Task 25: Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems
27-30 September 1999 – Gatlinburg, Tennessee, USA
Jointly organized by
|Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Tennessee 37831-6335, USA
A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
Session 1: Demonstration of a computer tool for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems
Task 25 has developed and published a standardized methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems (Biomass and Bioenergy 13: 359-375, 1997). This methodology has been applied using the computer model GEMIS which was extended to allow a detailed assessment of bioenergy fuel chains. This was presented, and some case studies were elaborated together with the participants.
Session 2: Life-cycle assessment of electricity and liquid fuels from biomass
A large potential exists for using bioenergy in industrial sector and for power generation. Another way of employing biomass for reduction of CO2 emission is through conversion into liquid biofuels to be used, for example, in internal combustion engines. The energy and GHG balances of such bioenergy uses have been subject to several studies, and some of the most recent analyses were presented.
Session 3: Biomass products
Non-energy uses of biomass offer possibilities for sequestering carbon and reducing CO2 emissions through displacement of other materials. This sesssion presented life-cycle studies of biomass materials and elaborate potentials for reduction of GHG emissions through use of renewable materials.
Session 4: Status of the IPCC special report on “land-use, land-use change & forestry”
Several Task 25 researchers have been involved in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) special report on “land use, land-use change, and forestry”, commissioned by the negotiating bodies of the UN climate convention following the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The main task of this report is operationalizing the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol with respect to land-use change and forestry. This includes assessment of defininitions of terms used in the Protocol, as well the elaboration of modalities, rules and guidelines. The status of this report was presented, and the implications for bioenergy were discussed.
Excursion (East Tennessee)
A half-day excursion on Wednesday afternoon took the participants to the Free-Air CO2 Exposure (FACE) facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Graphite Reactor, the world’s oldest nuclear reactor. This included an overview presentation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
MONDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 1999
IEA Bioenergy Task 25 – Administrative Matters
This session will feature a presentation by Uwe Fritsche (Ökoinstitut, Darmstadt/Germany) who developed the software GEMIS for life cycle analyses of fuel cycles, and a computer demonstration of the bioenergy part to this software by Gerfried Jungmeier (Joanneum Research, Graz/Austria). This will be followed by a simple bioenergy case study that will be elaborated together with the participants.
Full fuel cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass-derived ethanol fuel in Canada
Donald V. O’Connor*, Ali R. Esteghlalian**, David J. Gregg**, and John N. Saddler**
*(S&T) Consultants Inc., Delta, Canada; **Forest Products Biotechnology, Forest Sciences Centre, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
TUESDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 1999
Life cycle assessment of electricity from biomass vs. coal in the USA
Margaret Mann and Pamela Spath
NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden CO, USA
ERGO: an integrated, user-friendly model for computing energy and greenhouse gas budgets of bioenergy systems
Robert Matthews, Christopher Vials and Paul A. Henshall
Forest Research (Forestry Commission Research Agency), Farnham, United Kingdom
Estimation of energy and carbon dioxide budgets of wood-fired electricity generation systems in Britain.
Robert Matthews* and Nigel Mortimer
*Forest Research (Forestry Commission Research Agency), Farnham, United Kingdom
The role of GHG mitigation in energy policy and legislation of the Republic of Croatia
Julije Domac, Vladimir Jelavic
Energy Institute Hrvoje Pozar, Zadar, Croatia
Work on Biomass Production at the Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program
ORNL – Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program, Oak Ridge TN, USA
Biofuels use by North Carolina industry
Appalachian State University, Boone, USA
Biomass projects at Trigen Biopower
Trigen Biopower, Inc., Charlotte, USA
Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions for products manufactured at a European wood-processing company
Ilkka Savolainen, Kim Pingoud, and Antti Lehtilä
VTT Energy, Espoo, Finland
How to use forests for GHG mitigation: building materials, biomass for energy, or carbon storage? Wood vs. concrete buildings
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Biomass for energy or materials? The European BRED (Biomass for Greenhouse Gas Emission REDuction) project
Dolf Gielen et al.
IEA – ETSAP, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN, Petten, The Netherlands
Inventorying and modelling of carbon dynamics in wood products
Kim Pingoud*, A. Perälä**, and Ari Pussinen***
* VTT Energy, Espoo, Finland; ** VTT Building Technology, Tampere, Finland; *** European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland
Status of chapter 4, IPCC special report on land-use change and forestry (afforestation, reforestation, deforestation).
Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria
Status of chapter 5, IPCC special report on land-use change and forestry (additional activities in the LUCF sector).
ORNL – Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN, USA
WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 1999
Tropical Forest Conservation and the Clean Development Mechanism: Implications for Bio-energy
Reimund Schwarze and J.-O. Niles
Stanford University, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford CA, USA
Perspective of the financial sector on the draft IPCC special report on land use, land use change and forestry
Environmental Financial Products, LLC, Chicago / Washington, USA
A carbon monitoring system for indigenous forests
New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd., Rotorua, New Zealand
THURSDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 1999
|ALLEN, Nicole||Systems Corporation||1820 Midpark Rd, Suite C, Knoxville, TN 37921 USA||+1 423 558 9459||+1 423 558 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|BRADLEY, Doug||Domtar Inc.||700-1600 Scott Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4N7, CANADA||+1 613 725 6745||+1 613 725 6820||doug.bradley@ domtar.com|
|CAUGHMAN, Jerry||Trigen Power, Inc.||9140 Arrowpoint Blvd., Suite 310, Charlotte, NC 28273, USA||+1 704 525 5819||+1 704 527 1218|
|COWIE, Annette||State Forests of NSW||P.O.Box 100 Beecroft 2121 NSW, AUSTRALIA||+61 02 9872 0138||+61 02 9871 email@example.com|
|CUSHMAN, Janet||Oak Ridge National Laboratory||Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sci. Div., P.O.Box 2008, Bldg. 1059, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA||+1 423 574 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|DOMAC, Julije||Energy Institute “Hrovje Pozar”||Ulica Grada Vukovara 37, 10000 Zagreb, CROATIA||+385 1 6322 848||+385 1 6118 email@example.com|
|FOCK, W. Martin||DK-Teknik Energy & Environment||Gladsaxe Moelleved 15, DK-2860 Soeborg, DENMARK||+45 39 555 999||+45 39 69 60 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|FORD-ROBERTSON, Justin||Forest Research||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 347 5899||+64 7 347 email@example.com|
|FRITSCHE, Uwe R.||Institute for Applied Ecology||Elisabethenstrasse 55-57, D-64283 Darmstadt, GERMANY||+49 6151 81 91 24||+49 6151 81 91 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|GALEANO, Sergio F.||Georgia Pacific Corp.||133 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta GA 30303, USA||+1 404 652 4654||+1 404 654 email@example.com|
|GIELEN, Dolf||ECN-Policy Studies||P.O.Box 1, 1755ZG Petten, THE NETHERLANDS||+31 224 56 4460||+31 224 56 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|GOGOLEK, Peter||CANMET Energy Technology Centre||1 Haanel Drive, Nepean, K1A 1M1, CANADA||+1 613 947 2082||+1 613 995 email@example.com|
|GUSTAVSSON, Leif||Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology||Gerdagatan 13, SE-223 62 Lund, SWEDENfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|HEDING, Niels||Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute||Hoersholm Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hoersholm, DENMARK||+45 4576 3200||+45 4576 email@example.com|
|HOANG LUONG, Pham||Energy Program, Asian Institute of Technology||P.O. 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, THAILAND||+66 2 524 5411||+66 2 524 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|KARJALAINEN, Timo||European Forest Institute||Toritatu 34, FIN-80100 Joensuu, FINLAND||+358 13 2520 240||+358 13 124 email@example.com|
|KARLSSON, Asa||Environmental and energy systems studies, Lund University||Gerdagatan 13, SE-223 62 Lund, SWEDEN||+46 46 222 4833||+46 46 222 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|KELLEY, Steve||National Renewable Energy Laboratory||1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401, USA||+1 303 384 6123||+1 303 384 email@example.com|
|KHESHGI, Haroon||Exxon Research and Engineering Company||Route 22 East, Annandale, NJ 08801, USA||+1 908 730 2531||+1 908 730 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|KURBANOV, Eldar||University Knoxville||3500 Sutherland Avenue, Apt I-103, Knoxville, TN 37919, USAemail@example.com|
|LEBLANC, Alice||Environmental Financial Products LLC||1800 M St NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036, USA||+1 202 261 1366||+1 202 223 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|MANN, Margaret K.||National Renewable Energy Laboratory||1617 Cole Blvd; MS-1613, Golden, CO 80401, USA||+1 303 275 2921||+1 303 275 email@example.com|
|MARLAND, Gregg||Oak Ridge National Laboratory||Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6335, USA||+1 423 241 4850||+1 423 574 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|MATTHEWS, Robert||Forestry Commission Research Agency||Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham Surrey, GU10 4LH, UK||+44 1420 526 235||+44 1420 234 50||r.matthews@ forestry.gov.uk|
|MAYFIELD, Michael||Appalachian State University, Dept. of Arts and Science||P.O.Box 32066, Boone, NC 28608 – 2066, USA||+1 826 262 7058||+1 826 262 email@example.com|
|MONROE, Claud V.||Systems Corporation||1820 Midpark Rd; Suite C, Knoxville, TN 37921, USA||+1 423 558 9459||+1 423 558 8831||cmonroe@ systemscorp.com|
|NILES, John O.||Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University||Dept. of Biological Sciences, Stanford CA 94305-5020, USA||+1 650 725 9915||+1 650 723 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|O’BRIEN, Susan||ETSU||154, Marwell, Didcot, Oxon, UK||+44 1235 432 571||+44 1235 436 email@example.com|
|O’CONNOR, Donald P.||University of British Columbia||Wood Science-4033-2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, CANADA||+604 822 9352||+604 822 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|PINGOUD, Kim||VTT Energy||P.O.Box 1606 (Tekniikantie 4C, Espoo), 02044 VTT, FINLAND||+358 9 456 5074||+358 9 456 email@example.com|
|PRETO, Fernando||CANMET Energy Technology Centre||1 Haanel Drive, Nepean, K1A 1M1, CANADA||+1 613 996 5589||+1 613 992 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|READ, Peter||Econ. Dept., Massay University, New Zealand||“Clovertea”, No. 1 Line, RD5, Palmerston North, NEW ZEALAND||+64 63 55 91 94||+64 63 50 56 email@example.com|
|SAVOLAINEN, Ilkka||VTT Energy||FIN-02044 VTT, FINLAND||+358 9456 5062||+358 9456 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|SCHLAMADINGER, Bernhard||JOANNEUM RESEARCH, Institute of energy research||Elisabethstrasse 5, 8010-Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 316 876 1340||+43 316 876 1320||bernhard.schlamadinger@ joanneum.at|
|SCHWARZE, Reimund||Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University (currently); Institute of Environmental Economics, University of Technology (permanent)||E413, Encina Hall, Stanford, CA 94305-6055, USA
Uhlandstrasse 4/5, D-10623 Berlin, GERMANY
|+1 650 725 2526
+49 30 314 25 263
|+1 650 725 1992
+49 30 314 24 968
|WHITE, John G.||Oregon Office of Energy||625 Marion St., NE, Suite 1, Salem 02, 97301-3742, USA||+1 503 378 3194||+1 503 373 email@example.com|
|WILHELM, Donald J.||SFA Pacific, Inc.||444 Castro Street, Suite 920, Mountain View, California 94041, USA||+1 650 969 8876||+1 650 969 1317||donwilhelm@ sfapac.vip.best.com|
Proceedings of the Workshop
Bioenergy for mitigation of CO2 emissions:
the power, transportation and industrial sectors
K.A. Robertson and B. Schlamadinger (eds.)
GEMIS (Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems) is a computerized life-cycle analysis model, LCA database, and cost-emission analysis system. GEMIS evaluates environmental impacts of energy, material and transport systems, i. e. air emissions (SO2, NOx, particulates, CO, NMVOC etc.), greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O etc.), solid/liquid wastes, and land use. It can be used to analyze local, regional, national and global energy/material/transport systems, or any scope of sectoral or cross-sectoral sub-system (e.g., a plant, facility, or special life-cycle). Furthermore, GEMIS can determine the economic costs of scenario options.
Since 1987, Öko-Institut (Institute for Applied Ecology) in Germany developed GEMIS as a publicly available, free software and database. In 1990, an English version called TEMIS (Total-Emission-Model for Integrated Systems) was developed for US-DOE, and in 1995, a similar tool called EM (Environmental Manual for Power Development) was developed for German GTZ, and the World Bank to extend the scope to developing countries. Since GEMIS 3.0, the model runs under Windows on IBM-compatible PCs.
The GEMIS/EM database is the most relevant part of the model, offering data for more than 5,000 processes, and covering more than 30 countries. Currently, Öko-Institut works on an improved, multi-language version 4.0 which will be available in late 1999. Data from GEMIS will be available also in the Internet, and the future GEMIS 4.0 database will contain English summaries of all processes. Data export to ACCESS format, and linkage to EXCEL will be further new features of the upcoming new model release.
With GEMIS 4.0, all previous “daughter models” will be integrated into one single software which can be switched to other languages (including Help, and Online Documentation).
The GEMIS model family is used in OECD countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, UK, USA), more than 20 developing countries (e.g, China, India, South Africa), and Central/Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Slovenia).
Increasing the use of bioenergy is one promising option for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Hence it is important to know the greenhouse gas emissions of bioenergy systems in comparison to fossil fuel systems. A life cycle analyses of biomass and fossil fuel energy systems is made to compare the overall greenhouse gas emission of both systems for heat and electricity supply. Different bioenergy systems to supply electricity and heat from various biomass resources are analysed for the Austrian situation in 2000 and 2020. Total emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) along the fuel chain, including land use change and by-products, are calculated. The systems taken into consideration are different conversion technologies and different fuels from forestry, agriculture, trade and industry. The methodology was developed within the IEA Bioenergy Task 25 on “Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems” and is orientated on ISO 14040. In this paper the results of five selected examples are shown in detail for the comparison of bioenergy systems and fossil energy systems for electricity, heat and combined electricity and heat supply. Further the CO2-equivalents per kWh for the most im-portant bioenergy systems and fossil energy systems in Austria 2000 and 2020 and their comparison as a percentage of CO2-equivalent reduction are shown. The results demonstrate that some of the bioenergy systems reduce greenhouse gas emission already because of avoided emissions of the reference biomass use and/or because of certain substitution effects of by-products. In general the greenhouse gas emissions of bioenergy systems are lower compared to the fossil systems. Therefore a significant reduction of greenhouse gases is possible by replacing fossil energy systems with bioenergy systems. This comparison may help policy makers, utilities and industry to identify effective biomass options in agriculture in order to reach emission reduction targets.
D.V. O’Connor, A.R. Esteghlalian , D.J. Gregg and J.N. Saddler
Greenhouse and non-greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter, have been shown to have a discernible impact on global climate and various aspects of human life on earth. The transportation sector is one of the main contributors to greenhouse emissions, especially in the United States and Canada. Alternative energy sources, such as biomass-derived ethanol, can play a major role in reducing such emissions by sequestering the atmospheric CO2 during photosynthesis and providing highly oxygenated fuels for near-complete combustion in road vehicle engines. In Canada, fuel-grade ethanol can be produced from the large amounts of agricultural residues generated in the Prairie, Ontario and Quebec regions and from the forestry waste available in Pacific and Atlantic Provinces.
The province of British Columbia (BC) alone generates about 3.3 million Bone Dry tonnes (BDT) of surplus softwood waste per year. There are also in excess of 230,000 BDTs per annum of clarifier sludge and pulp chip fines (reject chips) and unknown amounts of yardwaste that could be accessed from interior pulp mills. Currently, a significant percentage of these materials is inefficiently incinerated. The biomass-to-ethanol process offers an inherently ‘clean’ alternative waste management scheme that can make significant contributions to mitigation of CO2 and other air pollutants by replacing conventional practices such as field burning or wood incineration in beehive burners. The latter methods generate large amounts of carbon dioxide and particulate matter.
In addition to environmental benefits, utilization of woodwaste for ethanol fuel production has important implications in terms of creating new employment opportunities and facilitating the development of rural areas. It has been estimated that there is the potential to create approximately 100 direct jobs at four ethanol facilities in the BC interior, and also 120-150 jobs in the feedstock supply sector. The construction phase of the ethanol facilities is also estimated to create 350 jobs, hence increasing the direct job opportunities to 220-250. Assuming that for every direct job one indirect job is created, there will be a total of 440-500 new jobs in the province of British Columbia alone.
The greenhouse-gas emissions model developed and recently (1998) modified by Delucchi calculates CO2-equivalent emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, non-methane organic compounds weighted by their ozone-forming potential, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter from most stages of the lifecycle of fuels and vehicles. A full fuel cycle includes production, processing, distribution, and utilization of the fuel. Delucchi’s model has recently been further modified to simulate the full cycle emissions for a variety of conventional and alternative fuels and for both light and heavy-duty vehicles in Canada. Fuels analyzed in the original model include conventional and reformulated gasoline; natural gas; ethanol from corn, wood and switchgrass; and bio-diesel from soybeans. The Canadianized version is capable of analyzing additional fuel/vehicle combinations such as canola methyl ester and dimethyl ether from natural gas for heavy-duty vehicles, ethanol from agricultural residues, and methanol and hydrogen from natural gas for fuel cell powered light-duty vehicles and buses.
This paper discusses the full fuel cycle emission of primary greenhouse gases, i.e., carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, for ethanol fuel derived from agricultural and forestry waste calculated by the Canadian version of Delucchi’s model. It also analyzes the cost effectiveness of greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from production and use of biomass-derived ethanol.
M.K. Mann and P.L. Spath
To determine the environmental implications of producing electricity from biomass and coal, life cycle assessments (LCA) have been conducted based on three power generation systems: 1) a biomass-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) system, 2) three coal-fired power plant technologies, and 3) a system cofiring waste biomass with coal. Each assessment was conducted in a cradle-to-grave manner to cover all processes necessary for the operation of the power plant, including raw material extraction, feed preparation, transportation, and waste disposal and recycling. Each study was conducted independently and can therefore stand alone. However, the resulting emissions, resource consumption, and energy requirements of each system can ultimately be compared. Although the studies conducted quantified resources consumed, as well as several air, water, and solid waste emissions, this paper will pay particular attention to net CO2emissions and energy balances. The biomass IGCC system emits only 4.5% of the CO2 produced by the average coal-fired power system. This is possible because CO2 emitted from the power plant is absorbed by the growing biomass. Cofiring residue biomass at 15% and 5% by heat input reduces greenhouse gas emissions on a CO2-equivalent basis from the average coal system by 17.6% and 5.1%, respectively, per unit of electricity produced. The life cycle energy balance of the coal systems is significantly lower than that of the biomass system because of the consumption of a non-renewable resource. Not counting the coal consumed, the net energy produced is still lower because of energy used in processes related to flue gas clean-up. Cofiring biomass reduces total system energy consumption by 12.4% and 3.4% for the 15% and 5% cofiring cases, respectively.
P.I. Campbell, C. Vials and R.W. Matthews
A computer model, ERGO, has been developed for estimating energy and emissions budgets of bioenergy systems. Although originally applied to short rotation coppice tree systems, the principles of the model are general, and its application to annual non-woody crops and long rotation plantation forestry systems has been demonstrated. The model requires three main data inputs. The first of these is a basic database of calorific values, energy requirements and emissions factors for fossil fuels, materials and machinery likely to be used in bioenergy production. The model already possesses a library of such data as an integral part of its structure, and a facility is provided for updating and extending the library. The second type of data input required is the measured, estimated or projected biomass yield of the bioenergy crop. An option is available to account for carbon dynamics in unutilised parts of the crop as well as the soil. The third type of data input required is usually the most complex. The user is required to specify a comprehensive, time-ordered list of all the activities involved in bioenergy crop management, fuel processing and energy utilisation. The model enables the consistent and transparent definition and computation of energy and emissions budgets for a wide range of bioenergy production systems. The latest version of ERGO is PC-based a friendly and intuitive graphical user interface. The model’s role in providing fundamental calculations of energy and emissions budgets of bioenergy systems may be viewed as underpinning GORCAM’s policy-level projections of carbon sequestration potential and greenhouse gas balance impacts of bioenergy systems. Currently the estimation of greenhouse gas balances in ERGO is limited to the carbon balance, but extension of the model to represent other gases is straightforward.
R.W. Matthews and N.D. Mortimer
A sustained effort has been made in Britain to develop and promote technologies to generate heat and power from renewable sources of bioenergy. Wood fuel has received particular attention, and systems have been proposed based on the harvesting of low value thinnings and branchwood in conventional forests, as well as by growing purpose-designed short rotation coppice (SRC) on surplus farm land. Research has thus been undertaken to estimate complete energy and carbon dioxide budgets for electricity generation from wood fuel based on the most reliable data currently available in Britain. The ERGO computer model was used to estimate energy and carbon dioxide budgets for representative examples of wood fuel production systems based on conventional forestry and SRC. For the power station itself, estimates of inputs of start-up fuel were based on expert advice and pilot schemes in the UK. In addition estimates were derived for the primary energy consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions due to construction and maintenance, based on simulated weight data for two power plants. Complete balance sheets were synthesised to give the total primary energy consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions for examples of wood-fired electricity generating systems with ratings in the range 5 to 30 MWe. Start-up fuel and wood fuel supply were observed to make the most significant contributions to the total energy and emissions budgets. Summary statistics suggest that the net energy requirement (or unit primary energy input) of electricity generated from forest thinnings, branchwood or SRC is in the region of 0.25 kWht kWhe-1, while the carbon dioxide emissions factor (unit carbon dioxide emission) is 65 gCO2 kWhe-1. There are no directly comparable estimates in the literature for these energy requirements or carbon dioxide emissions factors, but the estimates calculated in this study are of similar magnitude to published estimates for the most closely related power generation systems. The estimates for wood-fired power stations are significantly lower than published estimates for fossil fuel-fired electricity generation stations. The results rely strongly on the assumption that productivity of forests and SRC presently observed in Britain can be sustained in the long term.
J. Domac and V. Jelavic
Before 1990 greenhouse gases (GHG) mitigation had never taken an important place in the energy policy of the Republic of Croatia. When a project The Development and Organisation of the Croatian Energy Sector (PROHES) was launched in 1990, Croatian energy policy took on a new image. Project is established by the Government of the Republic of Croatia as one of the most important strategic tasks in the process of economy restructuring and energy sector development according to needs of the Republic of Croatia. Realisation of the energy policy of the Republic of Croatia is planned through a certain number of national energy programs whose goals are, among others to come to the most efficient consumption management, phased increase in use of renewable energy sources and environment protection. Air pollution and greenhouse gases emission are the most important impact, which is taken into consideration in strategic energy planning in Croatia.
The Republic of Croatia is a party of Framework Convention on Climate Change, declared as Annex 1 country, committed itself to reduce emissions of GHG gases for 5% in comparison with base year. For very low emission and expected development, Croatia might have difficulties in fulfilling obligations from Kyoto protocol and therefore a number of different measures are going to be introduced. This paper deals with the role of GHG gases mitigation in energy policy and existing and future legislation in Republic of Croatia.
A greenhouse gas inventory was completed for the State of North Carolina, USA. The inventory revealed that a significant portion of the total energy used by industry of the region is being derived from biofuels. Within a smaller study area in northwestern North Carolina, nearly a quarter of all energy is being delivered from biofuels. The furniture industry dominates such fuel consumption, as the plants have an abundance of sawdust and waste wood that must be collected and removed. Plant engineers are using waste wood to fuel industrial boilers. In addition, opportunistic individuals in other industries are obtaining and using waste wood from a variety of outside sources to supply process heat in their plants. One example is a corn processing plant that purchases wood from right-of-way clearings and other activities at a fuel cost that is one-third lower than the cost for coal. The industries which use biofuels realize a variety of benefits, including cost savings and avoidance of waste burial. Related benefits that accrue to the region include reduced net emissions of criterion pollutants and greenhouse gases.
I. Savolainen, K. Pingoud and A. Lehtiä
The balance of greenhouse gas emissions caused by wood-based products is analyzed throughout the life cycles of products manufactured at Enso Group mills in 1997. The forest ecosystem is taken into account in the process, as are harvesting and transport industrial processes, product use and waste management. The consideration is limited to the wood-based products themselves (e.g. paper), and it does not include e.g. the printing process. Only transport is considered for other raw materials than wood. The main factors (energy use and carbon flows) related to greenhouse gas emissions caused by the life cycle of wood-based products are covered by the study.
The main sales production of Enso Group in 1997 was about 5.7 million tons of paper and board, and 1.8 million m3 of sawn timber and converted products. Harvesting, transport, manufacturing and use of externally produced electricity of Enso Group operations caused greenhouse gas emissions of 6.6 million tons of CO2-eq in 1997. The manufacturing caused about 80 % of the emissions, although about half of the energy consumed originated from the wood-based wastes and by-products. The N2O emissions from the burning processes contributed also somewhat (0.2 Mt CO2-eq) to the total emissions. (About 40 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing were caused by the electricity bought outside of the company.) The emissions from harvesting and raw material transports caused about 6 % of the total emissions and the product transport about 14 %. The increasing storage of products in use can be estimated to form a small sink of carbon. The used products in landfills exert also a sink term, and the emissions of CH4 from decaying products in the landfills a considerable source. Rough estimates for these terms were estimated on the basis of Central European waste management practices. The forests in the wood procurement area are estimated to increase their carbon pool during the considered period despite cuttings.
The kind and amount of primary energy used to produce building materials, the production processes and the treatment of the building materials after the demolition of the building, affect the flow of greenhouse gases (GHG) to the atmosphere in different ways over different time periods. Here, primary energy use, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions from the construction of a multi-storey building, with either a wood or a concrete frame, are calculated in a life cycle perspective. The primary energy use, based mainly on fossil fuels, in the production of building materials is about 60-80% higher if concrete frames are used instead of wood frames. The GHG balance of wood materials will strongly depend on how the wood is treated after its utilization. The GHG balance will be slightly positive if all demolition wood is used to replace fossil fuels, slightly negative if part of the demolition wood is re-used, and clearly positive if all wood is deposited in landfills with the production of CH4 as a result. However, if the biogas produced is collected and used to replace fossil fuels, the net GHG emissions will be insignificant. If concrete frames are used, the net GHG emissions will be up to twice as high as when demolition wood from the wood framed building is deposited in landfills and no biogas is collected. However, in a long-term perspective, the net GHG emissions from the concrete framed building are reduced by more than 50% as the CO2 released from the chemical processes in the production of cement will be re-bound to the concrete by the carbonization process. All primary energy used to produce building materials can be based on bioenergy from forest. The net amount of forest land needed to supply both raw material and energy for the production of building materials, will be about twice as high when wood frames are used instead of concrete frames. However, the wood frame alternative results in an excess of wood waste and logging residues. The GHG mitigation efficiency, expressed as CO2 equivalents per unit of forest land, will be 2-3 times higher when wood frames are used if the excess wood waste and logging residues are used to replace fossil fuels. The excess forest in the concrete frame alternative is used to replace fossil fuels, but if the forest is used for carbon storage, the mitigation efficiency will be slightly higher for the first forest rotation period (100 years), but significantly lower for the following rotation periods. Several data used in the analyses are uncertain, but an understanding of the complexity involved in a comparison of different alternatives of using forest for GHG mitigation, and of the fact that the time perspective greatly affects the results, is more important for the results than the precise figures in the indata.
D.J. Gielen, A.J.M. Bos, M.A.P.C. de Feber and T. Gerlagh
This paper discusses recent model calculation results from the MARKAL MATTER model for Western Europe. The results suggest that compared to the base case the use of biomass for energy and materials applications will increase by up to 200 Mt (compared to the case with no penalty) if GHG policies are introduced. The main increase occurs in for production of electricity from waste, transportation fuels (to a limited extent) and substitution of petrochemical feedstocks. Also the results show that competing afforestation strategies have an even higher relevance for emission reduction than energy and materials crops. This is a remarkable difference compared to other biomass modelling studies. It can be attributed to a combination of the accounting for the changing characteristics of reference system, the consideration of the limited land availability and the cost optimisation, where discounting is introduced. It is recommended to consider such effects in future modelling studies.
K. Pingoud, A.-L. Perälä and A. Pussinen
The carbon reservoir of wood products in Finnish construction and civil engineering is estimated by three inventories including the years 1980, 1990 (Pingoud et al., 1996) and 1995. The inventory method is mainly based on the use of the statistics of Finnish building stock. For each building type the use of different construction materials in different parts of buildings is estimated. Building permits include the materials of bearing frames and facades. More information about the use of wooden products in construction has been collected by many enquiries. The mix of construction materials has been changing during each decade. In addition, the timber stocks in construction not subject to permission and in civil engineering (e.g. bridges) are estimated. The carbon reservoir is calculated based on dry matter content of wooden construction materials.
According to the inventories the carbon pool in sawn wood and wood based panels of Finnish building stock was 8.7 Mt C in 1980, 10.7 Mt C in 1990 and 11.5 Mt C in 1995. The mean annual increases, 0.20 Mt C /a from 1980 to 1990 and 0.15 Mt C /a from 1990 to 1995, are approximately 1.3 % and 0.8 % of the fossil fuel C emissions in Finland during the same periods. When taking into account also construction not subject to permission and civil engineering the estimated carbon stock of wood products in Finland was 16.5 Mt C in 1995, which is about 3.3 t C per capita and approximately 2.4% of the carbon reservoir in Finnish forest biomass. The total C reservoir of wood products (excluding wood waste and paper products) coming from Finnish forests might be even 7 % of standing biomass if also exported wood products are considered.
The time-parameters of a simple exponential decay model and a more detailed carbon balance model of wood products, presented by Karjalainen et al. (1994), are calibrated to the inventory results using the estimated wood flows to construction as inputs of the models. The roughly estimated average lifetime of sawn wood in Finnish construction appears to be less than 40 years.
The Kyoto Protocol establishes in Article 3.3 that carbon stock changes during the 2008-2012 commitment period resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (ARD), shall be used to meet the emission reduction commitments established by the Protocol. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been asked to prepare a special report on land-use change and forestry in the Kyoto Protocol. One of the tasks is to provide information that can aid policymakers in implementing Article 3.3. Issues to be clarified include:
– which definitions should be used for terms like forest, afforestation, reforestation, deforestation or direct human-induced?
– which carbon accounting rules should be employed?
– what are the data needs to implement Article 3.3, and how can these data be obtained?
– how much carbon mitigation can be achieved through these activities at various scales (stands, landscapes, regions, global) and what is the amount of credits and debits that are likely to be generated under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol?
Chapter 4 of this IPCC special report combines definitions into so-called “definitional scenarios” which are sets of internally consistent definitional components. The definitional scenarios describe a range of viable definitional options under the Kyoto Protocol. They are assessed with respect to criteria like: consistency with the objectives of the UNFCCC, simplicity, ease of using existing data, applicability for future commitment periods, applicability in all major regions of the world, and ability to close accounts in 2012. There is only a limited number of definitional scenarios that fulfil such key criteria.
This presentation will also show some hypothetical examples on the stand and landscape levels to point out that certain definitional scenarios are better than others in matching actual stock changes with reported stock changes.
The IPCC special report on land use, land-use change and forestry will be published in May 2000.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been asked by the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change to prepare a Special Report that explores the technical issues and technical implications, related to carbon sinks in the biosphere, that arise from trying to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry is scheduled to be completed in May of 2000. The Special Report will be comprised of 7 chapters. Chapter 5 of the Special Report will cover the issues raised by Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, the Article that provides that “additional human-induced activities…in the agricultural soils and land-use change and forestry categories” might be included in meeting national commitments under the Protocol. This presentation will be a brief summary of the issues confronted by Chapter 5. The Special Report has been out for technical review and is in the process of internal reworking in order to meet the needs of the Parties to the Convention. The chapter, like Article 3.4, will confront both “which” activities will be added and “how” they will be added. What “modalities, rules, and guidelines” will be required in order to implement consideration of additional activities in a way that is consistent with the words and spirit of the Convention and the Protocol? Selection of an appropriate definition and classification system for “activities” will play a role in establishing how implementation of Article 3.4 might proceed.
J.O. Niles and R. Schwarze
Bioenergy projects and forest conservation efforts prevent transfers (emissions) of carbon from the biosphere to the atmosphere. Since these activities reduce emissions, they qualify for credits under the Kyoto Protocol’s Article 12, the Clean Development Mechanism. As valid early mitigation forestry options, widespread bioenergy/forest protection projects in developing countries may significantly lower the overall costs of the Protocol. In addition to numerous other impacts, these tools may also influence the social and political acceptability of climate change regulation. When possible, bioenergy and forest conservation should be considered in tandem to maximize the profitability, acceptability and ecological integrity of forest-based emission reductions.
The growing threat of climate change and the large reductions in GHG emissions required to avert it underscores the importance of including forests and agricultural soils as mitigation options. While the UNFCCC encourages the full use of all sinks, the language related to forests in the Kyoto Protocol is muddled and even self-contradictory.
There is a growing trend among developed country governments and private emitters of greenhouse gases to explore the potential for offsets from forests and agricultural soils. These initiatives should be encouraged. Environmental Financial Products is currently marketing carbon credits from sequestration and seeking investment for sequestration projects.
To achieve maximum environmental benefits and economic efficiency, the international emissions trading system, the Clean Development Mechanism and any domestic emissions trading systems must be designed to include fully forests and agricultural soils. This means that transaction costs must be kept low and quantification, monitoring, measurement and verification rules should be simple, straightforward and transparent.
EFP’s comments on the draft IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry will be made in the following context:
1. Inherent flaws in the language of Kyoto Protocol regarding biotic sinks must be overcome to insure that the goal of full utilization or forests and agricultural soils is achieved while maintaining environmental integrity.
2. An outcome which does not fully use forests and agricultural soils as compliance options in an emissions trading system is less than optimum from both environmental and cost standpoints.
J. Ford-Robertson, R. Allen and S. Calman
Forest Research and Landcare Research are jointly undertaking a 5 year research programme to develop a national system to monitor carbon in indigenous woody vegetation and soils. The vegetation component of the programme is founded on the premise that in order to identify future sources and sinks of CO2 in the terrestrial biosphere, there is a need to understand the existing spatial distribution, composition and condition of vegetation (biomass). Initial baseline (circa 1990) biomass estimates suggest that indigenous forest (excluding litter) contained 933 ± 25 MtC; scrub and other woody vegetation are estimated to contain 527 MtC. New data has been collected from testing a prototype system (grid-based sampling) in a 1.2 Mha transect across the South Island in summer 1999, which will enable further development and testing of remote sensing techniques and, ultimately, predictive modelling approaches. Once established and repeated at suitable intervals, time series data from the monitoring system (and for individual sites) will provide the ability to detect changes in biomass/carbon (and other factors), and could provide a basis for establishing and verifying the factors and processes (both biotic and abiotic) which influence the observed changes.