Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2012
Abstract
This report has been prepared in the frame of Work Package 3 (Policy) of the Interreg IVB project Bioenergy Promotion. The main rationale of this work package is to support the development of coherent national and (sub)regional policies promoting the sustainable production and consumption of bioenergy. The purpose of the country policy assessment report is to describe the main promotional policies and support schemes for bioenergy and to assess to what extent national policy frameworks contribute to Sustainable Development and integrate related sustainability principles and criteria. At present and in the foreseeable future, the main source of raw materials for bioenergy in Norway is likely to be the forests. However, waste from agriculture, households and industry is another promising source. Investment support needs to be continued, at least at present levels. The main bottlenecks for increased use of bioenergy in Norway are economic, so economic support is necessary. Further development of the standard for sustainable forestry is required, in order to take into account aspects that are not yet covered (see above under Point 3.5). However, there is currently disagreement between the parties to the Living Forests standard, so revision is not likely to take place soon. Current research is being carried out, for example in CenBio and the project “Ecological consequences of increased biomass removal from forests in Norway” on the effects of whole-tree harvesting compared to stem-only harvesting on soil nutrients, carbon stocks, ground vegetation and regeneration). In addition, work is being carried out to study the applicability under Norwegian conditions of the guidelines of other countries such as Sweden, Finland, the UK and Ireland and to prepare preliminary guidelines for Norwegian forestry. There is disagreement on the likely short-term effects of biomass harvesting for bioenergy on carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems (see above under 5.2) and this needs to be further studied. In their present form, the binding EU sustainability criteria for biofuels/bioliquids should not be extended to solid/gaseous biomass used for electricity and heating/cooling. Some changes are necessary to take account of specific conditions e.g. in forestry. For example, it is stated in Point 4 of Article 17 of the Renewable Energy Directive that biofuels and bioliquids shall not be obtained from land that was continuously forested in January 2008 and is no longer continuously forested. It is unclear how this would affect clear-cuts. Also, in Point C7 of Annex V, the 20-year period for calculating carbon stock changes is completely unrealistic for forestry (although this refers to land-use change and it could be argued that felling is not land-use change if the land is used for forest afterwards; this should be clarified). These aspects of the Renewable Energy Directive are already problematic if forest biomass is to be used for biofuels or bioliquids.
Authors
Serge Savary Andrea Ficke Jean-Noel Aubertot Clayton HollierAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Arnfinn Nes Hans Espelien Anne-Berit Wold Siv Fagertun RembergAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Eivind Uleberg Inger Martinussen Nina Opstad Tore Krogstad Jens Rohloff Arnfinn Nes Rolf NestbyAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Ricardo HolgadoAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Ricardo HolgadoAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
During the last decade wood modification has become a recognized method for delivery of enhanced timber. Hence, a range of studies have been performed to evaluate the decay resistance of modified wood. High resistance of modified wood against fungal decay is assumed to be due to changes in the wood properties rather than a toxic effect on fungal physiology. This is an advantage due to the concern from the European Union, national movements and society in general about the environmental impact of wood protection is increasing. In this paper we aimed to quantitatively summarise the performance of the different types of modified wood. However, this turned out only to be possible for acetylation. This was due to the format of the published data, variation in treatment processes and wood species used for the other treatments. For acetylated wood statistical analyses based on previously published data were performed to quantify what factors contribute most to the performance (calculated as test sample/control). The results showed that WPG can explain approximately 50 % of the performance, measured as test sample/control (T/C), for acetic anhydride treated wood. Other of the applied variables, like wood species or type of fungus can reduce the variance in T/C by additional 15 %. In addition, the paper highlight future research opportunities related to fungal deterioration of modified wood.
Abstract
Wood for outdoor decking has a high market share in the Nordic and Baltic countries among private house owners. Important issues for the consumer are maintenance intervals and aesthetic appearance as well as decay resistance. Knowledge and consumer information about these aspects are required to ensure that wood can compete with alternative decking materials. In this paper an accelerated testing of decking, “stapelbädds metoden”, was evaluated after ten years of exposure at Ås, Norway. The test method covers different hazard situations within use class 3. Different preservatives and wood modification treatments were used in addition to untreated Scots pine (sapwood and heartwood) and larch (heartwood). The samples were treated with two different surface treatments. In addition there was one set without any surface treatment. Fungal discoloration and decay was evaluated. This provided new information about performance both on and above ground for a range of different combinations of preservative/modified systems and surface treatments of wood in decking for outdoor use. Generally, there were no significant differences in performance between the surface treatments, both with regard to surface discolouring fungi and decay fungi. For all surface treatments, the samples with rating 3 (heavy attack) in bottom layer in one or several stacks was: Tanalith M, Tanalith M (c), Gori Pres 10, Scanimp, styren, furfurylation, thermal modification, Ultrawood, larch heartwood, pine heartwood and pine sapwood. For all surface treatments, the samples with mean rating ≤ 2 (evident attack) in top and middle layer in one or several stacks was: ACQ 1900, Wolmanit CX 8, Tanalith E7, Gori SC 100, Royal, Royal with pigment, Scanimp, styrene and larch heartwood
Abstract
No abstract has been registered