Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system

Koponen, Kati; Soimakallio, Sampo; Kline, Keith L.; Cowie, Annette; Brandão, Miguel

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.292

Cited by 58 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By excluding the avoided process of landfilling from analysis and considering incineration (System A) as a reference system for this study, the LCA outcomes are substantially changed ( Figure 2 and Table 1), indicating the effect the selection of the reference system, to compare with, has on the final results of LCA studies. This has been discussed in publications like (Koponen, Soimakallio, Kline, Cowie, & Brandão, 2018), though not for biochar case. The reference system is the status quo that prevails in the absence of bioenergy or biochar production from the biomass (Cowie et al, 2015).…”

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental analysis of producing biochar and energy recovery from pulp and paper mill biosludge

Mohammadi

Sandberg

Venkatesh

et al. 2019

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sweden is one of the largest exporters of pulp and paper products in the world. It follows that huge quantities of sludge rich in carbonaceous organic material and containing heavy metals are generated. This paper carried out a comparative environmental analysis of three different technologies, which can be adopted to produce biochar and recover energy from the biosludge, using landfilling as the reference case. These three thermochemical biosludge management systems—using incineration, pyrolysis, and hydrothermal carbonization (HTC)—were modeled using life cycle assessment (LCA). Heat generated in the incineration process (System A) was considered to be for captive consumption within the kraft pulp mills. It was assumed that the biochars—pyrochar and hydrochar—produced from pyrolysis (System B) and HTC (System C), respectively, were added to the forest soils. The LCA results show that all the alternative systems considerably improve the environmental performance of biosludge management, relative to landfilling. For all systems, there are net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (–0.89, –1.43, and –1.13 tonnes CO2‐equivalent per tonne dry matter biosludge in Systems A, B, and C, respectively). System B resulted in the lowest potential eutrophication and terrestrial ecotoxicity impacts, whereas System C had the least acidification potential. The results of this analysis show that, from an environmental point of view, biochar soil amendment as an alternative method for handling pulp and paper mill biosludge is preferable to energy recovery. However, an optimal biochar system needs to factor in the social and economic contexts as well.

show abstract

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental analysis of producing biochar and energy recovery from pulp and paper mill biosludge

Mohammadi

Sandberg

Venkatesh

et al. 2019

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, other targets in renewable electricity generation and renewable energy in gross end-use energy could still require similar levels of biomass feedstock. In addition, carbon mitigation effects of the chemical/material use of biomass vary significantly according to the source of biomass and the reference land use system (Koponen et al, 2018;Welfle, Gilbert, Thornley, & Stephenson, 2017).…”

Section: Limitations Of Modeling Bioeconomy Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, there is uncertainty about their actual GHG mitigation effects due to potential GHG leakage via indirect land use change (iLUC) (Laborde, 2011;Searchinger et al, 2008;Valin et al, 2015). Depending on the reference land system (Koponen, Soimakallio, Kline, Cowie, & Brandão, 2018) and biomass origin (Richard et al, 2018), the GHG mitigation effect of bioenergy varies significantly. It is necessary to increase biomass use efficiency while ensuring food security and its actual environmental effects in GHG mitigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential trade‐offs of employing perennial biomass crops for the bioeconomy in the EU by 2050: Impacts on agricultural markets in the EU and the world

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perennial biomass crops (PBC) are considered a crucial feedstock for sustainable biomass supply to the bioeconomy that compete less with food production compared to traditional crops. However, large‐scale development of PBC as a means to reach greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets would require not only the production on land previously not used for agriculture, but also the use of land that is currently used for agricultural production. This study aims to evaluate agricultural market impacts with biomass demand for food, feed, and PBC in four bioeconomy scenarios (“Business as usual,” “Improved relevance of bioeconomy,” “Extensive transformation to a bioeconomy,” “Extensive transformation to a bioeconomy with diet change”) to achieve a 75% GHG reduction target in the emission trading sector of the EU until 2050. We simulated bioeconomy scenarios in the energy system model TIMES‐PanEU and the agricultural sector model ESIM and conducted a sensitivity analysis considering crop yields, PBC yields, and land use options of PBC. Our results show that all bioeconomy scenarios except the one with diet change lead to increasing food prices (the average food price index increases by about 11% in the EU and 2.5%–3.0% in world markets). A combination of the transformation to a bioeconomy combined with diet change toward less animal protein in the EU is the only scenario that results in only moderately increasing food prices within the EU (+3.0%) and even falling global food prices (–6.4%). In addition, crop yield improvement and cultivation of PBC on marginal land help to reduce increases in food prices, but higher land prices are inevitable because those measures have only small effects on sparing agricultural land for PBC. For a transition to a bioeconomy that acknowledges climate mitigation targets, counter‐measures for those substantial direct and indirect impacts on agricultural markets should be taken into account.

show abstract

“…Timber price and supply inelasticity both influence the amount of biomass available for wood pellet production, and it is important to recognize that local demand and supply conditions vary across the SE US. Transparently documenting counterfactual assumptions is essential for proper interpretation of bioenergy assessments given that assessment outcomes are determined by the choices associated with many different variables and assumptions …”

Section: Potential Future Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference scenarios for evaluating wood pellet production in the Southeastern United States

Parish

Dale

Kline

et al. 2017

WIREs Energy & Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wood pellet exports from the Southeastern United States (SE US) to Europe have been increasing in response to European Union member state policies to displace coal with renewable biomass for electricity generation. An understanding of the interactions among SE US forest markets, forest management, and forest ecosystem services is required to quantify the effects of pellet production compared to what would be expected under a reference case or ‘counterfactual scenario’ without pellet production. Inconsistent methods to define and justify the counterfactual scenario result in conflicting estimates and large uncertainties about the impacts of pellet production on SE US forests. Guidelines to support more consistent and transparent counterfactual scenarios are proposed. The guidelines include identifying major influences on current SE US forest conditions, developing potential futures that clearly document underlying assumptions and associated uncertainties, identifying the most likely alternative feedstock fates, and estimating the effects of no pellet demand on future forest conditions. The guidelines can help modelers to more accurately reflect the past and current forest dynamics and to consider the implications for SE US forest landscapes of future scenarios with and without pellet production. WIREs Energy Environ 2017, 6:e259. doi: 10.1002/wene.259 This article is categorized under: Bioenergy > Climate and Environment Energy and Climate > Climate and Environment Energy and Development > Climate and Environment

show abstract

Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system

Cited by 58 publications

References 68 publications

Environmental analysis of producing biochar and energy recovery from pulp and paper mill biosludge

Environmental analysis of producing biochar and energy recovery from pulp and paper mill biosludge

Potential trade‐offs of employing perennial biomass crops for the bioeconomy in the EU by 2050: Impacts on agricultural markets in the EU and the world

Reference scenarios for evaluating wood pellet production in the Southeastern United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About