Search

This study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the conversion of garden organic waste into value-added products, namely compost or biochar, employing various processes. Three distinct scenarios are considered: composting garden organic waste followed by screening of oversized materials (CBP), pyrolysis of oversized screenings of compost into biochar AP(I), and in-situ conversion of garden organics into biochar AP(II). A comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted using OpenLCA software and life cycle impact assessment was conducted using Recipe 2016 midpoint methodology. The environmental ramifications of each scenario were assessed, optimising transport distances in AP(II) to achieve a functional unit of one tonne of biochar produced within a cradle-to-gate system boundary. For the first time, this study offers a holistic exploration of the benefits of soil biochar application, extending its scope to climate change mitigation, incorporating the optimisation of transport distance and its influence when scaling up the technology. The results revealed that global warming was increased from 125 kgCO 2 eq during composting of garden waste to 232 kgCO 2 eq where oversized screenings of compost is converted to biochar at an off-site facility. However, direct conversion of the oversized organic waste to biochar, without composting, showed reduced global warming impact of 56 kgCO 2 eq, and is thus the most favourable scenario to limit climate impacts of this fraction of organic garden waste. However, among 18 environmental impact indicators studied, eight indicators were either not influenced or did not significantly increase by transport distance to an off-site pyrolysis facility, while the magnitude of 10 impact indicators increased with transport distance. The insights and methodologies presented in this study hold global relevance, based on an actual case study in regional Australia, offering valuable recommendations for sustainable waste management practices and establishing biochar as a carbon-neutral or carbon-negative solution. The findings contribute to existing waste management knowledge and provide guidance for accessible carbon dioxide removal and soil carbon sequestration technologies. [Display omitted] • A comprehensive LCA for valorisation of garden organics was conducted. • Direct conversion of garden organics to biochar showed least potential environmental impacts. • Biochar provides opportunities for avoided, reduced, and removed carbon from atmosphere. • Maximum transport distance has been identified for individual impact categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is regarded as a crucial negative emission technology (NET) in many prospective climate change mitigation scenarios that limit global warming below 2 °C. However, there is still insufficient understanding of the overall life cycle environmental performance of different BECCS configurations. Despite the fact that BECCS entails many technological combinations, the technology is still regarded as a single "black box" technology in most climate scenarios. This study presents a critical review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on a wide range of BECCS options: biomass direct-fired power generation, biomass gasification power generation, bio-hydrogen production, biomass application in industry sectors and other biomass conversion processes, such as pyrolysis and fermentation. It is evident from the review that the biomass direct-fired and gasification power plant with a 100% biomass firing ratio and the gasification-based bio-hydrogen processes have a strong potential to achieve negative emissions. However, the net negative life cycle emissions range widely among studies for each configuration due to variations in technology, LCA methodology and assumptions. Additionally, there is an insufficient assessment of comprehensive environmental impacts for BECCS systems other than GWP, making it still unclear about the trade-offs between the benefit from climate change mitigation and potential negative impacts. Main recommendations for improving LCA on BECCS include developing a generalized guideline and standardization for BECCS LCA, conducting LCAs with comprehensive impact categories, focusing on BECCS configurations being overlooked, considering the impact of land use change and the global warming potential of biomass, and extending LCA in both temporal and spatial dimension. [Display omitted] • Systematically review of life cycle assessment on BECCS systems. • Detailed review on various biomass conversion technologies. • Net negative life cycle emissions range widely among studies. • Insufficient studies of some biomass conversion pathways. • Insufficient studies on multi-environmental environment impact categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wood and other bio-based building materials are often perceived as a good choice from a climate mitigation perspective. This article compares the life cycle assessment of the same multi-residential building from the perspective of 16 countries participating in the international project Annex 72 of the International Energy Agency to determine the effects of different datasets and methods of accounting for biogenic carbon in wood construction. Three assessment methods are herein considered: two recognized in the standards (the so-called 0/0 method and −1/+1 method) and a variation of the latter (−1/+1* method) used in Australia, Canada, France, and New Zealand. The 0/0 method considers neither fixation in the production stage nor releases of biogenic carbon at the end of a wood product's life. In contrast, the −1/+1 method accounts for the fixation of biogenic carbon in the production stage and its release in the end-of-life stage, irrespective of the disposal scenario (recycling, incineration or landfill). The −1/+1 method assumes that landfills offer only a temporary sequestration of carbon. In the −1/+1* variation, landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and thus fewer emissions are accounted for in the end-of-life stage. We examine the variability of the calculated life cycle-based greenhouse gas emissions calculated for a case study building by each participating country, within the same assessment method and across the methods. The results vary substantially. The main reasons for deviations are whether or not landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and a mismatch in the biogenic carbon balance. Our findings support the need for further research and to develop practical guidelines to harmonize life cycle assessment methods of buildings with bio-based materials. [Display omitted] • Life cycle assessments of the same multi-residential building were carried out by experts from 16 countries. • Effects of methods and datasets of biogenic carbon accounting in wood construction were identified. • Different end-of-life scenarios (incineration, landfill, recycling) cause variations in the results. • Different interpretations of the permanence of storing biogenic carbon in landfills also cause variations in the results. • The input and output flows of biogenic carbon must be balanced to correctly assess its climate change impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The urgent need for climate change mitigation and the potential threat of energy crisis have allowed the popularity of biomass for biofuels to increase. However, the approaches to assess the climate change impacts of biomass utilization are still questionable. To allow a more accurate assessment, we developed a new framework by integrating six impact components including (1) fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) biogenic CO 2 emissions-loss, (3) biogenic CO 2 emissions-combustion, (4) emissions from land-use practice change, (5) regrowth for compensation, and (6) difference in carbon sequestration. To illustrate the performance of the framework, seven case studies, which covered the first-, second-, and third-generation biofuels, were conducted. The majority of the positive impacts were contributed to by the fossil fuel-derived emissions, biogenic CO 2 emissions, and regrowth for compensation. For the first-generation biofuels, the life cycle GHG emissions were much higher than those of energy-equivalent fossil fuels (144 and 218 kg CO 2 /GJ for Soybean-to-Biodiesel and Corn-to-Ethanol). The second- and third-generation biofuels had less accountable positive GHG emissions (−62 to 53 kg CO 2 /GJ) due to the offset of negative impacts from land-use practice change and difference in carbon sequestration. However, the negative effects are not determinist. High uncertainty from model-simulated carbon sequestration and decomposition is perceivable. High life cycle GHG emissions for the second- and third-generation biofuels are possible. Image 1 • A new framework was developed to estimate the GHG emissions from biomass utilization. • Different biomass feedstock and conversion technologies were studied as illustrations. • The GHG emissions from the first-generation biofuels can be higher than fossil fuels. • The second- and third-generation biofuels could have negative climate change impact. • High uncertainty is perceivable from model simulation for regrowth and decomposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, field-specific data was collected from a 10-year experiment in central Spain in which vetch (Vicia sp. L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) were established as cover crops and compared to the traditional fall-winter fallow between two irrigated cash crops, maize (Zea mays L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). The global warming potential (GWP) balance included direct and indirect (nitrous oxide (N 2 O) resulting from the deposition of ammonia (NH 3) or from leached nitrate (NO 3 −)) soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) and albedo, and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 eq) emissions from inputs, irrigation and farm operations. Several scenarios involving i) changes in the termination method of the cover crops, ii) consideration of the application of a distinct nitrogen (N) source (urea, slurry or manure instead of ammonium nitrate) or nitrification inhibitors, iii) employing the same N rate for all treatments (i.e., conventional instead of integrated fertilization), iv) modelling SOC accumulation over a 100-year horizon, and v) using default emission factors, were also analysed. Under the conditions of our experiment, cover crops mitigated yield-scaled emissions by 77.4% (barley) and 91.9% (vetch). Synthetic N fertilization (particularly the industrial production of fertilizer) contributed 38% to the balance of the cover cropping treatments, followed by SOC (22.5%), irrigation (14.7%) and albedo (14.5%). All scenarios led to notable mitigation efficacies, ranging from 39% mitigation (in barley when considering default or non-specific emission factors) to a net CO 2 eq sink (i.e., >100% mitigation) in the scenario consisting of the replacement of ammonium nitrate by urea or organic fertilizers although with side effects on NH 3 volatilization and/or yields. Based on these results, the combined use of cover cropping and integrated soil fertility management could lead to the design of C-neutral irrigated cropping systems in semi-arid regions. Image 1 • Vetch and barley as cover crops abated net GWP by 90% and 75%, respectively, in comparison to fallow. • Synthetic N fertilization (particularly the industrial production) contributed 38% to GWP. • Soil organic C, albedo change and irrigation were also important GWP components. • All scenarios led to notable mitigation efficacies, ranging from 39% to a net CO 2 eq sink. • Improving N management enhanced the GWP mitigation potential of cover crops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental assessment of pig production systems using local breeds remains poorly documented in the literature. So far, studies did not account for specificities of outdoor rearing which is quite common in such systems. The present study aimed at evaluating the environmental impacts of pig production systems using local breeds in Europe, while accounting for emissions associated to consumption of grass and mitigation of impacts through soil-C sequestration. Environmental impacts were estimated for 48 farms using local pig breeds: 25 in France (Gascon breed), eight in Italy (Mora Romagnola breed) and 15 in Slovenia (Krškopolje breed). Assessment was performed with and without accounting for pasture-intake emissions and potential soil-C sequestration. The data were obtained from on-farm surveys. Systems with Gascon pigs had the lowest impacts per kg of live weight for global warming and cumulative energy demand, due to lower impacts of feeds. Acidification potential was higher for Krškopolje pigs due to high dietary crude protein content and high AP of feeds, while eutrophication potential was higher for Gascon pigs due to higher phosphorus content of feeds (28% higher than the mean of the other farms). When impacts were expressed per ha of land use, pig production in Gascon farms had the lowest impacts due to more available area per pig, except for eutrophication. Low contribution of soil-C sequestration to climate change mitigation was observed (4.7% on average). However, it may have a substantial contribution for the most extensive pig systems using large land surfaces. Emissions resulting from grazing had a rather low contribution to Global Warming Potential (4%) and Eutrophication (3%), but a substantial one to Acidification impact (9% on average). In the frame of our study, the contribution of emissions related to grazing is moderate because commercial feed supply for outdoor pigs was higher than in extensive systems studied in literature. This study highlighted that main hotspots include feed composition and supply and the origin of feed ingredients. It also suggests that future assessments of extensive pig systems relying on pig foraging on grasslands or rangelands should account for soil-C sequestration and emissions associated to grazing and foraging. • Grazing emissions and potential carbon sequestration were estimated. • Farms had great variability in environmental impacts. • Systems relying the most directly on natural resources had the lowest impacts. • Outdoor systems can reduce CO 2 emissions by sequestering carbon. • Feed composition, supply and feedstuffs origin are hotspots for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]