or carbon saving initiatives. However, if some of the emissions savings of the
process are attributable to developers’ decision of using the wood to generate energy
with it; it could benefit the company’s budget of carbon emissions allowances for the
European Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS).
5.3.2 Recommendations for Biomass Industry
Provide detailed information to improve data sourced in the biomass producers’ map.
This will facilitate wind farms developers decision to allocate the timber extracted in the
most convenient and closest places to manufacture low carbon intense biomass
products.
Be keen to collaborate and keep an open dialog with governmental institutions and wind
farms developers, to achieve a consensus on how forests that are to be felled in future
wind farms developments could be efficiently managed. In those conversations, a
greater good that is not detrimental for any involved party should be sought. It is
important that the distribution of costs and benefits of the process is agreed, in order to
fulfil everyone’s needs in a fair manner, whilst protecting the environment that serves
human kind with the resources that hold community’s needs.
5.3.3 Recommendations for Governmental Organisations
Create a detailed database with all biomass manufacturers in Scotland-UK. Following
the protocol used to create the official “Biomass Suppliers List”, asking the companies
to register the data and to be included in an official producers list. The suggested
“Biomass Producers List” could include, for instance, some useful information such as
63
quantity of timber they can process per day/week, additional off-site forestry services or
quality and type of wood they can use.
The database could be complemented with a comprehensive map showing all the
biomass producers, as the one created for this dissertation and presented in section 3.4.
This map could be completed with manufacturers of wood-based products to
complement the biomass option for the wood destination. More detailed information
could be added to aid developers to make better Land Management and Forestry Plans.
This should help to make a better planning about how to manage the wood felled, not
only in on-shore wind farms developments, but in many other projects involving trees
clearance.
Governmental organisations could also, through conversations with private sector
companies, set how GHG emissions ownership and merits on GHG emissions savings
could be distributed. It should be done in a manner that it encourages developers to
make an extra effort to not waste the wood they do not need, and should also encourage
collaboration between developers and wood-based industry.
Whether allocating the unwanted timber in the market is profitable or not -from the
developers perspective- was a topic not covered within this dissertation. However, from
personal communications with experts in Scottish energy companies such as SSE
Renewables and Scottish Power, it can be said that it is something that does not
normally report economic benefits to them and is not an easy product to sell (N.
McKay, SSE Renewables Forestry Manager, personal communication, interview 17th
July 2014)–although it should serve to alleviate wood waste management costs.
Being aware of the magnitude of national GHG emissions savings this process might
lead to, government could offer economic incentives (among other measures) to help
the companies. These economic incentives could be used to subsidize extra costs of
harvesting and sending the wood to biomass processing companies. This is something
that should be of wind farms developers and biomass companies’ interests, but also for
the government, as it would certainly help to achieve the ambitious carbon emission
reduction targets UK and Scotland have been set for themselves.
5.4 SUMMARY OF KEY ACHIEVEMENTS
64
As main outcomes of the present dissertation, the detailed methodology designed
(section 3.2), the Scottish Biomass Producers Map (section 3.3), and the conclusions of
the results from the process’ GHG analysis summarized in section 5.1should be
highlighted.
The methodology was designed to be generally applicable to assess the overall process’
GHG emissions by calculating in detail the individual GHG emission sources of each
activity. As it was developed step by step, indicating how calculations were done, and
which data should be used, it could be taken as guidance on how to calculate the
impacts on GHG emissions for different projects. One of the strengths of the method
design is that emission factors for each activity and for each source of GHG emissions
were independently calculated. This means that the impacts of different decisions can be
measured and weighed, so different managed options can be assessed to find the best
possible solution.
Due to the lack of easily accessible information about biomass producers, it was
difficult to find some important information about where could the wood has been sent.
As this was a difficulty, and to find the information was time consuming; it was thought
that developers needing the same information would take advantage of having a tool
with all the information compiled in the same map. If the access to information is
straight forward, it would be easier that developers decide to send, the wood they have
to extract, to the market they can find for it without difficulties.
65
REFERENCES
Amos, I. (2014). 5 million Scottish trees felled for wind farms, not replanted. THE
HOCKEY SCHTICK. Retrieved from
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/5-million-scottish-trees-felled-
for.html
APS Group Scotland. (2011). Low Carbon Scotland: Meeting the Emissions Reduction
Targets 2010-2022: The Report on Proposals and Policies. (APS Group Scotland,
Ed.). Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Bastasch, M. (2014). Millions of trees cut down to make way for wind farms. The Daily
Caller. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/millions-of-trees-cut-
down-to-make-way-for-wind-farms/
Bates, J., & Henry, S. (2009). Carbon factor for wood fuels for the Supplier Obligation.
Final report. Oxfordshire. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-factor-for-wood-fuels-for-
the-supplier-obligation
Biomass Energy Centre, & Carbon Trust. (2012). National Biofuel Supplier Database.
woodfueldirectory.org. Retrieved August 23, 2014, from
http://www.woodfueldirectory.org/
Cannell, M. G. . (1999). Growing Trees to sequester carbon in the UK: answers to some
common questions. Forestry, (72), 238–247. (in Scottish Government 2011a).
Carbon Trust. (2011). National Biomass Suppliers Database Launched. Retrieved
August 23, 2014, from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278
372/Timber_Standard_for_Heat_and_Electricity_under_RO_and_RHI_-_10-Feb-
2014_for_pdf_-_FINAL_in_new_format.pdf
Clean Energy World News. (2014). Biomass & Biofuel Energy. Clean Energy News,
Information and Commentary. Retrieved August 27, 2014, from
http://www.cleanenergyworldnews.com/other-energy-resources/biomass-biofuel-
energy/
Committee on Climate Change. (2014). Reducing emissions in Scotland : 2014 progress
report. London.
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). Greenhouse Gas
Conversion Factor Repository. Government conversion factors for company
reporting. Retrieved August 16, 2014, from
http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/
Department of Energy & Climate Change. (2014a). 2014 Government GHG Conversion
Factors for Company Reporting : Methodology Paper for Emission Factors.
66
Retrieved from
http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/documents/2014 Emission
Factor Methodology Paper_FINAL-4Jul14.pdf
Department of Energy & Climate Change. (2014b). Timber Standard for Heat and
Electricity: Wood Fuel Used under the Renewable Heat Incentive and Renewables
Obligation. London. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278
372/Timber_Standard_for_Heat_and_Electricity_under_RO_and_RHI_-_10-Feb-
2014_for_pdf_-_FINAL_in_new_format.pdf
Donnelley, R. (2007). BIOMASS ACTION PLAN FOR SCOTLAND. Edinburgh.
E4tech, Environmental Agency, DECC, & NNFCC. (2014). UK Solid and Gaseous
Biomass Carbon Calculator. User manual for the Solid and Gaseous Biomass
Carbon. Version 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-
updates/uk-solid-and-gaseous-biomass-carbon-calculator
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). The circular model - brief history and schools of
thought. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Circular Economy. Retrieved August 26,
2014, from http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/circular-
economy/the-circular-model-brief-history-and-schools-of-thought
Fankhauser, S., Kennedy, D., & Skea, J. (2008). The UK ’ s carbon targets for 2020 and
the role of the Committee on Climate Change. In A. Giddens, S. Latham, & R.
Liddle (Eds.), Building a low-carbon future: The politics of climate change (pp.
99–110). London: Policy Network.
Forestry Commission Scotland. (2009). The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control
of Woodland Removal. Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc125.pdf/$FILE/fcfc125.pdf
Francescato, V., Antonini, E., Zuccoli-Bergomi, L., Metschina, C., Schnedl, C., Koscik,
K., … Stranieri, S. (2008). Wood Fuels Handbook: Production, Quality
Requirements and Trading. Legnaro. Italy.: AEBIOM European Biomass
Association. Retrieved from
http://www.aebiom.org/IMG/pdf/WOOD_FUELS_HANDBOOK_BTC_EN.pdf
Google Help Center. (2014). Supported browsers - Google Maps Engine. Google
Support Options. Retrieved August 23, 2014, from
https://support.google.com/mapsengine/answer/1396318?hl=en&ref_topic=137949
7
Green Power. (2004). Griffin Wind Farm Environmental Statement : Main Report.
Alloa. UK.
Griffin Wind Farm Ltd. (2010). Griffin Wind Farm Land Management Plan. Perth.
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (1st ed.).
London: Earthscan.
67
Johnson, S. (2014). Millions of trees chopped down to make way for Scottish wind
farms. The Telegraph. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10546071/Millions-of-trees-chopped-
down-to-make-way-for-Scottish-wind-farms.html
Leonardi, J., McKinnon, A., & Palmer, A. (2011). Guidance on measuring and
reporting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from freight transport operations.
Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218
574/ghg-freight-guide.pdf
McIntosh, L. (2014). Millions of trees felled in pursuit of energy targets | The Times.
The Times News. Retrieved from
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/article3963129.ece
Meier, P. H. (2011). Whistling through the trees. Renewable Energy Focus, 12(5), 28–
29. doi:10.1016/S1755-0084(11)70123-5
Murray, H. S. (2012). Assessing the impact of windfarm-related disturbance on
streamwater carbon , phosphorus and nitrogen dynamics : A case study of the
Whitelee catchments. University of Glasgow.
Nayak, D. R., Miller, D., Nolan, A., Smith, P., & Smith, J. (2008). Calculating Carbon
Savings From Wind - A New Approach, (June).
Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC f the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing
certain Directives (2008). Strasbourg: The European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union.
Ofgem. (2012). The UK Solid and Gaseous Biomass Carbon Calculator. Retrieved
August 28, 2014, from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/uk-
solid-and-gaseous-biomass-carbon-calculator
Ofgem. (2014). About the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive. Retrieved August 23,
2014, from https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/domestic-
renewable-heat-incentive/about-domestic-renewable-heat-incentive
Rajgor, G. (2011). Building wind farms. Renewable Energy Focus, 12(6), 28–32.
doi:10.1016/S1755-0084(11)70150-8
Scottish Government. (2011a). Calculating Potential Carbon Losses & Savings from
Wind Farms on Scottish Peatlands: Technical Note - Version 2.0.1. Retrieved from
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-
sources/19185/17852-1/CSavings/CTN201
Scottish Government. (2011b, June 6). Wind Farms and Carbon. Business Industry and
Energy. Carbon Impacts. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, St. Andrew’s House,
Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG Tel:0131 556 8400 [email protected].
68
Retrieved August 28, 2014, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-
Industry/Energy/Energy-sources/19185/17852-1/CSavings
Scottish Natural Heritage. (2014). Onshore wind energy. Planning and Development.
Renewable Energy. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from
http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/onshore-
wind/
Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection
Agency, & Forestry Commission Scotland. (2010). Good practice during windfarm
construction, (October). Retrieved from
http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewables/Good practice during windfarm
construction.pdf
Secretary of State. The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors ’ Report)
Regulations 2013 (2013). UK Parliament.
SEPA. (2013). Management of forestry waste. (No. WST-G-027) (Vol. 002).
SSE. (2014). Griffin Wind Farm. sse.com. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from
http://sse.com/whatwedo/ourprojectsandassets/renewables/griffin/
SSE Renewables. (2011). Griffin Wind Farm Forestry Felling Plan.
UK Government. (2014a). Measuring and reporting environmental impacts: guidance
for businesses - Detailed guidance - GOV.UK. Guidance on measuring and
reporting their greenhouse gas emissions. Retrieved August 28, 2014, from
https://www.gov.uk/measuring-and-reporting-environmental-impacts-guidance-
for-businesses
UK Government. (2014b). Renewable Heat Incentive. Retrieved August 23, 2014, from
http://www.rhincentive.co.uk/
UK Government. (2014c). Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). Increasing the use of low-
carbon technologies. Policies. UK Government. Retrieved August 24, 2014, from
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-use-of-low-carbon-
technologies/supporting-pages/renewable-heat-incentive-rhi
United Nations. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (1998). Kyoto: U.N. Doc FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1.
United Nations. (2014). Data definitions. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Retrieved August 29, 2014, from
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/online_help/definitions/items/3817.php
69
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: ETHICS FORM FOR MEETINGS WITH EXPERTS
Please answer all questions
1. Title of the investigation: DISSERATION
How not to classify trees as waste in on-shore wind farms deployment process.
Please state the title on the PIS and Consent Form, if different:
2. Chief Investigator (must be at least a Grade 7 member of staff or equivalent)
Name: Dr Elsa João
Professor
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Senior Teaching Fellow
Teaching Fellow
Department: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Telephone: +44 (0)141 548 4056
E-mail: [email protected]
3. Other Strathclyde investigator(s)
Name: Eva María Fernández Morán
Status (e.g. lecturer, post-/undergraduate): Postgraduate student
Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering
Telephone: +44 (0)78 21239429
E-mail: [email protected]
4. Non-Strathclyde collaborating investigator(s) (where applicable)
Name:
Status (e.g. lecturer, post-/undergraduate):
Department/Institution:
70
If student(s), name of supervisor:
Telephone:
E-mail:
Please provide details for all investigators involved in the study:
5. Overseas Supervisor(s) (where applicable)
Name(s):
Status:
Department/Institution:
Telephone:
Email:
I can confirm that the local supervisor has obtained a copy of the Code of Practice: Yes
No
Please provide details for all supervisors involved in the study:
6. Location of the investigation
At what place(s) will the investigation be conducted
University of Strathclyde and experts offices where the meetings might be held
If this is not on University of Strathclyde premises, how have you satisfied yourself that
adequate Health and Safety arrangements are in place to prevent injury or harm?
Health and Safety regulations of the non-University premises will be followed
7. Duration of the investigation
Duration(years/months) : 3 months Start date (expected): 01 / 06 / 2014 Completion date (expected): 29 / 08 / 2014
8. Sponsor
Please note that this is not the funder; refer to Section C and Annexes 1 and 3 of the Code of
Practice for a definition and the key responsibilities of the sponsor.
Will the sponsor be the University of Strathclyde: Yes No
If not, please specify who is the sponsor:
71
9. Funding body or proposed funding body (if applicable)
Name of funding body:
Status of proposal – if seeking funding (please click appropriate box):
In preparation
Submitted
Accepted
Date of submission of proposal: / / Date of start of funding: /
/
10. Ethical issues
Describe the main ethical issues and how you propose to address them:
Confidentiality of the information and data provided by experts in the interviews and meetings.
There are no questions requiring personal information from the participants.
Any sensitive data and information will be treated in a confidential and ethical manner and, will
only be used for the dissertation purposes. However, it is expected that many of the data,
information and experts‟ opinions and insights will be very valuable to be published in the final
thesis. Participants will be asked permission to quote them and use this information, previous
consent and agreement on how to manage and disclose it.
After a reasonable period of time, and when the thesis is finished; the sensitive data and
information collected will be properly deleted.
11. Objectives of investigation (including the academic rationale and justification for the
investigation) Please use plain English.
The purpose of this investigation is to define and analyse alternative destinations to the timber
extracted in on-shore wind farms deployment process, particularly biomass and forest-based
markets. The underlying reason for this research is that harvested timber is often underutilised,
and normally has to be managed as waste.
The analysis will be mainly focused in the economic aspects and CO2 emissions of this stage
of the wind farms construction, although it may also take into account other environmental and
social issues.
The study tries to demonstrate that finding viable markets may improve the economic and CO2
emissions balance of the process. It also seeks to determine benefits and drawbacks of
different alternatives.
The dissertation will be submitted in part completion of the requirements for the MSc in
72
Environmental Entrepreneurship award.
12. Participants
Please detail the nature of the participants:
It is intended to contact people with expertise on the topics covered in this
study, or whose position/field of work is relevant to assist on this investigation.
Summarise the number and age (range) of each group of participants:
Number: Not determined Age (range) Not determined
Please detail any inclusion/exclusion criteria and any further screening procedures to be used:
Previous research and recommendations from experts previously interviewed
are taken into account to make new contacts.
13. Nature of the participants
Please note that investigations governed by the Code of Practice that involve any of the types
of participants listed in B1 (b) must be submitted to the University Ethics Committee (UEC)
rather than DEC/SEC for approval.
Do any of the participants fall into a category listed in Section B1(b) (participant
considerations) applicable in this investigation?: Yes No
If yes, please detail which category (and submit this application to the UEC):
14. Method of recruitment
Describe the method of recruitment (see section B4 of the Code of Practice), providing
information on any payments, expenses or other incentives.
Invitations to participate will be done in an initial contact by mail or phone call.
Communications with experts might be done through emails, meetings and
interviews. The mean of communication, location and dates will be previously
agreed with each participant.
15. Participant consent
Please state the groups from whom consent/assent will be sought (please refer to the
Guidance Document). The PIS and Consent Form(s) to be used should be attached to this
application form.
People with expertise on the topics covered in this study, or whose
73
position/field of work is relevant to assist on this investigation.
16. Methodology
Investigations governed by the Code of Practice which involve any of the types of projects
listed in B1 (a) must be submitted to the University Ethics Committee rather than DEC/SEC for
approval.
Are any of the categories mentioned in the Code of Practice Section B1 (a) (project
considerations) applicable in this investigation? Yes No
If „yes‟ please detail:
Describe the research methodology and procedure, providing a timeline of activities where
possible. Please use plain English.
Information and data gathering through meetings and semi-structured interviews with
experts and people whose position/field of work might be relevant to the research.
This information will be used to build a case study, obtain results and assess the
research question.
What specific techniques will be employed and what exactly is asked of the participants?
Please identify any non-validated scale or measure and include any scale and measures
charts as an Appendix to this application. Please include questionnaires, interview schedules
or any other non-standardised method of data collection as appendices to this application.
Semi-structured interviews and meetings with experts that will be recorded to then
extract the relevant information.
Where an independent reviewer is not used, then the UEC, DEC or SEC reserves the right to
scrutinise the methodology. Has this methodology been subject to independent scrutiny? Yes
No
If yes, please provide the name and contact details of the independent reviewer:
17. Previous experience of the investigator(s) with the procedures involved. Experience
should demonstrate an ability to carry out the proposed research in accordance with the
written methodology.
No previous experience carrying out interviews or meetings with research
purposes.
18. Data collection, storage and security
How and where are data handled? Please specify whether it will be fully anonymous (i.e. the
identity unknown even to the researchers) or pseudo-anonymised (i.e. the raw data is
anonymised and given a code name, with the key for code names being stored in a separate
74
location from the raw data) - if neither please justify.
Any sensitive data and information will be treated in a confidential and ethical
manner and, will only be used for the dissertation purposes. However, it is
expected that many of the data, information and experts‟ opinions and insights
will be very valuable to be published in the final thesis. Participants will be
asked permission to quote them and use this information, previous consent
and agreement on how to manage and disclose it.
Explain how and where it will be stored, who has access to it, how long it will be stored and
whether it will be securely destroyed after use:
The information and data gathered will be processed and stored by the
researcher (Eva Mª Fernández Morán). Dissertation supervisor (Dr Elsa João),
the external examiner and people with access to the final thesis will be able to
access the information published.
After a reasonable period of time, and when the thesis is finished; the sensitive
data and information collected will be properly deleted.
Will anyone other than the named investigators have access to the data? Yes No
If „yes‟ please explain:
19. Potential risks or hazards
Describe the potential risks and hazards associated with the investigation:
There are no potential risks or hazards associated to the investigation
Has a specific Risk Assessment been completed for the research in accordance with the
University‟s Risk Management Framework
(http://www.strath.ac.uk/safetyservices/aboutus/riskmanagement/ )? Yes No
If yes, please attach risk form (S20) to your ethics application. If „no‟, please explain why not:
There are no potential risks or hazards associated to the investigation
20. What method will you use to communicate the outcomes and any additional relevant
details of the study to the participants?
In case of interest, and with the University of Strathclyde approval, a copy of the final thesis
could be provided to the participants.
75
21. How will the outcomes of the study be disseminated (e.g. will you seek to publish
the results and, if relevant, how will you protect the identities of your participants in
said dissemination)?
Being this investigation a requirement for the MSc completion, the results will be published in
the thesis.
Participants will be asked permission to quote them and use the information provided, previous
consent and agreement on how to manage and disclose it. An option box to anonymise this
information is provided in the Consent Form if required.
Checklist Enclosed N/A
Participant Information Sheet(s)
Consent Form(s)
Sample questionnaire(s)
Sample interview format(s)
Sample advertisement(s)
Any other documents (please specify below)
76
22. Chief Investigator and Head of Department Declaration
Please note that unsigned applications will not be accepted and both signatures are required
I have read the University‟s Code of Practice on Investigations involving Human Beings and have completed
this application accordingly. By signing below, I acknowledge that I am aware of and accept my
responsibilities as Chief Investigator under Clauses 3.11 – 3.13 of the Research Governance Framework and
that this investigation cannot proceed before all approvals required have been obtained.
Signature of Chief Investigator
Please also type name here: Dr Elsa João
I confirm I have read this application, I am happy that the study is consistent with departmental strategy, that
the staff and/or students involved have the appropriate expertise to undertake the study and that adequate
arrangements are in place to supervise any students that might be acting as investigators, that the study has
access to the resources needed to conduct the proposed research successfully, and that there are no other
departmental-specific issues relating to the study of which I am aware.
Signature of Head of Department
Please also type name here Professor Rebecca Lunn
Date: 17 / 07 / 2014
23. Only for University sponsored projects under the remit of the DEC/SEC, with no external funding
and no NHS involvement
Head of Department statement on Sponsorship
This application requires the University to sponsor the investigation. This is done by the Head of Department
for all DEC applications with exception of those that are externally funded and those which are connected to
the NHS (those exceptions should be submitted to R&KES). I am aware of the implications of University
sponsorship of the investigation and have assessed this investigation with respect to sponsorship and
management risk. As this particular investigation is within the remit of the DEC and has no external funding
and no NHS involvement, I agree on behalf of the University that the University is the appropriate sponsor of
the investigation and there are no management risks posed by the investigation.
If not applicable, tick here
Signature of Head of Department
Please also type name here Professor Rebecca Lunn
Date: 17 / 07 / 2014
For applications to the University Ethics Committee, the completed form should be sent to
[email protected] with the relevant electronic signatures.
77
24. Insurance
The questionnaire below must be completed and included in your submission to the UEC/DEC/SEC:
Is the proposed research an investigation or series of investigations conducted
on any person for a Medicinal Purpose?
Medicinal Purpose means:
treating or preventing disease or diagnosing disease or ascertaining the existence degree of or extent of a physiological
condition or assisting with or altering in any way the process of conception or investigating or participating in methods of contraception or inducing anaesthesia or otherwise preventing or interfering with the normal operation of a
physiological function or altering the administration of prescribed medication.
No
If “Yes” please go to Section A (Clinical Trials) – all questions must be completed If “No” please go to Section B (Public Liability) – all questions must be completed
Section A (Clinical Trials)
Does the proposed research involve subjects who are either:
i. under the age of 5 years at the time of the trial; ii. known to be pregnant at the time of the trial
Yes / No
If “Yes” the UEC should refer to Finance
Is the proposed research limited to:
iii. Questionnaires, interviews, psychological activity including CBT; iv. Venepuncture (withdrawal of blood); v. Muscle biopsy; vi. Measurements or monitoring of physiological processes including scanning; vii. Collections of body secretions by non-invasive methods; viii. Intake of foods or nutrients or variation of diet (excluding administration of drugs).
Yes / No
If ”No” the UEC should refer to Finance
Will the proposed research take place within the UK? Yes / No
If “No” the UEC should refer to Finance
78
Title of Research
Chief Investigator
Sponsoring Organisation
Does the proposed research involve:
a) investigating or participating in methods of contraception? Yes / No
b) assisting with or altering the process of conception? Yes / No
c) the use of drugs? Yes / No
d) the use of surgery (other than biopsy)? Yes / No
e) genetic engineering? Yes / No
f) participants under 5 years of age(other than activities i-vi above)? Yes / No
g) participants known to be pregnant (other than activities i-vi above)? Yes / No
h) pharmaceutical product/appliance designed or manufactured by the institution?
Yes / No
i) work outside the United Kingdom? Yes / No
If “YES” to any of the questions a-i please also complete the Employee Activity Form (attached). If “YES” to any of the questions a-i, and this is a follow-on phase, please provide details of SUSARs on a separate sheet. If “Yes” to any of the questions a-i then the UEC/DEC/SEC should refer to Finance ([email protected]).
Section B (Public Liability)
Does the proposed research involve :
a) aircraft or any aerial device No
b) hovercraft or any water borne craft No
c) ionising radiation No
d) asbestos No
e) participants under 5 years of age No
f) participants known to be pregnant No
g) pharmaceutical product/appliance designed or manufactured by the institution?
No
h) work outside the United Kingdom? No
If “YES” to any of the questions the UEC/DEC/SEC should refer to Finance([email protected]).
79
For NHS applications only - Employee Activity Form
Has NHS Indemnity been provided? Yes / No
Are Medical Practitioners involved in the project? Yes / No
If YES, will Medical Practitioners be covered by the MDU or other body? Yes / No
This section aims to identify the staff involved, their employment contract and the extent of their involvement in the research (in some cases it may be more appropriate to refer to a group of persons rather than individuals).
Chief Investigator
Name Employer NHS Honorary
Contract?
Yes / No
Others
Name Employer NHS Honorary
Contract?
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Yes / No
Please provide any further relevant information here:
80
APPENDIX II: PARTICIPANTS INFORMATION SHEET FOR
INTERVIEWEES AND EXPERTS
Name of department: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Title of the study: How not to classify trees as waste in on-shore wind farms deployment
process
Introduction
The information and data gathered will be processed by Eva María Fernández Morán,
postgraduate student in the University of Strathclyde, currently involved in the MSc in
Environmental Entrepreneurship. The dissertation will be submitted in part completion of the
requirements for the MSc award.
University contact: [email protected]
What is the purpose of this investigation?
The purpose of this investigation is to define and analyse alternative destinations to the timber
extracted in on-shore wind farms deployment process, particularly biomass and forest-based
markets. The underlying reason for this research is that harvested timber is often underutilised,
and normally has to be managed as waste.
The analysis will be mainly focused in the economic aspects and CO2 emissions of this stage of
the wind farms construction, although it may also take into account other environmental and
social issues.
The study tries to demonstrate that finding viable markets may improve the economic and CO2
emissions balance of the process. It also seeks to determine benefits and drawbacks of
different alternatives.
Do you have to take part?
In order to gather relevant information and data for the study, experts from public bodies,
developers and consultants will be asked to voluntarily participate in meetings and semi-
structured interviews. Although some specific questions will be prepared for each meeting, extra
information and advice will be appreciated, as the researcher might not be previously aware of
valuable insights the expert could provide.
It is the participants‟ decision to take part or not in this investigation. Refusing to participate or
withdrawing participation will not affect them in any aspect.
What will you do in the project?
The participants will be asked to provide some information and data, insofar as this is possible.
To provide extra relevant information and advice will be really appreciated.
81
Communications with experts might be done through emails, meetings and interviews. The
mean of communication, location and dates will be previously agreed with each participant.
Why have you been invited to take part?
It is intended to contact people with expertise on the topics covered in this study, or whose
position/field of work is relevant to assist on this investigation. Recommendations from experts
previously interviewed are taken into account to make new contacts.
What are the potential risks to you in taking part?
There are no risks, burdens or specific preparatory requirements to participate in this study.
What happens to the information in the project?
The information and data gathered will be processed and stored by the researcher (Eva Mª
Fernández Morán). Any sensitive data and information will be treated in a confidential and
ethical manner and, will only be used for the dissertation purposes. However, it is expected that
many of the data, information and experts‟ opinions and insights will be very valuable to be
published in the final thesis. Participants will be asked permission to quote them and use this
information, previous consent and agreement on how to manage and disclose it.
After a reasonable period of time, and when the thesis is finished; the sensitive data and
information collected will be properly deleted.
The University of Strathclyde is registered with the Information Commissioner‟s Office who
implements the Data Protection Act 1998. All personal data on participants will be processed in
accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Thank you for reading this information – please ask any questions if you are unsure about what
is written here.
What happens next?
If you are happy to be involved in the investigation you will be asked to sign a consent form to
confirm this.
If you do not want to participate, there is no problem. Thank you very much for you time and
attention.
Being this investigation a requirement for the MSc completion, the results will be published in
the thesis. In case of interest, and with the University of Strathclyde approval, a copy of the final
thesis could be provided.
Researcher contact details: Eva María Fernández Morán.
E-mail: [email protected]
Chief Investigator details: Dr. Elsa João
E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: +44 (0)141 548 4056
82
This investigation was granted ethical approval by the University of Strathclyde Ethics
Committee.
If you have any questions/concerns, during or after the investigation, or wish to contact an
independent person to whom any questions may be directed or further information may be
sought from, please contact:
Secretary to the University Ethics Committee
Research & Knowledge Exchange Services
University of Strathclyde
Graham Hills Building
50 George Street
Glasgow
G1 1QE
Telephone: 0141 548 3707
Email: [email protected]
83
APPENDIX III: CONSENT FORM FOR INTERVIEWEES AND
EXPERTS
Name of department: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Title of the study: How not to classify trees as waste in on-shore wind farms deployment
process
I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet for the above project and
the researcher has answered any queries to my satisfaction.
I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the
project at any time.
I understand that I can withdraw my data from the study at any time.
I consent to take part in the project
I consent to being audio recorded as part of the project
…………………………………………….. Yes/ No
I understand that my words may be quoted in the dissertation. For that purpose:
o I would like my real name to be used ☐
o I would like to be anonymised ☐
„Anonymisation‟ suggestion
………………………………………………………........
(Position in the company/organisation, initials, alternative name…)
The information and data provided to the researcher can be legally used for the present
study, unless the opposite is specifically stated below. If any sensitive data is provided,
please state how it should be managed and presented.
NAME:
Signature of Participant: Date:
84
APPENDIX IV: SCOTTISH BIOMASS PRODUCERS DATABASE
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
1 Baledmund Estate Logs, Kindling,
Briquettes
Mark Fergusson:
Druid Cottage, Killiecrankie, Pitlochry,
Scotland, PH165QZ
2 Sawdust Woodfuels
Scotland
Logs, Briquettes Alex Stielow:
Tay Farm, Meikleour, Perth and Kinross,
PH2 6EE
3 Reith Partners
(Woodfuel) Ltd
Log, Pellet, Chip Jamie Reith:
Whitebank Farm, Methven, Perth, PH1
3QU
4 * RTS Ltd Woodland
Managers and
Consultants
(worked in Griffin WF)
Log, Chip + Timber
Harvesting
O'Neill Norman:
01764652858 ; M-07971 619133
or Alan Robins: M- 07971619130
Earnside House, Muthill Road, Crieff,
Perthshire, PH7 4DH
5 Community TreeCycle Log, Kindling Clive Bowman:
Community TreeCycle wood yard, Old
Bamff Quarry, Alyth, East Perthshire,
PH11 8BT
85
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
6 Glendoick
Estate/Forestry
Log, Kindling Ray Cox:
Pitlowie House, Glendoick, Perthshire,
PH2 7NS
7 Angus Biofuels Chip Bill Watson:
Unit 1 - Eco Park, Carseview Road,
Forfar, Angus, DD8 3BS
8 Strathmore Briquette Chip, Briquette Gavin Hill:
Douglastown, By Forfar, Angus, DD8
1TL
9 Our Power c/o Here We
Are
Chip Lorna Watt: mail@hereweare-
uk.com
Clachan, Cairndow, Argyll, PA26 8BL
10 www.burnlogs.com Log David Young:
Easter Drumquhassle Cottage, Gartness,
Glasgow, Stirlingshire, G63 0DN
11 Biohot Woodfuel Ltd. Log, Briquette Brian Stephenson:
45 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh, Argyll
and Bute, H84 7SE
12 The Wood Chip Shop Log, Chip Jo Coley:
Craig lodge, Ostel bay, Tighnabruaich,
Argyll, PA21 2AH
13 Scot Heating Company Log, Pellet, Chip Euan Marjoribanks:
West Gogar, Blairlogie, Stirling, FK9
86
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
Ltd uk 5QB
14 AC Gold Energy Log, Pellet, Chip Alasdair Campbell:
AC Gold Renewable Energy Showroom,
11 Back O'Hill Industrial Estate, Stirling,
Stirlingshire, FK8 1SH
15 * UPM Tilhill
(worked in Griffin WF)
Log, Chip + Timber
Harvesting
Iain Sutherland:
Darren Boult: T-01786821666 ;
M-07771543554
Kings Park House, Laurelhill, Stirling,
FK7 9NS
16 Alvie Woodfuel Pellet, Chip Peter MacKenzie: peter@alvie-
estate.co.uk
Alvie Estate Office, Kincraig, Badenoch,
PH21 1NE
17 HWEnergy Ltd Pellet, Chip Louise McMillan:
Lochaber Rural Complex, Torlundy, Fort
William, Inverness-shire, PH33 6SQ
18 Highland Fuelwood
Centre
Log, Chip Courtney Verity:
Unit 14, Woodlands Industrial Estate,
Grantown on Spey, Morayshire, PH26
3NA
87
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
19 Highland Forestry Ltd Log, Chip Matthew O'Brien:
Unit 14, Woodlands Industrial Estate,
Grantown on Spey, Morayshire, PH26
3NA
20 Lewis Shannen Ltd Log Iain Campbell:
Balfiech Sawmill, Fordoun, Laurencekirk,
Aberdeenshire, AB30 1JR
21 Arbuthnott Wood
Pellets Ltd
Pellet Keith Arbuthnott:
Arbuthnott, Laurencekirk,
Kincardineshire, AB30 1PA
22 The Wuid Chips
Company
Log, Chip Guy Milligan:
Banchory Business Centre, Burn O'Bennie
Road, Banchory, Aberdeenshire, AB31
5ZU
23 Treelogic Wood Energy
Ltd
Log, Chip Ben Hudson:
East Dalfling, Blairdaff, Inverurie,
Aberdeenshire, AB51 5LA
24 Harper Contracts Pellet, Chip Julie Harper:
North Road Industrial Estate, Insch,
Aberdeenshire, AB52 6XP
25 Newfuel Ltd Chip Oliphant Hamish: info@new- Netherdale House, Turriff, Aberdeenshire,
88
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
fuel.co.uk AB53 4LE
26 Tarryblake Log, Pellet Shane Llywarch:
Tarryblake, Rothiemay, Aberdeenshire,
AB54 7PB
27 Drummuir Estate Log, Chip Torquil Gordon-Duff:
uk
Drummuir Estate Office, Drummuir,
Keith, Banffshire, AB55 5JE
28 Bob Morrison firewood
supplies
Log, Chip Robert Morrison:
m
Loganberry lodge, Boharm, Craigellachie,
Aberlour, AB38 9RL
29 Sylvestrus Ltd Log, Pellet Dietrich Pannwitz:
1a Broadstone Park, Inverness, Inverness-
shire, IV2 3JZ
30 A & C DOUGLAS-
JONES
Log ANDREW DOUGLAS-JONES:
Wildhaven, Inverarnie, Farr, Inverness,
Inverness-shire, IV2 6XH
31 Swallowfield
Smallholding Ltd.
Log, Chip Christman Jess:
Rosecroft, Balvaird Road, Muir of Ord,
Black Isle, IV6 7QX
89
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
32 Balcas brites Scotland Pellet, Chip Finlay Timothy:
Unit 16 Cromarty Firth Industrial Estate,
Invergordon, Ross-shire, IV18 0LE
33 Sleat Renewables Ltd Log, Chip Chris Marsh: [email protected] Sleat Community Trust Office, Armadale,
Sleat, Isle of Skye, IV45 8RS
34 Callendar Estate
Biomass Ltd
Chip Ross Iain: [email protected] Callendar Estate Office, Slamannan Road,
Falkirk, FK1 5LX
35 Forever Fuels Ltd Pellet Leslie Andrew: claireh@forever-
fuels.com
Unit 1, Wholeflats Road, Grangemouth,
Falkirk, FK3 9UY
36 Champfleurie Estate Log, Pellet, Chip,
Briquette
Kerr Ricky:
Champfleurie House, Linlithgow, West
Lothian, EH49 6NB
37 Pentland Biomass Log, Pellet, Chip Richard Spray:
Loanhead, Midlothian, Scotland, EH20
9QG
38 Caledonian Wood Fuels
LTD
Log, Chip Colin Wilson:
Caledonian Tree Services, South
Craigmarloch, Port Glasgow Road,
Kilmacolm, PA13 4SG
90
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
39 Bullwood Log Joe Kilmartin:
300 Nitshill Road, Glasgow, Glasgow,
G53 7BT
40 Tracey Timber
Recycling Limited
Chip Stuart Brown:
49 Burnbrae Road, Linwood, Paisley,
Renfrewshire, PA3 3BD
41 DW Lyon Agricultural
Contractors Ltd
Log Lyon Duncan:
Arthursheils, Quothquan, Biggar, South
Lanarkshire, ML12 6NB
42 Duns Chip Alastair Stewart:
Unit 1 - Eco Park, Carseview Road, Fofar,
Angus, DD8 3BS
43 Clint Logs Log Blair Charlie:
Clint, Stenton, Dunbar, East Lothian,
EH42 1TQ
44 The Real Firewood Co
Ltd
Log, Pellet, Briquette Niall Whyte:
Unit 1, Clockmill, DUNS, Berwickshire,
TD11 3NP
45 TD Tree & Land
Services Ltd
Log, Chip Tom Dixon: [email protected] Platform 1, Station Rd, Duns,
Berwickshire, TD113HS
91
Database
Code Company Type of Product Contact Location/Address
46 Wood Pellets Ayrshire Pellet Hamilton Drew: info@wood-
pellets-ayrshire.co.uk
2 Springbank Farm, Prestwick, Ayrshire,
KA9 2SW
47 Arran Woodfuels Log, Pellet, Chip,
Briquette
Duncan Mulholland:
o.uk ; [email protected]
Cnoc Na Dail, Lamlash, Isle of Arran,
KA27 8PQ
48 LandEnergy Girvan Pellet Hugh Montgomery:
hughmontgomery@land-
energy.com
19 Ladywell Avenue, Grangestone
Industrial Estate, Girvan, South Ayrshire,
KA26 9PF
49 JB & AM McAllister Log Brian McAllister:
11 Main St, Elrig, Newton Stewart,
Wigtownshire, DG8 9RD
50 E.B. IRVING Log Ted Irving: [email protected] 43 Galla Crescent, Dalbeattie,
Kirkcudbrightshire, DG5 4JY