Greenhouse impact of fossil, forest residues and jatropha diesel: a static and dynamic assessment

Kirkinen, Johanna; Sahay, Arunaditya; Savolainen, Ilkka

doi:10.1504/pie.2009.029082

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the RRFC of fossil fuels continue to rise over a 300-year time horizon, while the RRFC of slash stabilizes after about 30 years. Kirkinen et al [13] compared the climate impact of fossil oil-based diesel and biodiesel made with forest residues using the Fischer-Tropsch process. They used and compared a static GHGbalance approach and a dynamic radiative forcing approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Holmgren et al (2007) compared the radiative forcing effects of using fossil fuels or forest residues for energy, considering the time dynamics of biomass decay if residues are left in the forest. Kirkinen et al (2008Kirkinen et al ( , 2009) introduced a ''relative radiative forcing commitment'' which is the cumulative radiative forcing caused by using a fuel relative to the combustion energy of the fuel, and used the measure to compare several fossil fuels and biofuels. Bird (2009) discussed the issues of timing of CO 2 emissions of biomass systems, and suggested that cumulative radiative forcing is an appropriate measure of climate impacts in life cycle assessments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time-dependent radiative forcing effects of forest fertilization and biomass substitution

Sathre

Gustavsson

2011

Biogeochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here we analyse the radiative forcing implications of forest fertilization and biomass substitution, with explicit consideration of the temporal patterns of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to and removals from the atmosphere (net emissions). We model and compare the production and use of biomass from a hectare of fertilized and non-fertilized forest land in northern Sweden. We calculate the annual net emissions of CO 2 , N 2 O and CH 4 for each system, over a 225-year period with 1-year time steps. We calculate the annual atmospheric concentration decay of each of these emissions, and calculate the resulting annual changes in instantaneous and cumulative radiative forcing. We find that forest fertilization can significantly increase biomass production, which increases the potential for material and energy substitution. The average carbon stock in tree biomass, forest soils and wood products all increase when fertilization is used. The additional GHG emissions due to fertilizer production and application are small compared to increases in substitution benefits and carbon stock. The radiative forcing of the 2 stands is identical for the first 15 years, followed by 2 years during which the fertilized stand produces slightly more radiative forcing. After year 18 the instantaneous and cumulative radiative forcing are consistently lower for the fertilized forest system. Both stands result in longterm negative radiative forcing, or cooling of the earth system. By the end of the 225-year simulation period, the cumulative radiative forcing reduction of the fertilized stand is over twice that of the nonfertilized stand. This suggests that forest fertilization and biomass substitution are effective options for climate change mitigation, as climate change is a long term issue.

show abstract

“…Other indicators, such as Cumulative warming impacts or global warming potential , have been used to describe the dynamic effect of GHG emissions and discuss emissions timing and balancing between short‐ and long‐term climate benefits of bioenergy projects. These indicators have been used, to a limited extent, to describe dynamic climate effects of bioenergy …”

Section: Land Use Luc and Ghg Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These indicators have been used, to a limited extent, to describe dynamic climate effects of bioenergy. [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] Figure 4 shows the results from selected LUC quantifications, expressing the results in terms of g CO eq 2 MJ −1 over 30 years to facilitate comparison with other types of GHG emissions associated with the biomass production and conversion to biofuels. The focus is placed on LUC associated with so-called first generation biofuels that are produced from conventional food/feed crops.…”

Section: Quantification Of Luc Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioenergy and land use change—state of the art

Berndes

Ahlgren

Börjesson

et al. 2012

WIREs Energy & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioenergy projects can lead to direct and indirect land use change (LUC), which can substantially affect greenhouse gas balances with both beneficial and adverse outcomes for bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation. The causes behind LUC are multiple, complex, interlinked, and change over time. This makes quantification uncertain and sensitive to many factors that can develop in different directions—including land use productivity, trade patterns, prices and elasticities, and use of by‐products associated with biofuels production. Quantifications reported so far vary substantially and do not support the ranking of bioenergy options with regard to LUC and associated emissions. There are however several options for mitigating these emissions, which can be implemented despite the uncertainties. Long‐rotation forest management is associated with carbon emissions and sequestration that are not in temporal balance with each other and this leads to mitigation trade‐offs between biomass extraction for energy use and the alternative to leave the biomass in the forest. Bioenergy's contribution to climate change mitigation needs to reflect a balance between near‐term targets and the long‐term objective to hold the increase in global temperature below 2°C (Copenhagen Accord). Although emissions from LUC can be significant in some circumstances, the reality of such emissions is not sufficient reason to exclude bioenergy from the list of worthwhile technologies for climate change mitigation. Policy measures to minimize the negative impacts of LUC should be based on a holistic perspective recognizing the multiple drivers and effects of LUC. This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Economics and Policy Bioenergy > Climate and Environment

show abstract

Greenhouse impact of fossil, forest residues and jatropha diesel: a static and dynamic assessment

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy

Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy

Time-dependent radiative forcing effects of forest fertilization and biomass substitution

Bioenergy and land use change—state of the art

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About