Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic under- and overestimation of GHG reductions in renewable biomass systems

A Letter

  • Letter
  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper identifies a critical systematic error in greenhouse gas accounting in renewable biomass systems. While CO2 emissions from renewable biomass energy systems are generally considered to have a net impact of 0, no similar adjustment is made for carbon-based products of incomplete combustion, such as methane, in renewable systems. This results in an under- or overestimation of the impact of CH4 by 12.3% and CO by ∼478% in renewable systems. This error is propagated both in scientific studies and in carbon accounting policies. We advocate first for full-carbon accounting of biomass-derived emissions, but also provide adjusted global warming impacts for emissions from proven renewable systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bailis R (2009) Modeling climate change mitigation from alternative methods of charcoal production in Kenya. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1491–1502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond T, Sun H (2005) Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global warming? Environ Sci Technol 39:5921–5926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caserini S, Livio S, Giugliano M, Grosso M, Rigamonti L (2010) LCA of domestic and centralized biomass combustion: the case of Lombardy (Italy). Biomass Bioenergy 34:474–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini F (2010) GHG balances of bioenergy systems—overview of key steps in the production chain and methodological concerns. Renew Energy 35:1565–1573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLuchi MA (1991) Emissions of greenhouse gases from the use of transportation fuels and electricity, vol 1: summary. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, pp 77–78

  • Forster PV, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon SD et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234

  • Friedland AJ, Gillingham KT (2010) Carbon accounting a tricky business. Science 326:411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadde G, Menke C, Wassman R (2009) Rice straw as a renewable energy source in India, Thailand, and the Philippines: overall potential and limitations for energy contribution and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biomass Bioenergy 33:1532–1546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold Standard (2010) Methodology for improved cook-stoves and kitchen regimes, vol 2. Geneva, Switzerland

  • González-García S, Luo L, Moreira MR, Feijoo G, Huppes G (2010) Life cycle assessment of flax shives derived second generation ethanol fueled automobiles in Spain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:1922–1933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, van der Voet E (2009) A greenhouse gas indicator for bioenergy: some theoretical issues with practical implications. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:328–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Tokyo, Japan

  • Johnson E (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints right. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:165–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Edwards R, Frenk CA, Masera O (2008) In-field greenhouse gas emissions from cookstoves in rural Mexican households. Atmos Environ 42:1206–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Edwards R, Ghilardi A, Berrueta V, Gillen D, Frenk CA, Masera O (2009) Quantification of carbon savings from improved biomass cookstove projects. Environ Sci Technol 43:2456–2462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Edwards R, Masera O (2010a) Improved stove programs need robust methods to estimate carbon offsets. Clim Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9770-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Edwards R, Berrueta V, Masera O (2010b) New approaches to performance testing of improved cookstoves. Environ Sci Technol 44:368–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCarty N, Ogle D, Still D (2008) A laboratory comparison of the global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves. Energy Sustain Dev 12:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Pingoud K et al (2010) Bioenergy: counting on incentives. Science 327:1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roedl A (2010) Production and energetic utilization of wood from short rotation coppice—a life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:567–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sander K, Murthy GS (2010) Life cycle analysis of algae biodiesel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:704–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger TD (2010) Biofuels and the need for additional carbon. Environ Res Lett 5:024007 (10pp). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger T, Hamburg SP, Melillo J, Chameides W, Havlik P, Kammen DM, Likens GE, Lubowski RN, Obersteiner M,Oppenheimer M, Robertson GP, Schlesinger WH, Tilman GD (2009) Fixing a critical climate accounting error. Science 326:527–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shine KP (2009) The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. Clim Change 96:467–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KR, Khalil MAK, Rasmussen RA, Thorneloe SA, Mandgdeg F, Apte M (1993) Greenhouse gases from biomass and fossil fuel stoves in developing countries: a Manila plot study. Chemosphere 26:479–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2007) Grid-connected electricity generation using biomass from newly developed dedicated plantations. AM0042/version 02, sectoral scopes: 01 & 14, Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board 35

  • UNFCCC (2009) Energy efficiency measures in thermal applications of non-renewable biomass. II.G./version 02, sectoral scope: 03, Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board 51

  • Varshney CK, Attri AK (1999) Global warming potential of biogenic methane. Tellus B 51:612–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitman TW (2010) Biochar as a carbon sequestration mechanism: decomposition, modelling, and policy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Thea L. Whitman & C. Johannes Lehmann

Authors
  1. Thea L. Whitman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Johannes Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thea L. Whitman.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(DOC 85 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whitman, T.L., Lehmann, C.J. Systematic under- and overestimation of GHG reductions in renewable biomass systems. Climatic Change 104, 415–422 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9984-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9984-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation