Search

Whether the use of industrial wood pellets for bioenergy is part of the problem of climate change or part of the solution to climate change has been heavily debated in the academic and political arena. The uncertainty around this topic is impeded by contradicting scientific assessments of carbon impacts of wood pellet use. Spatially explicit quantification of the potential carbon impacts of increased industrial wood pellet demand, including both indirect market and land-use change effects, is required to understand potential negative impacts on carbon stored in the landscape. Studies that meet these requirements are scarce. This study assesses the impact of increased wood pellet demand on carbon stocks in the landscape in the Southern US spatially explicitly and includes the effects of demand for other wood products and land-use types. The analysis is based on IPCC calculations and highly detailed survey-based biomass data for different forest types. We compare a trend of increased wood pellet demand between 2010 and 2030 with a stable trend in wood pellet demand after 2010, thereby quantifying the impact of increased wood pellet demand on carbon stocks in the landscape. This study shows that modest increases in wood pellets demand (from 0.5 Mt in 2010 to 12.1 Mt in 2030), compared to a scenario without increase in wood pellet demand (stable demand at 0.5 Mt), may result in carbon stock gains of 103–229 Mt in the landscape in the Southern US. These carbon stock increases occur due to a reduction in natural forest loss and an increase in pine plantation area compared to a stable-demand scenario. Projected carbon impacts of changes in wood pellet demand were smaller than carbon effects of trends in the timber market. We introduce a new methodological framework to include both indirect market and land-use change effects into carbon calculations in the landscape. • Whether wood pellets are reducing or exacerbating climate change is heavily debated. • This spatially explicit study includes indirect effects of markets and land-use. • A modest increase in wood pellet demand result in carbon stock gains of 103–229 Mt. • Carbon gains are due to pine plantation expansion and natural forest conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meeting the Paris Agreement will most likely require the combination of CO 2 capture and biomass in the industrial sector, resulting in net negative emissions. CO 2 capture within the industry has been extensively investigated. However, biomass options have been poorly explored, with literature alluding to technical and economic barriers. In addition, a lack of consistency among studies makes comparing the performance of CO 2 capture and/or biomass use between studies and sectors difficult. These inconsistencies include differences in methodology, system boundaries, level of integration, costs, greenhouse gas intensity of feedstock and energy carriers, and capital cost estimations. Therefore, an integrated evaluation of the techno-economic performance regarding CO 2 capture and biomass use was performed for five energy-intensive industrial sub-sectors. Harmonization results indicate that CO 2 mitigation potentials vary for each sub-sector, resulting in reductions of 1.4–2.7 t CO 2 /t steel (77%–149%), 0.7 t CO 2 /t cement (92%), 0.2 t CO 2 /t crude oil (68%), 1.9 t CO 2 /t pulp (1663%–2548%), and 34.9 t CO 2 /t H 2 (313%). Negative emissions can be reached in the steel, paper and H 2 sectors. Novel bio-based production routes might enable net negative emissions in the cement and (petro)chemical sectors as well. All the above-mentioned potentials can be reached for 100 €/t CO 2 or less. Implementing mitigation options could reduce industrial CO 2 emissions by 10 Gt CO 2 /y by 2050, easily meeting the targets of the 2 °C scenario by the International Energy Agency (1.8 Gt CO 2 /y reduction) for the industrial sector and even the Beyond 2 °C scenario (4.2 Gt CO 2 /y reduction). • Literature review on CO 2 mitigation in steel, cement, chemical, H 2 and paper sectors. • Introduction harmonized methodology to allow comparison between industrial sectors. • All investigated sectors have large reduction potentials for <100 €/t CO 2 avoided. • Negative emissions possible in iron/steel, H 2 and paper sectors. • Potential CO 2 emission reduction of 10 Gt/yr in 2050, easily meeting climate target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]