Carbon Debt Payback Time for a Biomass Fired CHP Plant—A Case Study from Northern Europe

The European Union (EU) has experienced a large increase in the use of biomass for energy in the last decades. In 2015, biomass used to generate electricity, heat, and to a limited extent, liquid fuels accounted for 51% of the EU’s renewable energy production. Bioenergy use is expected to grow substantially to meet energy and climate targets for 2020 and beyond. This development has resulted in analyses suggesting the increased use of biomass for energy might initially lead to increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the atmosphere, a so-called carbon debt. Here, we analyze carbon debt and payback time of substituting coal with forest residues for combined heat and power generation (CHP). The analysis is, in contrast to most other studies, based on empirical data from a retrofit of a CHP plant in northern Europe. The results corroborate findings of a carbon debt, here 4.4 kg CO2eq GJ−1. The carbon debt has a payback time of one year after conversion, and furthermore, the results show that GHG emissions are reduced to 50% relative to continued coal combustion after about 12 years. The findings support the use of residue biomass for energy as an effective means for climate change mitigation.

[1]  Ter-MikaelianMichael,et al.  The carbon neutrality assumption for forest bioenergy: A case study for northwestern Ontario , 2011 .

[2]  Dominik Röser,et al.  Forest chips for energy in Europe: Current procurement methods and potentials , 2013 .

[3]  Lars Zetterberg,et al.  The time aspect of bioenergy – climate impacts of solid biofuels due to carbon dynamics , 2015 .

[4]  Daniel Weisser,et al.  A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies , 2007 .

[5]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Climate effects of electricity production fuelled by coal, forest slash and municipal solid waste with and without carbon capture , 2017 .

[6]  K. Pingoud,et al.  Carbon balance indicator for forest bioenergy scenarios , 2016 .

[7]  R. Matthews,et al.  Review of literature on biogenic carbon and life cycle assessment of forest bioenergy. Final Task 1 report , 2014 .

[8]  Giuntoli Jacopo,et al.  Carbon accounting of forest bioenergy : Conclusions and recommendations from a critical literature review , 2014 .

[9]  H. MacLean,et al.  Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  B. Sohngen,et al.  Economic approach to assess the forest carbon implications of biomass energy. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  D. Saah,et al.  A global meta‐analysis of forest bioenergy greenhouse gas emission accounting studies , 2016 .

[12]  Patrick Lamers,et al.  Damaged forests provide an opportunity to mitigate climate change , 2014 .

[13]  N. Bird,et al.  Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel , 2012 .

[14]  Bjart Holtsmark.  Material for : Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt , 2011 .

[15]  C. Felby,et al.  Biomass for energy in the European Union - a review of bioenergy resource assessments , 2012, Biotechnology for Biofuels.

[16]  B. Dehue.  Implications of a ‘carbon debt' on bioenergy's potential to mitigate climate change , 2013 .

[17]  P. Bernier,et al.  Range and uncertainties in estimating delays in greenhouse gas mitigation potential of forest bioenergy sourced from Canadian forests , 2017 .

[18]  Patrick Lamers,et al.  Developments in international solid biofuel trade—An analysis of volumes, policies, and market factors , 2012 .

[19]  D. Saah,et al.  Carbon Accounting for Woody Biomass from Massachusetts (USA) Managed Forests: A Framework for Determining the Temporal Impacts of Wood Biomass Energy on Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels , 2013 .

[20]  Riina Antikainen,et al.  Forest bioenergy climate impact can be improved by allocating forest residue removal , 2012 .

[21]  J. Liski,et al.  Carbon and decomposition model Yasso for forest soils , 2005 .

[22]  Bjart Holtsmark.  Quantifying the global warming potential of CO2 emissions from wood fuels , 2015 .

[23]  Leif Gustavsson,et al.  Climate effects of bioenergy from forest residues in comparison to fossil energy , 2015 .

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

[25]  M. Harmon,et al.  Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production , 2012 .

[26]  J. Liski.  CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS OF FOREST BIOENERGY AFFECTED BY DECOMPOSITION MODELLING – COMPARISON OF THE Q AND YASSO MODELS Report to the IEA-Bioenergy Task 43 & Task 38 , 2017 .

[27]  N. Bentsen.  Carbon debt and payback time – Lost in the forest? , 2017 .

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

[29]  Göran Berndes,et al.  The climate effect of increased forest bioenergy use in Sweden: evaluation at different spatial and temporal scales , 2016 .

[30]  M. Junginger,et al.  The ‘debt’ is in the detail: A synthesis of recent temporal forest carbon analyses on woody biomass for energy , 2013 .

[31]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Global climate impacts of forest bioenergy: what, when and how to measure? , 2013 .