Search

Abstract Forest-based bioenergy plays an important role in climate mitigation for limiting global mean temperature increase to below 2 °C. The greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of three forest-based bioenergy systems from the USA, Canada and Spain supplying wood pellets for electricity in the UK were evaluated by conducting lifecycle assessments and forest carbon modelling of the three forest systems. Cumulative emissions were analysed by calculating the forest carbon stock change and net GHG emissions balance of the forest-based bioenergy electricity. The analysis considered both the replacement of the existing electricity mix with bioenergy electricity and forest management with and without bioenergy use. The supply chain emissions and forest carbon balances indicated that GHG emission reductions are possible. However, the cumulative net GHG balance at forest landscape scale revealed that the reduction potential is limited, potentially with no GHG reductions in fast growing forests with shorter rotations, while slow growing forest systems with longer rotations result in greater GHG reductions. This means that the maximum climate benefit is delivered at a different point in time for different forest systems. To evaluate the climate change mitigation potential of forest-based bioenergy it is therefore necessary to consider the management, utilisation and relevant counterfactual of the whole forest and its products. In terms of climate change mitigation potential and minimising possible negative impacts that would require multi-level governance. Highlights • Net GHG balance shows GHG reduction potential of forest bioenergy is limited. • Results are dependent on methods, system boundaries and reference system. • Mitigation potential depends on forest management and whole forest product basket. • Multi-level governance framework require to track wider impacts of forest bioenergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: While issues of land-use have been considered in many direct analyses of biomass systems, little attention has heretofore been paid to land-use in reference fossil systems. Here we address this limitation by comparing forest biomass systems to reference fossil systems with explicit consideration of land-use in both systems. We estimate and compare the time profiles of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and cumulative radiative forcing (CRF) of woody biomass systems and reference fossil systems. A life cycle perspective is used that includes all significant elements of both systems, including GHG emissions along the full material and energy chains. We consider the growth dynamics of forests under different management regimes, as well as energy and material substitution effects of harvested biomass. We determine the annual net emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4 for each system over a 240-year period, and then calculate time profiles of CRF as a proxy measurement of climate change impact. The results show greatest potential for climate change mitigation when intensive forest management is applied in the woody biomass system. This methodological framework provides a tool to help determine optimal strategies for managing forests so as to minimize climate change impacts. The inclusion of land-use in the reference system improves the accuracy of quantitative projections of climate benefits of biomass-based systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this study we analyze and compare the climate impacts from the recovery, transport and combustion of forest residues (harvest slash and stumps), versus the climate impacts that would have occurred if the residues were left in the forest and fossil fuels used instead. We use cumulative radiative forcing (CRF) as an indicator of climate impacts, and we explicitly consider the temporal dynamics of atmospheric carbon dioxide and biomass decomposition. Over a 240-year period, we find that CRF is significantly reduced when forest residues are used instead of fossil fuels. The type of fossil fuel replaced is important, with coal replacement giving the greatest CRF reduction. Replacing oil and fossil gas also gives long-term CRF reduction, although CRF is positive during the first 10–25 years when these fuels are replaced. Biomass productivity is also important, with more productive forests giving greater CRF reduction per hectare. The decay rate for biomass left in the forest is found to be less significant. Fossil energy inputs for biomass recovery and transport have very little impact on CRF. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In this study we analyze the primary energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of increasing biomass production by fertilizing 10% of Swedish forest land. We estimate the primary energy use and GHG emissions from forest management including production and application of N and NPK fertilizers. Based on modelled growth response, we then estimate the net primary energy and GHG benefits of using biomaterials and biofuels obtained from the increased forest biomass production. The results show an increased annual biomass harvest of 7.4 million t dry matter, of which 41% is large-diameter stemwood. About 6.9 PJ/year of additional primary energy input is needed for fertilizer production and forest management. Using the additional biomass for fuel and material substitution can reduce fossil primary energy use by 150 or 164 PJ/year if the reference fossil fuel is fossil gas or coal, respectively. About 22% of the reduced fossil energy use is due to material substitution and the remainder is due to fuel substitution. The net annual primary energy benefit corresponds to about 7% of Sweden''s total primary energy use. The resulting annual net GHG emission reduction is 11.9 million or 18.1 million tCO2equiv if the reference fossil fuel is fossil gas or coal, respectively, corresponding to 18% or 28% of the total Swedish GHG emissions in 2007. A significant one-time carbon stock increase also occurs in wood products and forest tree biomass. These results suggest that forest fertilization is an attractive option for increasing energy security and reducing net GHG emission. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]