Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches

Breton, Charles; Blanchet, Pierre; Amor, Ben; Beauregard, Robert; Chang, Wen‐Shao

doi:10.3390/su10062020

Cited by 81 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 159 publications

(319 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are approaches to incorporate the dynamic nature of carbon flows in forest production systems and in the HWP’s life-cycle, explicitly taking into account the timing of carbon emission [38–41]. These include modelling decay rates of HWPs using an exponential function based on the half-lives of the products [30], or more realistic probability distribution centred around the mean half-life of the product, for example the gamma distribution [15, 17] or the chi distribution [42, 43].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland

Iordan

Arvesen

et al. 2018

Carbon Balance Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundForests and forest products can significantly contribute to climate change mitigation by stabilizing and even potentially decreasing the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Harvested wood products (HWP) represent a common widespread and cost-efficient opportunity for negative emissions. After harvest, a significant fraction of the wood remains stored in HWPs for a period that can vary from some months to many decades, whereas atmospheric carbon (C) is immediately sequestered by vegetation re-growth. This temporal mismatch between oxidation of HWPs and C uptake by vegetation generates a net sink that lasts over time. The role of temporary carbon storage in forest products has been analysed and debated in the scientific literature, but detailed bottom-up studies mapping the fate of harvested materials and quantifying the associated emission profiles at national scales are rare. In this work, we quantify the net CO2 emissions and the temporary carbon storage in forest products in Norway, Sweden and Finland for the period 1960–2015, and investigate their correlation. We use a Chi square probability distribution to model the oxidation rate of C over time in HWPs, taking into consideration specific half-lives of each category of products. We model the forest regrowth and estimate the time-distributed C removal. We also integrate the specific HWP flows with an emission inventory database to quantify the associated life-cycle emissions of fossil CO2, CH4 and N2O.ResultsWe find that assuming an instantaneous oxidation of HWPs would overestimate emissions of about 1.18 billion t CO2 (cumulative values for the three countries over the period 1960–2015).We also find that about 40 years after 1960, the starting year of our analysis, are sufficient to detect signs of negative emissions. The total amount of net CO2 emissions achieved in 2015 are about − 3.8 million t CO2, − 27.9 t CO2 and − 43.6 t CO2 in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, respectively.ConclusionWe argue for a more explicit accounting of the actual emission rates from HWPs in carbon balance studies and climate impact analysis of forestry systems and products, and a more transparent inclusion of the potential of HWP as negative emissions in perspective studies and scenarios. Simply assuming that all harvested carbon is instantaneously oxidized can lead to large biases and ultimately overlook the benefits of negative emissions of HWPs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13021-018-0101-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland

Iordan

Arvesen

et al. 2018

Carbon Balance Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All methods essentially aim to estimate impacts by using simplified approaches that vary between the methods. Methods differ in several aspects, such as the point along the cause‐effect chain at which a mid‐point or endpoint indicator is selected (e.g., radiative forcing, temperature change or others) and in their conceptual interpretation of time considerations (Breton et al, ; Levasseur et al, ; Zanchi et al, ). Different methods are available to capture the different aspects of climate change that should be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the dominance of GWPs in LCA studies and carbon footprinting, the application of a wide range of different impact assessment methods between different studies has resulted in ambiguous outcomes and uncertainties, for example, in terms of the climate change mitigation potential of bioenergy systems relative to their fossil fuel counterparts, as demonstrated above. In recent years, however, some progress has been made towards agreed methodology and consistent assessment of climate change impacts, with the work carried out by the IPCC (Plattner et al, ), the European Commission () and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (Frischknecht & Jolliet, ; Frischknecht et al ., ; Levasseur et al, ) and reviews of proposed approaches (Breton et al, ; Helin et al, ; Røyne et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic approach based on Life‐cycle assessment (LCA) has shown that the climate assessed mitigation potential of bioenergy systems depends on a range of methodological choices (Breton, Blanchet, Amor, Beauregard, & Chang, ; Cherubini et al, ; Helin, Sokka, Soimakallio, Pingoud, & Pajula, ; Lamers & Junginger, ; Røyne, Peñaloza, Sandin, Berlin, & Svanström, ), such as selection of reference land uses (Koponen, Soimakallio, Kline, Cowie, & Brandao, ), system modelling approach (attributional or consequential, which determines which activities are included within the system boundary, including indirect land‐use change) and impact assessment method. These methodological choices and assumptions have led to a wide divergence among published studies assessing the effectiveness of bioenergy for climate change mitigation (Brandão & Cowie, ; Zanchi, Pena, & Bird, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These methodological choices and assumptions have led to a wide divergence among published studies assessing the effectiveness of bioenergy for climate change mitigation (Brandão & Cowie, ; Zanchi, Pena, & Bird, ). One aspect that has received only scant attention in the past is the sensitivity of climate impact results to the impact assessment method applied (Breton et al, ; Helin et al, ; Levasseur et al, ; Plattner, Stocker, Midgley, & Tignor, ; Røyne et al, ), and the present paper focuses on that aspect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing concern over climate change has led to interest in replacing fossil energy with bioenergy. There are different approaches to quantitatively estimate the climate change effects of bioenergy systems. In the present work, we have focused on a range of published impact assessment methods that vary due to conceptual differences in the treatment of biogenic carbon fluxes, the type of climate change impacts they address and differences in time horizon and time preference. Specifically, this paper reviews fifteen different methods and applies these to three hypothetical bioenergy case studies: (a) woody biomass grown on previously forested land; (b) woody biomass grown on previous pasture land; and (b) annual energy crop grown on previously cropped land. Our analysis shows that the choice of method can have an important influence on the quantification of climate change effects of bioenergy, particularly when a mature forest is converted to bioenergy use as it involves a substantial reduction in biomass carbon stocks. Results are more uniform in other case studies. In general, results are more sensitive to specific impact assessment methods when they involve both emissions and removals at different points in time, such as for forest bioenergy, but have a much smaller influence on agricultural bioenergy systems grown on land previously used for pasture or annual cropping. The development of effective policies for climate change mitigation through renewable energy use requires consistent and accurate approaches to identification of bioenergy systems that can result in climate change mitigation. The use of different methods for the same purpose: estimating the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, can lead to confusing and contradictory conclusions. A full interpretation of the results generated with different methods must be based on an understanding that the different methods focus on different aspects of climate change and represent different time preferences.

show abstract

Bioenergy carbon emissions footprint considering the biogenic carbon and secondary effects

Fan

Klemeš

2020

Int J Energy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sustainability of bioenergy is varying on a case-by-case basis. It considerably depends on the source of biomass, management practices (plantation, harvesting, conversion technologies, supply chain, etc.) as well as the assessment boundary and assumptions. This study summarises the carbon emissions footprint (CF) flow of bioenergy by considering the possible sources and system boundary, particularly on the CF of biogenic carbon and secondary effects. The assessment framework has been applied to a demonstrated case study identifying the upper limits of global warming potential of biogenic carbon emission (GWP bio) and secondary effects contribution where the bioenergy is still superior to the coal, natural gas and gasoline. The circumstances where the other energy source alternatives could have a lower CF than bioenergy are highlighted. For example, coal and natural gas are the selection (lower CF) if the bioelectricity is subjected to the GWP bio higher than 0.57-0.74 and 0.18-0.34. CF of bioheat is higher than the heat generated by natural gas when the GWP bio is more than 0.04-0.40. Gasoline is the selection when the GWP bio of biofuel is higher than 0.12-0.42. The validity of carbon neutrality assumption of bioenergy possesses a more decisive role in the overall selection of bioenergy compared to the assessed secondary effects such as soil organic carbon changes. This study emphasises the importance of a rigorous CF accounting for bioenergy to support the equitable decision making. Novelty Statement The novel contributions of this study are: (i) Summarising of the direct and secondary (soil organic carbon changesabove and belowground, biochar application) effects in accounting the CF for a comprehensive assessment framework. (ii) Identifying the CF, integrated with biogenic and non-biogenic accounting, of bioenergy from energy crops and waste/residual. (iii) Comparing the identified CF of bioenergy to the other energy alternatives (fossil-based).

show abstract

Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches

Cited by 81 publications

References 159 publications

Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland

Contribution of forest wood products to negative emissions: historical comparative analysis from 1960 to 2015 in Norway, Sweden and Finland

Quantifying the climate change effects of bioenergy systems: Comparison of 15 impact assessment methods

Bioenergy carbon emissions footprint considering the biogenic carbon and secondary effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About