Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic greenhouse gas accounting for cellulosic biofuels: implications of time based methodology decisions

  • WOOD AND OTHER RENEWABLE RESOURCES
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abtract

Purpose

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from biofuel production and use often occur over many different years. Nondynamic GHG accounting methods traditionally sum the global warming impacts (GWIs) occurring over a 100-year period for all emissions occurring in the life cycle regardless of emission timing. When examining biofuels from a policy perspective, time horizons are chosen to determine the benefits a policy or action has over a desired time period. It is critical to only account for impacts occurring within the given time period by having consistent temporal boundaries. When calculating the GWI as a function of time, additional assumptions and data are required. These assumptions have implications on the results and are explored herein to determine their influence on the overall conclusions when comparing biofuels made from different cellulosic feedstocks.

Materials and methods

The time zero assumption of both biomass planting and harvesting was examined. Analytical time horizon choice was also tested by examining results on a 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year time horizon. GWIs using dynamic GHG accounting methods were compared to nondynamic GWI method results. Direct land use change (LUC) emissions were determined for the different feedstock conversion scenarios and used to calculate a payback period for switchgrass and sweet sorghum biofuel scenarios. Dynamic biofuel life cycle emissions were also modeled for biofuel scenarios where LUC emissions were negative in the case of converting cropland to forests.

Results and discussion

Biofuel life cycle emissions and GHG reductions compared to gasoline were highly sensitive to GHG accounting methods and time horizons. The time zero assumption had greater influence on the results when shorter time horizons were chosen and decreased as time horizons approached 500 years. Using the dynamic GHG accounting method, LUC payback periods were determined to be greater compared to a 0 % emission discount method. Payback periods using a discount rate of 2 and 3 % were at times greater and less than dynamic GHG accounting method results.

Conclusions

The data presented herein suggest that time zero and other temporal emission timing assumptions are important and influence the overall study results. Analytical time horizons were also shown to be important and significantly influence the overall results, as well as be important to achieving carbon mitigation goals. Dynamic GHG accounting was shown to be a more robust method than the traditional static GWI accounting method ensuring consistent temporal boundaries; however, dynamic inventories require additional emission timing details and assumptions that require more effort and resources to model.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abt RC, Cubbage FW, Pacheco G (2000) Southern forest resource assessment using the subregional timber supply (SRTS) model. Forest Prod J 50(4):25–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauen A, Vuille F, Watson P, Vad K (2009) The RSB GHG accounting scheme. Feasibility of a metamethodology and way forward. Version 4.1

  • Brandão M et al. (2013) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):230–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa PM, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration–description and applications in forestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 5(1):51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daystar JS (2014) Environmental impacts of cellulosic biofuels made in the south east: implications of impact assessment methods and study assumptions

  • Daystar J, Reeb C, Venditti R, Gonzalez R, Puettmann ME (2012) Life-cycle assessment of bioethanol from pine residues via indirect biomass gasification to mixed alcohols. Forest Prod J 62(4):314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daystar J, Gonzalez R, Reeb C, Venditti RA, Treasure T, Abt R, Kelley S (2013) Economics, environmental impacts, and supply chain analysis of cellulosic biomass for biofuels in the southern US: pine, eucalyptus, unmanaged hardwoods, forest residues, switchgrass, and sweet sorghum. Bioresources 9(1):393–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daystar J, Reeb C, Gonzalez R, Venditti R, Kelley SS (2015a) Environmental life cycle impacts of cellulosic ethanol in the southern US produced from loblolly pine, eucalyptus, unmanaged hardwoods, forest residues, and switchgrass using a thermochemical conversion pathway. Fuel Process Technol 138:164–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daystar JS, Treasure T, Gonzalez R, Reeb C, Venditti R, Kelley S (2015b) The NREL biochemical and thermochemical ethanol conversion processes: financial and environmental analysis comparison. Bioresources 10(3):5096–5116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daystar J, Treasure T, Reeb C, Venditti R, Gonzalez R., Kelley S (2015c) Environmental impacts of bioethanol using the NREL biochemical conversion route: multivariate analysis and single score results. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 9(5):484–500

  • Energy Independence and Security Act (2007)

  • Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt, Science 319(5867), 1235–1238.

  • Fearnside PM (2002) Why a 100-year time horizon should be used for global warming mitigation calculations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 7(1):19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Girma B (2014) IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  • Galik CS, Abt RC (2015) Sustainability guidelines and forest market response: an assessment of European Union pellet demand in the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy

  • Galik CS, Abt R, Wu Y (2009) Forest biomass supply in the southeastern United States—implications for industrial roundwood and bioenergy production. J Forest 107(2):69–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez R, Daystar J, Jett M, Treasure T, Jameel H, Venditti R, Phillips R (2012) Economics of cellulosic ethanol production in a thermochemical pathway for softwood, hardwood, corn stover and switchgrass. Fuel Processing Technology, 94(1):113–122

  • Kendall A (2012) Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1042–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe B (2009) Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ Sci Technol 43(18):7142–7147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschbaum MU (2003) To sink or burn? A discussion of the potential contributions of forests to greenhouse gas balances through storing carbon or providing biofuels. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24(4):297–310

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2009) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Brandão M, Lesage P, Margni M, Pennington D, Clift R, Samson R (2011) Valuing temporary carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 2(1):6–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Brandão M, Samson R (2012) Assessing temporary carbon sequestration and storage projects through land use, land-use change and forestry: comparison of dynamic life cycle assessment with ton-year approaches. Clim Chang 115(3–4):759–776

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Samson R (2013) Biogenic carbon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17(1):117–128.100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costa PM, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoidedemissions and sequestration–description andapplications in forestry. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 5(1):51–60

  • Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(2):172–182

  • Nordhaus WD (2007) The challenge of global warming: economic models and environmental policy (Vol. 4). Yale University, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Jones AD, Kendall A, Hopson E (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels' greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ Res Lett 4(2):024001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (2007) IPCC, 2007: climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change

  • Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30(5):721–739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Hughton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Yu TH (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238–1240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shine KP (2009) The global warming potential—the need for an interdisciplinary retrial. Clim Chang 96(4):467–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (ed) (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Stocker DQ (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers, IPCC

  • Treasure T, Gonzalez R, Jameel H, Phillips RB, Park S Kelley S (2014) Integrated conversion, financial, and risk modeling of cellulosic ethanol from woody and non‐woody biomass via dilute acid pretreatment. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 8(6):755–769

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible with funding and assistance from the Biofuels Center of North Carolina, Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) and the Integrated Biomass Supply Systems (IBSS) project. The IBSS project is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68005-30410 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This work was made possible with the help and insights from Stephen Kelley, Ronalds Gonzalez, Carter Reeb, and Charles Culbertson.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Sustainability and Commerce, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Jesse Daystar

  2. Forest Biomaterials Department, North Carolina State University, NC 27695-8005, Raleigh, USA

    Richard Venditti & Stephen S. Kelley

Authors
  1. Jesse Daystar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Venditti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen S. Kelley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse Daystar.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Jörg Schweinle

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1.62 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daystar, J., Venditti, R. & Kelley, S.S. Dynamic greenhouse gas accounting for cellulosic biofuels: implications of time based methodology decisions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 812–826 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1184-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1184-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation