Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel

Under the current accounting systems, emissions produced when biomass is burnt for energy are accounted as zero, resulting in what is referred to as the ‘carbon neutrality’ assumption. However, if current harvest levels are increased to produce more bioenergy, carbon that would have been stored in the biosphere might be instead released in the atmosphere. This study utilizes a comparative approach that considers emissions under alternative energy supply options. This approach shows that the emission benefits of bioenergy compared to use of fossil fuel are time‐dependent. It emerges that the assumption that bioenergy always results in zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to use of fossil fuels can be misleading, particularly in the context of short‐to‐medium term goals. While it is clear that all sources of woody bioenergy from sustainably managed forests will produce emission reductions in the long term, different woody biomass sources have various impacts in the short‐medium term. The study shows that the use of forest residues that are easily decomposable can produce GHG benefits compared to use of fossil fuels from the beginning of their use and that biomass from dedicated plantations established on marginal land can be carbon neutral from the beginning of its use. However, the risk of short‐to‐medium term negative impacts is high when additional fellings are extracted to produce bioenergy and the proportion of felled biomass used for bioenergy is low, or when land with high C stocks is converted to low productivity bioenergy plantations. The method used in the study provides an instrument to identify the time‐dependent pattern of emission reductions for alternative bioenergy sources. In this way, decision makers can evaluate which bioenergy options are most beneficial for meeting short‐term GHG emission reduction goals and which ones are more appropriate for medium to longer term objectives.     

Trade‐offs between land and water requirements for large‐scale bioenergy production

Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in the future energy mix as it can substitute fossil fuels and contribute to climate change mitigation. However, large‐scale bioenergy cultivation may put substantial pressure on land and water resources. While irrigated bioenergy production can reduce the pressure on land due to higher yields, associated irrigation water requirements may lead to degradation of freshwater ecosystems and to conflicts with other potential users. In this article, we investigate the trade‐offs between land and water requirements of large‐scale bioenergy production. To this end, we adopt an exogenous demand trajectory for bioenergy from dedicated energy crops, targeted at limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector to 1100 Gt carbon dioxide equivalent until 2095. We then use the spatially explicit global land‐ and water‐use allocation model MAgPIE to project the implications of this bioenergy target for global land and water resources. We find that producing 300 EJ yr^?1 of bioenergy in 2095 from dedicated bioenergy crops is likely to double agricultural water withdrawals if no explicit water protection policies are implemented. Since current human water withdrawals are dominated by agriculture and already lead to ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, such a doubling will pose a severe threat to freshwater ecosystems. If irrigated bioenergy production is prohibited to prevent negative impacts of bioenergy cultivation on water resources, bioenergy land requirements for meeting a 300 EJ yr^?1 bioenergy target increase substantially (+ 41%) – mainly at the expense of pasture areas and tropical forests. Thus, avoiding negative environmental impacts of large‐scale bioenergy production will require policies that balance associated water and land requirements.     

The role of bioenergy for global deep decarbonization: CO2 removal or low‐carbon energy?

Bioenergy is expected to have a prominent role in limiting global greenhouse emissions to meet the climate change target of the Paris Agreement. Many studies identify negative emissions from bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as its key contribution, but assume that no other CO₂ removal technologies are available. We use a global integrated assessment model, TIAM‐UCL, to investigate the role of bioenergy within the global energy system when direct air capture and afforestation are available as cost‐competitive alternatives to BECCS. We find that the presence of other CO₂ removal technologies does not reduce the pressure on biomass resources but changes the use of bioenergy for climate mitigation. While we confirm that when available BECCS offers cheaper decarbonization pathways, we also find that its use delays the phase‐out of unabated fossil fuels in industry and transport. Furthermore, it displaces renewable electricity generation, potentially increasing the likelihood of missing the Paris Agreement target. We found that the most cost‐effective solution is to invest in a basket of CO₂ removal technologies. However, if these technologies rely on CCS, then urgent action is required to ramp up the necessary infrastructure. We conclude that a sustainable biomass supply is critical for decarbonizing the global energy system. Since only a few world regions carry the burden of producing the biomass resource and store CO₂ in geological storage, adequate international collaboration, policies and standards will be needed to realize this resource while avoiding undesired land‐use change.     

Net land‐atmosphere flows of biogenic carbon related to bioenergy: towards an understanding of systemic feedbacks

The notion that biomass combustion is carbon neutral vis‐a‐vis the atmosphere because carbon released during biomass combustion is absorbed during plant regrowth is inherent in the greenhouse gas accounting rules in many regulations and conventions. But this ‘carbon neutrality’ assumption of bioenergy is an oversimplification that can result in major flaws in emission accounting; it may even result in policies that increase, instead of reduce, overall greenhouse gas emissions. This commentary discusses the systemic feedbacks and ecosystem succession/land‐use history issues ignored by the carbon neutrality assumption. Based on recent literature, three cases are elaborated which show that the C balance of bioenergy may range from highly beneficial to strongly detrimental, depending on the plants grown, the land used (including its land‐use history) as well as the fossil energy replaced. The article concludes by proposing the concept of GHG cost curves of bioenergy as a means for optimizing the climate benefits of bioenergy policies.     

Biomass production in plantations: Land constraints increase dependency on irrigation water

Integrated assessment model scenarios project rising deployment of biomass‐using energy systems in climate change mitigation scenarios. But there is concern that bioenergy deployment will increase competition for land and water resources and obstruct objectives such as nature protection, the preservation of carbon‐rich ecosystems, and food security. To study the relative importance of water and land availability as biophysical constraints to bioenergy deployment at a global scale, we use a process‐detailed, spatially explicit biosphere model to simulate rain‐fed and irrigated biomass plantation supply along with the corresponding water consumption for different scenarios concerning availability of land and water resources. We find that global plantation supplies are mainly limited by land availability and only secondarily by freshwater availability. As a theoretical upper limit, if all suitable lands on Earth, besides land currently used in agriculture, were available for bioenergy plantations (“Food first” scenario), total plantation supply would be in the range 2,010–2,300 EJ/year depending on water availability and use. Excluding all currently protected areas reduces the supply by 60%. Excluding also areas where conversion to biomass plantations causes carbon emissions that might be considered unacceptably high will reduce the total plantation supply further. For example, excluding all areas where soil and vegetation carbon stocks exceed 150 tC/ha (“Carbon threshold savanna” scenario) reduces the supply to 170–290 EJ/year. With decreasing land availability, the amount of water available for irrigation becomes vitally important. In the least restrictive land availability scenario (“Food first”), up to 77% of global plantation biomass supply is obtained without additional irrigation. This share is reduced to 31% for the most restrictive “Carbon threshold savanna” scenario. The results highlight the critical—and geographically varying—importance of co‐managing land and water resources if substantial contributions of bioenergy are to be reached in mitigation portfolios.     

Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints

We estimate the global bioenergy potential from dedicated biomass plantations in the 21st century under a range of sustainability requirements to safeguard food production, biodiversity and terrestrial carbon storage. We use a process‐based model of the land biosphere to simulate rainfed and irrigated biomass yields driven by data from different climate models and combine these simulations with a scenario‐based assessment of future land availability for energy crops. The resulting spatial patterns of large‐scale lignocellulosic energy crop cultivation are then investigated with regard to their impacts on land and water resources. Calculated bioenergy potentials are in the lower range of previous assessments but the combination of all biomass sources may still provide between 130 and 270 EJ yr^?1 in 2050, equivalent to 15–25% of the World's future energy demand. Energy crops account for 20–60% of the total potential depending on land availability and share of irrigated area. However, a full exploitation of these potentials will further increase the pressure on natural ecosystems with a doubling of current land use change and irrigation water demand. Despite the consideration of sustainability constraints on future agricultural expansion the large‐scale cultivation of energy crops is a threat to many areas that have already been fragmented and degraded, are rich in biodiversity and provide habitat for many endangered and endemic species.     

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

Short rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.     

Competing uses of biomass for energy and chemicals: implications for long‐term global CO2 mitigation potential

Biomass is considered a low carbon source for various energy or chemical options. This paper assesses it's different possible uses, the competition between these uses, and the implications for long‐term global energy demand and energy system emissions. A scenario analysis is performed using the TIMER energy system model. Under baseline conditions, 170 EJ yr^?1 of secondary bioenergy is consumed in 2100 (approximately 18% of total secondary energy demand), used primarily in the transport, buildings and nonenergy (chemical production) sectors. This leads to a reduction of 9% of CO₂ emissions compared to a counterfactual scenario where no bioenergy is used. Bioenergy can contribute up to 40% reduction in emissions at carbon taxes greater than 500/tC. As higher CO₂ taxes are applied, bioenergy is increasingly diverted towards electricity generation. Results are more sensitive to assumptions about resource availability than technological parameters. To estimate the effectiveness of bioenergy in specific sectors, experiments are performed in which bioenergy is only allowed in one sector at a time. The results show that cross‐sectoral leakage and emissions from biomass conversion limit the total emission reduction possible in each sector. In terms of reducing emissions per unit of bioenergy use, we show that the use of bioelectricity is the most effective, especially when used with carbon capture and storage. However, this technology only penetrates at a high carbon price (>100/tC) and competition with transport fuels may limit its adoption.     

Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production

The capacity for forests to aid in climate change mitigation efforts is substantial but will ultimately depend on their management. If forests remain unharvested, they can further mitigate the increases in atmospheric CO₂ that result from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. Alternatively, they can be harvested for bioenergy production and serve as a substitute for fossil fuels, though such a practice could reduce terrestrial C storage and thereby increase atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in the near‐term. Here, we used an ecosystem simulation model to ascertain the effectiveness of using forest bioenergy as a substitute for fossil fuels, drawing from a broad range of land‐use histories, harvesting regimes, ecosystem characteristics, and bioenergy conversion efficiencies. Results demonstrate that the times required for bioenergy substitutions to repay the C Debt incurred from biomass harvest are usually much shorter (< 100 years) than the time required for bioenergy production to substitute the amount of C that would be stored if the forest were left unharvested entirely, a point we refer to as C Sequestration Parity. The effectiveness of substituting woody bioenergy for fossil fuels is highly dependent on the factors that determine bioenergy conversion efficiency, such as the C emissions released during the harvest, transport, and firing of woody biomass. Consideration of the frequency and intensity of biomass harvests should also be given; performing total harvests (clear‐cutting) at high‐frequency may produce more bioenergy than less intensive harvesting regimes but may decrease C storage and thereby prolong the time required to achieve C Sequestration Parity.     

Life Cycle Assessment of Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Transport Based on Forest Biomass

Use of biomass‐based electricity and hydrogen in alternative transport could provide environmentally sustainable transport options with possible improvements in greenhouse gas balance. We perform a life cycle assessment of electric vehicle (EV) and fuel cell vehicle (FCV) powered by bioelectricity and biohydrogen, respectively, derived from Norwegian boreal forest biomass, considering the nonclimate neutrality of biological carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and alteration in surface albedo resulting from biomass harvesting—both with and without CO₂ capture and storage (CCS)—while benchmarking these options against EVs powered by the average European electricity mix. Results show that with due consideration of the countering effects from global warming potential (GWP) factors for biogenic CO₂ emissions and change in radiative forcing of the surface for the studied region, bioenergy‐based EVs and FCVs provide reductions of approximately 30%, as compared to the reference EV powered by the average European electricity mix. With CCS coupled to bioenergy production, the biomass‐based vehicle transport results in a net global warming impact reduction of approximately 110% to 120% (giving negative GWP and creating a climate‐cooling benefit from biomass use). Other environmental impacts vary from ?60% to +60%, with freshwater eutrophication showing maximum reductions (40% for the EV case and 60% for the FCV case) and photochemical oxidation showing a maximum increase (60% in the FCV value chain).     

Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national‐scale mitigation analyses for Canada

The potential of forests and the forest sector to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is widely recognized, but challenging to quantify at a national scale. Mitigation benefits through the use of forest products are affected by product life cycles, which determine the duration of carbon storage in wood products and substitution benefits where emissions are avoided using wood products instead of other emissions‐intensive building products and energy fuels. Here we determined displacement factors for wood substitution in the built environment and bioenergy at the national level in Canada. For solid wood products, we compiled a basket of end‐use products and determined the reduction in emissions for two functionally equivalent products: a more wood‐intensive product vs. a less wood‐intensive one. Avoided emissions for end‐use products basket were weighted by Canadian consumption statistics to reflect national wood uses, and avoided emissions were further partitioned into displacement factors for sawnwood and panels. We also examined two bioenergy feedstock scenarios (constant supply and constrained supply) to estimate displacement factors for bioenergy using an optimized selection of bioenergy facilities which maximized avoided emissions from fossil fuels. Results demonstrated that the average displacement factors were found to be similar: product displacement factors were 0.54 tC displaced per tC of used for sawnwood and 0.45 tC tC^?1 for panels; energy displacement factors for the two feedstock scenarios were 0.47 tC tC^?1 for the constant supply and 0.89 tC tC^?1 for the constrained supply. However, there was a wide range of substitution impacts. The greatest avoided emissions occurred when wood was substituted for steel and concrete in buildings, and when bioenergy from heat facilities and/or combined heat and power facilities was substituted for energy from high‐emissions fossil fuels. We conclude that (1) national‐level substitution benefits need to be considered within a systems perspective on climate change mitigation to avoid the development of policies that deliver no net benefits to the atmosphere, (2) the use of long‐lived wood products in buildings to displace steel and concrete reduces GHG emissions, (3) the greatest bioenergy substitution benefits are achieved using a mix of facility types and capacities to displace emissions‐intensive fossil fuels.     

Spatial distribution of usable biomass feedstock and technical bioenergy potential in China

Bioenergy will play an intimate and critical role in energy supply and carbon mitigation in the future. In recent years, “customizing the development of bioenergy to local conditions” and “prioritizing distributed utilization” have been the two key principles that have been released by the Chinese government to promote the national‐ and provincial‐level development of bioenergy. While many recognize the importance of bioenergy in achieving low‐carbon transition, little is known about the high‐resolution distribution of usable biomass feedstock and technical bioenergy potential in China, which brings about uncertainties and additional challenges for creating localized utilization plans. We propose a new assessment framework that integrates crop growth models, a land suitability assessment, and the geographic information systems to address these knowledge gaps. Distributions of 11 types of usable biomass feedstock and three kinds of technical bioenergy potential are mapped out through specific transformation technologies at 1 km resolution. At the national level, the final technical biogas potential is 1.91 EJ. The technical bioethanol potential (0.04–0.96 EJ) from the energy crop can supply 0.13–3.12 times the bioethanol demand for the consumption of E10 gasoline in 2015. The technical heat potential (1.06 EJ) can meet 20% of the demand for heating in all provinces (5.38 EJ). Most of the 2020 bioenergy goals can be achieved, excluding that for bioethanol, which will need to require more cellulosic ethanol from residues. At the provincial level, Henan and Inner Mongolia have the potential to develop clean heating alternatives via the substitution of agroforestry residues for coal. The results can provide a systematic analysis of the distribution of biomass feedstocks and technical bioenergy potential in China. With economic factors taken into consideration in further research, it can also support national and provincial governments in making bioenergy development plans in an effective and timely manner.     

Marginal lands for bioenergy in China; an outlook in status,potential and management

Energy consumption and CO₂ emissions have been increasing continuously over the past few decades in China and there is a pressing need to replace the fossil fuel‐based economy with an efficient low‐carbon system, tailor‐made to future requirements. China is starting an energy transition with the aim of building an energy system for the future. China has made tremendous progress in increasing the amount of renewable energy and reducing the cost of renewable energy over the last 20 years. According to the 14th 5 year plan, China aims to incorporate 20% of renewable energy to the primary energy mix and attain 27% reduction in CO₂ emissions. Bioenergy crops constitute a significant proportion of biomass‐based bioenergy and have recently been promoted by the Chinese Government to help overcome food and fuel conflict. Steps are being taken to promote bioenergy crops on marginal lands in China, and various regions across the country with soil marginality have been evaluated for bioenergy crop cultivation. The present paper reviews the status of bioenergy in China and the potential status of marginal lands from different regions of China. It also elaborates on some of the policies, subsidies and incentives allocated by the Chinese Government for the promotion of biomass‐based energy. Land management and plant improvement strategies were discussed, which are effective in making marginal lands suitable for bioenergy crop cultivation. Managing planting strategies, intercropping and crop rotation are effective management practices used in China for the utilization of marginal lands. A national investigation is desirable for creating an inventory of technical and economic potential of biomass feedstocks that could be planted on marginal lands. This would assist with highlighting the pros and cons of using marginal lands for bioenergy production and effective policy making.     

On the global limits of bioenergy and land use for climate change mitigation

Across energy, agricultural and forestry landscapes, the production of biomass for energy has emerged as a controversial driver of land‐use change. We present a novel, simple methodology, to probe the potential global sustainability limits of bioenergy over time for energy provision and climate change mitigation using a complex‐systems approach for assessing land‐use dynamics. Primary biomass that could provide between 70 EJ year^?1 and 360 EJ year^?1, globally, by 2050 was simulated in the context of different land‐use futures, food diet patterns and climate change mitigation efforts. Our simulations also show ranges of potential greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture, forestry and other land uses by 2050, including not only above‐ground biomass‐related emissions, but also from changes in soil carbon, from as high as 24 GtCO₂eq year^?1 to as low as minus 21 GtCO₂eq year^?1, which would represent a significant source of negative emissions. Based on the modelling simulations, the discussions offer novel insights about bioenergy as part of a broader integrated system. Whilst there are sustainability limits to the scale of bioenergy provision, they are dynamic over time, being responsive to land management options deployed worldwide.     

Consensus,uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use

Perennial bioenergy crops have significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to climate change mitigation by substituting for fossil fuels; yet delivering significant GHG savings will require substantial land‐use change, globally. Over the last decade, research has delivered improved understanding of the environmental benefits and risks of this transition to perennial bioenergy crops, addressing concerns that the impacts of land conversion to perennial bioenergy crops could result in increased rather than decreased GHG emissions. For policymakers to assess the most cost‐effective and sustainable options for deployment and climate change mitigation, synthesis of these studies is needed to support evidence‐based decision making. In 2015, a workshop was convened with researchers, policymakers and industry/business representatives from the UK, EU and internationally. Outcomes from global research on bioenergy land‐use change were compared to identify areas of consensus, key uncertainties, and research priorities. Here, we discuss the strength of evidence for and against six consensus statements summarising the effects of land‐use change to perennial bioenergy crops on the cycling of carbon, nitrogen and water, in the context of the whole life‐cycle of bioenergy production. Our analysis suggests that the direct impacts of dedicated perennial bioenergy crops on soil carbon and nitrous oxide are increasingly well understood and are often consistent with significant life cycle GHG mitigation from bioenergy relative to conventional energy sources. We conclude that the GHG balance of perennial bioenergy crop cultivation will often be favourable, with maximum GHG savings achieved where crops are grown on soils with low carbon stocks and conservative nutrient application, accruing additional environmental benefits such as improved water quality. The analysis reported here demonstrates there is a mature and increasingly comprehensive evidence base on the environmental benefits and risks of bioenergy cultivation which can support the development of a sustainable bioenergy industry.     

Life cycle assessment tool for estimating net CO2 exchange of forest production

The study describes an integrated impact assessment tool for the net carbon dioxide (CO₂) exchange in forest production. The components of the net carbon exchange include the uptake of carbon into biomass, the decomposition of litter and humus, emissions from forest management operations and carbon released from the combustion of biomass and degradation of wood‐based products. The tool enables the allocation of the total carbon emissions to the timber and energy biomass and to the energy produced on the basis of biomass. In example computations, ecosystem model simulations were utilized as an input to the tool. We present results for traditional timber production (pulpwood and saw logs) and integrated timber and bioenergy production (logging residues, stumps and roots) for Norway spruce, in boreal conditions in Finland, with two climate scenarios over one rotation period. The results showed that the magnitude of management related emissions on net carbon exchange was smaller when compared with the total ecosystem fluxes; decomposition being the largest emission contributor. In addition, the effects of management and climate were higher on the decomposition of new humus compared with old humus. The results also showed that probable increased biomass growth, obtained under the changing climate (CC), could not compensate for decomposition and biomass combustion related carbon loss in southern Finland. In our examples, the emissions allocated for the energy from biomass in southern Finland were 172 and 188 kg CO₂ MW h^?1 in the current climate and in a CC, respectively, and 199 and 157 kg CO₂ MW h^?1 in northern Finland. This study concludes that the tool is suitable for estimating the net carbon exchange of forest production. The tool also enables the allocation of direct and indirect carbon emissions, related to forest production over its life cycle, in different environmental conditions and for alternative time periods and land uses. Simulations of forest management regimes together with the CC give new insights into ecologically sustainable forest bioenergy and timber production, as well as climate change mitigation options in boreal forests.     

Net carbon fluxes at stand and landscape scales from wood bioenergy harvests in the US Northeast

The long‐term greenhouse gas emissions implications of wood biomass (‘bioenergy’) harvests are highly uncertain yet of great significance for climate change mitigation and renewable energy policies. Particularly uncertain are the net carbon (C) effects of multiple harvests staggered spatially and temporally across landscapes where bioenergy is only one of many products. We used field data to formulate bioenergy harvest scenarios, applied them to 362 sites from the Forest Inventory and Analysis database, and projected growth and harvests over 160 years using the Forest Vegetation Simulator. We compared the net cumulative C fluxes, relative to a non‐bioenergy baseline, between scenarios when various proportions of the landscape are harvested for bioenergy: 0% (non‐bioenergy); 25% (BIO25); 50% (BIO50); or 100% (BIO100), with three levels of intensification. We accounted for C stored in aboveground forest pools and wood products, direct and indirect emissions from wood products and bioenergy, and avoided direct and indirect emissions from fossil fuels. At the end of the simulation period, although 82% of stands were projected to maintain net positive C benefit, net flux remained negative (i.e., net emissions) compared to non‐bioenergy harvests for the entire 160‐year simulation period. BIO25, BIO50, and BIO100 scenarios resulted in average annual emissions of 2.47, 5.02, and 9.83 Mg C ha^?1, respectively. Using bioenergy for heating decreased the emissions relative to electricity generation as did removing additional slash from thinnings between regeneration harvests. However, all bioenergy scenarios resulted in increased net emissions compared to the non‐bioenergy harvests. Stands with high initial aboveground live biomass may have higher net emissions from bioenergy harvest. Silvicultural practices such as increasing rotation length and structural retention may result in lower C fluxes from bioenergy harvests. Finally, since passive management resulted in the greatest net C storage, we recommend designation of unharvested reserves to offset emissions from harvested stands.     

Using dynamic relative climate impact curves to quantify the climate impact of bioenergy production systems over time

The climate impact of bioenergy is commonly quantified in terms of CO₂ equivalents, using a fixed 100‐year global warming potential as an equivalency metric. This method has been criticized for the inability to appropriately address emissions timing and the focus on a single impact metric, which may lead to inaccurate or incomplete quantification of the climate impact of bioenergy production. In this study, we introduce Dynamic Relative Climate Impact (DRCI) curves, a novel approach to visualize and quantify the climate impact of bioenergy systems over time. The DRCI approach offers the flexibility to analyze system performance for different value judgments regarding the impact category (e.g., emissions, radiative forcing, and temperature change), equivalency metric, and analytical time horizon. The DRCI curves constructed for fourteen bioenergy systems illustrate how value judgments affect the merit order of bioenergy systems, because they alter the importance of one‐time (associated with land use change emissions) versus sustained (associated with carbon debt or foregone sequestration) emission fluxes and short‐ versus long‐lived climate forcers. Best practices for bioenergy production (irrespective of value judgments) include high feedstock yields, high conversion efficiencies, and the application of carbon capture and storage. Furthermore, this study provides examples of production contexts in which the risk of land use change emissions, carbon debt, or foregone sequestration can be mitigated. For example, the risk of indirect land use change emissions can be mitigated by accompanying bioenergy production with increasing agricultural yields. Moreover, production contexts in which the counterfactual scenario yields immediate or additional climate impacts can provide significant climate benefits. This paper is accompanied by an Excel‐based calculation tool to reproduce the calculation steps outlined in this paper and construct DRCI curves for bioenergy systems of choice.     

Bioenergy crops,biodiversity and ecosystem services in temperate agricultural landscapes—A review of synergies and trade-offs

The Paris agreement on climate change requires rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. One important mitigation strategy, at least in the intermediate future, is the substitution of fossil fuels with bioenergy. However, using agriculture- and forest-derived biomass for energy has sparked controversy regarding both the climate mitigation potential and conflicts with biodiversity conservation. The urgency of the climate crisis calls for using forests for carbon sequestration and storage rather than for bioenergy, making agricultural biomass an attractive alternative for fossil energy substitution. However, this calls for comprehensive assessments of its sustainability in terms of consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this review, we provide a first holistic overview of the impacts on ecosystems of land-use changes from bioenergy crop production in temperate climates, by synthesizing results on both biodiversity and ecosystem service impacts. We found that bioenergy-related land-use changes can have both positive and negative effects on ecosystems, with original land use, bioenergy crop type and scale of bioenergy production being important moderators of impacts. Despite the risk of opportunity cost for food production, perennial crop cultivation on arable land had the lowest occurrence of negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Growing biomass for bioenergy on surplus land has been suggested as a way to alleviate competition with food production and biodiversity conservation, but our results demonstrate that utilizing marginal or abandoned land for bioenergy crop production cannot fully resolve these trade-offs. Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical studies of the biodiversity value of marginal and abandoned land, limiting our understanding of the sustainability implications of biomass cultivation on surplus land. We argue that future research and policies for bioenergy production must explicitly consider biodiversity and ecosystem services in combination to avoid potential trade-offs between the two and to ensure sustainable bioenergy production.