Search

• Substitution factors for forest products for the Canadian context were developed. • Substitution factors ranging from 0.51 to 0.91 tC/tC were found. • They will lead to more accurate assessments of the forest GHG mitigation potential. • These factors will help governments to manage forest and fight climate change. Evaluating the climate change mitigation potential of the forest sector requires a holistic approach based on forest carbon (C) sequestration, C storage in harvested wood products (HWP) and substitution on markets. High uncertainty is associated with substitution factors, that express avoided fossil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of forest-based products in replacement of GHG-intensive materials and fossil fuels. Few studies have focused on the development of substitution factors in Canada, resulting in the use of unrepresentative generic data. Here, we provide a framework to reduce uncertainties related to substitution factors for primary wood products in a Canadian context. A life cycle assessment framework is used to quantify fossil GHG emissions for a baseline and a wood-intensive scenario. For solid product substitution, we focused on the construction sector and analyzed a range of innovative wood buildings with steel and reinforced concrete as alternative materials. We found non-weighted averages of 0.80 tC/tC for sawnwood and 0.81 tC/tC for panels. For energy substitution, we analyzed cases with different specifications on biomass product, facility type and alternative fossil fuel source in non-residential heat production and biofuel transportation sectors. We found a non-weighted average of 0.80 tC/tC for non-residential heat production and 0.51 tC/tC for biofuel transportation, that can be interpreted as 0.91 tC/tC for heavy fuel oil, 0.69 tC/tC for light fuel oil and 0.68 tC/tC for natural gas substitution. These results provide a benchmark for substitution factors in Canada, to help guide forest management strategies for climate change mitigation. [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]