Mode données d'exemple. Les entreprises, offres et demandes d'exemple affichées sont fictives (images IA) et ne sont pas comptées dans les chiffres ci-dessous.
Lesson 3 of 8
Cascading, RED III and a sequence for allocating residues
The cascading principle
Cascading means using wood first for long-lived products, then reuse and recycling, and only at the end for energy. The order in the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III, Directive (EU) 2023/2413, Article 3(3)) is: wood-based products, extended service life, reuse, recycling, bioenergy, disposal. A German life cycle and exergy study of multifunctional wood cascade chains (2017) found a life-cycle resource efficiency of 46% against 21% for the non-cascaded case, most of the saving coming from avoided primary production in forestry. That is a ratio of 46 / 21 = 2.2. Note the scope: the study concerns chains where the same fibre serves several material uses, mostly post-consumer wood, not sawmill residues directly.
Sawmill residues are by-products: the main wood is already in a long-lived product. The cascade question is therefore about the second step. A chip that becomes pulp and then paper is the first step of a chain; sawdust turned into pellets is a one-step energy route.
What RED III says (verified text) and what it means (interpretation)
Verified from the Directive:
- Binding EU 2030 target of at least 42.5% renewable energy in gross final energy consumption, with an endeavour towards 45%.
- Industrial grade roundwood is defined (saw logs, veneer logs, pulpwood and similar).
- Member States may derogate from cascading for security of energy supply or where local industry cannot use the biomass at higher added value.
- No direct financial support for energy use of saw logs, veneer logs, industrial grade roundwood, stumps and roots.
Interpretation (not legal advice): the support ban targets primary roundwood, not sawmill co-products, so nothing in the verified text prohibits burning sawdust, bark or shavings. The cascading principle is, however, a policy argument for steering clean chips to material uses. Not verified in the portal: the Article 29 thresholds and greenhouse-gas saving percentages, the transposition deadline and national transposition. Check the consolidated text and national law before taking compliance decisions.
A six-step sequence for allocation (the author's own synthesis)
This is a practical heuristic, not a published or validated model.
- Fix the internal heat demand. Kiln drying and building heat first; bark and low-grade fractions are the natural fuel. A bark-only heating plant at a Finnish sawmill (2013) covered all of its heat and steam.
- Segregate by quality. Clean chips, bark-containing chips, sawdust, dry shavings, bark.
- Offer clean fractions to the highest material use. Pulp, panels, other products; growing media for bark.
- Offer the remainder to pellets or briquettes.
- Allocate the rest to energy, internal first, then external, with efficiency (heat only, CHP, district heat) as an explicit criterion.
- Review at least annually against policy and market signals, then repeat steps 1-5.
It is "sequential" because each step depends on what remains from the previous one and the decision is repeated as prices, volumes and rules change.
Rule-of-thumb criteria
| Criterion | Pushes towards material use | Pushes towards energy use |
|---|---|---|
| Fraction quality | Clean, bark-free, low moisture | Bark, contaminated, mixed |
| Buyer proximity | Panel or pulp mill within economic range | None within range |
| Contract security | Long-term contract | Spot only |
| Mill heat demand | Covered by other fuel | Not yet covered |
| Price spread | Material price above energy value | Energy value above material price |
The portal's sources give no numerical thresholds; each mill must calibrate with its own prices.
Worked example: allocating one week of residues (qualitative)
A hypothetical mill produces clean chips, sawdust, planer shavings and bark. Its kilns are currently fired partly with bought fuel.
- Step 1: the bark and the wet sawdust go first to the kiln boiler until the bought fuel is replaced.
- Step 3: clean chips go to a pulp mill under a contract, because the net price after transport exceeds their energy value.
- Step 4: dry shavings go to a pellet plant.
- Step 5: any surplus bark goes to a district-heat customer.
If the pulp mill cancels, the clean chips fall to step 4 or 5: contract security is a criterion.
Key points
- Cascading orders use as products, reuse, recycling, then energy; the German 2017 study found 46% vs 21% resource efficiency for cascaded chains (mainly post-consumer wood).
- Verified RED III points: 42.5% target, cascade priority, no direct support for energy use of roundwood; Article 29 thresholds and national transposition are not verified.
- The reading that by-products are not banned from energy use is an interpretation, not legal advice.
- The six-step sequence (heat, segregate, material, pellets, energy, review) is a heuristic, not a published model.
- Contract security and buyer proximity decide whether a fraction can move up the cascade.