Modeling Corn Ethanol and Climate

New fuel regulations based on life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have focused renewed attention on life cycle models of biofuels. The BESS model estimates 25% lower life cycle GHG emissions for corn ethanol than does the well-known GREET model, which raises questions about which model is more accurate. I develop a life cycle metamodel to compare the GREET and BESS models in detail and to explain why the results from these models diverge. I find two main reasons for the divergence: (1) BESS models a more efficient biorefinery than is modeled in the cases to which its results have been compared, and (2) in several instances BESS fails to properly count upstream emissions. Adjustments to BESS to account for these differences raise the estimated global warming intensity (not including land use change) of the corn ethanol pathway considered in that model from 45 to 61 g CO₂e MJ⁻¹. Adjusting GREET to use BESS's biorefinery performance and coproduct credit assumptions reduces the GREET estimate from 64 to 61 g CO₂e MJ⁻¹. Although this analysis explains the gap between the two models, both models would be improved with better data on corn production practices and by better treatment of agricultural inputs.     

Impact Assessment of Biodiversity and Carbon Pools from Land Use and Land Use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment,Exemplified with Forestry Operations in Norway

There is a strong need for methods within life cycle assessment (LCA) that enable the inclusion of all complex aspects related to land use and land use change (LULUC). This article presents a case study of the use of one hectare (ha) of forest managed for the production of wood for bioenergy production. Both permanent and temporary changes in above‐ground biomass are assessed together with the impact on biodiversity caused by LULUC as a result of forestry activities. The impact is measured as a product of time and area requirements, as well as by changes in carbon pools and impacts on biodiversity as a consequence of different management options. To elaborate the usefulness of the method as well as its dependency on assumptions, a range of scenarios are introduced in the study. The results show that the impact on climate change from LULUC dominates the results, compared to the impact from forestry operations. This clearly demonstrates the need to include LULUC in an LCA of forestry products. For impacts both on climate change and biodiversity, the results show large variability based on what assumptions are made; and impacts can be either positive or negative. Consequently, a mere measure of land used does not provide any meaning in LCA, as it is not possible to know whether this contributes a positive or negative impact.     

Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: are we there yet?

Ecosystems are under increasing pressure from human activities, with land use and land‐use change at the forefront of the drivers that provoke global and regional biodiversity loss. The first step in addressing the challenge of how to reverse the negative outlook for the coming years starts with measuring environmental loss rates and assigning responsibilities. Pinpointing the global pressures on biodiversity is a task best addressed using holistic models such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is the leading method for calculating cradle‐to‐grave environmental impacts of products and services; it is actively promoted by many public policies, and integrated as part of environmental information systems within private companies. LCA already deals with the potential biodiversity impacts of land use, but there are significant obstacles to overcome before its models grasp the full reach of the phenomena involved. In this review, we discuss some pressing issues that need to be addressed. LCA mainly introduces biodiversity as an endpoint category modeled as a loss in species richness due to the conversion and use of land over time and space. The functional and population effects on biodiversity are mostly absent due to the emphasis on species accumulation with limited geographic and taxonomical reach. Current land‐use modeling activities that use biodiversity indicators tend to oversimplify the real dynamics and complexity of the interactions of species among each other and with their habitats. To identify the main areas for improvement, we systematically reviewed LCA studies on land use that had findings related to global change and conservation ecology. We provide suggestion as to how to address some of the issues raised. Our overall objective was to encourage companies to monitor and take concrete steps to address the impacts of land use on biodiversity on a broader geographical scale and along increasingly globalized supply chains.     

Biofuels agriculture: landscape‐scale trade‐offs between fuel,economics, carbon,energy, food,and fiber

First‐generation biofuels are an existing, scalable form of renewable energy of the type urgently required to mitigate climate change. In this study, we assessed the potential benefits, costs, and trade‐offs associated with biofuels agriculture to inform bioenergy policy. We assessed different climate change and carbon subsidy scenarios in an 11.9 million ha (5.48 million ha arable) region in southern Australia. We modeled the spatial distribution of agricultural production, full life‐cycle net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and net energy, and economic profitability for both food agriculture (wheat, legumes, sheep rotation) and biofuels agriculture (wheat, canola rotation for ethanol/biodiesel production). The costs, benefits, and trade‐offs associated with biofuels agriculture varied geographically, with climate change, and with the level of carbon subsidy. Below we describe the results in general and provide (in parentheses) illustrative results under historical mean climate and a carbon subsidy of A$20 t^?1 CO₂^?e. Biofuels agriculture was more profitable over an extensive area (2.85 million ha) of the most productive arable land and produced large quantities of biofuels (1.7 GL yr^?1). Biofuels agriculture substantially increased economic profit (145.8 million $A yr^?1 or 30%), but had only a modest net GHG abatement (?2.57 million t CO₂^?e yr^?1), and a negligible effect on net energy production (?0.11 PJ yr^?1). However, food production was considerably reduced in terms of grain (?3.04 million t yr^?1) and sheep meat (?1.89 million head yr^?1). Wool fiber production was also substantially reduced (?23.19 kt yr^?1). While biofuels agriculture can produce short‐term benefits, it also has costs, and the vulnerability of biofuels to climatic warming and drying renders it a myopic strategy. Nonetheless, in some areas the profitability of biofuels agriculture is robust to variation in climate and level of carbon subsidy and these areas may form part of a long‐term diversified mix of land‐use solutions to climate change if trade‐offs can be managed.     

Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass‐based Combined Heat and Power Plants

Norway, like many countries, has realized the need to extensively plan its renewable energy future sooner rather than later. Combined heat and power (CHP) through gasification of forest residues is one technology that is expected to aid Norway in achieving a desired doubling of bioenergy production by 2020. To assess the environmental impacts to determine the most suitable CHP size, we performed a unit process‐based attributional life cycle assessment (LCA), in which we compared three scales of CHP over ten environmental impact categories—micro (0.1 megawatts electricity [MWe]), small (1 MWe), and medium (50 MWe) scale. The functional units used were 1 megajoule (MJ) of electricity and 1 MJ of district heating delivered to the end user (two functional units), and therefore, the environmental impacts from distribution of electricity and hot water to the consumer were also considered. This study focuses on a regional perspective situated in middle‐Norway's Nord‐ and Sør‐Trøndelag counties. Overall, the unit‐based environmental impacts between the scales of CHP were quite mixed and within the same magnitude. The results indicated that energy distribution from CHP plant to end user creates from less than 1% to nearly 90% of the total system impacts, depending on impact category and energy product. Also, an optimal small‐scale CHP plant may be the best environmental option. The CHP systems had a global warming potential ranging from 2.4 to 2.8 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of thermal (g CO₂‐eq/MJ_th) district heating and from 8.8 to 10.5 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of electricity (g CO₂‐eq/MJ_el) to the end user.