Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy

Forest residues can be left at the harvest site to gradually decompose, or can be collected for energy purposes. This study analyzes the primary energy and climate impacts of bioenergy systems where forest residues are collected and used for electricity, heat and transportation, compared to fossil-based energy systems where fossil fuels provide the same services while forest residues are left on site to decompose. Time profiles are elaborated of primary energy use and carbon dioxide emissions from various energy applications fulfilled by bioenergy or fossil energy systems. Different biological decay functions are considered based on process-based modeling and inventory data across various climate zones. For all scenarios, the changes in cumulative radiative forcing (CRF) are calculated over a 300-year period, to evaluate the short- and long-term contributions of forest residue to climate change mitigation. A life cycle perspective along the full energy chains is used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of each system. The results show largest primary energy and climate benefits when forest residues are collected and used efficiently for energy services. Using biomass to substitute fossil coal provides greater climate change mitigation benefits than substituting oil or fossil gas. Some bioenergy substitutions result in positive CRF, i.e. increased global warming, during an initial period. This occurs for relatively inefficient bioenergy conversion pathways to substitute less carbon intensive fossil fuels, e.g. biomotor fuel used to replace diesel. More beneficial bioenergy substitutions, such as efficiently replacing coal, result immediately in reduced CRF. Biomass decay rates and transportation distance have less influence on climate benefits.

[1]  Max Åhman,et al.  Biomethane in the transport sector—An appraisal of the forgotten option , 2010 .

[2]  Dominik Röser,et al.  Forest energy procurement: state of the art in Finland and Sweden , 2013 .

[3]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Time-dependent climate benefits of using forest residues to substitute fossil fuels , 2011 .

[4]  L. Gustavsson,et al.  Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns , 2011 .

[5]  Juha Laitila,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions of forest bioenergy supply and utilization in Finland , 2014 .

[6]  Johanna Kirkinen,et al.  Greenhouse impact of fossil, forest residues and jatropha diesel: a static and dynamic assessment , 2009 .

[7]  L. Gustavsson,et al.  Heat Supply of Multi-apartment Buildings with Varied Heat Demands , 2014 .

[8]  L. Gustavsson,et al.  CO2 Mitigation: On Methods and Parameters for Comparison of Fossil-Fuel and Biofuel Systems , 2006 .

[9]  Aie,et al.  World Energy Outlook 2013 , 2013 .

[10]  Tomas Nordfjell,et al.  Decomposition of stump and root systems of Norway spruce in Sweden—A modelling approach , 2009 .

[11]  Margareta Wihersaari,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from final harvest fuel chip production in Finland , 2005 .

[12]  S. Berg,et al.  Energy efficiency and the environmental impact of harvesting stumps and logging residues , 2010, European Journal of Forest Research.

[13]  Aie World Energy Outlook 2011 , 2001 .

[14]  T. Palosuo,et al.  Factors affecting the uncertainty of sinks and stocks of carbon in Finnish forests soils and vegetation , 2006 .

[15]  Per-Anders Hansson,et al.  Greenhouse gas balance of harvesting stumps and logging residues for energy in Sweden , 2011 .

[16]  M. Starr,et al.  Decomposition and nutrient release from logging residues after clear-cutting of mixed boreal forest , 2004, Plant and Soil.

[17]  Changsheng Li,et al.  A multi-model comparison of soil carbon assessment of a coniferous forest stand , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[18]  Bernd Möller,et al.  Heat Roadmap Europe 2050 : Second Pre-study for the EU27 , 2013 .

[19]  R. Borup,et al.  Dimethyl ether (DME) as an alternative fuel , 2006 .

[20]  Göran I. Ågren,et al.  Predicting effects of different harvesting intensities with a model of nitrogen limited forest growth , 1999 .

[21]  Robert Sausen,et al.  Metrics of Climate Change: Assessing Radiative Forcing and Emission Indices , 2003 .

[22]  Göran I. Ågren,et al.  Decomposer invasion rate, decomposer growth rate, and substrate chemical quality: how they influence soil organic matter turnover , 2001 .

[23]  J. Stendahl,et al.  Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution , 2007 .

[24]  T. Palosuo,et al.  Uncertainty of forest carbon stock changes – implications to the total uncertainty of GHG inventory of Finland , 2007 .

[25]  Aleksi Lehtonen,et al.  Carbon accumulation in Finland's forests 1922–2004 – an estimate obtained by combination of forest inventory data with modelling of biomass, litter and soil , 2006 .

[26]  Göran I. Ågren,et al.  Are Swedish forest soils sinks or sources for CO2—model analyses based on forest inventory data , 2007 .

[27]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Integrated biomass-based production of district heat, electricity, motor fuels and pellets of different scales , 2013 .

[28]  Sankar Bhattacharya,et al.  Power Generation from Coal: Ongoing Developments and Outlook , 2011 .

[29]  Göran I. Ågren,et al.  Forest carbon balances at the landscape scale investigated with the Q model and the CoupModel - Responses to intensified harvests , 2013 .

[30]  André Faaij,et al.  Outlook for advanced biofuels , 2006 .

[31]  Atul K. Jain,et al.  An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report , 1997 .

[32]  Ilkka Savolainen,et al.  Greenhouse impacts of the use of peat and wood for energy , 1994 .

[33]  Marc Londo,et al.  Bioenergy: a sustainable and reliable energy source. A review of status and prospects. , 2009 .

[34]  G. Müller,et al.  The Scientific Basis , 1995 .

[35]  Jussi Rasinmäki,et al.  Soil carbon model Yasso07 graphical user interface , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[36]  Juha Heikkinen,et al.  Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch according to stand age for boreal forests , 2003 .

[37]  Roger Sathre,et al.  Costs and CO2 benefits of recovering, refining and transporting logging residues for fossil fuel replacement , 2011 .

[38]  J. Liski,et al.  Soil organic carbon stock changes in Swedish forest soils—A comparison of uncertainties and their sources through a national inventory and two simulation models , 2013 .

[39]  Jonas M. Joelsson,et al.  Reduction of CO2 emission and oil dependency with biomass-based polygeneration , 2010 .

[40]  L. Zetterberg,et al.  Climate impact from peat utilisation in Sweden , 2004 .

[41]  J. Liski,et al.  Leaf litter decomposition-Estimates of global variability based on Yasso07 model , 2009, 0906.0886.

[42]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Coproduction of district heat and electricity or biomotor fuels , 2011 .

[43]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Using biomass for climate change mitigation and oil use reduction , 2007 .

[44]  Taru Palosuo,et al.  Greenhouse Impact Due to the Use of Combustible Fuels: Life Cycle Viewpoint and Relative Radiative Forcing Commitment , 2008, Environmental management.

[45]  Zong-ci Zhao,et al.  Climate change 2001, the scientific basis, chap. 8: model evaluation. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC , 2001 .

[46]  Jari Liski,et al.  Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues , 2011 .