Trees: From Wind Farms Waste to Biomass Energy Source: A Greenhouse Gases Analysis. Griffin Wind...

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


manufacture wood chips. ................................................................................................ 42


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


clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were mulched. .......................... 52

ix


clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were sent to logs production. ... 53


clearance process, in the theoretical case that all trees were sent to chips production. .. 53


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.

http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/

http://www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/a.asp

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


Emissions displaced


Wood pellets EF 55,903235

⁄ Pellets EF and

emissions displaced


Wood pellets net


Emissions displaced


Electricity

Generation UK EF 0,49426

⁄ Emissions displaced


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


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


𝑡

𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒

𝑡 =

𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑘𝑊

Pellets Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊

× 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐸𝐹


𝑡

𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝐹 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒

𝑡 =

𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑏.𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑘𝑊

∗ Pellets Total Emissions 𝑘𝑔 𝐶𝑂 𝑒𝑀𝑊

× 𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑠 𝐸𝐹


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)

http://goo.gl/XDX88c

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


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


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



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 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

⁄


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


⁄

Pellets Lorry (Truck


⁄

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


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


-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


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


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




-210,427,590

54


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


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


-6,921 kgCO2




-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








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


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


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


4. Non-Strathclyde collaborating investigator(s) (where applicable)

Name:

Status (e.g. lecturer, post-/undergraduate):

Department/Institution:

mailto:[email protected]

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.

http://www.strath.ac.uk/safetyservices/aboutus/riskmanagement/

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.

http://www.cso.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/ResGov/Framework/RGFEdTwo.pdf


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.


Chief Investigator details: Dr. Elsa João


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:

[email protected]

Druid Cottage, Killiecrankie, Pitlochry,

Scotland, PH165QZ

2 Sawdust Woodfuels

Scotland

Logs, Briquettes Alex Stielow:

[email protected]

Tay Farm, Meikleour, Perth and Kinross,

PH2 6EE

3 Reith Partners

(Woodfuel) Ltd

Log, Pellet, Chip Jamie Reith:

[email protected]

Whitebank Farm, Methven, Perth, PH1

3QU

4 * RTS Ltd Woodland

Managers and

Consultants

(worked in Griffin WF)

Log, Chip + Timber

Harvesting

O'Neill Norman:

[email protected] T-

01764652858 ; M-07971 619133

or Alan Robins: M- 07971619130

Earnside House, Muthill Road, Crieff,

Perthshire, PH7 4DH

5 Community TreeCycle Log, Kindling Clive Bowman:

[email protected]

Community TreeCycle wood yard, Old

Bamff Quarry, Alyth, East Perthshire,

PH11 8BT

http://www.baledmundestate.com/

http://www.woodforwarmth.co.uk/

http://www.woodforwarmth.co.uk/

http://www.rts.ltd.uk/



http://www.communitytreecycle.co.uk/

85

Database


6 Glendoick

Estate/Forestry

Log, Kindling Ray Cox:

[email protected]

Pitlowie House, Glendoick, Perthshire,

PH2 7NS

7 Angus Biofuels Chip Bill Watson:

[email protected]

Unit 1 - Eco Park, Carseview Road,

Forfar, Angus, DD8 3BS

8 Strathmore Briquette Chip, Briquette Gavin Hill:

[email protected]

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:

[email protected]

Easter Drumquhassle Cottage, Gartness,

Glasgow, Stirlingshire, G63 0DN

11 Biohot Woodfuel Ltd. Log, Briquette Brian Stephenson:

[email protected]

45 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh, Argyll

and Bute, H84 7SE

12 The Wood Chip Shop Log, Chip Jo Coley:

[email protected]

Craig lodge, Ostel bay, Tighnabruaich,

Argyll, PA21 2AH

13 Scot Heating Company Log, Pellet, Chip Euan Marjoribanks:

[email protected].

West Gogar, Blairlogie, Stirling, FK9

http://www.ready2burnlogs.co.uk/

http://www.ready2burnlogs.co.uk/

http://www.strathmorebriquette.co.uk/

http://www.hereweare-uk.com/

http://www.hereweare-uk.com/

http://www.burnlogs.com/

http://www.biohot.co.uk/

http://www.thewoodchipshop.co.uk/

http://www.scottishheatingcompany.co.uk/

86

Database


Ltd uk 5QB

14 AC Gold Energy Log, Pellet, Chip Alasdair Campbell:

[email protected]

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:

[email protected] or

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:

[email protected]

Lochaber Rural Complex, Torlundy, Fort

William, Inverness-shire, PH33 6SQ

18 Highland Fuelwood

Centre

Log, Chip Courtney Verity:

[email protected]

Unit 14, Woodlands Industrial Estate,

Grantown on Spey, Morayshire, PH26

3NA

http://www.scottishheatingcompany.co.uk/

http://acgoldenergy.co.uk/

http://www.upm-tilhill.com/

http://www.alvie-estate.co.uk/

http://www.hwenergy.co.uk/

http://www.highlandforestry.co.uk/


87

Database


19 Highland Forestry Ltd Log, Chip Matthew O'Brien:

[email protected]

Unit 14, Woodlands Industrial Estate,

Grantown on Spey, Morayshire, PH26

3NA

20 Lewis Shannen Ltd Log Iain Campbell:

[email protected]

Balfiech Sawmill, Fordoun, Laurencekirk,

Aberdeenshire, AB30 1JR

21 Arbuthnott Wood

Pellets Ltd

Pellet Keith Arbuthnott:

[email protected]

Arbuthnott, Laurencekirk,

Kincardineshire, AB30 1PA

22 The Wuid Chips

Company

Log, Chip Guy Milligan:

[email protected]

Banchory Business Centre, Burn O'Bennie

Road, Banchory, Aberdeenshire, AB31

5ZU

23 Treelogic Wood Energy

Ltd

Log, Chip Ben Hudson:

[email protected]

East Dalfling, Blairdaff, Inverurie,

Aberdeenshire, AB51 5LA

24 Harper Contracts Pellet, Chip Julie Harper:

[email protected]

North Road Industrial Estate, Insch,

Aberdeenshire, AB52 6XP

25 Newfuel Ltd Chip Oliphant Hamish: info@new- Netherdale House, Turriff, Aberdeenshire,


http://www.lewisshannensawmill.co.uk/

http://www.hotstovies.com/

http://www.hotstovies.com/

http://www.wuidchips.co.uk/

http://www.wuidchips.co.uk/

http://www.treelogic.co.uk/

http://www.treelogic.co.uk/

http://harpercontracts.com/

http://www.new-fuel.co.uk/

88

Database


fuel.co.uk AB53 4LE

26 Tarryblake Log, Pellet Shane Llywarch:

[email protected]

Tarryblake, Rothiemay, Aberdeenshire,

AB54 7PB

27 Drummuir Estate Log, Chip Torquil Gordon-Duff:

[email protected].

uk

Drummuir Estate Office, Drummuir,

Keith, Banffshire, AB55 5JE

28 Bob Morrison firewood

supplies

Log, Chip Robert Morrison:

[email protected]

m

Loganberry lodge, Boharm, Craigellachie,

Aberlour, AB38 9RL

29 Sylvestrus Ltd Log, Pellet Dietrich Pannwitz:

[email protected]

1a Broadstone Park, Inverness, Inverness-

shire, IV2 3JZ

30 A & C DOUGLAS-

JONES

Log ANDREW DOUGLAS-JONES:

[email protected]

Wildhaven, Inverarnie, Farr, Inverness,

Inverness-shire, IV2 6XH

31 Swallowfield

Smallholding Ltd.

Log, Chip Christman Jess:

[email protected]

Rosecroft, Balvaird Road, Muir of Ord,

Black Isle, IV6 7QX

http://www.tarryblaketimber.com/

http://www.sylvestrus.co.uk/

http://www.blackislefirewood.co.uk/

http://www.blackislefirewood.co.uk/

89

Database


32 Balcas brites Scotland Pellet, Chip Finlay Timothy:

[email protected]

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:

[email protected]

Champfleurie House, Linlithgow, West

Lothian, EH49 6NB

37 Pentland Biomass Log, Pellet, Chip Richard Spray:

[email protected]

Loanhead, Midlothian, Scotland, EH20

9QG

38 Caledonian Wood Fuels

LTD

Log, Chip Colin Wilson:

[email protected]

Caledonian Tree Services, South

Craigmarloch, Port Glasgow Road,

Kilmacolm, PA13 4SG

http://www.brites.eu/

http://www.sleatcommunitytrust.co.uk/

http://www.callendarestate.co.uk/

http://www.callendarestate.co.uk/

http://www.forever-fuels.com/

http://www.champfleurie.co.uk/

http://www.pentlandbiomass.com/

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caledoniantreeservices.com%2F&ei=g-rZU-bKMaKx0QW62oDQAg&usg=AFQjCNGwXRnOnef_uXy1uKpjATMoSgbdLQ&bvm=bv.72185853,d.d2k

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caledoniantreeservices.com%2F&ei=g-rZU-bKMaKx0QW62oDQAg&usg=AFQjCNGwXRnOnef_uXy1uKpjATMoSgbdLQ&bvm=bv.72185853,d.d2k

90

Database


39 Bullwood Log Joe Kilmartin:

[email protected]

300 Nitshill Road, Glasgow, Glasgow,

G53 7BT

40 Tracey Timber

Recycling Limited

Chip Stuart Brown:

[email protected]

49 Burnbrae Road, Linwood, Paisley,

Renfrewshire, PA3 3BD

41 DW Lyon Agricultural

Contractors Ltd

Log Lyon Duncan:

[email protected]

Arthursheils, Quothquan, Biggar, South

Lanarkshire, ML12 6NB

42 Duns Chip Alastair Stewart:

[email protected]

Unit 1 - Eco Park, Carseview Road, Fofar,

Angus, DD8 3BS

43 Clint Logs Log Blair Charlie:

[email protected]

Clint, Stenton, Dunbar, East Lothian,

EH42 1TQ

44 The Real Firewood Co

Ltd

Log, Pellet, Briquette Niall Whyte:

[email protected]

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

http://www.bullwoodproject.org/

http://www.traceytimber.co.uk/

http://www.traceytimber.co.uk/

http://www.dwlyon.co.uk/

http://www.dwlyon.co.uk/

http://www.realfirewood.co.uk/

http://www.realfirewood.co.uk/

http://tdtrees.co.uk/

http://tdtrees.co.uk/

91

Database


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:

[email protected]

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:

[email protected]

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

http://wood-pellets-ayrshire.co.uk/

http://www.arranwoodfuels.co.uk/

http://www.land-energy.com/

http://www.boofarm.co.uk/

Trees: From Wind Farms Waste to Biomass Energy Source: A Greenhouse Gases Analysis. Griffin Wind...

Environment

Transcript of Trees: From Wind Farms Waste to Biomass Energy Source: A Greenhouse Gases Analysis. Griffin Wind...