Table 4 shows that the share of biofuels in biomass utilization increases from 2.2% (2006) to 15.7% (2020), then declines to 11.6% by 2030. No explanation is given for this decline. The text (section 4.5) states that “most of the biomass will be devoted to produce electricity and biofuels instead of heat,” yet the table shows heat still dominating at 72.3% in 2030 and biofuels losing share after 2020. This is a direct contradiction between narrative and data. Which is correct? If the table is accurate, why would biofuel share decrease despite policy support?
Table 5 reports GHG savings of 114% for switchgrass and 117% for hybrid poplar. How can GHG savings exceed 100%? This implies negative net emissions (i.e., more CO₂ removed than emitted), which is theoretically possible only if biogenic carbon sequestration and avoided emissions far exceed life-cycle emissions. However, the paper provides no methodological basis, system boundary definition, or reference for these values. Without clarification, these figures appear mathematically impossible or grossly miscalculated. Please explain the derivation or cite the original source that justifies >100% savings.