Bioenergy as climate change mitigation option within a 2 °C target—uncertainties and temporal challenges of bioenergy systems

Röder, Mirjam; Thornley, Patricia

doi:10.1186/s13705-016-0070-3

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are process emissions at all stages in a BECCS system, through direct CO 2 emissions from the energy used during cultivation, harvest, processing and transport, emissions of methane or nitrous oxide (e.g. during drying (Röder and Thornley 2016) or fertiliser use) and direct carbon loss from soils due to changes in land use (e.g. conversion from grassland to bioenergy crop).…”

Section: Representing Negative Emissions Delivered By Beccsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios

Vaughan

Gough

Mander

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is heavily relied upon in scenarios of future emissions that are consistent with limiting global mean temperature increase to 1.5 • C or 2 • C above pre-industrial. These temperature limits are defined in the Paris Agreement in order to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Here, we explore the use of BECCS technologies in a reference scenario and three low emission scenarios generated by an integrated assessment model (IMAGE). Using these scenarios we investigate the feasibility of key implicit and explicit assumptions about these BECCS technologies, including biomass resource, land use, CO 2 storage capacity and carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment rate. In these scenarios, we find that half of all global CO 2 storage required by 2100 occurs in USA, Western Europe, China and India, which is compatible with current estimates of regional CO 2 storage capacity. CCS deployment rates in the scenarios are very challenging compared to historical rates of fossil, renewable or nuclear technologies and are entirely dependent on stringent policy action to incentivise CCS. In the scenarios, half of the biomass resource is derived from agricultural and forestry residues and half from dedicated bioenergy crops grown on abandoned agricultural land and expansion into grasslands (i.e. land for forests and food production is protected). Poor governance of the sustainability of bioenergy crop production can significantly limit the amount of CO 2 removed by BECCS, through soil carbon loss from direct and indirect land use change. Only one-third of the bioenergy crops are grown in regions associated with more developed governance frameworks. Overall, the scenarios in IMAGE are ambitious but consistent with current relevant literature with respect to assumed biomass resource, land use and CO 2 storage capacity.

show abstract

Section: Representing Negative Emissions Delivered By Beccsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios

Vaughan

Gough

Mander

et al. 2018

Environ. Res. Lett.

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over much of the latter half of the 20th Century, forest harvest residues represented a source of fuelwood for rural communities in many developing countries [1,2], while they were often windrowed, burned and mostly reduced to ashes to return to the soil as part of site preparation for the establishment of the next rotation in developed countries (e.g., [3][4][5]). With the increasing recognition of the role of bioenergy in climate change mitigation since the turn of the 21st Century (see [6][7][8]), forest harvest and timber processing residues have received a renewed focus as a major potential source of woody biomass that can be used to supplement or replace fossil fuels in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of energy production [9][10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product and Residue Biomass Equations for Individual Trees in Rotation Age Pinus radiata Stands under Three Thinning Regimes in New South Wales, Australia

Wang

Ximenes

et al. 2017

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using data from 239 trees that were destructively sampled and completely weighed in the field, four systems of nonlinear additive equations were developed for the estimation of product and residue fresh and dry weight of individual trees in rotation age (28 to 42 years) Pinus radiata stands under three thinning regimes: unthinned (T0), one thinning (T1) and two thinnings (T2). To cater for all practical applications, the four systems of equations included diameter at breast height overbark (DBHOB) as the only independent variable or both DBHOB and total tree height as predictors either with or without the incorporation of dummy variables for stand types. For all systems, the property of additivity was guaranteed by placing constraints on the structural parameters of the system equations. The parameter estimates were obtained by the generalized methods of moments (GMM) following a comparison with weighted nonlinear seemingly unrelated regression (WNSUR). Based on the predicted values from the system that had DBHOB as the predictor and dummy variables for stand types, the percentage of total tree fresh weight accounted for by residues increased from 14.8% to 20.5%, from 15.6% to 22.2% and from 13.9% to 18.7% for trees in the T0, T1 and T2 stands, respectively, as DBHOB increased from 15 to 70 cm. The corresponding changes in the percentage of residue dry weight were from 15.1% to 16.1%, from 15.7% to 17.1% and from 14.9% to 15.8% for the three stand types. In addition, two systems of allocative equations were developed to allocate the predicted product and residue biomass to their respective subcomponents. The system of allocative equations for product biomass predicted that sawlogs with bark accounted for 83% to 85% of product fresh weight and 82% to 87% of product dry weight over the same range of DBHOB. The predicted allocation of total residue dry weight to stump changed little, between 12% and 13%, over the same diameter range, but it was slightly higher for trees with DBHOB between 30 and 45 cm. The predicted allocation of total residue biomass to branches increased from 18% to 65% in fresh weight and from 18% to 57% in dry weight and that to waste decreased from 71% to 27% in fresh weight and from 70% to 32% in dry weight as DBHOB increased from 15 to 70 cm. Among the five biomass components, prediction accuracy was the lowest for pulpwood and waste. The systems of additive and allocative biomass equations developed in this study provided the first example of how the two approaches could be used together for the estimation of total tree, major and sub-component biomass. They will provide forest management with an enhanced capacity to more accurately estimate product and residue biomass of rotation age trees and thus to include the production of biomass for renewable energy generation in their management systems for P. radiata plantations.

show abstract

“…In forest-based and perennial systems the timing of carbon sequestration and release plays an important role in cumulative carbon budgets [19,[84][85][86]. CCS enables this timeframe to be manipulated, buying time by locking away the biogenic carbon.…”

Section: Distributional Aspects and Emissions Accounting: How Does Bementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a method of accounting for these material and emissions flows generated by a product or a process in relation to the defined functional unit of the analysis. Even though there is robust evidence that bioenergy pathways can reduce emissions significantly compared to fossil fuel based energy options [16,17], there are significant uncertainties with regards to emissions associated with various supply chain processes [18][19][20].…”

Section: Evaluating Negative Emissions From Beccs -How Negative Is Bementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5⁰C

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-technical summaryBiomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is represented in many integrated assessment models as a keystone technology in delivering the Paris Agreement on climate change. This paper explores six key challenges in relation to large scale BECCS deployment and considers ways to address these challenges. Research needs to consider how BECCS fits in the context of other mitigation approaches, how it can be accommodated within existing policy drivers and goals, identify where it fits within the wider socioeconomic landscape, and ensure that genuine net negative emissions can be delivered on a global scale.

show abstract

Bioenergy as climate change mitigation option within a 2 °C target—uncertainties and temporal challenges of bioenergy systems

Cited by 26 publications

References 35 publications

Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios

Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios

Product and Residue Biomass Equations for Individual Trees in Rotation Age Pinus radiata Stands under Three Thinning Regimes in New South Wales, Australia

Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5⁰C

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About