Bioenergy and Land Use Change‒State of the Art

Berndes, G.; Ahlgren, Serina; Böorjesson, Pål; Cowie, Annette

doi:10.1002/9781118957844.ch16

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hitherto, consequential LCA studies of bioenergy systems have emphasised uncertain ILUC effects attributable to food production displacement, which Berndes et al (2013) argue has distracted policy makers from genuine long-term GHG mitigation that can be achieved by bioenergy deployment. Our study highlights that, by also accounting for wider landscape-scale environmental effects within consequential LCA, a multi-dimensional case can be made for appropriately sited bioenergy production in the context of sustainable land management, environmental quality and renewable energy objectives.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Styles

Börjesson

D’Hertefeldt

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst life cycle assessment (LCA) boundaries are expanded to account for negative indirect consequences of bioenergy such as indirect land use change (ILUC), ecosystem services such as water purification sometimes delivered by perennial bioenergy crops are typically neglected in LCA studies. Consequential LCA was applied to evaluate the significance of nutrient interception and retention on the environmental balance of unfertilised energy willow planted on 50-m riparian buffer strips and drainage filtration zones in the Skåne region of Sweden. Excluding possible ILUC effects and considering oil heat substitution, strategically planted filter willow can achieve net global warming potential (GWP) and eutrophication potential (EP) savings of up to 11.9 Mg CO 2 e and 47 kg PO 4 e ha -1 year -1 , respectively, compared with a GWP saving of 14.8 Mg CO 2 e ha -1 year -1 and an EP increase of 7 kg PO 4 e ha -1 year -1 for fertilised willow. Planting willow on appropriate buffer and filter zones throughout Skåne could avoid 626 Mg year -1 PO 4 e nutrient loading to waters.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Styles

Börjesson

D’Hertefeldt

et al. 2016

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EC's 2010 Communications also state that deforestation and forest degradation can result in a significant loss of both terrestrial carbon and significant changes in productivity. Indirect land use change (iLUC) effects are not included: its quantitative evaluation is difficult and there is not yet any scientific consensus [89][90][91][92][93]. F "Exceptional removal of dying or dead trees", related to both managed and non-managed forests.…”

Section: Benchmark Compilationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Harvesting, Sustainable Sourcing and Cascaded Use of Wood for Bioenergy: Their Coverage through Existing Certification Frameworks for Sustainable Forest Management

Sikkema

Junginger

Dam

et al. 2014

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The first objective of this paper was to provide an inventory of developments of certification schemes for sustainable biomass production, following recent EU legislation (both formalized and under development). One main pillar is the EU Timber Regulation for legal harvesting; a second one is the EU's 2010 recommendations for sustainable woody biomass sourcing for energy; the third one is the EU Waste Directive. The second objective was to benchmark the coverage of this (draft) legislation, when wood product certificates for sustainable forest management (SFM) are used as proof of the related legislative requirements. We studied North America, as it is a major biomass supplier to the EU-28. Together with existing forest legislation in the US and Canada, SFM certificates are actively used to cover the EU's (draft) legislation. However, North American forests are only partially certified with fibers coming from certified forests; these are referred to as forest

show abstract

“…4 There is no denying that most renewable energy sources-not just bioenergy-are more land-intensive than fossil fuels or nuclear power. In a historical context, the land-intensiveness of renewables is a reckoning for the intergenerational subsidy that current generations gave themselves by extracting and using up non-renewables at an accelerating pace far beyond sustainability limits.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofuels, Bioenergy and the Bioeconomy in North and South

Johnson¹

2017

Industrial Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergy and Land Use Change‒State of the Art

Cited by 13 publications

References 134 publications

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment

Legal Harvesting, Sustainable Sourcing and Cascaded Use of Wood for Bioenergy: Their Coverage through Existing Certification Frameworks for Sustainable Forest Management

Biofuels, Bioenergy and the Bioeconomy in North and South

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About