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.     

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.     

Torfmooskulturen als Ersatzlebensraum

Sphagnum farming In Germany, 99% of the 1.4 Mha of peatlands have been drained for land use. These degraded areas release enormous amounts of greenhouse gases. In contrast, land use on rewetted peatlands (= paludiculture) not only avoids greenhouse gas emissions, but offers numerous additional environmental benefits, while maintaining biomass production. Field studies have demonstrated the additional benefits of peatmoss (Sphagnum) cultivation for plant and animal diversity. After harvesting of the upper moss layer, the biomass is prepared to be used as a substitute for peat in horticultural substrates. Sphagnum farming is a promising and sustainable land use alternative for degraded bog areas.     

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.     

Can biomass supply meet the demands of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)?

To reach the reduced carbon emission targets proposed by the Paris agreement, one of the widely proposed decarbonizing strategies, referred to as negative emissions technologies (NETs), is the production and combustion of bioenergy crops in conjunction with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). However, concerns have been increasingly raised that relying on the potential of BECCS to achieve negative emissions could result in delayed reductions in gross CO₂ emissions, with consequent high risk of overshooting global temperature targets. We focus on two particular issues: the carbon efficiency and payback time of bioenergy use in BECCS and the potential constraints on the supply of bioenergy. The simplistic vision of BECCS is that 1 tonne of CO₂ captured in the growth of biomass equates to 1 tonne of CO₂ sequestered geologically, but this cannot be the case as CO₂ is emitted by variable amounts during the lifecycle from crop establishment to sequestration below ground in geological formations. The deployment of BECCS is ultimately reliant on the availability of sufficient, sustainably sourced, biomass. The two most important factors determining this supply are land availability and land productivity. The upper bounds of the area estimates required correspond to more than the world's harvested land for cereal production. To achieve these estimates of biomass availability requires the rapid evolution of a multitude of technological, social, political and economic factors. Here, we question whether, because of the limited sustainable supply of biomass, BECCS should continue to be considered the dominant NET in IPCC and other scenarios achieving the Paris targets, or should it be deemed no longer fit for purpose?     

Comparing the Land Requirements, Energy Savings, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction of Biobased Polymers and Bioenergy

This study compares energy savings and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of biobased polymers with those of bioenergy on a per unit of agricultural land-use basis by extending existing life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies. In view of policy goals to increase the energy supply from biomass and current efforts to produce biobased polymers in bulk, the amount of available land for the production of nonfood crops could become a limitation. Hence, given the prominence of energy and greenhouse issues in current environmental policy, it is desirable to include land demand in the comparison of different biomass options. Over the past few years, numerous LCA studies have been prepared for different types of bio-based polymers, but only a few of these studies address the aspect of land use. This comparison shows that referring energy savings and GHG emission reduction of biobased polymers to a unit of agricultural land, instead of to a unit of polymer produced, leads to a different ranking of options. If land use is chosen as the basis of comparison, natural fiber composites and thermoplastic starch score better than bioenergy production from energy crops, whereas polylactides score comparably well and polyhydroxyalkaonates score worse. Additionally, including the use of agricultural residues for energy purposes improves the environmental performance of bio-based polymers significantly. Moreover, it is very likely that higher production efficiencies will be achieved for biobased polymers in the medium term. Biobased polymers thus offer interesting opportunities to reduce the utilization of nonrenewable energy and to contribute to GHG mitigation in view of potentially scarce land resources.     

Cost-effectiveness of bioethanol policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Greece

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bioethanol as regards to its carbon dioxide emissions. The production of the raw material accounts for more than 50 % of the total cost as well as having a significant part of greenhouse gases emitted during the entire process. For this reason, special emphasis is given to a change in agricultural land usage influenced by the demand of biofuel. Therefore, we have estimated the extent of policy influence according to its bioethanol cost-effectiveness. A case study on bioethanol production in an ex-sugar factory in the region of Thessaly, Greece, illustrates the above ideas.

Methods

A partial equilibrium micro-economic model of regional supply in the arable farming system of Thessaly was coupled to industrial processing sub-models of bioethanol production from beets and grains. The maximisation of total welfare determines the most suitable crop mix for farmers as well as the lowest cost configurations for industry and, eventually, the minimal level of support by the government for biofuel activity to take off. The environmental performance is assessed under the life cycle assessment (LCA) framework following three interrelated phases: data inventory, data analysis and interpretation. The economic burden to society to support the activity divided by avoided CO₂ eq. emissions indicates the bioethanol cost-effectiveness, in other words, the cost of greenhouse gases emissions savings.

Results

The integrated agro-industry model has been parametrically run for a range of biofuel capacities. A change in direct land use results in lower emissions in the agricultural phase, since energy crops are a substitute for intensive cultivations, such as cotton and corn. A change in indirect land use moderates these estimations, as it takes in account imported food crops that are replaced by energy crops in the region. The savings in cost vary around 160 euros per ton of CO₂ eq. for the basic agricultural policy scenario. The current policy that supports cotton production by means of increased coupled area payment has increased up to 30 % the cost of greenhouse gas savings due to bioethanol production.

Conclusions

An integrated model, articulating the agricultural supply of biomass with ethanol processing, maximises the total surplus that is under constraints in order to determine the cost-effectiveness for different production levels. Results demonstrate that economic performances, as well as the environmental cost-effectiveness of bioethanol, are clearly affected by the parameters of agricultural policies. Therefore, bioenergy, environmental and economic performances, when based on LCA and the conceptual change in land usage, are context dependent. Agricultural policies for decoupling subsidies from production are in favour of cultivation in biomass for energy purposes.     

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of furniture and bioenergy production from oil palm trunks

The palm oil industry constantly attempts to increase the sustainability along the entire palm oil value chain. One important strategy is to utilize all co‐products. Oil palm trunks, which become available upon replanting of existing plantations, represent an important and increasing flow of underexploited biomass. In recent years, innovative technologies are emerging to use them for producing furniture or plywood or providing bioenergy. We assessed the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of such products and the greenhouse gas emission savings due to replaced alternative products. Although challenging material properties result in a relatively high energy demand and related greenhouse gas emissions in the oil palm wood processing, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can arise from producing furniture or bioenergy from oil palm trunks, especially if the process energy demand is met by the energy recovery from oil palm wood‐processing residues.     

Estimating Impacts of Climate Change Policy on Land Use: An Agent-Based Modelling Approach

Agriculture is important to New Zealand’s economy. Like other primary producers, New Zealand strives to increase agricultural output while maintaining environmental integrity. Utilising modelling to explore the economic, environmental and land use impacts of policy is critical to understand the likely effects on the sector. Key deficiencies within existing land use and land cover change models are the lack of heterogeneity in farmers and their behaviour, the role that social networks play in information transfer, and the abstraction of the global and regional economic aspects within local-scale approaches. To resolve these issues we developed the Agent-based Rural Land Use New Zealand model. The model utilises a partial equilibrium economic model and an agent-based decision-making framework to explore how the cumulative effects of individual farmer’s decisions affect farm conversion and the resulting land use at a catchment scale. The model is intended to assist in the development of policy to shape agricultural land use intensification in New Zealand. We illustrate the model, by modelling the impact of a greenhouse gas price on farm-level land use, net revenue, and environmental indicators such as nutrient losses and soil erosion for key enterprises in the Hurunui and Waiau catchments of North Canterbury in New Zealand. Key results from the model show that farm net revenue is estimated to increase over time regardless of the greenhouse gas price. Net greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to decline over time, even under a no GHG price baseline, due to an expansion of forestry on low productivity land. Higher GHG prices provide a greater net reduction of emissions. While social and geographic network effects have minimal impact on net revenue and environmental outputs for the catchment, they do have an effect on the spatial arrangement of land use and in particular the clustering of enterprises.     

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.     

Large-scale deployment of grass in crop rotations as a multifunctional climate mitigation strategy

The agriculture sector can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and providing biomass to substitute for fossil fuels and other GHG-intensive products. The sector also needs to address water, soil, and biodiversity impacts caused by historic and current practices. Emerging EU policies create incentives for cultivation of perennial plants that provide biomass along with environmental benefits. One such option, common in northern Europe, is to include grass in rotations with annual crops to provide biomass while remediating soil organic carbon (SOC) losses and other environmental impacts. Here, we apply a spatially explicit model on >81,000 sub-watersheds in EU27 + UK (Europe) to explore the effects of widespread deployment of such systems. Based on current accumulated SOC losses in individual sub-watersheds, the model identifies and quantifies suitable areas for increased grass cultivation and corresponding biomass- and protein supply, SOC sequestration, and reductions in nitrogen emissions to water as well as wind and water erosion. The model also provides information about possible flood mitigation. The results indicate a substantial climate mitigation potential, with combined annual GHG savings from soil-carbon sequestration and displacement of natural gas with biogas from grass-based biorefineries, equivalent to 13%–48% of current GHG emissions from agriculture in Europe. The environmental co-benefits are also notable, in some cases exceeding the estimated mitigation needs. Yield increases for annual crops in modified rotations mitigate the displacement effect of increasing grass cultivation. If the grass is used as feedstock in lieu of annual crops, the displacement effect can even be negative, that is, a reduced need for annual crop production elsewhere. Incentivizing widespread deployment will require supportive policy measures as well as new uses of grass biomass, for example, as feedstock for green biorefineries producing protein concentrate, biofuels, and other bio-based products.     

Global advanced bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies and societal transformation measures

Bioenergy plays an important role in low greenhouse gas stabilization scenarios. Among various possible sources of bioenergy, dedicated bio‐crops could contribute to most of the potential. However, large scale bio‐crop deployment raises sustainability concerns. Policies to alleviate the pressure of bio‐crops on the terrestrial environment can affect bioenergy potential and production costs. Here, we estimated the maximum bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies (biodiversity and soil protection) and societal transformation measures from demand and supply side (demand‐side policy includes sustainable diet; supply‐side policy includes advanced technology and trade openness for food) by using an integrated assessment modelling framework, which consists of a general equilibrium model (Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium) and a spatial land use allocation model (Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Platform for Land‐Use and Environmental Model). We found that the global advanced bioenergy potential under no policy was 245 EJ/year and that 192 EJ/year could be produced under US$5/GJ. These figures were 149 EJ/year and 110 EJ/year, respectively, under a full environmental policy. Biodiversity protection has a greater impact than soil protection due to its larger coverage and stronger implementation. Societal transformation measures effectively increase them to 186 EJ/year and 143 EJ/year, respectively, even under full environmental policies. These results imply that the large‐scale bioenergy deployment possibly needed for the climate target to limit the global mean temperature increase well below 2°C compared to the preindustrial level might face a trade‐off with environmental protection targets and that possible mitigation pathways in harmony with other environmental issues need to be explored.     

LCA of energetic biomass utilization: actual projects and new developments—April 23, 2012, Berne, Switzerland

Introduction

In the last years, the use of biomass for energy purposes has been seen as a promising option to reduce the use of nonrenewable energy sources and the emissions of fossil carbon. However, LCA studies have shown that the energetic use of biomass also causes impacts on climate change and, furthermore, that different environmental issues arise, such as land use and agricultural emissions. While biomass is renewable, it is not an unlimited resource. Its use, to whatever purpose, must therefore be well studied to promote the most efficient option with the least environmental impacts. The 47th LCA Discussion Forum gathered several national and international speakers who provided a broad and qualified view on the topic.

Summary of the topics presented in DF 47

Several aspects of energetic biomass use from a range of projects financed by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) were presented in this Discussion Forum. The first session focused on important aspects of the agricultural biogas production like the use of high energy crops or catch crops as well as the influence of plant size on the environmental performance of biogas. In the second session, other possibilities of biomass treatment like direct combustion, composting, and incineration with municipal waste were presented. Topic of the first afternoon session was the update and harmonization of biomass inventories and the resulting new assessment of biofuels. The short presentations investigated some further aspects of the LCA of bioenergy like the assessment of spatial variation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from bioenergy production in a country, the importance of indirect land use change emissions on the overall results, the assessment of alternative technologies to direct spreading of digestate or the updates of the car operation datasets in ecoinvent.

Conclusions

One main outcome of this Discussion Forum is that bioenergy is not environmentally friendly per se. In many cases, energetic use of biomass allows a reduction of GHG and fossil energy use. However, there is often a tradeoff with other environmental impacts linked to agricultural production like eutrophication or ecotoxicity. Methodological challenges still exist, like the assessment of direct and indirect land use change emissions and their attribution to the bioenergy production, or the influence of heavy metal flows on the bioenergy assessment. Another challenge is the implementation of a life cycle approach in certification or legislation schemes, as shown by the example of the Renewable Energy Directive of the European Union.     

An agent‐based modelling approach to evaluate factors influencing bioenergy crop adoption in north‐east Scotland

An agent‐based modelling (ABM) framework was adapted to assess bioenergy crop uptake and integrate social and economic processes with biophysical elements. Survey results indicated that economic rationalisation was intrinsic to farmers’ decision‐making, but was not the only consideration. This study presents an approach, set within an established resource management framework, to incorporate a number of key socio‐economic factors, which we call Mitigation Willingness Factors (MWFs), using survey data collected from farmers and land managers, into the ABM. The MWFs represent farmers’ willingness to compromise revenue in order to reduce GHG emissions, derived from their attitudes to climate change and the ability of different economic mechanisms to stimulate energy crop uptake. Adoption of bioenergy crops of different farmer types and farming enterprises was also assessed. Adoption rates and scenarios that take into account noneconomic factors are presented, and particular farming enterprises that may respond more positively to policy initiatives are identified.     

Mitigation potential and environmental impact of centralized versus distributed BECCS with domestic biomass production in Great Britain

New contingency policy plans are expected to be published by the United Kingdom government to set out urgent actions, such as carbon capture and storage, greenhouse gas removal and the use of sustainable bioenergy to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the 4th and 5th Carbon Budgets. In this study, we identify two plausible bioenergy production pathways for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) based on centralized and distributed energy systems to show what BECCS could look like if deployed by 2050 in Great Britain. The extent of agricultural land available to sustainably produce biomass feedstock in the centralized and distributed energy systems is about 0.39 and 0.5 Mha, providing approximately 5.7 and 7.3 Mt_DM/year of biomass respectively. If this land‐use change occurred, bioenergy crops would contribute to reduced agricultural soil GHG emission by 9 and 11 /year in the centralized and distributed energy systems respectively. In addition, bioenergy crops can contribute to reduce agricultural soil ammonia emissions and water pollution from soil nitrate leaching, and to increase soil organic carbon stocks. The technical mitigation potentials from BECCS lead to projected CO₂ reductions of approximately 18 and 23 /year from the centralized and distributed energy systems respectively. This suggests that the domestic supply of sustainable biomass would not allow the emission reduction target of 50 /year from BECCS to be met. To meet that target, it would be necessary to produce solid biomass from forest systems on 0.59 or 0.49 Mha, or alternatively to import 8 or 6.6 Mt_DM/year of biomass for the centralized and distributed energy system respectively. The spatially explicit results of this study can serve to identify the regional differences in the potential capture of CO₂ from BECCS, providing the basis for the development of onshore CO₂ transport infrastructures.     

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.     

Biogenic vs. geologic carbon emissions and forest biomass energy production

In the current debate over the CO₂ emissions implications of switching from fossil fuel energy sources to include a substantial amount of woody biomass energy, many scientists and policy makers hold the view that emissions from the two sources should not be equated. Their rationale is that the combustion or decay of woody biomass is simply part of the global cycle of biogenic carbon and does not increase the amount of carbon in circulation. This view is frequently presented as justification to implement policies that encourage the substitution of fossil fuel energy sources with biomass. We present the opinion that this is an inappropriate conceptual basis to assess the atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting of woody biomass energy generation. While there are many other environmental, social, and economic reasons to move to woody biomass energy, we argue that the inferred benefits of biogenic emissions over fossil fuel emissions should be reconsidered.     

Assessing the Ecological Impacts of Bioenergy Projects

One of the major objectives of the current expansion in bioenergy cropping is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions for environmental benefit. The cultivation of bioenergy and biofuel crops also affects biodiversity more directly, both positively and negatively. Ecological impact assessment methods for bioenergy projects (including changes to policy and land use) should address not simply changes to species abundance at field level, but include larger scale issues, including changes to landscape diversity, potential impacts to primary and secondary habitats and potential impacts on climate change. Such assessments require a correspondingly broad range of scientific methods, including modelling of climate and land use as well as the observation of biodiversity and landscape indicators. It is also possible to adopt evidence-based guidelines for good practice for situations where comprehensive assessments are not available. These might include favouring projects and policies that avoid gene flow to wild relatives of crops in centres of diversity, that do not result in invasion by the crop into other habitats, that enhance field-scale biodiversity, that increase landscape diversity, that do not threaten valued habitats within the local landscape, that promote the sustainable management of biodiverse habitats, that do not increase the risk of loss of primary habitats and that result in a proportionately large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.     

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).     

Management swing potential for bioenergy crops

Bioenergy crops are often classified (and subsequently regulated) according to species that have been evaluated as environmentally beneficial or detrimental, but in practice, management decisions rather than species per se can determine the overall environmental impact of a bioenergy production system. Here, we review the greenhouse gas balance and ‘management swing potential’ of seven different bioenergy cropping systems in temperate and tropical regions. Prior land use, harvesting techniques, harvest timing, and fertilization are among the key management considerations that can swing the greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy from positive to negative or the reverse. Although the management swing potential is substantial for many cropping systems, there are some species (e.g., soybean) that have such low bioenergy yield potentials that the environmental impact is unlikely to be reversed by management. High‐yielding bioenergy crops (e.g., corn, sugarcane, Miscanthus, and fast‐growing tree species), however, can be managed for environmental benefits or losses, suggesting that the bioenergy sector would be better informed by incorporating management‐based evaluations into classifications of bioenergy feedstocks.