Critical errors exist in some methodologies applied to evaluate the effects of using forest biomass for bioenergy on atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions. The most common error is failing to consider the fate of forest carbon stocks in the absence of demand for bioenergy. Without this demand, forests will either continue to grow or will be harvested for other wood products. Our goal is to illustrate why correct accounting requires that the difference in stored forest carbon between harvest and no-harvest scenarios be accounted for when forest biomass is used for bioenergy. Among the flawed methodologies evaluated in this review, we address the rationale for accounting for the fate of forest carbon in the absence of demand for bioenergy for forests harvested on a sustained yield basis. We also discuss why the same accounting principles apply to individual stands and forest landscapes.

/pdf/the-burning-question-does-forest-bioenergy-reduce-carbon-1nsgfuujwr.pdf

The burning question: does forest bioenergy reduce carbon emissions? A review of common misconceptions about forest carbon accounting.

Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation

In recent years, the production of pellets derived from forestry biomass to replace coal for electricity generation has been increasing, with over 10 million tonnes traded internationally?primarily between United States and Europe but with an increasing trend to Asia. Critical to this trade is the classification of woody biomass as ?renewable energy? and thus eligible for public subsidies. However, much scientific study on the net effect of this trend suggests that it is having the opposite effect to that expected of renewable energy, by increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide for substantial periods of time. This review, based on recent work by Europe's Academies of Science, finds that current policies are failing to recognize that removing forest carbon stocks for bioenergy leads to an initial increase in emissions. Moreover, the periods during which atmospheric CO2 levels are raised before forest regrowth can reabsorb the excess emissions are incompatible with the urgency of reducing emissions to comply with the objectives enshrined in the Paris Agreement. We consider how current policy might be reformed to reduce negative impacts on climate and argue for a more realistic science-based assessment of the potential of forest bioenergy in substituting for fossil fuels. The length of time atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increase is highly dependent on the feedstocks and we argue for regulations to explicitly require these to be sources with short payback periods. Furthermore, we describe the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change accounting rules which allow imported biomass to be treated as zero emissions at the point of combustion and urge their revision to remove the risk of these providing incentives to import biomass with negative climate impacts. Reforms such as these would allow the industry to evolve to methods and scales which are more compatible with the basic purpose for which it was designed.

/pdf/serious-mismatches-continue-between-science-and-policy-in-lj0o8fpbpl.pdf

Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy

https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/files/145987997/Published_Version.pdf

An assessment of the torrefaction of North American pine and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy-making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short-term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium- to long-term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transparency and consistency is needed in greenhouse gas reporting and accounting related to bioenergy.

/pdf/applying-a-science-based-systems-perspective-to-dispel-267yivkdw8.pdf

Applying a science-based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, CanadaAbstractForest bioenergy can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions asso-ciated with energy production. We assessed changes in GHG emissions resulting from displacement of coal withwood pellets for the Atikokan Generating Station located in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Two contrastingbiomass sources were considered for continuous wood pellet production: harvest residue from current harvestoperations (residue scenario) and ﬁbre from expanded harvest of standing live trees (stemwood scenario). Forthe stemwood scenario, two metrics were used to assess the effects of displacing coal with forest biomass onGHG emissions: (i) time to carbon sequestration parity, deﬁned as the time from the beginning of harvest towhen the combined GHG beneﬁt of displacing coal with biomass and the amount of carbon in regenerating for-est equalled the amount of forest carbon without harvest for energy production; and (ii) time to carbon debtrepayment, deﬁned as the time from the beginning of harvest to when the combined GHG beneﬁt of displacingcoal with biomass and the amount of carbon in the regenerating forest equalled forest carbon at the time of har-vest. Only time to carbon sequestration parity was used for the residue scenario. In the residue scenario, carbonsequestration parity was achieved within 1 year. In the stemwood scenario, times to carbon sequestration parityand carbon debt repayment were 91 and 112 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates wererobust when parameter values were varied. Modelling experiments showed that increasing growth rates forregenerating stands in the stemwood scenario could substantially reduce time to carbon sequestration parity.We discuss the use of the two metrics (time to carbon sequestration parity and time to carbon debt repayment)for assessing the effects of forest bioenergy projects on GHG emissions and make recommendations on terminol-ogy and methodologies for forest bioenergy studies.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gcbb.12198

Carbon debt repayment or carbon sequestration parity? Lessons from a forest bioenergy case study in Ontario, Canada

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Rick Reynolds

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Carbon debt repayment or carbon sequestration parity? Lessons from a forest bioenergy case study in Ontario, Canada