Search

This study investigates the life cycle GHG emissions of jet fuel produced via the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathway from canola grown in western Canada, with a focus on characterizing regional influences on emissions. We examine the effects of geographic variations in soil type, agricultural inputs, farming practices, and direct land use changes on life cycle GHG emissions. We utilize GREET 2016 but replace default feedstock production inputs with geographically representative data for canola production across eight western Canadian regions (representing 99% of Canada's canola production) and replace the default conversion process with data from a novel process model previously developed in ASPEN in our research group wherein oil extraction is integrated with the HEFA‐based fuel production process. Although canola production inputs and yields vary across the regions, resulting life cycle GHG emissions are similar if effects of land use and land management changes (LMC) are not included; 44–48 g CO2e/MJ for the eight regions (45%–50% reduction compared to petroleum jet fuel). Results are considerably more variable, 16–58 g CO2e/MJ, when including effects of land use and LMC directly related to conversion of lands from other uses to canola production (34%–82% reduction compared to petroleum jet fuel). We establish the main sources of emissions in the life cycle of canola jet fuel (N‐fertilizer and related emissions, fuel production), identify that substantially higher emissions may occur when using feedstock sourced from regions where conversion of forested land to cropland had occurred, and identify benefits of less intense tillage practices and increased use of summerfallow land. The methods and findings are relevant in jurisdictions internationally that are incorporating GHG emissions reductions from aviation fuels in a low carbon fuel market or legislating carbon intensity reduction requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional cost-effectiveness calculations ignore the implications of greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions timing and thus may not properly inform decision-makers in the efficient allocation of resources to mitigate climate change. To begin to address this disconnect with climate change science, we modify the conventional cost-effectiveness approach to account for emissions timing. GHG emissions flows occurring over time are translated into an 'Equivalent Present Emission' based on radiative forcing, enabling a comparison of system costs and emissions on a consistent present time basis. We apply this 'Present Cost-Effectiveness' method to case studies of biomass-based electricity generation (biomass co-firing with coal, biomass cogeneration) to evaluate implications of forest carbon trade-offs on the cost-effectiveness of emission reductions. Bioenergy production from forest biomass can reduce forest carbon stocks, an immediate emissions source that contributes to atmospheric greenhouse gases. Forest carbon impacts thereby lessen emission reductions in the near-term relative to the assumption of biomass 'carbon neutrality', resulting in higher costs of emission reductions when emissions timing is considered. In contrast, conventional cost-effectiveness approaches implicitly evaluate strategies over an infinite analytical time horizon, underestimating nearer term emissions reduction costs and failing to identify pathways that can most efficiently contribute to climate change mitigation objectives over shorter time spans (e.g. up to 100 years). While providing only a simple representation of the climate change implications of emissions timing, the Present Cost-Effectiveness method provides a straightforward approach to assessing the cost-effectiveness of emission reductions associated with any climate change mitigation strategy where future GHG reductions require significant initial capital investment or increase near-term emissions. Timing is a critical factor in determining the attractiveness of any investment; accounting for emissions timing can better inform decisions related to the merit of alternative resource uses to meet near-, mid-, and long-term climate change mitigation objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forest bioenergy can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions associated with energy production. We assessed changes in GHG emissions resulting from displacement of coal with wood pellets for the Atikokan Generating Station located in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Two contrasting biomass sources were considered for continuous wood pellet production: harvest residue from current harvest operations (residue scenario) and fibre from expanded harvest of standing live trees (stemwood scenario). For the stemwood scenario, two metrics were used to assess the effects of displacing coal with forest biomass on GHG emissions: (i) time to carbon sequestration parity, defined as the time from the beginning of harvest to when the combined GHG benefit of displacing coal with biomass and the amount of carbon in regenerating forest equalled the amount of forest carbon without harvest for energy production; and (ii) time to carbon debt repayment, defined as the time from the beginning of harvest to when the combined GHG benefit of displacing coal with biomass and the amount of carbon in the regenerating forest equalled forest carbon at the time of harvest. Only time to carbon sequestration parity was used for the residue scenario. In the residue scenario, carbon sequestration parity was achieved within 1 year. In the stemwood scenario, times to carbon sequestration parity and carbon debt repayment were 91 and 112 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates were robust when parameter values were varied. Modelling experiments showed that increasing growth rates for regenerating stands in the stemwood scenario could substantially reduce time to carbon sequestration parity. We discuss the use of the two metrics (time to carbon sequestration parity and time to carbon debt repayment) for assessing the effects of forest bioenergy projects on GHG emissions and make recommendations on terminology and methodologies for forest bioenergy studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Replacement of fossil fuels with sustainably produced biomass crops for energy purposes has the potential to make progress in addressing climate change concerns, nonrenewable resource use, and energy security. The perennial grass Miscanthus is a dedicated energy crop candidate being field tested in Ontario, Canada, and elsewhere. Miscanthus could potentially be grown in areas of the province that differ substantially in terms of agricultural land class, environmental factors and current land use. These differences could significantly affect Miscanthus yields, input requirements, production practices, and the types of crops being displaced by Miscanthus establishment. This study assesses implications on life cycle greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions of these differences through evaluating five Miscanthus production scenarios within the Ontario context. Emissions associated with electricity generation with Miscanthus pellets in a hypothetically retrofitted coal generating station are examined. Indirect land use change impacts are not quantified but are discussed. The net life cycle emissions for Miscanthus production varied greatly among scenarios (−90-170 kg CO2eq per oven dry tonne of Miscanthus bales at the farm gate). In some cases, the carbon stock dynamics of the agricultural system offset the combined emissions of all other life cycle stages (i.e., production, harvest, transport, and processing of biomass). Yield and soil C of the displaced agricultural systems are key parameters affecting emissions. The systems with the highest potential to provide reductions in GHG emissions are those with high yields, or systems established on land with low soil carbon. All scenarios have substantially lower life cycle emissions (−20-190 g CO2eq kWh−1) compared with coal-generated electricity (1130 g CO2eq kWh−1). Policy development should consider the implication of land class, environmental factors, and current land use on Miscanthus production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]