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.     

Land management and climate change determine second‐generation bioenergy potential of the US Northern Great Plains

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been proposed as a potential climate mitigation strategy raising concerns over trade‐offs with existing ecosystem services. We evaluate the feasibility of BECCS in the Upper Missouri River Basin (UMRB), a landscape with diverse land use, ownership, and bioenergy potential. We develop land‐use change scenarios and a switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) crop functional type to use in a land‐surface model to simulate second‐generation bioenergy production. By the end of this century, average annual switchgrass production over the UMRB ranges from 60 to 210 Tg dry mass/year and is dependent on the Representative Concentration Pathway for greenhouse gas emissions and on land‐use change assumptions. Under our simple phase‐in assumptions this results in a cumulative total production of 2,000–6,000 Tg C over the study period with the upper estimates only possible in the absence of climate change. Switchgrass yields decreased as average CO₂ concentrations and temperatures increased, suggesting the effect of elevated atmospheric CO₂ was small because of its C4 photosynthetic pathway. By the end of the 21st century, the potential energy stored annually in harvested switchgrass averaged between 1 and 4 EJ/year assuming perfect conversion efficiency, or an annual electrical generation capacity of 7,000–28,000 MW assuming current bioenergy efficiency rates. Trade‐offs between bioenergy and ecosystem services were identified, including cumulative direct losses of 1,000–2,600 Tg C stored in natural ecosystems from land‐use change by 2090. Total cumulative losses of ecosystem carbon stocks were higher than the potential ~300 Tg C in fossil fuel emissions from the single largest power plant in the region over the same time period, and equivalent to potential carbon removal from the atmosphere from using biofuels grown in the same region. Numerous trade‐offs from BECCS expansion in the UMRB must be balanced against the potential benefits of a carbon‐negative energy system.     

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.     

Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment

The potential for climate change mitigation by bioenergy crops and terrestrial carbon sinks has been the object of intensive research in the past decade. There has been much debate about whether energy crops used to offset fossil fuel use, or carbon sequestration in forests, would provide the best climate mitigation benefit. Most current food cropland is unlikely to be used for bioenergy, but in many regions of the world, a proportion of cropland is being abandoned, particularly marginal croplands, and some of this land is now being used for bioenergy. In this study, we assess the consequences of land‐use change on cropland. We first identify areas where cropland is so productive that it may never be converted and assess the potential of the remaining cropland to mitigate climate change by identifying which alternative land use provides the best climate benefit: C₄ grass bioenergy crops, coppiced woody energy crops or allowing forest regrowth to create a carbon sink. We do not present this as a scenario of land‐use change – we simply assess the best option in any given global location should a land‐use change occur. To do this, we use global biomass potential studies based on food crop productivity, forest inventory data and dynamic global vegetation models to provide, for the first time, a global comparison of the climate change implications of either deploying bioenergy crops or allowing forest regeneration on current crop land, over a period of 20 years starting in the nominal year of 2000 ad . Globally, the extent of cropland on which conversion to energy crops or forest would result in a net carbon loss, and therefore likely always to remain as cropland, was estimated to be about 420.1 Mha, or 35.6% of the total cropland in Africa, 40.3% in Asia and Russia Federation, 30.8% in Europe‐25, 48.4% in North America, 13.7% in South America and 58.5% in Oceania. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars are the bioenergy feedstock with the highest climate mitigation potential. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars provide the best climate mitigation option on ≈485 Mha of cropland worldwide with ~42% of this land characterized by a terrain slope equal or above 20%. If that land‐use change did occur, it would displace ≈58.1 Pg fossil fuel C equivalent (C_eq oil). Woody energy crops such as poplar, willow and Eucalyptus species would be the best option on only 2.4% (≈26.3 Mha) of current cropland, and if this land‐use change occurred, it would displace ≈0.9 Pg C_eq oil. Allowing cropland to revert to forest would be the best climate mitigation option on ≈17% of current cropland (≈184.5 Mha), and if this land‐use change occurred, it would sequester ≈5.8 Pg C in biomass in the 20‐year‐old forest and ≈2.7 Pg C in soil. This study is spatially explicit, so also serves to identify the regional differences in the efficacy of different climate mitigation options, informing policymakers developing regionally or nationally appropriate mitigation actions.     

Climate cooling benefits of cellulosic bioenergy crops from elevated albedo

Changes in land surface albedo can alter ecosystem energy balance and potentially influence climate. We examined the albedo of six bioenergy cropping systems in southwest Michigan USA: monocultures of energy sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.), and giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus), and polycultures of native grasses, early successional vegetation, and restored prairie. Direct field measurements of surface albedo (α_s) from May 2018 through December 2020 at half-hourly intervals in each system quantified the magnitudes and seasonal differences in albedo (∆_α) and albedo-induced radiative forcing (RF_∆α). We used a nearby forest as a historical native cover type to estimate reference albedo and RF_∆α change upon original land use conversion, and a continuous no-till maize (Zea mays L.) system as a contemporary reference to estimate change upon conversion from annual row crops. Annually, α_s differed significantly (p < 0.05) among crops in the order: early successional (0.288 ± 0.012SE) >> miscanthus (0.271 ± 0.009) ≈ energy sorghum (0.270 ± 0.010) ≥ switchgrass (0.265 ± 0.009) ≈ restored prairie (0.264 ± 0.012) > native grasses (0.259 ± 0.010) > maize (0.247 ± 0.010). Reference forest had the lowest annual α_s (0.134 ± 0.003). Albedo differences among crops during the growing season were also statistically significant, with growing season α_s in perennial crops and energy sorghum on average ~20% higher (0.206 ± 0.003) than in no-till maize (0.184 ± 0.002). Average non-growing season (NGS) α_s (0.370 ± 0.020) was much higher than growing season α_s (0.203 ± 0.003) but these NGS differences were not significant. Overall, the original conversion of reference forest and maize landscapes to perennials provided a cooling effect on the local climate (RF_αMAIZE: −3.83 ± 1.00 W m⁻²; RF_αFOREST: −16.75 ± 3.01 W m⁻²). Significant differences among cropping systems suggest an additional management intervention for maximizing the positive climate benefit of bioenergy crops, with cellulosic crops on average ~9.1% more reflective than no-till maize, which itself was about twice as reflective as the reference forest.     

Water use and yield of bioenergy poplar in future climates: modelling the interactive effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and climate on productivity and water use

Vegetation exerts large control on global biogeochemical cycles through the processes of photosynthesis and transpiration that exchange CO₂ and water between the land and the atmosphere. Increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations exert direct effects on vegetation through enhanced photosynthesis and reduced stomatal conductance, and indirect effects through changes in climatic variables that drive these processes. How these direct and indirect CO₂ impacts interact with each other to affect plant productivity and water use has not been explicitly analysed and remains unclear, yet is important to fully understand the response of the global carbon cycle to future climate change. Here, we use a set of factorial modelling experiments to quantify the direct and indirect impacts of atmospheric CO₂ and their interaction on yield and water use in bioenergy short rotation coppice poplar, in addition to quantifying the impact of other environmental drivers such as soil type. We use the JULES land‐surface model forced with a ten‐member ensemble of projected climate change for 2100 with atmospheric CO₂ concentrations representative of the A1B emissions scenario. We show that the simulated response of plant productivity to future climate change was nonadditive in JULES, however this nonadditivity was not apparent for plant transpiration. The responses of both growth and transpiration under all experimental scenarios were highly variable between sites, highlighting the complexity of interactions between direct physiological CO₂ effects and indirect climate effects. As a result, no general pattern explaining the response of bioenergy poplar water use and yield to future climate change could be discerned across sites. This study suggests attempts to infer future climate change impacts on the land biosphere from studies that force with either the direct or indirect CO₂ effects in isolation from each other may lead to incorrect conclusions in terms of both the direction and magnitude of plant response to future climate change.     

The impact of extensive planting of Miscanthus as an energy crop on future CO2 atmospheric concentrations

A process‐based model of the energy crop Miscanthus×giganteus is integrated into the global climate impact model IMOGEN, simulating the potential of large‐scale Miscanthus plantation to offset fossil fuel emissions during the 21st century. This simulation produces spatially explicit, annual projections of Miscanthus yields from the present day to the year 2100 under an SRES A2 anthropogenic emissions scenario and includes the effects of climate change. IMOGEN also simulates natural vegetation and soil carbon storage throughout the 21st century. The benefit of Miscanthus cultivation (avoiding fossil fuel emissions of CO₂) is then compared with the cost of displacing natural vegetation (carbon emissions from vegetation and soil). The time taken for these effects to cancel out, the pay‐back time, is calculated regionally. The effects of large‐scale Miscanthus plantation are then integrated globally to produce an estimate of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations throughout the 21st century. Our best estimate of the pay‐back time for Miscanthus plantation is 30 years. We project a maximum possible reduction in atmospheric CO₂ of 323 ppmv by the end of 21st century, with a reduction of 162 ppmv corresponding to the best estimate scenario.     

Including albedo in time‐dependent LCA of bioenergy

Albedo change during feedstock production can substantially alter the life cycle climate impact of bioenergy. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have compared the effects of albedo and greenhouse gases (GHGs) based on global warming potential (GWP). However, using GWP leads to unequal weighting of climate forcers that act on different timescales. In this study, albedo was included in the time‐dependent LCA, which accounts for the timing of emissions and their impacts. We employed field‐measured albedo and life cycle emissions data along with time‐dependent models of radiative transfer, biogenic carbon fluxes and nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Climate impacts were expressed as global mean surface temperature change over time (?T) and as GWP. The bioenergy system analysed was heat and power production from short‐rotation willow grown on former fallow land in Sweden. We found a net cooling effect in terms of ?T per hectare (?3.8 × 10^–11 K in year 100) and GWP₁₀₀ per MJ fuel (?12.2 g CO₂e), as a result of soil carbon sequestration via high inputs of carbon from willow roots and litter. Albedo was higher under willow than fallow, contributing to the cooling effect and accounting for 34% of GWP₁₀₀, 36% of ?T in year 50 and 6% of ?T in year 100. Albedo dominated the short‐term temperature response (10–20 years) but became, in relative terms, less important over time, owing to accumulation of soil carbon under sustained production and the longer perturbation lifetime of GHGs. The timing of impacts was explicit with ?T, which improves the relevance of LCA results to climate targets. Our method can be used to quantify the first‐order radiative effect of albedo change on the global climate and relate it to the climate impact of GHG emissions in LCA of bioenergy, alternative energy sources or land uses.     

The impact of biomass crop cultivation on temperate biodiversity

The urgency for mitigation actions in response to climate change has stimulated policy makers to encourage the rapid expansion of bioenergy, resulting in major land‐use changes over short timescales. Despite the potential impacts on biodiversity and the environment, scientific concerns about large‐scale bioenergy production have only recently been given adequate attention. Environmental standards or legislative provisions in the majority of countries are still lagging behind the rapid development of energy crops. Ranging from the field to the regional scale, this review (i) summarizes the current knowledge about the impact of biomass crops on biodiversity in temperate regions, (ii) identifies knowledge gaps and (iii) drafts guidelines for a sustainable biomass crop production with respect to biodiversity conservation. The majority of studies report positive effects on biodiversity at the field scale but impacts strongly depend on the management, age, size and heterogeneity of the biomass plantations. At the regional scale, significant uncertainties exist and there is a major concern that extensive commercial production could have negative effects on biodiversity, in particular in areas of high nature‐conservation value. However, integration of biomass crops into agricultural landscapes could stimulate rural economy, thus counteracting negative impacts of farm abandonment or supporting restoration of degraded land, resulting in improved biodiversity values. Given the extent of landconversion necessary to reach the bioenergy targets, the spatial layout and distribution of biomass plantations will determine impacts. To ensure sustainable biomass crop production, biodiversity would therefore have to become an essential part of risk assessment measures in all those countries which have not yet committed to making it an obligatory part of strategic landscape planning. Integrated environmental and economic research is necessary to formulate standards that help support long‐term economic and ecological sustainability of biomass production and avoid costly mistakes in our attempts to mitigate climate change.     

Role of arthropod communities in bioenergy crop litter decomposition†

The extensive land use conversion expected to occur to meet demands for bioenergy feedstock production will likely have widespread impacts on agroecosystem biodiversity and ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration. Although arthropod detritivores are known to contribute to litter decomposition and thus energy flow and nutrient cycling in many plant communities, their importance in bioenergy feedstock communities has not yet been assessed. We undertook an experimental study quantifying rates of litter mass loss and nutrient cycling in the presence and absence of these organisms in three bioenergy feedstock crops—miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and a planted prairie community. Overall arthropod abundance and litter decomposition rates were similar in all three communities. Despite effective reduction of arthropods in experimental plots via insecticide application, litter decomposition rates, inorganic nitrogen leaching, and carbon–nitrogen ratios did not differ significantly between control (with arthropods) and treatment (without arthropods) plots in any of the three community types. Our findings suggest that changes in arthropod faunal composition associated with widespread adoption of bioenergy feedstock crops may not be associated with profoundly altered arthropod‐mediated litter decomposition and nutrient release.     

CO2 fluxes of transitional bioenergy crops: effect of land conversion during the first year of cultivation

The present study examined the effect of land conversion on carbon (C) fluxes using the eddy covariance technique at seven sites in southwestern Michigan (USA). Four sites had been managed as grasslands under the Conservation Reserve Program of the USDA. Three fields had previously been cultivated in a corn/soybean rotation with corn until 2008. The effects of land use change were studied during 2009 when six of the sites were converted to soybean cultivation, with the seventh site kept as a grassland. In winter, the corn fields were C neutral while the CRP lands were C sources, with average emissions of 15 g C m^?2 month^?1. In April 2009, while the corn fields continued to be a C source to the atmosphere, the CRPs switched to C sinks. In May, herbicide (Glyphosate) was applied to the vegetation before the planting of soybean. After tilling the killed‐grass and planting soybean in mid June, all sites continued to be C sources until the end of June. In July, fields previously planted with corn became C sinks, accumulating 15–50 g C m^?2 month^?1. In contrast, converted CRP sites continued to be net sources of C despite strong growth of soybean. The conversion of CRP to soybean induced net C emissions with net ecosystem exchange (NEE) ranging from 155.7 (±25) to 128.1 (±27) g C m^?2 yr^?1. The annual NEE at the reference site was ?81.6 (±26.5) g C m^?2 yr^?1 while at the sites converted from corn/soybean rotation was remarkably different with two sites being sinks of ?91 (±26) and ?56.0 (±20.7) g C m^?2 yr^?1 whereas one site was a source of 31.0 (±10.2) g C m^?2 yr^?1. This study shows how large C imbalances can be invoked in the first year by conversion of grasslands to biofuel crops.     

The outcome is in the assumptions: analyzing the effects on atmospheric CO2 levels of increased use of bioenergy from forest biomass

Recently, several studies have quantified the effects on atmospheric CO₂ concentration of an increased harvest level in forests. Although these studies agreed in their estimates of forest productivity, their conclusions were contradictory. This study tested the effect of four assumptions by which those papers differed. These assumptions regard (1) whether a single or a set of repeated harvests were considered, (2) at what stage in stand growth harvest takes place, (3) how the baseline is constructed, and (4) whether a carbon‐cycle model is applied. A main finding was that current and future increase in the use of bioenergy should be studied considering a series of repeated harvests. Moreover, the time of harvest should be determined based on economical principles, thus taking place before stand growth culminates, which has implications for the design of the baseline scenario. When the most realistic assumptions are used and a carbon‐cycle model is applied, an increased harvest level in forests leads to a permanent increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration.     

Restoration of degraded lands through bioenergy plantations

Land degradation has become a worldwide problem. Increasing population, the conversion of forest land into cropland, and its gradual degradation due to unsustainable agricultural practices have led to this prevailing scenario. Unsustainable agriculture practices like use of chemical fertilizers for increasing crop productivity (recorded 281.75 lakh tonnes in the year 2010–2011) also leads to degradation of land. A total of 4.1 million hectares of culturable wasteland was recorded in the same year. Also, crude oil consumption is increasing at a rate of 1.7% which prompts for massive input of crude oil. Thus, biofuel plantations have recently attracted a lot of attention because of several advantages that they present. The genetically engineered bioenergy crops can help in land restoration by increasing the soil fertility, growing in stress conditions, and they also lead to the production of fuels through their various parts. The use of genetically engineered bioenergy crops will not only help in the prevention of degraded land but also yield biofuel as a product and enhance soil fertility and health for further sustainable agricultural practices.     

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.     

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.     

Energy crops: current status and future prospects

Energy crops currently contribute a relatively small proportion to the total energy produced from biomass each year, but the proportion is set to grow over the next few decades. This paper reviews the current status of energy crops and their conversion technologies, assesses their potential to contribute to global energy demand and climate mitigation over the next few decades, and examines the future prospects. Previous estimates have suggested a technical potential for energy crops of～400 EJ yr^?1 by 2050. In a new analysis based on energy crop areas for each of the IPCC SRES scenarios in 2025 (as projected by the IMAGE 2.2 integrated assessment model), more conservative dry matter and energy yield estimates and an assessment of the impact on non‐CO₂ greenhouse gases were used to estimate the realistically achievable potential for energy crops by 2025 to be between 2 and 22 EJ yr^?1, which will offset～100–2070 Mt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1. These results suggest that additional production of energy crops alone is not sufficient to reduce emissions to meet a 550 μmol mol^?1 atmospheric CO₂ stabilization trajectory, but is sufficient to form an important component in a portfolio of climate mitigation measures, as well as to provide a significant sustainable energy resource to displace fossil fuel resources. Realizing the potential of energy crops will necessitate optimizing the dry matter and energy yield of these crops per area of land through the latest biotechnological routes, with or without the need for genetic modification. In future, the co‐benefits of bioenergy production will need to be optimized and methods will need to be developed to extract and refine high‐value products from the feedstock before it is used for energy production.     

Forest bioenergy climate impact can be improved by allocating forest residue removal

Bioenergy from forest residues can be used to avoid fossil carbon emissions, but removing biomass from forests reduces carbon stock sizes and carbon input to litter and soil. The magnitude and longevity of these carbon stock changes determine how effective measures to utilize bioenergy from forest residues are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the energy sector and to mitigate climate change. In this study, we estimate the variability of GHG emissions and consequent climate impacts resulting from producing bioenergy from stumps, branches and residual biomass of forest thinning operations in Finland, and the contribution of the variability in key factors, i.e. forest residue diameter, tree species, geographical location of the forest biomass removal site and harvesting method, to the emissions and their climate impact. The GHG emissions and the consequent climate impacts estimated as changes in radiative forcing were comparable to fossil fuels when bioenergy production from forest residues was initiated. The emissions and climate impacts decreased over time because forest residues were predicted to decompose releasing CO₂ even if left in the forest. Both were mainly affected by forest residue diameter and climatic conditions of the forest residue collection site. Tree species and the harvest method of thinning wood (whole tree or stem‐only) had a smaller effect on the magnitude of emissions. The largest reduction in the energy production climate impacts after 20 years, up to 62%, was achieved when coal was replaced by the branches collected from Southern Finland, whereas the smallest reduction 7% was gained by using stumps from Northern Finland instead of natural gas. After 100 years the corresponding values were 77% and 21%. The choice of forest residue biomass collected affects significantly the emissions and climate impacts of forest bioenergy.     

Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions

Climate stabilization scenarios emphasize the importance of land‐based mitigation to achieve ambitious mitigation goals. The stabilization scenarios informing the recent IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report suggest that bioenergy could contribute anywhere between 10 and 245 EJ to climate change mitigation in 2100. High deployment of bioenergy with low life cycle GHG emissions would enable ambitious climate stabilization futures and reduce demands on other sectors and options. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) would even enable so‐called negative emissions, possibly in the order of magnitude of 50% of today's annual gross emissions. Here, I discuss key assumptions that differ between economic and ecological perspectives. I find that high future yield assumptions, plausible in stabilization scenarios, look less realistic when evaluated in biophysical metrics. Yield assumptions also determine the magnitude of counterfactual land carbon stock development and partially determine the potential of BECCS. High fertilizer input required for high yields would likely hasten ecosystem degradation. I conclude that land‐based mitigation strategies remain highly speculative; a constant iteration between synoptic integrated assessment models and more particularistic and fine‐grained approaches is a crucial precondition for capturing complex dynamics and biophysical constraints that are essential for comprehensive assessments.     

A reassessment of global bioenergy potential in 2050

Many climate change mitigation strategies rely on strong projected growth in biomass energy, supported by literature estimating high future bioenergy potential. However, expectations to 2050 are highly divergent. Examining the most widely cited studies finds that some assumptions in these models are inconsistent with the best available evidence. By identifying literature‐supported, up‐to‐date assumptions for parameters including crop yields, land availability, and costs, we revise upper‐end estimates of potential biomass availability from dedicated energy crops. Even allowing for the conversion of virtually all ‘unused’ grassland and savannah, we find that the maximum plausible limit to sustainable energy crop production in 2050 would be 40–110 EJ yr^?1. Combined with forestry, crop residues, and wastes, the maximum limit to long‐term total biomass availability is 60–120 EJ yr^?1 in primary energy. After accounting for current trends in bioenergy allocation and conversion losses, we estimate maximum potentials of 10–20 EJ yr^?1 of biofuel, 20–40 EJ yr^?1 of electricity, and 10–30 EJ yr^?1 of heating in 2050. These findings suggest that many technical projections and aspirational goals for future bioenergy use could be difficult or impossible to achieve sustainably.