Leanda C. Garvie

In emerging markets, investment costs tend to be associated with uncertainty, especially if the investment is policy driven. Globally, nations have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the temperature increase below 1.5°C by 2100. Australia faces challenges in achieving its Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions and Agenda 2030 commitments, mostly given the extraction profile of its economy. Introducing renewable carbon from forest residues in the niche markets could increase the competitiveness of the forest industry not only in terms of reduced energy costs but also in terms of ‘greening’ the primary product. Growing interest in the bioenergy market, linked with large volumes of available biomass feedstocks including forest residues, presents opportunities in Australia. Yet, ambiguity about costs and concerns about biomass supply throttle the investment potential. This paper aims to estimate a range of forest residue costs along the supply chain for the Australian market by projecting the biomass supply costs from a mature bioenergy market onto it using a benchmarking process reinforced by expert opinion. A three‐round Delphi method in which experts indicated direction and range of costs along the forest biomass supply chain revealed that roadside costs of forest residues (other than stumps), and biomass transportation costs, are lower than or equal to and equal to or higher than, the EU costs respectively. Experts ranked investment and supply‐side support as priority areas for the development of forest bioenergy in Australia. The expert estimations of forest residue cost ranges along the supply chain offer the first layer for framing a national policy for forest bioenergy within the broader bioeconomy.

Australia has abundant volumes of forest residues that are a potential feedstock for supplying biomass as a renewable carbon carrier to the market. However, there remains an underutilization of this resource, even in mature bioeconomy markets. Several existing or perceived barriers can be attributed to the underdeveloped, forest-based bioeconomy in Australia. One of these is the limited understanding of feedstock supply costs. In this study, two ranking approaches were applied to identify the optimal biomass feedstock supply chain from field to conversion plant gate. A panel of experts embedded in the Australian bioeconomy were employed to first assign ranks to biomass supply chain items by cost intensity. Then, a layer of analytic hierarchical process (AHP) was used to weigh and rank various biomass supply pathways by efficiency. The results reveal that biomass extraction ranks the highest and biomass feedstock storage ranks the lowest, relative to other supply chain costs. Extracting and chipping material in the field attracted the most support from the experts in terms of efficiency, followed by transporting and chipping at the roadside and, finally, transporting and chipping at the conversion plant. This study provides insights for designers of the forest-based bioeconomy in Australia into relative cost drivers that may be applied to investment and industry decisions. It also provides a framework to support further investigations into forest biomass development and the management of biomass as a renewable carbon carrier at a time when Australia is transitioning from an energy policy focused on fossil fuels to a renewable energy strategy.

Harnessing sustainably sourced forest biomass for renewable energy is well-established in some parts of the developed world. Forest-based bioenergy has the potential to offset carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, thereby playing a role in climate change mitigation. Despite having an established commercial forestry industry, with large quantities of residue generated each year, there is limited use for forest biomass for renewable energy in Queensland, and Australia more broadly. The objective of this study was to identify the carbon dioxide mitigation potential of replacing fossil fuels with bioenergy generated from forest harvest residues harnessed from commercial plantations of Pinus species in southeast Queensland. An empirical-based full carbon accounting model (FullCAM) was used to simulate the accumulation of carbon in harvest residues. The results from the FullCAM modelling were further analysed to identify the energy substitution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions offsets of three bioenergy scenarios. The results of the analysis suggest that the greatest opportunity to avoid or offset emissions is achieved when combined heat and power using residue feedstocks replaces coal-fired electricity. The results of this study suggest that forest residue bioenergy is a viable alternative to traditional energy sources, offering substantive emission reductions, with the potential to contribute towards renewable energy and emission reduction targets in Queensland. The approach used in this case study will be valuable to other regions exploring bioenergy generation from forest or other biomass residues.