Search

Policy initiatives have motivated a search for environmentally sustainable alternatives to fossil-fuel-based electricity generation. Agricultural residues such as corn cobs may be a suitable feedstock. A life cycle approach was used to estimate the greenhouse gas ( GHG) emission impacts associated with the use of pellets produced from corn cobs as the sole fuel for the generation of electricity at a hypothetically retrofitted coal-fired generating station in Ontario, Canada. Pellets are compared with current coal and hypothetical natural gas combined cycle ( NGCC) facilities. A life cycle model and soil carbon model calibrated for the agricultural region of interest were combined to quantify the GHG emissions of the biomass product system. The corn cob product system's life cycle emissions (240 g CO2eq kWh−1) are 40% and 80% lower than those of the NGCC and coal product systems, respectively. If corn cobs are left in the field to decompose, some carbon is sequestered in the soil, thus their removal from the field and combustion at the generation station represents a net GHG emission, accounting for 60% of life cycle emissions. In addition to the GHG impacts of combustion, removing agricultural residues from fields may reduce soil health, increase erosion and affect soil fertility through loss of soil organic carbon and nutrients. Their sustainable use should therefore consider the maintenance of soil fertility over the long-term. Nevertheless, the use of the feedstock in place of coal may provide substantial GHG emissions mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) program in North America was recently implemented in Ontario, Canada to stimulate the generation of electricity from renewable sources. The life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and economics of electricity generation through anaerobic digestion (AD) of household source-separated organic waste (HSSOW) are investigated within the FiT program. AD can potentially provide considerable GHG emission reductions (up to 1 t CO2eq/t HSSOW) at relatively low to moderate cost (-$35 to 160/t CO2eq) by displacing fossil electricity and preventing the emission of landfill gas. It is a cost-effective GHG mitigation option compared to some other FiT technologies (e.g., wind, solar photovoltaic) and provides unique additional benefits (waste diversion, nutrient recycling). The combination of electricity sales at a premium rate, savings in waste management costs, and economies of scale allow AD facilities processing >30,000 t/yr to be cost-competitive against landfilling. However, the FiT does not sufficiently support smaller-scale facilities that are needed as a transition to larger, more economically viable facilities. Refocusing of the FiT program and waste policies are needed to support the adoption of AD of HSSOW, which has not yet been developed in the Province, while more costly technologies (e.g., photovoltaic) have been deployed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Forestry Chronicle is the property of Canadian Institute of Forestry and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on greenhouse gas emissions coming from municipal solid waste facilities. In the authors' case study, they used four waste emissions quantification methods that include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Reduction Model on greater Toronto, Ontario's waste disposal data. They discovered that the IPCC2006 method was the way to evaluate the effectivity of waste management programs.

We examined life cycle environmental and economic implications of two near-term scenarios for converting cellulosic biomass to energy, generating electricity from cofiring biomass in existing coal power plants, and producing ethanol from biomass in stand-alone facilities in Ontario, Canada. The study inventories near-term biomass supply in the province, quantifies environmental metrics associated with the use of agricultural residues for producing electricity and ethanol, determines the incremental costs of switching from fossil fuels to biomass, and compares the cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollutant emissions abatement achieved through the use of the bioenergy. Implementing a biomass cofiring rate of 10% in existing coal-fired power plants would reduce annual GHG emissions by 2.3 million metric tons (t) of CO2 equivalent (7% of the province's coal power plant emissions). The substitution of gasoline with ethanol/ gasoline blends would reduce annual provincial light-duty vehicle fleet emissions between 1.3 and 2.5 million t of CO2 equivalent (3.5-7% of fleet emissions). If biomass sources other than agricultural residues were used, additional emissions reductions could be realized. At current crude oil prices ($70/barrel) and levels of technology development of the bioenergy alternatives, the biomass electricity cofiring scenario analyzed is more cost-effective for mitigating GHG emissions ($22/t of CO2 equivalent for a 10% cofiring rate) than the stand-alone ethanol production scenario ($92/t of CO2 equivalent). The economics of biomass cofiring benefits from existing capital, whereas the cellulosic ethanol scenario does not. Notwithstanding this result, there are several factors that increase the attractiveness of ethanol. These include uncertainty in crude oil prices, potential for marked improvements in cellulosic ethanol technology and economics, the province's commitment to 5% ethanol content in gasoline, the possibility of ethanol production benefiting from existing capital, and there being few alternatives for moderate-to-large-scale GHG emissions reductions in the transportation sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing life cycle assessments of concrete containing supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) hinge on methodological procedures that might skew the results towards the conclusion that increasing the use of SCMs in concrete always decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These procedures relate to the treatment of co-products and selection of functional units. Co-production is typically addressed via cut-off procedures and by-products are always considered to be unconstrained resources, while functional units often do not account for exposure conditions and concrete properties such as strength and workability. To address this limitation, the aim of this study was to investigate the GHG benefits of using SCMs by (1) adopting different approaches to solve multifunctionality (cut-off vs. substitution) and (2) including strength, workability and exposure conditions of concrete in the functional unit. Ontario (Canada) was used as case study, and both SCMs currently used there (i.e., slag, silica fume and metakaolin) and a wide range of alternative cementitious materials used around the world (i.e., fly ash, oil shale ash, calcium carbide residue, volcanic ash, coal bottom ash and rice husk ash) were investigated. The new contribution of this study reveals that different conclusions can be drawn when different methodological procedures are adopted. If the market for SCM is constrained (i.e., by-products are already fully utilized) and the unconstrained alternative on the market is Portland cement, the benefits of using SCM are greatly reduced, or even reversed, if the substitution approach is adopted. In contrast, unconstrained SCMs result in considerable GHG savings unless they significantly reduce the water-to-binder ratio to reach a prescribed strength and require long distance transport. • Market constraints of SCMs should be included in LCA studies of concrete. • Concrete properties and exposure conditions must be included in the functional unit. • If the SCM is constrained, overall GHG benefits of using it are greatly reduced. • Increasing SCMs in concrete does not always decrease its GHG emissions. • The use of alternative unconstrained SCMs should be further explored and promoted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]