Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119

Modelling of energy and carbon budgets of

wood fuel coppice systems
R.W. Matthews
Mensuration Branch, Forest Research, Alice Holt Research Station, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, UK

Received 28 May 1999; received in revised form 22 February 2001; accepted 8 April 2001

Abstract
The development and application of a standard methodology for evaluating the energy and carbon budgets of biofuel
production systems is described, with emphasis on wood fuel production from short rotation coppice. Five major tasks were
involved: de+nition of the system boundary; estimation of energy bene+ts; estimation of carbon sequestration; estimation of
energy costs; estimation of carbon emissions. Calculation of overall energy and carbon budgets required a set of standard
assumptions about practices and resultant energy inputs to be made. These standard assumptions accounted for all activities
involved in production and delivery of biofuel within the immediate vicinity of the farm (3:2 km). The energy ratio, that
is the ratio of energy produced to energy consumed by the biofuel producing system, was estimated to be much greater
than 1, typically around 30. This energy ratio proved to be very sensitive to assumptions about crop management and wood
processing, as well as associated energy inputs, varying from 20 to 64 when model input assumptions were varied between
extremes. The carbon emissions coe4cient exhibited similar sensitivity to input assumptions. The gross non-renewable energy
requirement, that is the total consumption of non-renewable energy associated with the direct consumption of 1 MJ of energy
in the form of wood fuel, was estimated to be 0:035 MJ MJ1 . The carbon emissions coe4cient, that is the carbon emitted in
producing 1 MJ of energy in the form of wood from short rotation coppice, was estimated to be 0:0013 kgC MJ1 . Further
research is needed to validate input assumptions and to estimate budgets for complete, practical, energy generation systems.
Crown Copyright
c 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Carbon budget; Short rotation coppice; Bioenergy farming; Energy budget; Wood fuel

1. Introduction increasing attention. Wood is still the dominant

1.1. Background
Among the many methods of potentially sustain-
able energy generation, wood fuel has been receiving
farming is proposed in the developed countries of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-01420-22255; fax:
+44-01420-23450.
E-mail address: robert.matthews@forestry.gsi.gov.uk
(R.W. Matthews).
source of fuel in many developing countries. It has
been suggested that the sustainable production and
conversion of plants and plant residues into fuel of-
fers signi+cant potential for alleviating pressures for
use of forests and woodlands as fuels [1]. Bioenergy
the European Community, not only as a means of
securing sustainable supplies of energy, but also as
a means of diversifying arable land use, thus solving

c 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

0961-9534/01/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 
PII: S 0 9 6 1 - 9 5 3 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 2
2 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
to some extent the problem of food overproduc-
tion [2].
Over the last 25 years, biomass fuel farming has
been proposed as a cheap, low-technology means of
producing renewable energy [35]. Commercial scale
systems based on fast growing coppiced tree species
such as willow and poplar are being operated in
Sweden [6]. In Britain, the potential of such systems
has been investigated by the Energy Technology Sup-
port Unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and
Industry and pre-commercial large-scale trials have
been established [7].
1.2. The need for energy and carbon budgets
A basic requirement for any bioenergy generation
system is that the energy produced must be greater
than the inputs of non-renewable energy required to
establish and operate the scheme. Moreover, estab-
lishment and operation of the bioenergy generation
system must cause negligible emissions to the atmo-
sphere of greenhouse gases, principally carbon-based
compounds such as carbon dioxide. In order to con-
+rm that a bioenergy generation scheme meets these
criteria, it is necessary to evaluate the energy and
carbon budgets of the proposed system.
Currently, only limited data are available on en-
ergy and carbon budgets for energy generation from
woody plants that may be applicable to systems of
management in Britain (see for example [4,810]),
and the conclusions reached by these studies disagree
markedly. The causes of this disagreement need to be
identi+ed, and a de+nitive budget calculated, if wood
fuel farming schemes are to proceed beyond the trial
stage in Britain.
This paper reports work carried out by UK Forest
Research to develop and apply a standard methodol-
ogy for evaluating the energy and carbon budgets of
biofuel production systems, with particular emphasis
on wood fuel production from short rotation coppiced
trees.
2. Methods
2.1. De1nition of system boundary
The Hows of energy associated with a typical
biofuel producing system are shown in Fig. 1. Care-
ful de+nition of the physical boundary which con-
tains the system of interest is important as this
boundary determines the energy inputs and out-
puts. The system boundary adopted in this study
is indicated by the shaded area in Fig. 1. The
system is taken to consist of the site of biomass
production, typically a farm. This study consid-
ers energy Hows associated with operations that
are necessary to grow a short rotation coppice
crop and turn harvested biomass into utilizable
biofuel. The harvested wood is considered utiliz-
able once processed into manageable chips. In-
stallations for complicated post-processing and=or
combustion of woodchips are excluded from the
system.
Commercial production of plant biomass involves
inputs of energy in +ve forms:
solar energy
fossil fuel energy
energy embodied in materials consumed
energy embodied in machinery used
human labour.
Solar energy may be regarded as renewable. The re-
mainder involve direct and=or indirect consumption
of non-renewable fossil fuel, for example the fuel re-
quirements of tractors, implied energy inputs when
fertilizer or herbicides are applied, and in principle the
daily living requirements of the workforce tending the
crop. All energy inputs related to human labour are
ignored in this study, on the basis that the marginal
costs attributable to the biomass production process
are negligible. Exclusion of such inputs is also con-
sistent with the established conventions of industrial
energy analysis [8].
The Hows of carbon associated with a typical biofuel
system are shown in Fig. 2. The direct consumption
of biofuels involves associated emissions due to:
direct fossil fuel combustion
manufacture of materials consumed
manufacture of machinery used
sustaining lives of the workforce (e.g. food,
heating).
These represent the carbon outputs of the system and
are eJectively irreversible. In accord with the energy
budgeting conventions, emissions of carbon associated
with human labour are ignored.
Carbon inputs to the system are in the form of living,
growing biomass and for biofuel crops three principal
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119 3

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of Hows of energy associated with a typical biofuel producing system.

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of Hows of carbon associated with a typical biofuel producing system.
4 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
stores may be identi+ed:
utilized biomass
unutilized biomass
soil organic matter.
The processes of carbon sequestration are reversible,
for example the accumulation of utilizable biomass in-
creases the store of carbon, but carbon is returned to
the atmosphere when the harvested biomass is burned.
Similarly, carbon stocks in the soil may increase or
decrease depending on the intensity of cultivation.
The carbon Hows associated with biofuel production
are thus a combination of reversible exchanges be-
tween the atmosphere, biomass and soil, and irre-
versible emissions due to burning of fossil fuels.
2.2. Estimation of energy bene1ts
The energy released by combustion of wood can be
calculated if the calori+c value and the mass of the
wood are known:
Eoutput = Cwood Mwood ; (1)
where Eoutput is the energy released by burning a given
quantity of wood (MJ), Cwood is the calori+c value of
wood (MJ kg1 ) and Mwood is the mass of wood fuel
burnt (kg).
The gross calori+c value of oven-dry wood has been
reported by many authors (see for example [11,12])
and estimates typically lie close to 20 MJ odkg1 (MJ
per oven-dry kg). However, a complication arises be-
cause wood can contain a varying amount of moisture.
For example, freshly harvested, green wood might
typically contain 50 60% moisture, wet basis, while
air-dried wood typically contains 20 30% moisture,
wet basis. The presence of such excess moisture ef-
fectively reduces the calori+c value of wood in two
ways:
1. Taking, for example, wood at 50% moisture, wet
basis, 1 wkg (wet kg) of wood only contains
1 moisture content Wwood . At 50% moisture content,
2 odkg of wood, thus there is eJectively less wood
to burn in 1 wkg compared to 1 odkg.
2. Some energy released on combustion is dissipated
in evaporating moisture.
Further adjustments must be made to allow for the
hydrogen and ash content of wood. The following re-
lationship has been established between the calori+c
value of wood, net of moisture, hydrogen and ash
content (J. Alexander, pers. comm.; [12]):

Cwood = FCwood 0:206FH2
0:023(Wwood + 0:1FA); (2)

where Cwood is the net calori+c value of wood at
moisture content Wwood wet basis, hydrogen content
H2 and ash content A oven-dry basis (MJ wkg1 );
Cwood is the gross calori+c value of oven-dry
wood = 20 MJ odkg1 ; F is the oven-dry mass of
the wet wood expressed as a fraction of the wet
mass = (100 Wwood )=100 odkg wkg1 ; H2 is the
average percentage hydrogen content of oven-dry
wood (taken to be 6.5% for cases considered), A is
the average percentage ash content of oven-dry wood
(taken to be 1% for cases considered), Wwood is the
percentage moisture content of the wood, wet basis.
The estimates for H2 and A quoted above are due to
J. Alexander (pers. comm.). The value for ash content
of wood assumes that the wood is not contaminated
with mineral material when harvested. Such contami-
nation is common during the harvesting of lop and top
from a conventional harvesting site, and in such cases
ash content is more commonly 3% (J. Alexander, pers.
comm.). Using Eq. (2), oven-dry wood is estimated
to have a net calori+c value of 18:7 MJ odkg1 , after
allowance for hydrogen and ash content. The reduc-
tion in calori+c value with moisture content is con-
siderable: at 50% moisture content, wet basis, the net
calori+c value is only 8:2 MJ wkg1 . In this study, all
estimates of wood mass are quoted in odkg, regardless
of moisture content. The following equation may be
used to transform the calori+c value computed above
such that it takes units of MJ odkg1 , regardless of
moisture content:
 100
Cwood = C ; (3)
100 Wwood wood

where Cwood is the oven-dry-basis net calori+c value
of wet wood expressed in MJ odkg1 with wet-basis

Cwood takes the value 16:4 MJ odkg1 .
2.3. Estimation of carbon sequestration
Harvested wood fuel is removed and burned so it
does not store carbon in the long term, but the woody
materials that remain in the stump and roots constitute
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119 5

Table 1
Biomass of components of poplar and willow coppice stools growing at three sites in England: Ingerthorpe, West Yorkshire; Tilford,
Surrey; Long Ashton, Avona

Biomass (odkg stool1 )

Roots Above ground

Planting spacing (m) Age (yr) Fine Coarse Stump Detritus Shoots Foliage
including
Location Species Between Between Stool Shoots Number dead stem
rows stools of cuts wood

Ingerthorpe Poplar, R.A.P. 1.0 1.0 11 2 4 0.07 0.53 0.79 0.48 2.54 0.55
Ingerthorpe Willow, 1.0 1.0 11 2 4 0.15 0.53 0.63 0.24 2.69 0.20
Bowles hybrid
Ingerthorpe Willow, 0.8 0.7 6 3 2 0.06 0.27 0.13 0.15 1.73 0.04
Bowles hybrid
Ingerthorpe Willow, 0.8 0.7 4 1 3 0.06 0.13 0.23 0.10 0.75 0.12
Bowles hybrid
Ingerthorpe Willow, 0.8 0.7 4 2 2 0.07 0.22 0.18 0.09 1.73 0.10
Bowles hybrid
Ingerthorpe Poplar, BeauprPe 0.8 1.0 2 1 1 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.41 0.19
Ingerthorpe Poplar, Boelare 0.8 1.0 2 1 1 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.32 0.32
Tilford Poplar, BeauprPe 1.3 1.3 4 1 3 0.22 0.70 1.09 0.71 2.00 0.18
Tilford Poplar, Boelare 1.3 1.3 2 1 1 0.11 0.35 0.26 0.35 0.84 0.09
Tilford Poplar, BeauprPe 1.3 1.3 2 1 1 0.10 0.34 0.17 0.114 0.50 0.01
Long Ashton Willow, Gigantea 1.0 1.0 22 1 21 0.35 1.68 1.41 1.15
a Note: Number of cuts indicates number of times coppice has been cut back.

a potential long-term carbon store. The establishment
of a coppice plantation on an arable site may also have
a positive impact on soil carbon content.
2.3.1. Unutilized biomass
Few data were available from previous studies on
coppice stump and root biomass, so a limited +eld
study was carried out on six poplar and +ve willow
coppice stools at three sites in England. The biomass
of foliage, stem wood, coarse woody debris, coarse
and +ne root components per stool were measured de-
structively. The per-stool data were adjusted, allow-
ing for planting density and mortality, to estimate the
biomass of each component on a per-hectare basis.
The data are summarized in Table 1. The limited data
and their heterogeneity precluded full statistical anal-
ysis, therefore the accumulation of each biomass com-
ponent with time was estimated by graphical analysis
of the per-hectare results. Simple hand-drawn curves
were constructed to represent the range of accumula-
tion rates for each component. Mathematical functions
were then +tted to the hand-drawn curves by nonlin-
ear regression. These functions must be regarded as
provisional, but they represent the best information
available at the time of the study.
By combining the curves for the various biomass
components, curves describing the accumulation of
total unutilized coppice biomass may be constructed,
and these are shown in Fig. 3. The curves suggest
that the total biomass in unutilized parts of a cop-
pice crop rises to between 10 and 25 odt ha1 over
25 years. This implies the sequestration of between 5
and 12 tC ha1 over this period.
2.3.2. Carbon in soil organic matter
Many environmental and management factors
are responsible for determining soil carbon content.
Among these, intensive soil cultivation has long been
known to cause signi+cant losses (see for example
[13]). Arable soils in Britain usually contain relatively
low quantities of carbon, say 560 tC ha1 ; depend-
ing on soil type and management regime. Jenkinson
[13,14] has discussed how arable land, left to lie
fallow for several decades, will accumulate carbon.
6 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
Fig. 3. Curves for predicting lower, mid-range and upper estimates of total unutilizable coppice biomass, given stool age.
Soil carbon under undisturbed grassland and forest
can vary greatly but, in accord with Jenkinsons ob-
servations, it is generally higher than for comparable
arable land. A review and analysis of world forest
soils by Bouwman [15] suggests a range from 50 to
350 tC ha1 for typical British soil types. The high-
est soil carbon contents are reported for peat bogs,
which can contain well in excess of 500 tC ha1
[16].
Short rotation coppice requires less frequent soil
cultivation than most agricultural crops, but is more
intensive than conventional forestry practice. In the
long term, therefore, soil carbon content under short
rotation coppice might be expected to take values be-
tween those quoted above for arable land and forest
soils, ranging from, say, 40200 tC ha1 . The follow-
ing changes in carbon content might then be expected
as a result of a change of land use to short rotation
coppice:
a rise in carbon content on ex-arable land;
a possible reduction in carbon content on land pre-
viously under grass or forest;
a potentially substantial reduction in carbon content
on converted peat bogs.
Without further research, it is not possible to reach any
+rm conclusions about the dynamics of soil carbon
under coppice, so this element of the carbon budget
had to be ignored in this study.
2.3.3. Combining estimates of utilized and
unutilized biomass
The mathematical functions for estimating unuti-
lized biomass were incorporated into a computer pro-
gram for generating biomass and carbon yield tables
for plantations of short rotation coppice. An example
of output from this program is illustrated graphically
in Fig. 4, for a short rotation coppice crop cut back on
a 3 year cycle, maintained for 16 years. The biomass
of the crop is observed to rise and fall with succes-
sive cutting cycles. Superimposed on these cycles is
a monotonic accumulation of biomass in unutilized
components. The likely error associated with these
latter estimates is indicated by the shaded areas in
Fig. 4. The utilized biomass is assumed to accumulate
at a constant rate within each cutting cycle, as speci-
+ed by the program user.
The program was used extensively in this study to
generate input data for calculation of energy bene+ts
and carbon sequestration as part of energy and carbon
budgets.
2.4. Estimation of energy inputs
Energy is consumed during biofuel production in
three ways: directly through the burning of fossil fuel
and indirectly, either through the use of materials
or chemicals (that in turn depend on direct energy
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
Fig. 4. Example of output from computer program showing development of total harvested and unharvested coppice biomass with crop
age. Dashed lines show upper and lower estimates of unharvested biomass to which projections of harvested biomass have been added.
inputs), or through the implied use of materials used
in the construction of machinery,
Eoperation = Efuel + Ematerial + Emachinery ; (4)
where Eoperation is the total energy input to an operation
(MJ), Efuel is the energy input due to fuel consump-
tion to carry out the operation (MJ), Ematerial is the en-
ergy input due to consumption of materials during the
operation (MJ) and Emachinery is the energy input due
to use of machinery during the operation (MJ).
In order to quantify all direct and indirect inputs of
energy, it was necessary to describe all the activities
involved in coppice plantation management and wood
chip production. The resultant activities inventory
is shown in Table 2. The activities can be grouped
into four broad categories: site treatments, crop treat-
ments, wood fuel handling and processing, and farm
overheads. Each activity was described in terms of the
fuel, materials and machinery used.
2.4.1. Energy inputs due to fuel use
Data on fuel consumption during farm operations
were not directly available, but could be inferred
from information on farm machinery working rates
and engine power ratings ([18,19]; M. Buckland,
ADAS, New Marston, Oxford, UK, pers. comm.;
M. Carter, MC Horticulture Ltd, Ingerthorpe Hall
7
Farm, Ripon, Yorkshire, UK, pers. comm.;
D. Culshaw and C. Butler, ETSU, Harwell, UK, pers.
comm.). Eq. (5) was used to estimate fuel consump-
tion by diesel and motor spirit powered machinery:
Efuel = Ecombustion + Esupply ; (5)
where Efuel is the total energy input due to fuels con-
sumed to carry out an operation (MJ), Ecombustion is the
energy released by fuel combustion (MJ) and Esupply
is the total energy required to supply the fuel to the
point of use (MJ).
This general equation had to be modi+ed on oc-
casion, depending on the detail of the activity being
considered. Estimates of fuel consumption were con-
verted to energy inputs using typical calori+c values
for the appropriate fuels [20,21]:


Ecombustion = Cfuel Mfuel ; (6)
fuel
where Cfuel is the calori+c value of a given fuel
(MJ kg1 ) and Mfuel is the mass of fuel consumed
(kg).
When estimates of fuel consumption were available
by volume only, these were converted to mass using
an estimate of density for the given fuel. In most cases,
data on fuel consumption were not available directly
in any form and had to be estimated from information
8 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119

Table 2
Activities inventory for production of wood fuel from short rotation coppice plantations. Sources: M. Carter, D. Clay, D. Culshaw, all
personal communications; ETSU [17]. Note that there is no activity in missing years

Growing Activity name Machinery Materials Fuel

season and
activity
number

Year 1
1 Spray for couch control Tractor sprayer Glyphosate Diesel oil
Water Lubricating oil
2 Subsoil Tractor Diesel oil
subsoiler Lubricating oil
3 Plough Tractor Diesel oil
plough Lubricating oil
4 Fence Support posts
Straining wire
Fencing wire
Preservative
Nails, staples
Batteries
5 Power harrow Tractor Diesel oil
power harrow Lubricating oil
6 Plant Tractor Cuttings Diesel oil
planter Lubricating oil
7 Fertilizer Tractor N fertilizer Diesel oil
broadcaster P fertilizer Lubricating oil
K fertilizer
8 Lime Tractor Lime Diesel oil
broadcaster Lubricating oil
9 Residual weed control Tractor Simazine Diesel oil
sprayer Pendimethalin Lubricating oil
Metazachlor
Water
10 Follow-up weed control Tractor Clopyralid Diesel oil
sprayer Water Lubricating oil

Year 2
11 Cut back Brushcutter Motor spirit
Lubricating oil
12 Beat up Cuttings
13 Weed control Tractor Amitrole Diesel oil
sprayer Simazine Lubricating oil
Water

Year 4
14 Harvest Harvester Diesel oil
Tractor(s) Lubricating oil
Trailer(s)
15 Chip Chipper Diesel oil
Lubricating oil
16 Store and dry Tractor Barn Diesel oil
Lubricating oil
17 Transport Bulk carrier Diesel oil
Lubricating oil
18 Burn Furnace
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119 9

Table 2 (continued)

Growing Activity name Machinery Materials Fuel

season and
activity
number

Year 5
7; 10 Fertilize, follow-up
weedcontrol } As for year 1

Year 7
14; 15; 16; 17; 18 Harvest, chip, store and
dry, transport, burn } As for year 4

Year 10
14; 15; 16; 17; 18 Harvest, chip, store and
dry, transport, burn } As for year 4

Year 13
14; 15; 16; 17; 18 Harvest, chip, store and
dry, transport, burn } As for year 4

Year 16
14; 15; 16; 17; 18 Harvest, chip, store and
dry, transport, burn } As for year 4
19 Grub up Tractor Glyphosate Diesel oil
Rotovator Water Lubricating oil
Sprayer

on machinery used, engine size and time taken to carry to simplify the analysis, energy inputs attributable
out an operation (Eq. (7); [19]; M. Buckland, pers. to the relatively small amounts of lubricating oils
comm.). were assumed to be the same as if the oils had been
burned.
Vfuel = Pt; (7)

where Vfuel is the volume of fuel consumed by a ma- 2.4.2. Energy inputs due to consumption of
chine in carrying out a speci+ed operation (dm3 ), P materials
is the power the machine has to generate in order to Materials (such as fertilizers, herbicides and fence
carry out the operation (W), t is the time taken to posts) used in production of wood fuel require en-
carry out the operation (s) and  is an empirical con-
stant expressing the quantity of fuel required by the
machine to carry out a unit of work (dm3 J1 ).
The energy consumption associated with fuel sup-
ply was estimated using

pers. comm.). However, having obtained data on ma-
Esupply = fuel Mfuel ; (8)
fuel
where fuel is an empirical constant estimating the en-
ergy required to supply a unit of a given fuel to the
point of use (MJ kg1 ).
Similar methods were adopted for quantifying con-
sumption of electricity and lubricating oils. In order
ergy for their manufacture and supply. The quanti-
ties of materials used in coppice management and
wood chip production were estimated from personal
records of experts and farmers already involved in
growing coppice (M. Carter, pers. comm.; D. Clay,
terials consumed, considerable time and expense were
necessary to trace all the energy pathways in order
to estimate energy costs. Such detailed analysis was
not possible as part of this study. An alternative ap-
proach adopted by energy analysts involves the use of
energy requirements for the calculation of the energy
costs of materials (see for example [22]). An energy
10 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
requirement is the total energy required to make a unit
mass of a given material. Thus, if the energy require-
ments and masses of materials consumed are known,
then the total energy input can be calculated:

carbon emitted to the atmosphere as a result of fuel
Ematerial = material Mmaterial ; (9)
material
where Ematerial is the total energy consumed in manu-
facturing and supplying materials used in the process
being considered (MJ), material is the net energy re-
quirement of a given material (MJ kg1 ) and Mmaterial
is the mass of material used (kg).
The energy analysis literature was reviewed, and
published estimates of the energy requirements of ma-
terials collated and used in this study for the estimation
of energy costs of materials ([22,23]; N. Mortimer,
pers. comm.; Matthews, unpublished results).
2.4.3. Energy inputs due to machine construction
and use
If machines such as tractors, ploughs and wood
chippers are regarded as very complicated materials,
then the energy inputs due to machine use can be cal-
culated in a similar manner to that used for materials.
It is incorrect to attribute the full energy input of the
machine to an individual activity, therefore the frac-
tion of the full energy input to manufacture of the ma-
chine that is attributable to the particular operation is
calculated,

t
Emachinery = machinery Mmachinery ; (10)
machinery
machinery
where Emachinery is the fraction of the energy required
to manufacture and supply machinery attributable to
the process being considered (MJ), machinery is the net
energy requirement of a given machine (MJ kg1 );
Mmachinery is the mass of the machine (kg), t is the time
for which the machine is applied to a given operation
(s) and machinery is the total working time available
(i.e. the working lifespan) of the machine (s).
Estimated energy requirements for machines were
obtained from the energy analysis literature, and
estimates of working lifespans of machines were sug-
gested by experts on farm practice and vehicle use
([22,24]; N. Mortimer, pers. comm.; D. Culshaw, pers.
comm.; P. Hutchinson, pers. comm.; Commercial
Motor, pers. comm.).
2.5. Estimation of carbon emissions
Procedures similar to those described above for en-
ergy inputs were used to estimate the quantities of
consumption and material and machinery use (J. Pen-
man, pers. comm.; Department of Trade and Industry
[20,25,26]; Matthews, unpublished results).
2.6. Calculation of energy and carbon budgets
A computer model was developed that drew on
three bodies of data:
coppice yield data
activities inventory data
energy consumption and carbon emission data.
The data described above were synthesized by the
computer model into complete primary energy and
carbon budgets.
Having calculated the total primary energy and
associated carbon costs and bene+ts of wood fuel
production, the program +nally computed the follow-
ing statistics which summarize the energy and carbon
budgets.
2.6.1. Energy ratio
The energy ratio is the bene+t : cost ratio in energy
terms for the biofuel producing system.
Total energy produced
Energy ratio = : (11)
Total primary energy input
It represents the number of joules of primary energy
produced per joule of energy expended. The energy
ratio needs to be greater than 1 if the system is to
produce more energy than it consumes.
2.6.2. Energy requirement
This is the cost : bene+t ratio for the biofuel pro-
ducing system:
Total primary energy input
Energy requirement =
Total energy produced
(12)
1
= : (13)
Energy ratio
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
The energy requirement of a biofuel producing system
thus needs to be signi+cantly less than 1 if the system
is to produce more energy than it consumes. Several
diJerent versions of the energy requirement of a fuel
may be de+ned.
2.6.3. Gross energy requirement
The variant of the energy ratio de+ned by Eqs. (12)
and (13) is known as the net energy requirement. An
alternative expression is the gross energy requirement
of a fuel,
Gross energy requirement
Total energy produced+Total primary energy input
= Energy and carbon budgets were computed, based
Total energy produced
(14)
= 1 + Net energy requirement; (15)
which represents the total energy released, directly
and indirectly, when energy is generated by burning a
given fuel.
2.6.4. Gross non-renewable energy requirement
It is possible to de+ne another type of energy re-
quirement, similar to the gross energy requirement
speci+ed in Eqs. (14) and (15) but including only
non-renewable primary energy in the numerator.
Such an expression may be referred to as the gross
non-renewable energy requirement. For fossil fuels,
the gross energy requirement and gross non-renewable
energy requirement are likely to be identical. How-
ever, for biofuels, the gross non-renewable energy
requirement is in fact the same as the net energy
requirement, as the renewable energy bene+t is not
counted in the numerator. The gross non-renewable
energy requirement is a useful indicator of the total
dependence of an energy source on non-renewable
energy.
2.6.5. Carbon emission coe;cient
This may be de+ned in the following way:
Carbon emission coe4cient
Net carbon emitted
= : (16)
Total energy produced
This represents the carbon emitted for a unit of en-
ergy supplied to the end user. A complication arises
because the plant tissues of biofuel systems also
11
sequester carbon, thus,
Net carbon emitted
= Carbon released Carbon sequestered: (17)
Biofuel producing systems may thus have very low
carbon emissions coe4cientsperhaps even negative
carbon emission coe4cients if the carbon sequestered
is great enough.
3. Results
3.1. The standard run
on a standard set of assumptions which reHect con-
ditions under which wood fuel production systems
are most likely to be operated in the UK. The stan-
dard run was based on the following standard set of
assumptions:
+eld area 5 ha
planting density 10 000 coppice stools ha1
cutting cycle 3 years
rotation (coppice life) 16 years
biomass productivity 8 oven dry tonnes (odt)
ha1 yr 1 in +rst productive cycle, 12 odt ha1 yr 1
in subsequent cycles
management of crop according to prescription in
Table 2
local transport of harvested chips by tractor only
3:2 km (2 miles).
The resultant energy and carbon budgets for the
so-called standard run are presented in summary
form in Table 3(a) and (b). A full breakdown of the
energy and carbon budgets can be found in Matthews
et al. [27]. The total input to the system was estimated
to be 524 GJ of which 183 GJ were due to direct
energy consumption.
The energy output in terms of chipped wood fuel
was estimated to be 15 029 GJ, giving an energy ratio
of 28.68. This implies that about 29 units of energy are
produced by the coppice crop for every unit of energy
consumed in the production process. The carbon emis-
sions coe4cient was estimated to range from 0.0012
to 0:0014 kgC MJ1 depending on assumptions about
individual carbon emissions coe4cients for materials
and machinery construction, and was negative if car-
bon sequestration in unutilized biomass was taken into
account.
12 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119

Table 3
Statement of energy inputs and carbon emissions and bene+ts of wood fuel production from short rotation coppicea

Type of activity

Year of activity Herbicide Ground Fence Crop Harvesting= Storage=drying Transport Total
pesticide preparation erection= establishment= chipping
application maintenance maintenance

(a) Non-renewable energy inputs (GJ)

1 12 20 65 17 0 0 0 113
2 9 0 0 6 0 0 0 15
4 0 0 0 0 32 30 3 64
7 onwards 0 10 0 0 126 180 15 332

Total 20 30 65 23 158 210 18 524

(b) Irreversible carbon emissions (tonnes carbon)

1 0.5 0.4 3.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9
2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.1 2.4
7 onwards 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 9.9 0.4 13.2

Total 0.8 0.7 3.4 0.7 3.3 11.6 0.4 21.0

a Totals
in some columns=rows do not agree due to rounding. Total energy bene+t = 15 029 GJ. Energy ratio = 15 029=524 = 28:68.
Carbon emissions coe4cient = 21=15 029 = 0:0014 kgC MJ1 (carbon sequestered in unutilized biomass ignored).

3.2. Distribution of energy inputs

The direct inputs of fuel accounted for 40% of the

total inputs, whereas the indirect inputs from materi-
als, machinery and fuel accounted for 60%. This is
a surprising result as indirect inputs of energy may
usually be assumed to be small compared to direct
inputs [8]. The distribution of energy inputs for dif-
ferent activities is illustrated in Fig. 5. On an activ-
ity basis, storage and drying (involving the building
and use of a barn) accounted for approximately 40%
of total energy inputs, with harvesting and chipping
30% and fencing 13%. The remaining 17% covered
crop establishment, ground preparation, transport and
grubbing up. The relatively high energy consumption Fig. 5. Breakdown of total energy costs of wood fuel production
by short rotation coppice by activity type.
due to storage and drying reHects the standard run
assumption that harvesting and chipping are done si-
multaneously, with wood chips needing to be stored
in dry conditions until time of use. Health and safety ing of bundles and chipping of relatively dry coppice
considerations may favour the harvesting of coppice shoots.
as whole shoots which are left to dry as sheltered bun-
dles in the +eld. Chipping is then carried out as a 3.3. Distribution of carbon emissions
separate operation when the wood chips are needed.
Potentially this option requires less energy for stor- Fig. 6 shows the relative magnitudes of the total
age, but more energy for the relative slow harvest- carbon emissions due to diJerent activities. As can
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
Fig. 6. Breakdown of total carbon costs of wood fuel production
from short rotation coppice by activity type.
be seen by comparison with Fig. 5, there is a similar
pattern to the distribution of total energy inputs but
an even greater proportion (70%) is attributable to
storage and fencing.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
It is rarely possible to make de+nitive statements
about biomass productivity, management methods,
rates of work or quantities of materials used in grow-
ing wood fuel from coppice crops. It was therefore
essential to explore the eJects on the energy and
carbon budgets of changes in the assumptions made
about the production process.
The causes of uncertainty and variability in the en-
ergy and carbon budgets can be grouped into three
categories:
1. Uncertainty in estimates of certain quantities used
in the calculation of energy and carbon budgets,
for example, the energy requirements and carbon
emissions factors of materials and machines, and
the working lives of machines.
2. Local variations in methods of wood fuel produc-
tion over which there is little or no control, for ex-
ample, farm-to-farm variation in the work periods
for particular activities, and local variation in the
materials and methods used in barn construction.
3. Local variations in methods of wood fuel pro-
duction over which there is complete control,
13
for example, +eld area, planting spacing, cutting
cycle, rotation, application of fertilizers and agro-
chemicals, type of harvesting machine used and
biomass productivity.
The quantities described by the +rst two categories
cannot be controlled, hence the resultant variability
may be regarded as eJectively random. In order to
explore the eJects of variation in these quantities on
the energy and carbon budgets, three values, indicating
the range (lower and upper values) and most likely
(mid-range) estimate, were identi+ed.
The energy and carbon budget results presented
above were computed using the mid-range estimates
for all input quantities. The computer model was
re-run, setting the estimates for all uncertain quan-
tities to the high input=low bene+t value. This pro-
cedure was then repeated using the low input=high
bene+t estimates. The estimated energy ratio ranged
from 20 to 64 MJ MJ1 , and the carbon emissions
factor (ignoring sequestration in unutilized biomass)
ranged from 0.0005 to 0:002 kgC MJ1 . A more de-
tailed account of the sensitivity analysis is presented
in Matthews et al. [27].
Matthews et al. [27] also considered the inHuence of
silvicultural practice, harvesting and processing meth-
ods on the energy and carbon budget. A full account
cannot be presented here, but an important example,
the dependence of the energy ratio on biomass produc-
tivity, is described. A prospective grower will make
a prediction of yield which is likely to be achieved
on a potential planting site, and on that basis will
make an assessment of the viability of establishing a
wood fuel plantation. One consideration will be the
energy ratio of the proposed wood fuel producing sys-
tem, given the expected biomass productivity of the
crop.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between biomass pro-
ductivity and the energy ratio. The energy ratio rises
steadily as biomass productivity increases, although a
law of diminishing returns is observed. This reHects
the concomitant rise in energy inputs due to wood
processing and storing as biomass productivity rises.
Above a biomass productivity of 20 odt ha1 yr 1 ,
the lines on the graph in Fig. 7 are dashed. This is
because harvesting machines currently available (ver-
sions of so-called forage harvesters) were not origi-
nally designed to cope with the quantities of biomass
and large diameter material produced at such high
14 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119

Fig. 7. Relationship between predicted energy ratio and utilizable biomass productivity for wood fuel production from short rotation
coppice. Dashed lines: extrapolations based on data for harvesting machines which cannot cope with high biomass yields. Large dot and
vertical line: estimate and range for energy ratio given 30 odt ha1 yr 1 , assuming conventional harvesting methods.

productivities. The dashed lines are thus an opti-
mistic extrapolation. Currently, conventional forestry
harvesting techniques, involving chainsaw felling, re-
moval of material in trailers and subsequent chipping,
would have to be used at high biomass productivities.
To illustrate the likely consequences for the energy
budget, alternative energy ratios were estimated for a
biomass yield of 30 odt ha1 yr 1 , based on a set of
assumed energy costs likely to be associated with con-
ventional harvesting methods, and subsequent chip-
ping operations. The vertical line in Fig. 7 shows the
estimated range of this alternative energy ratio, and
the dot shows the mid-range estimate. The estimated
energy ratio is signi+cantly lower than the energy ra-
tio achieved using a forage harvester at lower biomass
productivities.
4. Discussion
4.1. Limitations of energy and carbon budget
summary statistics
Schlamadinger et al. [28], although strictly dis-
cussing greenhouse-gas balances, comment on the
usefulness and general validity of inputoutput
ratios (including energy ratios and carbon emissions
coe4cients) for summarizing the energy and carbon
budgets of bioenergy production systems. The authors
compare alternative practical situations, for example
where the market for biomass is limited, or where
the land resource for growing biomass is limited,
and suggest that inputoutput ratios will not always
be the most useful summary statistics for compar-
ing and optimizing production strategies or systems
of management. In some circumstances the authors
recommend the use of net energy yield as the most
useful optimization variable. This statistic is similar to
the percentage energy pro+t described by Matthews
et al. [27] and to the net-to-gross ratio used by Heren-
deen and Brown [29], who also considered the merits
of this ratio compared to the simple energy ratio.
In the search for viable renewable bioenergy
generation systems, minimizing dependence on
non-renewable energy inputs and minimizing fossil
greenhouse gas emissions within the bioenergy sys-
tem itself will always be important considerations.
In this context the energy ratio and carbon emissions
coe4cient are likely to remain the principal summary
statistics, however, no evaluation of energy and emis-
sions budgets of candidate bioenergy systems should
rely on summary results alone. Schlamadinger et al.
[28] advocate that full and detailed evaluation should
also be done in comparison to a fossil fuel reference
system in order to account fairly for potential fossil
fuel substitution.
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
4.2. Comparison of estimated energy ratios with
summary statistics from other studies
The production of energy from woody biomass
has been the subject of much discussion for about
25 years. Systems based on traditional, long rota-
tion silvicultural techniques have been considered as
well as biomass fuel farms based on novel methods
for growing high yielding species on short rotations.
A number of attempts have been made to evaluate the
energy budgets of the various systems.
Table 4 presents a summary of the energy ratios
for wood fuel production reported in the literature,
and compares these with the results of the standard
run described above. However, it is di4cult to com-
pare energy ratios from diJerent studies, as the meth-
ods used to grow, harvest and process wood fuel vary
from study to study. The sensitivity analysis presented
above demonstrates how these operational and com-
putational details can have a dramatic eJect on the
estimated energy ratio. Researchers also adopt diJer-
ent approaches to the assessment of the energy bud-
get, and there is sometimes disagreement over which
energy inputs need to be included in the budget.
In order to assist interpretation, the reported energy
ratios in Table 4 have been grouped qualitatively as
follows. Firstly, the results have been divided into two
sub-groups, depending on whether or not energy in-
puts due to active drying of wood fuel were included
in the calculation of the energy ratio. Those energy
ratios which fall into this category are denoted by a
tick in the Active drying column of Table 4. Each
sub-group has then been further subdivided accord-
ing to whether or not fertilizer was applied to the
crop. Application of fertilizer is indicated by a tick in
the Fertilization column of Table 4. Finally, further
sub-groups have been formed according to whether or
not irrigation was carried out. A tick in the Irrigation
column of Table 4 indicates that the crop was irrigated.
A tick in the Chipping column of the table indicates
that the energy inputs due to chipping of the wood
were included in the calculation of the energy ratio.
Only one study [3] omits costs due to chipping. The
various groups and sub-groups in Table 4 have been
ranked according to the intensity of the wood fuel
production system. For example, production systems
which involve fertilizer application, irrigation and ac-
tive drying of wood fuel appear towards the bottom
15
of the table, while systems which do not include these
treatments appear at the top. Reported results that can-
not be classi+ed according to this system [35,36] are
presented at the foot of the table.
In general, the magnitude of the energy ratios are
observed to be highest at the top of Table 4, getting
progressively smaller the further down the table the
ratios appear. When the various energy ratios are strat-
i+ed in this way, the results from diJerent studies ex-
hibit a remarkable consistency, and the results of the
standard run presented above are also seen to be con-
sistent with the estimates reported in previous studies.
Variability from the descending pattern is within the
range that would be expected from the results of the
sensitivity analysis for systems using diJerent crop
management and harvesting methods based on diJer-
ent types of equipment. The types and quantities of
fertilizer applied, for example, vary between studies,
and Fig. 7 also demonstrates that the choice of har-
vesting machine and methods could have a dramatic
eJect on energy inputs.
4.3. Inclusion of energy inputs to combustion units
It is di4cult to assess the energy inputs due to the
construction of stoves, furnaces and boilers for the
combustion of biofuel, and these costs are ignored in
the calculations presented in Section 3. A specula-
tive calculation, assuming that wood fuel is burned in
domestic stoves, suggests that energy consumption
due to the manufacture of stoves makes a relatively
small contribution (about 4%) to the total energy costs
of wood fuel production and utilization (standard run
assumptions).
The energy inputs to construct large scale wood
fuel-using units, for example, a wood-+red electrical
power station, may be diJerent to domestic appliances
using the same amount of wood. However, such large
scale systems are likely to burn wood more e4ciently.
The estimation of these energy inputs is beyond the
scope of this paper, but it has been the subject of very
recent research in Britain [37].
4.4. Comparisons with fossil fuels
Estimated gross non-renewable energy require-
ments for wood fuel (standard run, this study) and
the main types of fossil fuel [8,22] are listed in
 16
Table 4
Comparison of estimated energy ratios with values reported in the literature

Species Biomass Rotation Total Inclusion of energy inputs due to: Energy ratioa Source
productivity (yr) production
(odt ha1 yr 1 ) (odt ha1 ) Fertilization Irrigation Chipping Active
drying

Loblolly pine, mixed 4 9 30 60 240 270 42 46 Herendeen and Brown [29]

R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119

hardwoods

Poplar, willow 14 22 18 252396 14 19 Turhollow and Perlack [30]

Poplar, willow 8 then 12 16b 168 29 This study

Spruce Pole stage 85 4157 Gingerich and Hendrickson [31]
c
Poplar 10 15 23 235 345 2226 Dubuisson and SintzoJ [32]c

Willow 9 24 216 25 BTorjesson [33]

Poplar, willow 8 then 12 16 168 24 This study

Loblolly pine, mixed 818 5 15 55 120 9 17 Herendeen and Brown [29]
hardwoods

Alder, eucalyptus, 1230 1116 Fege et al. [3]
poplar, plane

Poplar, willow 12 16b 180 25 Matthews [10]d

Various 4 9 2 60 16 270 4 7 Herendeen and Brown [29]e

Various 817 215 16 240 39 Herendeen and Brown [29]e

Jack pine 3 Hannon [34]
Willow Unknown Short Unknown 26 Gustavsson et al. [35]
Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 22 Smith and Johnson [36]
a Energy inputs due to transportation to point of consumption not included. Where necessary this has required recalculation of energy ratios based on data reported in original
articles.
b One year to establish, cutting cycle 3 yr, +ve productive cycles.
c Although the research of Dubuisson and SintzoJ included options involving active drying of chips in storage, these involved relatively small inputs of energy compared to

other studies in the table marked as including active drying.

d Previously unpublished results produced by model used by Matthews [10].
e Includes estimates from other studies reviewed by Herendeen and Brown [29].
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119 17

Table 5
Estimated gross non-renewable energy requirements and carbon emissions factors for wood fuel and fossil fuels (sources: Matthews et al.
[27]; Mortimer [22]; DTI [20]; J. Penman, pers. comm.)

Fuel type Gross non-renewable Direct carbon Total carbon

energy requirement emissions factor emissions factor
(MJ MJ1 ) (kgC MJ1 ) (kgC MJ1 )

Coal 1.071 0.0260 0.0291

Coke 1.132 0.0284 0.0318
Gas oil 1.128 0.0189 0.0211
Fuel oil 1.128 0.0199 0.0221
Diesel oil 1.128 0.0189 0.0211
Motor spirit 1.128 0.0182 0.0204
LPG 1.128 0.0178 0.0200
Natural gas 1.138 0.0143 0.0180
Electricity 3.783 0.0 0.0928
Wooda 0.036 0.0 0.0013
a Standard run.

Table 5. It must be emphasized that the values of fos-
sil fuels include all energy inputs up to the point of
fuel consumption including transport but do not in-
clude any costs due to secondary processing. Table 5
permits comparison of diJerent fuels when consumed
as a direct energy source on the understanding that
long distance transport to point of consumption has
not been assumed for wood fuel. The numbers do not
indicate relative performance when used to generate
and supply electricity. For biofuels, the net energy re-
quirement is equivalent to the gross non-renewable
energy requirement, since the 1 MJ released on com-
bustion of the biofuel is renewable and therefore not
included in the calculation. The gross non-renewable
energy requirement of a biofuel may therefore be less
than one. Based on the standard run, the value for
wood fuel is estimated to be 0:035 MJ MJ1 .
Table 5 also shows two carbon emission coe4cients
for the various fuels. The direct carbon emissions
coe4cient is the carbon irreversibly released to the
atmosphere in kgC, directly due to the consumption
of 1 MJ of fuel energy. For fossil fuels, this value is
the carbon content of the fuel expressed in kgC MJ1 .
The direct carbon emissions coe4cient for electricity
is zero, as electricity has no carbon content, and there
are no emissions of carbon directly associated with
its consumption. The factor also takes the value zero
for wood, reHecting the fact that combustion of wood
does not irreversibly emit carbon, rather it returns to
the atmosphere carbon which was absorbed during the
growth of the crop.
However, for any fuel, further emissions of carbon
will occur during mining, or production, and supply to
the point of consumption. The total carbon emissions
coe4cient accounts for both carbon emitted directly
on combustion, and indirectly during the supply pro-
cess. As can be seen in Table 5 the estimated value of
this factor for wood fuel is non-zero, but is less than
one-tenth of the value estimated for any of the fossil
fuels, and less than one-seventieth of the total carbon
emissions factor for electricity.
4.5. Sustainability of short rotation coppice
management
The sensitivity analysis revealed the strong depen-
dence of the energy ratio on many assumptions about
farm practices, fuel processing methods and energy
costs. Perhaps the critical assumption in this study is
that biofuel production from short rotation coppice
is sustainable. Herendeen and Brown [31] have ex-
pressed doubt as to whether the systems for growing
wood for fuel developed so far are truly sustainable,
and suggest that energy inputs may need to be in-
creased in order to sustain productivity in the long
term. In this study, the standard run assumed, perhaps
optimistically, a sustained yield of 12 odt ha1 yr 1 .
The consequences of a reduction in productivity
in the medium to long term may be inferred from
Fig. 7. For example, if productivity was to drop to
5 odt ha1 yr 1 , the mid-range estimate of the energy
ratio would fall below 20. In Britain, some authors
18 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
have proposed disposing of sewage sludge on short
rotation coppice crops, thereby solving simultane-
ously a waste disposal problem and the possible fer-
tilizer requirements of coppice crops [38 40]. At this
stage, the long-term impact of such activities is a mat-
ter for speculation. In general, it is impossible, based
on current understanding, to predict the wider envi-
ronmental impacts of establishing purpose-designed,
high yield, wood fuel plantations on agricultural
land. These impacts may have direct and indirect
consequences which compromise long-term produc-
tivity. It is therefore essential that the energy and
carbon analyses carried out in this study are extended
to an assessment of the full environmental impact of
short rotation coppice crops, through the development
of an appropriate method of life cycle analysis.
5. Conclusions
Despite uncertainties in the estimation of certain
energy inputs and carbon emissions, and the wide
variation in techniques of crop management, wood
harvesting and fuel processing, it is possible to make
useful statements about the energy and carbon bud-
gets of short rotation coppice crops for the production
of wood fuel. By making a set of standard assump-
tions about practices and resultant energy inputs that
are likely to occur, the energy ratio is estimated to
be signi+cantly greater than 1, typically 30. The gross
non-renewable energy requirement, the total consump-
tion of non-renewable energy associated with the con-
sumption of 1 MJ of energy in the form of wood fuel,
is 0:035 MJ MJ1 . The estimated energy ratios are
consistent with those reported in previous studies of
short rotation methods and traditional, long rotation
methods of wood fuel production, provided that the
details of the bioenergy system and budgeting method-
ology speci+c to each study are considered. Indirect
inputs of energy due to the consumption of materials
are estimated to account for nearly 60% of total en-
ergy costs, based on the standard set of assumptions.
The carbon emissions coe4cient, the carbon emit-
ted in producing 1 MJ of energy in the form of
wood from short rotation coppice, is estimated to
be 0:0013 kgC MJ1 based on the standard set of
assumptions. Because wood fuel itself is carbon
neutral, this represents the total emissions of carbon
to the atmosphere as a result of using wood fuel.
This estimate does not include any allowance for car-
bon sequestered in unutilized components of coppice
which may rise to between 5 and 12 tC ha1 over 25
years. However, the long-term fate of the stump and
coarse root material is uncertain. Insu4cient informa-
tion is available for predicting the impact of coppice
crop establishment on soil carbon content.
The estimated energy ratio and carbon emissions co-
e4cient are extremely sensitive to assumptions about
management methods, including the planting spac-
ing, cutting cycle and rotation of the crop, fertilizer
treatments, +eld area, biomass productivity, harvesting
and chipping machinery and fuel storage system em-
ployed. Further research is needed to re+ne the model
described in this study, and to validate estimates of en-
ergy inputs and carbon emissions. There is still a need
to standardize conventions for the estimation of the
energy and carbon budgets of biofuels, covering mat-
ters such as the de+nition of the system boundary, and
fuels for the inclusion or exclusion of energy Hows.
Minimum standards for the measurement or estima-
tion of energy and carbon bene+ts and costs should be
de+ned [28].
Research is needed to establish that production of
wood fuel from short rotation coppice is truly sustain-
able. Major progress towards this goal would be to
begin research on a full Life Cycle Analysis at several
sites in Britain. To achieve this it will be necessary to
develop models for predicting coppice yield that are
capable of responding dynamically to perturbations in
climate and soil nutrient status as well as management.
This task alone represents a major research challenge.
Acknowledgements
Andy MoJat and Alan Armstrong made helpful
comments on an earlier draft. John Williams produced
the graphics. Jenny Claridge coordinated and edited
the original paper.
References
[1] Hall DO, Rosillo-Calle F. Why biomass matters: energy and
the environment. Network News 1991;5:415.
[2] Carter M. Diversi+cation into energy coppicethe way
forward. In: Richards GE, editor. Wood: fuel for thought.
 R.W. Matthews / Biomass and Bioenergy 21 (2001) 119
Proceedings of Conference, Bristol, 2325 October 1991.
Harwell: Harwell Laboratories, 1992. p. 243 60.
[3] Fege AS, Inman RE, Salo DJ. Energy farms for the future.
Journal of Forestry 1979;77:35861.
[4] Anderson HW, Papadopol CS, ZsuJa L. Wood energy
plantations in temperate climates. Forest Ecology and
Management 1983;6:281306.
[5] Hall DO, Mynick HE, Williams RH. Cooling the greenhouse
with bioenergy. Nature 1991;353:112.
[6] Ledin S, Sennerby-Forsse L, Johansson H. The development
of short rotation forestry in Sweden. In: Proceedings of Short
Rotation CoppiceGrowing for Pro+t. Stoneleigh: Royal
Agricultural Society of England, 1993.
[7] Stenhouse EH, Beale CV. The Farm Wood Fuel and Energy
Project. ETSU Contract Report: ETSU B=W2=00197=REP.
Harwell: ETSU=DTI, 1997.
[8] Mortimer ND. Energy analysis of renewable energy resources.
Energy Policy 1991;19:37485.
[9] Nilsson PO. Energy memory analysis, forestry and King
Hubberts blip. In: Aldhous JR, editor. Wood for energy:
the implications for harvesting, utilisation and marketing.
Edinburgh: Institute of Chartered Foresters, 1991. p. 46 62.
[10] Matthews RW. Role of carbon budgeting in assessing the
environmental costs and bene+ts of forestry schemes. In:
Richards GE, editor. Wood: energy and the environment.
Harwell: Harwell Laboratories, 1992. p. 2132.
[11] Keighley G. Wood as fuel: a guide to burning wood
e4ciently. Forestry Commission LeaHet, Edinburgh: Forestry
Commission, 1987.
[12] Mitchell CP, Hudson JB, Gardner DNA, Storry PGS, Gray
IM. Wood Fuel Supply Strategies, vol. 1. The Report. Energy
Technology Support Unit Research Report ETSU B 1176-P1.
Harwell: ETSU, 1990.
[13] Jenkinson DS. The accumulation of organic matter in soil
left uncultivated. Rothamsted Annual Report for 1970, Part
2, 1971. p. 11337.
[14] Jenkinson DS. Soil organic matter and its dynamics. In: Wild
A, editor. Russells soil conditions and plant growth, 11th
edn. Harlow: Longman, 1988. p. 564 607.
[15] Bouwman AF. Exchange of greenhouse gases between
terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. In: Bouwman AF,
editor. Soils and the greenhouse eJect. New York: Wiley,
1990. p. 61127.
[16] Immirzi CP, Maltby E, Clymo RS. The global status of
peatlands and their role in carbon cycling. London: Friends
of the Earth, 1992.
[17] Energy Technology Support Unit. Large Scale Trials of Short
Rotation Coppice for Energy: Phase I. Project Summary 004.
Harwell, Oxfordshire: ETSU, 1991.
[18] Nix J. Farm management pocketbook. London: Wye College,
University of London, 1991.
[19] Hutchinson P. Farm machinery costs. Twyford: Agro
Business Consultants Ltd, 1991.
[20] Department of Trade and Industry. The Pattern of Energy
Use and Estimated CO2 Emissions by Industry. Unpublished
draft report, 1990.
[21] Department of Energy. Digest of United Kingdom energy
statistics 1991. London: HMSO, 1991.
19
[22] Mortimer ND. The use of energy intensity multipliers. Energy
Workshop Report No. 22. Sunderland: Energy Workshop,
1981.
[23] White DJ. Energy in agricultural systems. The Agricultural
Engineer 1975;30:31833.
[24] Forestry Commission. The Ross Formula, Harvesting Note
No. 3. Business Enterprise Division. Unpublished internal
information note, 1982.
[25] Marcea RL, Lau KK. Carbon dioxide implications of building
materials. Journal of Forest Engineering 1992;3:3743.
[26] Howard N. Energy in the balance. Building Services
1991;13:368.
[27] Matthews RW, Robinson R, Abbott S, Fearis N. Modelling
carbon and energy budgets of wood fuel coppice systems.
Contract No. ETSU B=W6=00337=REP. London: Energy
Technology Support Unit=Department of Trade and Industry,
1994.
[28] Schlamadinger B, Apps M, Bohlin F, Gustavsson L, Jungmeir
G, Marland G, Pingoud K, Savolainen I. Towards a standard
methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy
systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass
and Bioenergy 1997;13:35975.
[29] Herendeen RA, Brown S. A comparative analysis of net
energy from woody biomass. Energy 1987;12:7584.
[30] Turhollow AF, Perlack RD. Emissions of CO2 from energy
crop production. Biomass and Bioenergy 1997;1:12935.
[31] Gingerich J, Hendrickson O. The theory of energy return on
investment: a case study of whole tree chipping for biomass
in Prince Edward Island. The Forestry Chronicle 1993;69:
3006.
[32] Dubuisson X, SintzoJ I. Energy and CO2 balances in diJerent
power generation routes using wood fuel from short rotation
coppice. Biomass and Bioenergy 1998;15:37990.
[33] BTorjesson PII. Energy analysis of biomass production and
transportation. Biomass and Bioenergy 1996;11:30518.
[34] Hannon B. Energy discounting. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 1982;21:281300.
[35] Gustavsson L, BTorjesson PII, Johannson PB, Svenningsson
P. Reducing CO2 emissions by substituting biomass for fossil
fuels. Energythe International Journal 1995;20:1097113.
[36] Smith DM, Johnson EW. Silviculture: highly energy e4cient.
Journal of Forestry 1977;75:20810.
[37] Jungmeier G, Resch G, Spitzer J. Environmental burdens
over the entire life cycle of a biomass CHP plant. Biomass
and Bioenergy 1998;15:31123.
[38] Mitchell CP. Nutrients and growth relations in short rotation
forestry. In: Mitchell CP, editor. Nutrient relations in short
rotation forestry. Forestry Research Paper 1989:1. Aberdeen:
Aberdeen University, 1989. p. 120.
[39] Simon M. Review of sewage sludge fertilization on forest
land. In: Mitchell CP, editor. Nutrient relations in short
rotation forestry. Forestry Research Paper 1989:1. Aberdeen:
Aberdeen University, 1989. p. 8397.
[40] Simon M. Response of some North American willow species
and their clones to sewage sludge fertilization. In: Mitchell
CP, editor. Nutrient relations in short rotation forestry.
Forestry Research Paper 1989:1. Aberdeen: Aberdeen
University, 1989. p. 98148.