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

Brandão, Miguel; Kirschbaum, Miko U. F.; Cowie, Annette; Hjuler, Susanne Vedel

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12593

Cited by 63 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The simplistic vision of BECCS is that 1 tonne of CO 2 captured in the growth of biomass equates to 1 tonne of CO 2 sequestered geologically. However, biomass crops are not carbon neutral because greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are associated with the cultivation of biomass and furthermore GHG emissions occur throughout the BECCS value chain which reduces the carbon efficiency (Brandao, Kirschbaum, Cowie, & Vedel Hjuler, 2018; Tanzer & Ramirez, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can biomass supply meet the demands of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

Jones

Albanito

2020

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To reach the reduced carbon emission targets proposed by the Paris agreement, one of the widely proposed decarbonizing strategies, referred to as negative emissions technologies (NETs), is the production and combustion of bioenergy crops in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, concerns have been increasingly raised that relying on the potential of BECCS to achieve negative emissions could result in delayed reductions in gross CO2 emissions, with consequent high risk of overshooting global temperature targets. We focus on two particular issues: the carbon efficiency and payback time of bioenergy use in BECCS and the potential constraints on the supply of bioenergy. The simplistic vision of BECCS is that 1 tonne of CO2 captured in the growth of biomass equates to 1 tonne of CO2 sequestered geologically, but this cannot be the case as CO2 is emitted by variable amounts during the lifecycle from crop establishment to sequestration below ground in geological formations. The deployment of BECCS is ultimately reliant on the availability of sufficient, sustainably sourced, biomass. The two most important factors determining this supply are land availability and land productivity. The upper bounds of the area estimates required correspond to more than the world's harvested land for cereal production. To achieve these estimates of biomass availability requires the rapid evolution of a multitude of technological, social, political and economic factors. Here, we question whether, because of the limited sustainable supply of biomass, BECCS should continue to be considered the dominant NET in IPCC and other scenarios achieving the Paris targets, or should it be deemed no longer fit for purpose?

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can biomass supply meet the demands of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

Jones

Albanito

2020

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, this study examines the temporal components of the wood product carbon pool in order to advance wood product LCA methodology, building upon previous research on RF analysis [21][22][23][24][25][37][38][39][40][41]. In this study, we expand current methodologies to account for the carbon storage within wood over the functional life of the wood products, by considering the fraction of carbon in primary wood products remaining in end uses up to 100 years.…”

Section: Study Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study highlighted that the dynamic LCA approach allows for a consistent assessment of the impact, through time, of all GHG emissions and sequestration [37]. Similarly, a recent study summarized 15 different climate change impact assessment methods and presented a comparison of the results obtained when applying these methods to three simplified bioenergy systems [38]. The authors highlighted the importance of interpreting the results based on an understanding that different methods focus on different aspects of climate change and represent different time preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Warming Mitigating Role of Wood Products from Washington State’s Private Forests

Ganguly

Pierobon

Hall³

2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Similar to standing trees in the forests, wood products play an important role in enhancing the global sequestered carbon pool, by retaining the atmospheric carbon in a sequestered form for the duration of the functional life of the wood products. This study uses a temporal radiative forcing analysis along with the functional half-life of different wood products to evaluate the impacts of wood products on global warming, including carbon storage and life cycle greenhouse gas production/extraction emissions. The methodology is applied to Washington State’s aboveground biomass and timber harvest data, and to the State’s comprehensive wood products mix. A moderate harvest rate simulation within Washington Biomass Calculator is used to estimate state harvest level, and statewide wood products manufacturing data is used for developing wood product mix estimates. Using this method, we estimate that the temporal carbon storage leads to a global warming mitigation benefit equivalent to 4.3 million tCO2eq. Even after factoring in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the harvest operations and wood products manufacturing processes, within the temporal model, the results show a net beneficial impact of approximately 1.7 million tCO2eq, on an annual basis. It can further be noted that Washington State’s annual biomass growth in its private forests exceeds its annual harvest, by a significant margin. This net yearly accumulation of biomass in the State’s private forests leads to additional global warming mitigation benefits equivalent to 7.4 million tCO2eq. Based on these results, we conclude that Washington’s private forestry industry is a net global warming mitigator for the State, equivalent to 12% of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2015.

show abstract

“…A key component of new governance systems would be to require operators to publish their assessments of the net effects on atmospheric levels of CO 2 over the full life cycle of their supply chain, including how their feedstock supplies are affecting present and future carbon stocks. Several methodologies for such calculations are available (the UK BEAC model and others recently assessed by Brandao, Kirschbaum, Cowie, & Hjuler, ). Some debate continues over the sensitivity of such assessments to the choice of reference (counterfactual) scenarios (e.g.…”

Section: A Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the production of pellets derived from forestry biomass to replace coal for electricity generation has been increasing, with over 10 million tonnes traded internationally—primarily between United States and Europe but with an increasing trend to Asia. Critical to this trade is the classification of woody biomass as ‘renewable energy’ and thus eligible for public subsidies. However, much scientific study on the net effect of this trend suggests that it is having the opposite effect to that expected of renewable energy, by increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide for substantial periods of time. This review, based on recent work by Europe's Academies of Science, finds that current policies are failing to recognize that removing forest carbon stocks for bioenergy leads to an initial increase in emissions. Moreover, the periods during which atmospheric CO2 levels are raised before forest regrowth can reabsorb the excess emissions are incompatible with the urgency of reducing emissions to comply with the objectives enshrined in the Paris Agreement. We consider how current policy might be reformed to reduce negative impacts on climate and argue for a more realistic science‐based assessment of the potential of forest bioenergy in substituting for fossil fuels. The length of time atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase is highly dependent on the feedstocks and we argue for regulations to explicitly require these to be sources with short payback periods. Furthermore, we describe the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change accounting rules which allow imported biomass to be treated as zero emissions at the point of combustion and urge their revision to remove the risk of these providing incentives to import biomass with negative climate impacts. Reforms such as these would allow the industry to evolve to methods and scales which are more compatible with the basic purpose for which it was designed.

show abstract

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

Cited by 63 publications

References 59 publications

Can biomass supply meet the demands of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

Can biomass supply meet the demands of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

Global Warming Mitigating Role of Wood Products from Washington State’s Private Forests

Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About