Carbon impact factors for a range of
wood products
Rick Bergman
US Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory
Madison, WI
Adam Taylor
Maureen Puettmann
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN
WoodLife Environmental Consultants, LLC
Corvallis, OR
FPS International Convention 2011
Portland, OR
Today’s Talk
• Introduction – Carbon impacts
– What
– Why
• How we found the carbon impacts and
for what products
• Results and what do they mean
Premise
“Growing trees takes carbon out of the
atmosphere storing it first in the forest,
which when harvested moves this carbon to
storage in products while at the same time
displacing fossil intensive products like steel
and concrete.”
CORRIM Fact 5: Maximizing Forest Contributions to Carbon Mitigation
http://www.corrim.org/pubs/factsheets/fs_05.pdf
Introduction
The carbon footprint is quantified by the
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
GWP is categorized using greenhouse gas
(GHG) emitted
GHGs important to forest products industry
Carbon dioxide (#1), methane, and nitrous oxide
Why Important?
• Climate change is mainly driven by burning
fossil fuel
• Potential “green” advantages for wood products
– Burn less fossil fuel than alternatives >> lower GWP
• Future competiveness of forest products industry
• Wood products affect on climate change
– Carbon sequestration = the capture and storage of
CO2 in a reservoir (i.e. trees)
– Carbon storage in wood products
– Substitution effect = avoiding fossil fuel emissions
Project Steps
1. Select products and alternatives
–
Some examples
•
•
•
•
Hardwood lumber / plastic moulding
Softwood lumber / steel stud
Solid wood door / steel door
Hardwood flooring / linoleum
2. Find life cycle information
–
–
Cradle-to-gate (extraction to mill gate out)
Existing data bases (US LCI Database, Ecoinvent) and peerreviewed literature (CORRIM)
NREL. 2004. US LCI Database. www.nrel.gov/lci
Ecoinvent (www.ecoinvent.ch)
CORRIM (www.corrim.org)
Project Steps (con.)
3. Define production unit (i.e. functional unit)
Wood Product
Alternate Product
Units
Hardwood lumber (SE and NE-NC) Plastic moulding1
1 board ft
Hardwood flooring (NE-NC)
Linoleum
1 square ft
Softwood lumber (SE and NE-NC)
Steel
1- 2x4 stud
Door, hardwood
Steel
1 door
Decking, treated pine
WPC2
1 board
Siding, redcedar
Vinyl
100 square ft
Utility poles, treated pine
Concrete
1 – 45‟ pole
Plywood
none
4‟ x 8‟ sheet
Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
none
4‟ x 8‟ sheet
1
Polyvinyl chloride, 2 Wood plastic composite
Project Steps (con.)
4. Life cycle assessment quantifies
– Greenhouse gas emissions released from
cradle-to-gate (A)
– Carbon stored in biomass fuel (B)
– Carbon stored in final product (C)
– Substitution carbon = carbon reduction of
using wood in place of an alternative (D)
– Net carbon footprint (E = A-B-C-D)
Results
• Low or negative GWP is desirable
• Results shown in kg CO2-equivalents
(TRACI 2 Method)
• Wood products burns significantly more
biofuel than fossil fuels during manufacturing
• Consistent with PAS 2050 (100 yr service
life)
US EPA. 2008. TRACI 2 Method. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/
PAS 2050. 2008. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution.
Results (con.)
NE/NC hardwood vs plastic moulding
A = 0.89 (total GHG emissions)
B = 0.59 (biofuel GHG emissions)
C = 1.84 (carbon storage)
D = 2.63 (substitution effect)
E = 0.89 – 0.59 – 1.84 – 2.63 = - 4.16 kg CO2-eq
per bf
E is the net carbon footprint
Results (con.)
3.00
The carbon impacts of hardwood vs
plastic moulding
kg_CO2-eg per board foot
2.00
1.00
0.00
A
B
C
D
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
NE/NC hardwood
SE hardwood
E
Results (con.)
The carbon impacts of softwood
lumber vs steel stud
kg CO2-eq per stud
10.00
5.00
0.00
A
B
C
D
-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
NE/NC softwood lumber
SE softwood lumber
E
Results (con.)
Product Unit
Category
Hardwood One board foot
Lumber
One board foot
Softwood One 2x4 „stud‟
Lumber
One 2x4 „stud‟
1 square foot
Wood
Flooring 1 square foot
Doors
One door
Decking One deck board
Siding
100 square feet
Poles
One 45' pole
OSB
One 4‟x 8' sheet
One 4‟x 8' sheet
Plywood
One 4‟x 8' sheet
NE/NC
SE
NE/NC
SE
Solid wood
Engineered
Solid wood
Treated pine
WRC
Treated wood
SE
PNW
SE
A
B
C
D
Alternative
E
0.89
1.08
1.85
3.90
1.06
0.98
46.5
5.18
37.7
454
19.0
5.72
10.1
0.59
0.79
1.23
3.32
0.69
0.52
29.4
1.70
5.96
431
10.7
4.13
6.48
1.84
1.77
6.63
8.42
2.12
1.10
100
16.1
77.7
1160
34.7
25.5
30.9
2.63
2.64
6.97
7.01
-0.13
-0.22
228
11.9
20.4
1380
-
PVC
PVC
Steel stud
Steel stud
Linoleum
Linoleum
Steel door
WPC
Vinyl
Concrete
n/a
n/a
n/a
-4.16
-4.12
-13.0
-14.9
-1.61
-0.42
-311
-24.5
-66.3
-2520
-26.3
-23.9
-27.3
Conclusions
• All wood products have a negative carbon
footprint from cradle-to-gate (E)
• Products burning biomass instead of fossil fuels
is preferable
• Carbon storage (C) outweighs GHG released
(A) and highly dependent on wood density
Collaborators
• Cooperative study between
FPL, University of Tennessee
and WoodLife Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
• Funded by the USFS Wood and
Education Resource Center
Citations
Bergman R. and S. Bowe. 2008. Life cycle inventory of hardwood lumber manufacturing in the northeast and north central
United States. Module C.
Bergman R. and S. Bowe. 2010. Life cycle inventory of hardwood lumber manufacturing in the southeastern United States.
CORRIM Final Report. Module L.
Bergman R. and S. Bowe. 2009. Life cycle inventory of softwood lumber manufacturing in the northeast and north central
United States. Module D.
Bergman R. and S. Bowe. 2011. Life-cycle inventory of manufacturing prefinished engineered wood flooring in the eastern
United States. Module N.
Birdsey, R.A. 1992. Carbon Storage and Accumulation in United States Forest Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service GTR WO59.
Bolin, C and S. Smith. 2011. Life cycle assessment of pentachlorophenol-treated wooden utility poles with comparisons to
steel and concrete utility poles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(2011)2475-2486
Bolin, C and S. Smith. 2011. Life cycle assessment of ACQ-treated lumber with comparisons to wood plastic composite
decking. J. of Cleaner Prod. 19(2011)620-629
Hubbard S. and S. Bowe. 2008. Life cycle inventory of solid strip hardwood flooring in the eastern United States. Module E.
http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2010/phase2/Module_E.pdf
Knight L. et al. 2005. Comparing energy use and environmental emissions of reinforced wood doors and steel doors. Forest
Prod. J. 55(6):48-52.
Mahalle L. and J. O‟Connor. 2009. Life cycle assessment of western red cedar siding, decking, and alternative products.
Used by permissions from FPInnovations – Forintek Division Project No. 6342
Milota, M., C. West and I. Hartley. 2004. Softwood Lumber – Southeast region. CORRIM Final Report. Module C.
http://www.corrim.org/pubs/reports/2005/Phase1/Module_C_Final.pdf
Potting J. and D. Block. 1996. Life cycle assessment of four types of floor coverings. J. Cleaner Prod. 3(4):201-213
Puettmann M. and J. Wilson. 2005. Life cycle analysis of wood products: Cradle-to-gate LCI of residential wood buildings
materials. Wood and Fiber Science. 37 CORRIM Special Issue, 2005, 99.18-29