Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Kalt, Gerald; Mayer, Andreas; Theurl, Michaela C.; Lauk, Christian; Erb, Karl‐Heinz; Haberl, Helmut

doi:10.1111/gcbb.12626

Cited by 49 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(96 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, recent studies have highlighted the C benefits achievable through re-or afforestation This option of using spare land for climate-change mitigation, be it through targeted afforestation or simply by allowing agricultural land to regrow vegetation ('regrowth case'), has been acknowledged as natural alternative to producing biomass for bioenergy (Haberl et al 2012, Kalt et al 2019. We here consider vegetation regrowth as default counterfactual scenario to energy crop production, and calculate GHG costs as the difference between C stock changes achieved through regrowth (without harvesting) and C stock changes resulting from establishing energy crop plantations (which are harvested periodically).…”

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We consider regionally specific energy crop yields, dependence on soil types, climatic conditions and the type of 'natural' vegetation in the respective area and determine representative values for each world region and type of agricultural land by calculating weighted averages on the basis of spatially explicit data. For a detailed description of the methodological approach, see Kalt et al (2019) and SI.…”

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Regionally specific energy crop yields (short rotation coppice) according to Kalt et al (2019) • The 'counterfactual scenario', i.e. the missed opportunity of freeing up land for vegetation regrowth is factored in; compared to this alternative, energy plantations have lower C stocks (see Kalt et al 2019).…”

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to energy crop yields, we assume the regionally specific values according to Kalt et al (2019).…”

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, a GHG comparison on the level of primary energy, as shown in figure 7, is of limited significance. A thorough analysis of the net GHG balance of agricultural bioenergy with consideration of the various biomass conversion paths and their fossil-based counterparts is, however, beyond the scope of this work (see Kalt et al 2019).…”

Section: Considerations On Applications Of Ghg-costs Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Greenhouse gas implications of mobilizing agricultural biomass for energy: a reassessment of global potentials in 2050 under different food-system pathways

Kalt

Lauk

Mayer

et al. 2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global bioenergy potentials have been the subject of extensive research and continued controversy. Due to vast uncertainties regarding future yields, diets and other influencing parameters, estimates of future agricultural biomass potentials vary widely. Most scenarios compatible with ambitious climate targets foresee a large expansion of bioenergy, mainly from energy crops that needs to be kept consistent with projections of agriculture and food production. Using the global biomass balance model BioBaM, we here present an assessment of agricultural bioenergy potentials compatible with the Food and Agriculture Organization's (2018) 'Alternative pathways to 2050' projections. Mobilizing biomass at larger scales may be associated with systemic feedbacks causing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, e.g. crop residue removal resulting in loss of soil carbon stocks and increased emissions from fertilization. To assess these effects, we derive 'GHG cost supply-curves', i.e. integrated representations of biomass potentials and their systemic GHG costs. Livestock manure is most favourable in terms of GHG costs, as anaerobic digestion yields reductions of GHG emissions from manure management. Global potentials from intensive livestock systems are about 5 EJ/yr. Crop residues can provide up to 20 EJ/yr at moderate GHG costs. For energy crops, we find that the medium range of literature estimates (∼40 to 90 EJ/yr) is only compatible with FAO yield and human diet projections if energy plantations expand into grazing areas (∼4-5 million km 2 ) and grazing land is intensified globally. Direct carbon stock changes associated with perennial energy crops are beneficial for climate mitigation, yet there are-sometimes considerable -'opportunity GHG costs' if one accounts the foregone opportunity of afforestation. Our results indicate that the large potentials of energy crops foreseen in many energy scenarios are not freely and unconditionally available. Disregarding systemic effects in agriculture can result in misjudgement of GHG saving potentials and flawed climate mitigation strategies. REN21 2019), have been the subject of extensive research (e.g. Fischer and Schrattenholzer

show abstract

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to energy crop yields, we assume the regionally specific values according to Kalt et al (2019).…”

Section: Energy Cropsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Considerations On Applications Of Ghg-costs Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Greenhouse gas implications of mobilizing agricultural biomass for energy: a reassessment of global potentials in 2050 under different food-system pathways

Kalt

Lauk

Mayer

et al. 2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Renewable Energy from Wildflowers—Perennial Wild Plant Mixtures as a Social‐Ecologically Sustainable Biomass Supply System

Cossel

2020

Advanced Sustainable Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing bioeconomy requires increasing amounts of biomass from residues, wastes, and industrial crops for bio‐based products and bioenergy. There is much discussion about how industrial crop cultivation could promote social–ecological outcomes such as environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, food security, greenhouse gas mitigation, and landscape appearance. In Germany, maize (Zea mays L.) is the main biogas substrate source, despite being associated with problems such as erosion, biodiversity losses, an increase in wild boar populations and lowered landscape diversity. The cultivation of perennial wild plant mixtures (WPM) addresses many of these problems. Despite being less developed than maize, WPM cultivation has received notable attention among scientists in Germany over the past decade. This is mainly because WPMs clearly outperform maize in social–ecological measures, despite their methane yield performance. This review summarizes and discusses the results of 12 years of research and practice with WPMs as a social‐ecologically more benign bioenergy cropping system.

show abstract

Renewable Energy from Wildflowers—Perennial Wild Plant Mixtures as a Social‐Ecologically Sustainable Biomass Supply System

Cossel¹

2020

Advanced Sustainable Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Against this backdrop, industrial crop cultivation, is far more promising. [20] There exists a wide range of industrial crops, many of which with well documented and researched cultivation techniques and utilization pathways (Table 1). [19,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Second, the potential cultivation area for industrial crops reaches from the tropics to the northern Atlantic and continental zones. [19,[30][31][32][33][34] Furthermore, industrial crop cultivation can mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through bio sequestration [35] and through bioenergy to carbon capture and storage (BECCS) strategies. [1] This is because the below-ground fraction of the crop (the root system) remains in the soil and contributes to humus accumulation. [1,24,[36][37][38][39] In the long-term, humus accumulation even promises to rehabilitate degraded land and make it suitable for food crop cultivation again. [38,[40][41][42][43] For both algae cultivation and the use of residues from agriculture and wood industry, neither BECCS nor the recovery of degraded land is practicable. Consequently, biomass supply from industrial crops seems a more reasonable solution from a broader perspective-but how can industrial crop cultivation be expanded without compromising environmental and social needs?From an ethical perspective, industrial crop cultivation should generally not compete with other land uses such as food crop cultivation and natural successions, so that neither food security nor biodiversity conservation are threatened. [147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154] Both food security and biodiversity conservation are high on the agenda of the United Nations' sustainability development goals. [155,156] These can be realized through both land saving and land sharing approaches. [151,152] The utilization of favorable agricultural land for industrial crop cultivation should be restricted to social-ecologically sustainable land sharing concepts, e.g., wide crop rotations including both food crops and industrial crops. [23,[157][158][159][160][161][162] The land saving concept, i.e., cultivating industrial crops on unfavorable agricultural land-so-called "marginal agricultural land" [163] -thus saving the favorable agricultural land for food crop cultivation, is limited by biophysical constraints such as adverse rooting conditions and climatic conditions or economic challenges such as inconvenient field shapes and long field-farm distances. [19,25,88,89,[164][165][166][167] Additionally, the intensive (industrial) cultivation of common cash crops such as sugar cane, oil palm, rape seed, and maize often requires high off-farm inputs such as nitrogen (N) fertilizer herbicides, or insecticides. [1,153,[168][169][170] Intense usage of these A growing bioeconomy requires increasing amounts of biomass from residues, wastes, and industrial crops for bio-based products and bioenergy. There is much discussion about how industrial crop cultivation could promote socialecological outcomes such as environmental protection, biodiversity conservat...

show abstract

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Cited by 49 publications

References 73 publications

Greenhouse gas implications of mobilizing agricultural biomass for energy: a reassessment of global potentials in 2050 under different food-system pathways

Greenhouse gas implications of mobilizing agricultural biomass for energy: a reassessment of global potentials in 2050 under different food-system pathways

Renewable Energy from Wildflowers—Perennial Wild Plant Mixtures as a Social‐Ecologically Sustainable Biomass Supply System

Renewable Energy from Wildflowers—Perennial Wild Plant Mixtures as a Social‐Ecologically Sustainable Biomass Supply System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About