Nội dung

A Comparative Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Coated Paper Production Key Differences between China and the U.S. Robert O. Vos Josh Newell Center for Sustainable Cities University of Southern California June 2009 © 2009 by the Center for Sustainable Cities University of Southern California 3620 S. Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90089-0255 Acknowledgements Numerous individuals assisted in the preparation of this report. Dr. Jingfen Sheng and others in the USC Geographic Information Science (GIS) Research Laboratory provided technical assistance with the distance calculations. Brian Stafford offered his expertise on the Chinese paper industry. Michael Jones at RISI assisted with data clarification issues and Michael Todasco and Brian Kozlowski of NewPage Corporation provided us with a comprehensive picture of NewPage’s fiber inputs and mill processes and useful comments and critique during the research process. NewPage Corporation supports independent academic research on sustainability issues in the global paper industry as a means to identify strategies and measures to further its sustainability efforts. NewPage provided financial support for this study as a client of Clean Agency, a firm that provides sustainability consulting and public relations support to companies striving toward a better way of doing business. The study also benefited from non-blind peer review from specialists in the field. These reviewers included professors Mark Harmon of Oregon State University and Mansour Rahimi of the University of Southern California, as well as consultants Jim Ford of Climate for Ideas and Wallace Partners. The findings, views, and any errors contained in this study are the sole responsibility of the authors. Abstract This technical report compares carbon dioxide emissions from the production of freesheet coated paper in the Chinese paper industry with the same paper produced by NewPage Corporation, the largest North American manufacturer of coated paper products. By analyzing the supply chains for the Chinese and NewPage manufacturing facilities, the report highlights differences in the carbon burden based on two key components of the lifecycle—carbon dioxide emissions from transportation and energy in pulp and paper production. The carbon burden from these two components for coated freesheeet paper manufactured in China’s industry is significantly higher than for NewPage’s coated freesheet paper. It should be noted that this study is a partial, comparative lifecycle inventory of carbon dioxide emissions in coated freesheet paper. The study also reviews emerging science on carbon pooling given varying forest types and harvesting practices, and offers the methodological building blocks for how fiber acquisition might be modeled for the comparison. We find that the fiber acquisition component has substantial implications for accounting for the carbon burden in both supply chains. Preferred Citation: Robert O. Vos and Josh Newell. 2009. A Comparative Analysis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Coated Paper Production: Key Differences between China and the U.S. Center for Sustainable Cities, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. ii Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................5 1. Overview of the Coated Paper Industry in China and the U.S. ..............................................................................9 Fiber Supply Structure - China .................................................................................................................................11 Pulp import structure ..........................................................................................................................................13 Fiber Supply Structure - NewPage ...........................................................................................................................16 2. Study Scope and System Boundary .....................................................................................................................17 Transportation .....................................................................................................................................................18 Pulp and paper production ..................................................................................................................................18 Fiber acquisition ..................................................................................................................................................19 Other clarifications ..............................................................................................................................................19 3. Transportation .....................................................................................................................................................20 Method ....................................................................................................................................................................20 Method to calculate distances ............................................................................................................................20 Method to estimate carbon dioxide emissions ...................................................................................................21 Results .....................................................................................................................................................................23 4. Pulp and Paper Production ..................................................................................................................................24 Method ....................................................................................................................................................................25 Model for the BHKP supply chain for China ........................................................................................................25 Model for the BSKP supply chain for China .........................................................................................................28 i Model for coated paper manufacturing in China ................................................................................................29 Model for the U.S. (NewPage) supply chain ........................................................................................................30 Results for the Chinese Industry’s Supply Chain......................................................................................................31 Major sources of carbon dioxide emissions from BHKP production ...................................................................31 Major sources of carbon dioxide emissions from BSKP production ....................................................................31 Summing up: Carbon Dioxide Emissions in China’s Coated Paper Facilities ............................................................32 Results for the U.S. (NewPage) Supply Chain ..........................................................................................................33 Comparison ..............................................................................................................................................................33 Future Research .......................................................................................................................................................33 5. Fiber Acquisition: Carbon Loss Due to Timber Harvest .......................................................................................34 Forest Type ..........................................................................................................................................................34 Disturbance regimes and forest management ....................................................................................................35 Methodologies .........................................................................................................................................................35 Annual increase in carbon stocks due to biomass growth ..................................................................................36 Annual carbon loss from drained organic soils (CO2) ..........................................................................................37 Calculating carbon loss per finished metric ton ..................................................................................................37 Scoping the parameters of the model .................................................................................................................39 Conclusions and future research .........................................................................................................................40 6. Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................................44 Useful Terms ............................................................................................................................................................44 Forest Classification and Assigned Values, by Country ............................................................................................47 7. Selected References ............................................................................................................................................49 ii List of Figures Figure 0.1 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Coated Freesheet Paper Production ...................................7 Figure 1.1 Major Coated Paper Manufacturers in China, 2007 ....................................................................................9 Figure 1.2 Geographic Distribution of APP's Major Pulp and Paper Mills in Asia .......................................................10 Figure 1.3 Breakdown of China's Paper Supply Sources, 2005 ...................................................................................11 Figure 1.4 Major Pulp Mills across the Globe, 2007 ...................................................................................................14 Figure 1.5 Chinese Imports of Bleached Hardwood Kraft Pulp, by Country, 2007 .....................................................15 Figure 1.6 Chinese Imports of Bleached Softwood Kraft Pulp, by Country, 2007 ......................................................16 Figure 4.1 Non-Integrated Pulp and Paper Production ..............................................................................................24 Figure 4.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions per metric ton of BHKP by Energy Type ..........................................................31 Figure 4.3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Metric ton of BSKP by Energy Type ...........................................................32 Figure 4.4 Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Embedded Energy for Coated Freesheet Paper Made in China .............32 Figure 4.5 Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Embedded Energy for Coated Freesheet Paper made in the U.S. (NewPage) ...................................................................................................................................................................33 iii List of Tables Table 1.1 Major Fiber Sources for Coated Paper (all types) in China ..........................................................................12 Table 1.2 China’s Pulp Imports, 2002-2006 (kilotons per year) ..................................................................................13 Table 1.3 Brazil's Pulp and Paper Investment Program, 2002-2012 ...........................................................................16 Table 2.1 Partial Lifecycle Delimitation.......................................................................................................................17 Table 3.1 Energy and Emission factors by Transport Mode .......................................................................................22 Table 4.1 Method I, Estimated Annual Carbon Loss due to Timber Harvest, Selected Countries ..............................42 iv Executive Summary This report provides a comparison of carbon dioxide emissions from the production of coated freesheet paper in the Chinese paper industry with coated freesheet paper produced by United States (U.S.)-based NewPage Corporation, the largest coated paper manufacturer in North America. The study tests the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions inherent in the production of coated freesheet paper vary greatly depending on where and how it is produced, where the raw materials used to make it are extracted and processed, and where it is sold. The results of the study provide evidence that the distribution of production locations in each supply chain makes a significant difference in the overall emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The research presented in this report focuses on three aspects of spatial differences in the production of coated paper that are hypothesized to be different between China and the U.S. These three are as follows: integrated vs. non-integrated pulp and paper production; the fuel mix of direct and indirect energy used in pulp and paper production; and long versus short transportation distances. The magnitude of differences between the supply chains are estimated using models created for two stages in the lifecycle in each supply chain: transportation of fiber and finished paper and energy used in pulp and paper production. Carbon release from forestry due to fiber acquisition is a crucial emerging issue in calculating the carbon burden of paper products. It is also likely that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from forestry vary by the geographical distribution of the supply chain, depending upon forest types and harvest or plantation practices. The final section of the report includes an extensive discussion of this issue in the context of these two supply chains. The report is organized with opening sections giving an overview of the supply chains for China and NewPage and delimitation of the study scope. Next are sections for each of the two emissions models: transportation and pulp and paper production, followed by a section discussing carbon loss from forestry. Each of these sections are summarized below. 1. Overview of the Chinese and U.S. Coated Paper Industries China is now the second largest producer of paper, after the U.S., and coated paper is one of the fastest growing segments of this sector. In China, Asia Pulp and Paper’s (APP) Gold East Paper mill is by far the largest producer. APP produced about 15% of the total production of coated papers of all types in China in 2008. NewPage Corporation is the largest manufacturer of coated paper (of all types) in North America with approximately 35% of 2008 North American production capacity, followed by Verso Paper (17%) and Sappi Corporation (14%). China is the world’s largest importer of pulp. In 2007, China’s top six pulp providers were as follows: Canada (20% of the total), Indonesia (18%), Brazil (14%), Russia (14%), the United States (11%), and Chile (10%). The wood supply structure for NewPage’s facilities is primarily locally sourced. Most fiber is sourced by harvesting wood from managed native forests within approximately a 100 mile radius of each facility, with approximately 10% of NewPage’s total fiber requirements imported as pulp from Canada (based on 2007 data). The use of recycled fiber in production of coated paper of all types is small in both the U.S. and Chinese supply chains. For example, recycled fiber made up 3% of total fiber for NewPage in 2007. For the Chinese supply chain, the figure is 7%. For coated freesheet paper, industry data for both supply chains revealed virtually no use of recycled fiber. Thus, the study focuses on fiber inputs of wood and pulp. 5 2. Study Scope and System Boundary This study is structured as a partial comparative lifecycle inventory of carbon dioxide emissions. It is not a full “carbon footprint” of the coated freesheet product in either supply chain. There are numerous stages and elements in the full lifecycle of coated freesheet paper that are not analyzed in this study (see Table 2.1). As noted above, among the most prominent of these is carbon dioxide emissions associated with land use change, such as timber harvest due to fiber acquisition. Additional basic scientific research is needed to make an accurate comparison of these emissions across the two supply chains. There are also several other lifecycle stages and elements that are excluded. Omission is due to data unavailability or suitability to the purpose of the study. For several of these elements, it seems likely that the processes and carbon dioxide emissions differ little between the two supply chains. Throughout the study, comparisons are drawn using the same data sources to characterize energy use as well as emission factors for both supply chains. This ensures that the comparison is not rendered inaccurately due to higher data resolution for one supply chain. Although, it is important to note the study does not refer to the entire U.S. industry; rather it focuses solely on the carbon dioxide emissions associated with NewPage’s production. 3. Transport The research includes a study of CO2 emissions from transportation in each supply chain. The study includes transportation of pulp to paper mills, and of finished paper from paper mills to Los Angeles, CA, a major U.S. point of purchase. Overall, there is more transport of materials in the Chinese supply chain, because pulp comes from all over the world, and the Chinese paper mills are far from U.S. markets. For example, pulp travels on average over 5,000 miles to the mills in China compared to about 1,500 miles for the U.S. mills. The transportation study does not include emissions from the transport of chemical and other non-fiber additives or wood fiber to the pulp mills. Instead, it focuses on transport of two of the principal constituents in the supply chains: pulp and finished paper. Both are areas where we expected significant differences between the two supply chains. Findings Emissions of carbon dioxide from transportation for the Chinese coated paper industry are about eight times higher than for NewPage coated paper. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from transportation for coated freesheet paper delivered to the Port of Los Angeles totals 187 Kg of CO2 per finished metric ton (FMT) for the Chinese industry and 23 Kg of CO2 per FMT for NewPage. It is important to note, however, that transportation emissions are much smaller than emissions from pulp and paper production. 4. Pulp and Paper Production Previous studies conclude that the major component of CO 2 emissions in the paper lifecycle is found in the production/use of process steam (heat) and electricity in pulp and paper manufacturing (Gower, 2006; NCASI, 2005). This study compares the U.S. and Chinese supply chains with models of energy and fuel use based on global industry data. Emission factors used to calculate carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels across the global supply chain are analogous to those used in the IPCC’s 2006 methodology for national emissions inventories. 6 Findings The NewPage carbon footprint from embedded energy in manufacturing is about 42% lower than the footprint for the Chinese manufacturing: 1,432 Kg of CO2 per FMT for the U.S. (NewPage) vs. 2,478 Kg of CO2 per FMT for China. Results confirm the importance of the fuel mix in driving the carbon footprint for embedded energy in manufacturing coated freesheet paper, as well as efficiency gains with higher levels of integrated pulp and paper production in the U.S. China’s extended supply chain for coated paper manufacturing uses more energy overall, and has much more coal fuel in its production. The U.S. (NewPage) supply chain uses less energy overall, and has more biomass energy available for production. Cleaner fuels like natural gas displace the use of coal. When coal is used, co-firing with biomass sources makes it much more efficient with respect to CO2 emissions. Also, when electricity is used from the grid, energy sources in the U.S. grid are less carbon intensive than for grid electricity in China. Figure 0.1 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Coated Freesheet Paper Production 5. Fiber Acquisition Forests play an important role in stabilizing the global climate. Both the types of forests and forest management practices vary substantially between the two supply chains. As forests are harvested and/or replanted, or harvested and converted to other land uses, the potential exists for the net release of GHG’s into the atmosphere. In this section of the study, we discuss the variables that would need to be accounted for to accurately model and compare the carbon loss due to timber harvest for two supply chains. The carbon burden hinges on many factors, including harvest practices, plantation management, and the types of forests that are impacted. This section also provides the foundations for building a general methodology to account for these factors at the product level. Two key issues highlighted are considerations regarding spatial and temporal scales that should be incorporated into the model. 7 6. Conclusions and Future Research This study reveals that not all papers are created equally. The geography of paper production matters a great deal for the environment. The supply chains for China’s industry produce larger emissions of carbon dioxide, primarily from fuel used to produce the pulp and the paper (see Figure 0.1). More research is needed to understand how the geography of paper production and consumption affects the full “carbon footprint” and the overall environmental burden (on a total lifecycle basis). 8