S the common deviation). Covariances amongst random variables were assumed to be zero, reflecting the assumption that they are statistically independent. The sensitivity of your final results towards the distance required to transport residue feedstock to a bioenergy processing facility was explored, with 4 distance scenarios (50 km, one R428 Protein Tyrosine Kinase/RTK hundred km, 200 km, and 300 km), For CHP and pellets, the base case was 50 km, and 300 km for renewable diesel, provided the distances in the study internet site to current or proposed bioenergy facilities. 3. Outcomes three.1. Carbon Stocks Table three shows the results with the FullCAM simulations for the different tree fractions, forest management treatment options, and residue utilization alternatives.Table three. Carbon in forest harvest residue for two residue utilization alternatives and forest treatment options. Values will be the total residues made over the course of a single 30-year rotation. Residue Option 1 Forest Treatment Thinning Final harvest Total two Thinning Final harvest Total Stems (tC ha-1) 0.84 3.14 3.98 15.92 3.14 19.06 Biocytin Purity & Documentation Branches (tC ha-1) 4.79 17.97 22.76 four.79 17.97 22.76 Bark (tC ha-1) 0.12 0.42 0.54 two.04 0.42 2.46 Total (tC ha-1) 5.75 21.53 27.28 22.75 21.53 44.(14)Over a complete rotation, 27.28 tC ha-1 of forest residue biomass is predicted to become accessible for use under residue utilization option 1, and 44.28 tC ha-1 beneath residue utilization alternative 2 (Table 3). Branches at final harvest comprised the biggest residue element of any fraction, across all forest therapies (17.97 tC ha-1). At thinning, stems had the biggest accumulated carbon (15.92 tC ha-1) in residue utilization option two, exactly where itForests 2021, 12,ten ofwas assumed that 95 of thinned stems were readily available for bioenergy, compared with option 1 (0.84 tC-ha-1), exactly where just five of stems have been assumed to become available. Stems at final harvest accounted for just a smaller proportion of carbon (3.14 tC ha-1) accessible for bioenergy, which can be constant with expectations that this fraction provides the key, merchantable solution to mill. Carbon in bark accounted for any little proportion of your total carbon in each residue utilization options (0.54 tC ha-1 in option 1; 2.46 tC ha-1 in alternative two) available for bioenergy. These bark volumes ranged from 2 to 5.three of your total residue material and included only bark on stems, not bark on branches. Information and facts on previous harvesting activity for the case study location was used to generalize and scale the results towards the whole plantation estate (case study web site), which suggested an average harvesting price of three.three , or 2833 hectares per year. According to the simplifying assumption of continuous harvesting and replacement, with an even representation of coppicing across the estate, an average of 77,293 tC year-1 in residues was anticipated to be offered across the whole plantation (typical of 0.91 tC ha-1 year-1) for residue utilization alternative 1; and 125,460 tC year-1 (average of 1.48 tC ha-1 year-1) for residue utilization option two. three.2. Avoided GHG Emissions Table 4 shows the carbon dioxide emissions associated with producing the equivalent energy to that out there inside the residue for the 3 distinct bioenergy types (or scenarios). Common deviation values depict the effects of variation in the uncertainty analysis for energy conversion efficiencies (CHP and pellets), renewable diesel intensity, and thinned stem and bark utilization. The combustion carbon dioxide emissions represent the carbon dioxide.