4.6 Article

Global Warming Potential of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Biomass Stored in the Anthroposphere and Used for Bioenergy at End of Life

Journal

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 20-30

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00507.x

Keywords

bioenergy; biogenic carbon dioxide; climate credit; harvested wood products; industrial ecology; life cycle assessment (LCA)

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council through the Bio-energy Innovation Centre (CenBio)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is growing interest in understanding how storage or delayed emission of carbon in products based on bioresources might mitigate climate change, and how such activities could be credited. In this research we extend the recently introduced approach that integrates biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes with the global carbon cycle (using biogenic global warming potential [GWPbio]) to consider the storage period of harvested biomass in the anthroposphere, with subsequent oxidation. We then examine how this affects the climate impact from a bioenergy resource. This approach is compared to several recent methods designed to address the same problem. Using both a 100- and a 500-year fixed time horizon we calculate the GWPbio factor for every combination of rotational and anthropogenic storage periods between 0 and 100 years. The resulting GWPbio factors range from 0.99 (1-year rotation and 100-year storage) to +0.44 (100-year rotation and 0-year storage). The approach proposed in this study includes the interface between biomass growth and emissions and the global carbon cycle, whereas other methods do not model this. These results and the characterization factors produced can determine the climate change benefits or impacts associated with the storage of biomass in the anthroposphere, and the subsequent release of biogenic CO2 with the radiative forcing integrated in a fixed time window.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available