IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i16p7379-d1725017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Carbon Costs of Fibreboard, Pulp and Bioenergy Produced from Improved Oil Camellia ( Camellia oleifera spp.) Forest Management Operations in China

Author

Listed:
  • Tongyu Yao

    (School of Ecology and Environment, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
    National Engineering Laboratory of Applied Technology for Forestry & Ecology in Southern China, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Jingsong Wang

    (Guangxi Weidu State Forest Farm, Laibin 546100, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Meifang Zhao

    (School of Ecology and Environment, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
    National Engineering Laboratory of Applied Technology for Forestry & Ecology in Southern China, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China)

  • Tao Xiong

    (School of Ecology and Environment, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
    National Engineering Laboratory of Applied Technology for Forestry & Ecology in Southern China, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China)

  • Liang Lu

    (Guangxi Weidu State Forest Farm, Laibin 546100, China)

  • Yingying Xia

    (Guangxi Forestry Research Institute, Nanning 530002, China)

Abstract

Oil camellia ( Camellia oleifera ) residues from low-yield forests offer significant potential for carbon emission reductions across multiple product pathways—fibreboard, pulp, and bioelectricity. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) were conducted for these three products, revealing distinct carbon footprints driven by energy use, chemical inputs, and combustion processes. Fibreboard production showed a carbon footprint of 244.314 kg CO 2 e/m 3 , primarily due to diesel use and electricity consumption. Pulp production exhibited the highest carbon intensity at 481.626 kg CO 2 e/t, largely driven by chemical consumption and fossil fuels. Bioelectricity, with the lowest carbon footprint of 41.750 g CO 2 e/kWh, demonstrated sensitivity to transportation logistics and fuel types. Substitution and scenario analysis showed that emission reductions can be achieved by optimizing energy structure, substituting high-carbon chemicals, and improving transportation efficiency. The findings highlight the substantial reduction potential when oil camellia residues replace conventional feedstocks in these industries, contributing to the development of low-carbon strategies within the bioeconomy. These results also inform the design of targeted mitigation policies, enhancing carbon accounting frameworks and aligning with China’s dual-carbon goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Tongyu Yao & Jingsong Wang & Meifang Zhao & Tao Xiong & Liang Lu & Yingying Xia, 2025. "Life Cycle Carbon Costs of Fibreboard, Pulp and Bioenergy Produced from Improved Oil Camellia ( Camellia oleifera spp.) Forest Management Operations in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-30, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7379-:d:1725017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7379/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/16/7379/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sun, Mingxing & Wang, Yutao & Shi, Lei & Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, 2018. "Uncovering energy use, carbon emissions and environmental burdens of pulp and paper industry: A systematic review and meta-analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 823-833.
    2. Kan Wang & Ruiqing Tong & Qiang Zhai & Guomin Lyu & Yongsheng Li, 2025. "A Critical Review of Life Cycle Assessments on Bioenergy Technologies: Methodological Choices, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Liangliang Jia & Jie Chu & Li Ma & Xuemin Qi & Anuj Kumar, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Plywood Manufacturing Process in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Akhil Kadiyala & Raghava Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2016. "Evaluation of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Different Biomass Feedstock Electricity Generation Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Daniel B. Sulis & Nathalie Lavoine & Heike Sederoff & Xiao Jiang & Barbara M. Marques & Kai Lan & Carlos Cofre-Vega & Rodolphe Barrangou & Jack P. Wang, 2025. "Advances in lignocellulosic feedstocks for bioenergy and bioproducts," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Song, Shizhong & Liu, Pei & Xu, Jing & Chong, Chinhao & Huang, Xianzheng & Ma, Linwei & Li, Zheng & Ni, Weidou, 2017. "Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of pellet fuel from corn straw in China: A case study in Jilin Province," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 373-381.
    7. Jan L. Wenker & Klaus Richter & Sebastian Rüter, 2018. "A Methodical Approach for Systematic Life Cycle Assessment of Wood‐Based Furniture," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(4), pages 671-685, August.
    8. Peyman Alizadeh & Lope G. Tabil & Edmund Mupondwa & Xue Li & Duncan Cree, 2023. "Technoeconomic Feasibility of Bioenergy Production from Wood Sawdust," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Minwei Liu & Jincan Zeng & Guori Huang & Xi Liu & Gengsheng He & Shangheng Yao & Nan Shang & Lixing Zheng & Peng Wang, 2024. "Assessing Energy Consumption, Carbon Emissions, and Costs in Biomass-to-Gas Processes: A Life-Cycle Assessment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-13, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guerra, K. & Haro, P. & Gutiérrez, R.E. & Gómez-Barea, A., 2022. "Facing the high share of variable renewable energy in the power system: Flexibility and stability requirements," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    2. Najafi, Fatemeh & Kazemi, Mostafa & Mostafaeipour, Ali & Mishra, Phoolenrda, 2025. "Prioritizing industrial wastes and technologies for bioenergy production: Case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    3. Li, Jinying & Li, Sisi & Wu, Fan, 2020. "Research on carbon emission reduction benefit of wind power project based on life cycle assessment theory," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 456-468.
    4. Yueyue Rong & Junsong Jia & Min Ju & Chundi Chen & Yangming Zhou & Yexi Zhong, 2021. "Multi-Perspective Analysis of Household Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Direct Energy Consumption by the Methods of Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index and σ Convergence in Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Gao, Chengkang & Zhu, Sulong & An, Nan & Na, Hongming & You, Huan & Gao, Chengbo, 2021. "Comprehensive comparison of multiple renewable power generation methods: A combination analysis of life cycle assessment and ecological footprint," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    6. Simona Di Fraia & M. Rakib Uddin, 2022. "Energy Recovery from Waste Paper and Deinking Sludge to Support the Demand of the Paper Industry: A Numerical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Zygmunt Stanula & Marek Wieruszewski & Adam Zydroń & Krzysztof Adamowicz, 2023. "Optimizing Forest-Biomass-Distribution Logistics from a Multi-Level Perspective—Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Ghandehariun, Samane & Ghandehariun, Amir M. & Bahrami Ziabari, Nima, 2024. "Complementary assessment and design optimization of a hybrid renewable energy system integrated with open-loop pumped hydro energy storage," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Yun Deng & Xueling Ran & Hussien Elshareef & Renjie Dong & Yuguang Zhou, 2025. "Emergy, Environmental and Economic (3E) Assessment of Biomass Pellets from Agricultural Waste," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Valerii Havrysh & Antonina Kalinichenko & Edyta Szafranek & Vasyl Hruban, 2022. "Agricultural Land: Crop Production or Photovoltaic Power Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, April.
    11. Wang, Changbo & Zhang, Lixiao & Chang, Yuan & Pang, Mingyue, 2021. "Energy return on investment (EROI) of biomass conversion systems in China: Meta-analysis focused on system boundary unification," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    12. Murillo Vetroni Barros & Cassiano Moro Piekarski & Antonio Carlos De Francisco, 2018. "Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation in Brazil: An Analysis of the 2016–2026 Period," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Yang, Qiushuang & Mašek, Ondřej & Zhao, Ling & Nan, Hongyan & Yu, Shitong & Yin, Jianxiang & Li, Zhaopeng & Cao, Xinde, 2021. "Country-level potential of carbon sequestration and environmental benefits by utilizing crop residues for biochar implementation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(PB).
    14. Grzegorz Maj & Paweł Krzaczek & Wojciech Gołębiowski & Tomasz Słowik & Joanna Szyszlak-Bargłowicz & Grzegorz Zając, 2022. "Energy Consumption and Quality of Pellets Made of Waste from Corn Grain Drying Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, July.
    15. Yuwen Chu & Yunlong Pan & Hongyi Zhan & Wei Cheng & Lei Huang & Zi Wu & Ling Shao, 2022. "Systems Accounting for Carbon Emissions by Hydropower Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Lechón, Yolanda & Lago, Carmen & Herrera, Israel & Gamarra, Ana Rosa & Pérula, Alberto, 2023. "Carbon benefits of different energy storage alternative end uses. Application to the Spanish case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    17. He, Jiaxin & Liu, Ying & Lin, Boqiang, 2018. "Should China support the development of biomass power generation?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 416-425.
    18. Montalvo-Navarrete, Juan M. & Lasso-Palacios, Ana P., 2024. "Energy access sustainability criteria definition for Colombian rural areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    19. Héctor Álvarez & Guillermo Domínguez & Almudena Ordóñez & Javier Menéndez & Rodrigo Álvarez & Jorge Loredo, 2021. "Mine Water for the Generation and Storage of Renewable Energy: A Hybrid Hydro–Wind System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Ziyad Sherif & Shoaib Sarfraz & Mark Jolly & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2023. "Greening Foundation Industries: Shared Processes and Sustainable Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:16:p:7379-:d:1725017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.