Table 4 Avoided fossil fuels for the harvest residues for bioenergy scenario, where bioenergy facilities were selected to maximize avoided emissions
From: Climate change mitigation in Canada’s forest sector: a spatially explicit case study for two regions
Region | Heat produced (GWh) | Electricity produced (GWh) | Electricity exported (GWh) | H: NG (GWh) | H: electricity (GWh) | H: fuel oil (GWh) | H: propane (GWh) | H: wood (GWh) | H: coke and petcoke (GWh) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dog River, Ontario | 11.3 | 4.5 | 26.3 | 6.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 | 3.6 |
Cranbrook FMU, BC | 611.8 | 164.9 | 0 | 234.8 | 0 | 245.6 | 0 | 0 | 131.4 |
Thunder Bay, Ontario | 116.2 | 34.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 116.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cranbrook | 274.0 | 47.6 | 0 | 260.0 | 0 | 4.9 | 8.6 | 0.4 | 0 |
Elkford | 40.8 | 0.7 | 0 | 35.7 | 0 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 0 | 0 |
Fernie | 99.0 | 46.6 | 27.7 | 93.8 | 0 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 0 |
Kimberley | 101.8 | 1.8 | 0 | 90.9 | 0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 0 | 0 |
Sparwood | 13.0 | 0.3 | 0 | 8.0 | 0 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 0 | 0 |