Carbon balance indicator for forest bioenergy scenarios

Abstract

A carbon (C) balance indicator is presented for the evaluation of forest bioenergy scenarios as a means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A bioenergy-intensive scenario with a greater harvest is compared to a baseline scenario. The relative carbon indicator (RC) is defined as the ratio between the difference in terrestrial C stocks – that is the C debt – and the difference in cumulative bioenergy harvest between the scenarios, over a selected time frame T. A value of zero indicates no C debt from additional biomass harvests, while a value of one indicates a C debt equal to the amount of additionally harvested biomass C. Multiplying the RC indicator by the smokestack emission factor of biomass (approximately 110 t CO₂/TJ) provides the net cumulative CO₂ emission factor of the biomass combustion as a function of T, allowing a direct comparison with the emission factors of comparable fossil fuels. The indicator is applied to bioenergy cases in Finland, where typically the rotation length of managed forests is long and the decay rate of harvest residues is slow. The country-level examples illustrate that although Finnish forests remain as a C sink in each of the considered scenarios, the efforts of increasing forest bioenergy may still increase the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations in comparison with the baseline scenario and use of fossil fuels. The results also show that the net emission factor depends – besides on forest-growth or residue-decay dynamics – on the timing and evolution of harvests as well. Unlike for the constant fossil C emission factor, the temporal profile of bioenergy use is of great importance for the net emission factor of biomass.

References Asikainen A, Ilvesniemi H, Sievänen R, Vapaavuori E, Muhonen T (2012) Bioenergia, ilmastonmuutos ja Suomen metsät. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 240. 211 p. Böttcher H, Verkerk PJ, Gusti M, Havlík P, Grassi G (2012) Projection of the future EU forest CO₂ sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 773–783. Bugmann H, Bigler C (2011) Will the CO₂ fertilization effect in forests be offset by reduced tree longevity? Oecologia, 165, 533–544. Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Strømman AH, Hertwich E (2011) CO₂ emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. GCB Bioenergy, 3, 413–426. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319, 1235–1238. Haberl H, Sprinz D, Bonazountas M et al. (2012) Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy, 45, 18–23. Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T (2013) Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment – a review. GCB Bioenergy, 5, 475–486. Holtsmark B (2012) Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Climatic Change, 112, 415–428. Holtsmark B (2015) Quantifying the global warming potential of CO₂ emissions from wood fuels. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 195–206. Hudiburg T, Law B, Turner DP, Campbell J, Donato D, Duane M (2009) Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecological Applications, 19, 163–180. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlomer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Jonker JGG, Junginger M, Faaij A (2013) Carbon payback period and carbon offset parity point of wood pellet production in the South-eastern United States. GCB Bioenergy, 6, 371–389. Kallio AMI, Salminen O, Sievänen R (2013) Sequester or substitute-consequences of increased production of wood based energy on the carbon balance in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics, 19, 402–415. Kirkinen J, Palosuo T, Holmgren K, Savolainen I (2008) Greenhouse impact due to the use of combustible fuels: life cycle viewpoint and relative radiative forcing commitment. Environmental Management, 42, 458–469. Kirkinen J, Soimakallio S, Mäkinen T, Savolainen I (2010) Greenhouse impact assessment of peat-based Fischer-Tropsch diesel life-cycle. Energy Policy, 38, 301–311. Lamers P, Junginger M (2013) The ‘debt’ is in the detail: a synthesis of recent temporal forest carbon analyses on woody biomass for energy. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 7, 373–385. Lindroth A, Lagergren F, Grelle A, Klemedtsson L, Langvall O, Weslien P, Tuulik J (2009) Storms can cause Europe-wide reduction in forest carbon sink. Global Change Biology, 15, 346–355. Luyssaert S, Schulze ED, Borner A et al. (2008) Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature, 455, 213–215. McKechnie J, Colombo S, Chen J, Mabee W, MacLean HL (2011) Forest bioenergy or forest carbon? Assessing trade-offs in greenhouse gas mitigation with wood-based fuels. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 789–795. MELA software (2015). http://mela2.metla.fi/mela/mela/index-en.htm (cited 20 January 2015). Mitchell SR, Harmon ME, O'Connell KEB (2012) Carbon debt and carbon sequestration parity in forest bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 818–827. Nabuurs G-J, Lindner M, Verkerk PJ, Gunia K, Deda P, Michalak R, Grassi G (2013) First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nature Climate Change, 3, 792–796. Pastor J, Post WM (1986) Influence of climate, soil moisture, and succession on forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Biogeochemistry, 2, 3–27. Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Comnick J, Manriquez C (2005) An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood and Fiber Science, 37, 140–148. Pingoud K, Pohjola J, Valsta L (2010) Assessing the integrated climatic impacts of forestry and wood products. Silva Fennica, 44, 155–175. Pingoud K, Ekholm T, Savolainen I (2012) Global warming potential factors and warming payback time as climate indicators of forest biomass use. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17, 369–386. Poudel BC, Sathre R, Bergh J, Gustavsson L, Lundström A, Hyvönen R (2012) Potential effects of intensive forestry on biomass production and total carbon balance in north-central Sweden. Environmental Science and Policy, 15, 106–124. Redsven V, Hirvelä H, Härkönen K, Salminen O, Siitonen M (2011) MELA 2009 Reference Manual (2nd Edition). Finnish Forest Research Institute. 664 p. Repo A, Tuomi M, Liski J (2011) Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy, 3, 107–115. Repo A, Känkänen R, Tuovinen J, Antikainen R, Tuomi M, Vanhala P, Liski J (2012) Forest bioenergy climate impact can be improved by allocating forest residue removal. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 202–212. Schlamadinger B, Marland G (1996) The role of forest and bioenergy strategies in the global carbon cycle. Biomass and Bioenergy, 10, 275–300. Schlamadinger B, Spitzer J, Kohlmaier G, Lüdeke M (1995) Carbon balance of bioenergy from logging residues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 8, 221–234. Schulze E, Körner C, Law BE, Haberl H, Luyssaert S (2012) Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 611–616. Sievänen R, Salminen O, Lehtonen A, Ojanen P, Liski J, Ruosteenoja K, Tuomi M (2014) Carbon stock changes of forest land in Finland under different levels of wood use and climate change. Annals of Forest Science, 71, 255–265. Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H et al. (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlomer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Tamm CO (1991) Nitrogen in terrestrial ecosystems: questions of productivity, vegetational changes, and ecosystem stability. In: Ecological Studies, Vol 81. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Tamm CO, Aronsson A, Popovic B, Flower-Ellis J (1999) Optimum Nutrition and Nitrogen Saturation in Scots Pine Stands. Studia Forestalia Suecica, Vol 206. Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences, Upsala. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Mckechnie J, Colombo SJ, Chen J, Maclean HL (2011) The carbon neutrality assumption for forest bioenergy: a case study for northwestern Ontario. Forestry Chronicle, 87, 644–652. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Colombo SJ, Chen J (2013) Effects of harvesting on spatial and temporal diversity of carbon stocks in a boreal forest landscape. Ecology and Evolution, 3, 3738–3750. Tuomi M, Thum T, Järvinen H et al. (2009) Leaf litter decomposition-estimates of global variability based on Yasso07 model. Ecological Modelling, 220, 3362–3371. Tuomi M, Laiho R, Repo A, Liski J (2011a) Wood decomposition model for boreal forests. Ecological Modelling, 222, 709–718. Tuomi M, Rasinmäki J, Repo A, Vanhala P, Liski J (2011b) Soil carbon model Yasso07 graphical user interface. Environmental Modelling and Software, 26, 1358–1362. van der Werf Guido R, Randerson JT, Giglio L et al. (2010) Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 11707–11735. Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E (2010) National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 72–85. Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N (2012) Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy, 4, 761–772.