I unearthed that provincial-height time replacing advantages from upcoming fuels have been some smaller than those people estimated off latest fuels (Fig

We felt reasonable and you can highest substitution pros about analyses while the uncertainty from the replacing positives leads to suspicion for the minimization efficiency having energy and you can factors . 4), but latest fuels got greater regional distinction, especially for regions with a high industrial opportunity demand and you can reduced society, just as the results away from an earlier investigation . To own upcoming analyses, it will be good-for provides spatial information about future people and you will industrial gas mileage each fossil fuel.

During the remote groups, stamina have fun with is changing by way of several software (the fresh new Brush Times to have Rural and you may Secluded Communities (CERRC) system , the newest Indigenous Regarding-Diesel Effort , as well as in 2018 the new CleanBC plan announced the prospective to attenuate from the 2030 the brand new diesel application in off-grid communities by 80%

Suspicion about substitution experts getting timber points is actually examined because of the having fun with higher and low substitution benefits to have sawnwood and you may panels. A recently available report about education with analyzed replacing benefits having timber , discovered the common unit displacement factor that is in the variety out of philosophy found in this study, but more information on displacement facts from the commodity kind of and you foreign dating service may nation will be helpful, and more information on stop-spends and you may relevant product lifetimes (e.g. [5, 8]). Details about replacing experts to possess pulp and you can report is restricted, therefore we thought there’s zero replacing benefit, but considering the ratio off C within class (25% so you can 34% off timber commodities), polishing these types of circumstances could have large impacts on the web GHG avoidance. Long lasting concerns in regards to the real magnitude away from replacing experts, the show clearly reveal that higher mitigation experts is possible as a result of policies you to (1) improve the C retention time in gathered timber products of the favouring long-existed more small-existed issues also bioenergy, and you can (2) enable the the means to access timber things to restore emission-extreme materials, e.g. in the building field.

But not, no improvement in market prices off HWP are thought in almost any condition as the HWP costs are constantly influenced by higher-level areas if you find yourself record markets try apparently regional

In terms of the economic analyses, similar studies have compared mitigation costs for various mitigation scenarios at the national scale and for specific activities [45, 56, 68]. In this study, we used regionally differentiated economic assumptions by three broad regions (northern interior, southern interior, coastal region) as well as at the timber supply area (TSA) level for the Bioenergy scenarios in order to capture the spatial variation in market price and production cost (Additional file 1: Table S9). The cost and price assumptions associated with the bioenergy scenarios and the substitution effects were TSA-specific depending on residue availability, bioenergy facility type, transportation distance (simple estimates), and fuel mix. We assumed that log prices would be affected if harvest shifted among log grades due to mitigation scenarios. For example, the Higher Recovery scenario was assumed to increase the proportion of logs in lower grades and thus reduce overall average log prices, while the Restricted Harvest scenario was assumed to decrease the portion of top-grade logs, and therefore also reduce overall average log prices. Costs related to forest management were affected if harvest activities were altered by mitigation scenarios, for instance, logging costs increased in conservation scenarios because more dispersed cut blocks were needed to keep the same harvest characteristics (e.g., diameters, tree species, etc.). We also assumed a fixed $50/tCO₂e carbon price over the entire period for slashburning as a penalty in the baseline to reflect a possible policy change to include slashburning in BC’s existing carbon pricing . Manufacturing costs were also impacted by changes in production efficiency that then depend on the availability of input materials. Additional recovered fiber under Higher Utilization was assumed to be used in HWP following the same proportions as in the baseline, thus a lower manufacturing cost was assumed for pulp and paper production due to higher efficiency, but a higher manufacturing cost for solid wood products because of lower log quality. Similarly, higher manufacturing costs were assumed for all HWP in the conservation scenarios due to lower efficiency. In the LLP scenario, we assumed economy of scales increased manufacturing costs of pulp and paper (+ 2%) and decreased costs for solid wood products (? 2%) .