The effect of assessment scale and metric selection on the greenhouse gas benefits of woody biomass

Abstract Recent attention has focused on the net greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of using woody biomass to produce energy. In particular, a great deal of controversy has erupted over the appropriate manner and scale at which to evaluate these GHG effects. Here, we conduct a comparative assessment of six different assessment scales and four different metric calculation techniques against the backdrop of a common biomass demand scenario. We evaluate the net GHG balance of woody biomass co-firing in existing coal-fired facilities in the state of Virginia, finding that assessment scale and metric calculation technique do in fact strongly influence the net GHG balance yielded by this common scenario. Those assessment scales that do not include possible market effects attributable to increased biomass demand, including changes in forest area, forest management intensity, and traditional industry production, generally produce less-favorable GHG balances than those that do. Given the potential difficulty small operators may have generating or accessing information on the extent of these market effects, however, it is likely that stakeholders and policy makers will need to balance accuracy and comprehensiveness with reporting and administrative simplicity.

[1]  Jeffrey P. Prestemon,et al.  Timber Products Supply and Demand , 2002 .

[2]  R. Birdsey,et al.  Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States , 2006 .

[3]  B. Sohngen,et al.  Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review , 2007 .

[4]  Frederick W. Cubbage,et al.  Projecting southern timber supply for multiple products by subregion , 2009 .

[5]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error , 2009, Science.

[6]  Christopher S. Galik,et al.  Forest biomass supply for bioenergy in the southeast: evaluating assessment scale. , 2012 .

[7]  Gregg Marland,et al.  Forests for Carbon Sequestration or Fossil Fuel Substitution? A Sensitivity Analysis , 1997 .

[8]  B. Murray,et al.  Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets , 2004 .

[9]  A. Baral,et al.  Trees for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution: the issue of cost vs. carbon benefit , 2004 .

[10]  R. H. Williams,et al.  Alternative roles for biomass in coping with greenhouse warming , 1991 .

[11]  Denis Cormier,et al.  Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  Christopher S. Galik,et al.  Extending rotation age for carbon sequestration: A cross-protocol comparison of North American forest offsets , 2009 .

[13]  Linda S. Heath,et al.  A model of forest floor carbon mass for United States forest types , 2002 .