Framework for improved confidence in modeled nitrous oxide estimates for biofuel regulatory standards
- 46 Downloads
Biofuels vary greatly in their carbon intensity, depending on the specifics of how they are produced. Policy frameworks are needed to ensure that biofuels actually achieve intended reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Current approaches do not account for important variables during cultivation that influence emissions. Estimating emissions based on biogeochemical models would allow accounting of farm-specific conditions, which in turn provides an incentive for producers to adopt low emissions practices. However, there are substantial uncertainties in the application of biogeochemical models. This paper proposes a policy framework that manages this uncertainty while retaining the ability of the models to account for (and hence incentivize) low emissions practices. The proposed framework is demonstrated on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from the cultivation of winter barley. The framework aggregates uncertainties over time, which (1) avoids penalizing producers for uncertainty in weather, (2) allows for a high degree of confidence in the emissions reductions achieved, and (3) attenuates the uncertainty penalties borne by producers within a timescale of several years. Results indicate that with effective management, N2O emissions from feedstock cultivation may be < 5% of the carbon intensity of gasoline, whereas the existing policy approach estimates emissions > 20% of the carbon intensity of gasoline. If these emissions reductions are monetized, the framework can provide up to $0.002 per liter credits (0.8 cents per gallon) to fuel producers, which could incentivize emissions mitigation practices by biofuel feedstock suppliers, such as avoiding fall N application on silty clay loam soils. The conservatism in the current approach fails to incentivize the adoption of biofuels, while the lack of specificity fails to incentivize site-level mitigation practices. Improved uncertainty accounting and consideration of farm-level practices will incentivize mitigation efforts at landscape to global scales.
KeywordsClimate policy frameworks Climate change mitigation Carbon accounting Energy policy Ethanol Life cycle assessment Nitrous oxide mitigation
The authors thank Matt Myers and Melannie Hartman for assistance in DayCent model simulations and Bahar Riazi for assistance with R language programming.
This work is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under USDA-NIFA 2012-10008-20263.
Compliance with ethical standards
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
- Adler PR, Del Grosso SJ, Inman D, Jenkins RE, Spatari S, Zhang Y (2012) Mitigation opportunities for life cycle greenhouse gas emissions during feedstock production across heterogeneous landscapes. In: Liebig M, Franzluebbers AJ, Follett RF (eds) Managing agricultural greenhouse gases: coordinated agricultural research through GRACEnet to address our changing climate. Elsevier Inc., New York, pp 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386897-8.00012-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- American Carbon Registry (2014) American carbon registry methodology for N2O emission reductions through changes in fertilizer management, version 2.0. Winrock International, Little Rock, Arkansas Available online at http://www.americancarbonregistry.org (verified 29 September 2016)
- Brown RC (2003) Biorenewable Resources. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
- CARB (2017) California Air Resources Board, https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/ca-greet/ca-greet.htm, Accessed on May 25, 2017
- De Antoni Migliorati M, Scheer C, Grace P, Rowlings D, Bell M, McGree J (2014) Influence of different nitrogen rates and DMPP nitrification inhibitor on annual N2O emissions from a subtropical wheat–maize cropping system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 186(15):33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Klein C, Novoa RSA, Ogle S, Smith KA, Rochette P, Wirth TC, McConkey BG, Mosier A, Rypdal K (2006) N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. In: Eggleston S et al (eds) 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, volume 4: agriculture, forestry, and other land use. IGES, Kanagawa, pp 1–54Google Scholar
- Del Grosso SJ, Parton WJ, Mosier AR, Hartman MD, Brenner J, Ojima DS, Schimel DS (2001) Simulated interaction of carbon dynamics and nitrogen trace gas fluxes using the DAYCENT model. In: Schaffer M, Ma L, Hansen S (eds) Modeling carbon and nitrogen dynamics for soil management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 303–332Google Scholar
- Del Grosso SJ, Ogle SM, Parton WJ, Breidt FJ (2010) Estimating uncertainty in N2O emissions from U.S. cropland soils. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003544
- Department for Transport (2007) The renewable transport fuel obligation order of 2007 (No. 3072), London, United Kingdom. 25 October 2007. Retrieved 2018-01-25. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3072/pdfs/uksi_20073072_en.pdf
- European Council (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (PDF). Brussels, Belgium:. 5 June 2009. Retrieved 2017–09-27. http://www.nezeh.eu/assets/media/fckuploads/file/Legislation/RED_23April2009.pdf
- Farrell AE, et al. (2007a) A low-carbon fuel standard for California, part 1: technical analysis UC Berkeley and UC Davis, Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/UC-1000-2007-002/UC-1000-2007-002-PT1.PDF (verified February 12, 2012)
- Farrell AE, et al. (2007b) A low-carbon fuel standard for California, part 2: policy analysis UC Berkeley and UC Davis, Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/UC-1000-2007-002/UC-1000-2007-002-PT2.PDF (verified February 12, 2012)
- Forster P, 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 S 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 129–234Google Scholar
- Gerber JS, Carlson KM, Makowski D, Mueller ND, Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri I, Havlík P, Herrero M, Launay M, O'Connell CS, Smith P, West PC (2016) Spatially explicit estimates of N2O emissions from croplands suggest climate mitigation opportunities from improved fertilizer management. Glob Chang Biol 22(10):3383–3394. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E); International Standards Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Jones L, Passant N, Thomson A, Wakeling D, Buys G, Forden S, Gilhespy S, et al (2017) UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2015. Ricardo Energy & Environment, Didcot, Oxfordshire, UK, Retrieved 2018-01-25. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat07/1705121352_ukghgi-90-15_Main_Issue2.pd
- Mosier AR, Guenzi WD, Schweizer EE (1986) Soil losses of dinitrogen and nitrous oxide from irrigated crops in northeastern Colorado. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50(2):344–348. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000020018x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ogle SM, McCarl BA, Baker J, Del Grosso SJ, Adler PR, Paustian K, Parton WJ (2015) Managing the nitrogen cycle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from crop production and biofuel expansion. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 21(8):1197–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9645-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parton WJ, Ojima DS, Cole CV, Schimel DS (1994) A general model for soil organic matter dynamics: sensitivity to litter chemistry, texture and management. In: Bryant RB, Arnold RW (eds) Quantitative modeling of soil forming processes. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 147–167Google Scholar
- Schwenke GD, Herridge DF, Scheer C, Rowlings DW, Haigh BM, McMullen KG (2016) Greenhouse gas (N2O and CH4) fluxes under nitrogen-fertilised dryland wheat and barley on subtropical Vertosols: risk, rainfall and alternatives. Soil Research 54(5):634–650. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR15338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Spatari S, Stadel AJ (2011) A Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model of Osage Bio Energy’s Winter Barley-to-Ethanol Process, project report, Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering. Drexel University, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- Turner BT, Plevin RJ, O'Hare M, Farrell AE (2007) Creating markets for green biofuels: measuring and improving environmental performance; UCB-ITS-TSRC-RR-2007-1. UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Congress (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. H.R. 6, 110thCongress, First session. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved 2018-01-25. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/html/PLAW-110publ140.htm
- US EPA (2016) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2014, report. USEPA, Washington, D. CGoogle Scholar
- Yang Y, Tao M, Suh S (2017) Geographic variability of agriculture requires sector-specific uncertainty characterization. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1388-6