Jon McKechnie

Forest Bioenergy or Forest Carbon? Assessing Trade-Offs in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation with Wood-Based Fuels

The potential of forest-based bioenergy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when displacing fossil-based energy must be balanced with forest carbon implications related to biomass harvest. We integrate life cycle assessment (LCA) and forest carbon analysis to assess total GHG emissions of forest bioenergy over time. Application of the method to case studies of wood pellet and ethanol production from forest biomass reveals a substantial reduction in forest carbon due to bioenergy production. For all cases, harvest-related forest carbon reductions and associated GHG emissions initially exceed avoided fossil fuel-related emissions, temporarily increasing overall emissions. In the long term, electricity generation from pellets reduces overall emissions relative to coal, although forest carbon losses delay net GHG mitigation by 16-38 years, depending on biomass source (harvest residues/standing trees). Ethanol produced from standing trees increases overall emissions throughout 100 years of continuous production: ethanol from residues achieves reductions after a 74 year delay. Forest carbon more significantly affects bioenergy emissions when biomass is sourced from standing trees compared to residues and when less GHG-intensive fuels are displaced. In all cases, forest carbon dynamics are significant. Although study results are not generalizable to all forests, we suggest the integrated LCA/forest carbon approach be undertaken for bioenergy studies.

Life cycle emissions and cost of producing electricity from coal, natural gas, and wood pellets in Ontario, Canada.

The use of coal is responsible for (1)/(5) of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Substitution of coal with biomass fuels is one of a limited set of near-term options to significantly reduce these emissions. We investigate, on a life cycle basis, 100% wood pellet firing and cofiring with coal in two coal generating stations (GS) in Ontario, Canada. GHG and criteria air pollutant emissions are compared with current coal and hypothetical natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) facilities. 100% pellet utilization provides the greatest GHG benefit on a kilowatt-hour basis, reducing emissions by 91% and 78% relative to coal and NGCC systems, respectively. Compared to coal, using 100% pellets reduces NO(x) emissions by 40-47% and SO(x) emissions by 76-81%. At

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

160/metric ton of pellets and

Life cycle greenhouse gas impacts of ethanol, biomethane and limonene production from citrus waste

7/GJ natural gas, either cofiring or NGCC provides the most cost-effective GHG mitigation (

Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of titania nanoparticle production by continuous flow solvo/hydrothermal syntheses

70 and

Implications of emissions timing on the cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: application to forest bioenergy systems.

47/metric ton of CO2 equivalent, respectively). The differences in coal price, electricity generation cost, and emissions at the two GS are responsible for the different options being preferred. A sensitivity analysis on fuel costs reveals considerable overlap in results for all options. A lower pellet price (

Environmental and financial implications of ethanol as a bioethylene feedstock versus as a transportation fuel

100/metric ton) results in a mitigation cost of

Environmental Aspects of Use of Recycled Carbon Fiber Composites in Automotive Applications

34/metric ton of CO2 equivalent for 10% cofiring at one of the GS. The study results suggest that biomass utilization in coal GS should be considered for its potential to cost-effectively mitigate GHGs from coal-based electricity in the near term.

A comparative LCA of different graphene production routes

Forest bioenergy can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with energy production. We assessed changes in GHG emissions resulting from displacement of coal with wood pellets for the Atikokan Generating Station located in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Two contrasting biomass sources were considered for continuous wood pellet production: harvest residue from current harvest operations (residue scenario) and fibre from expanded harvest of standing live trees (stemwood scenario). For the stemwood scenario, two metrics were used to assess the effects of displacing coal with forest biomass on GHG emissions: (i) time to carbon sequestration parity, defined as the time from the beginning of harvest to when the combined GHG benefit of displacing coal with biomass and the amount of carbon in regenerating forest equalled the amount of forest carbon without harvest for energy production; and (ii) time to carbon debt repayment, defined as the time from the beginning of harvest to when the combined GHG benefit of displacing coal with biomass and the amount of carbon in the regenerating forest equalled forest carbon at the time of harvest. Only time to carbon sequestration parity was used for the residue scenario. In the residue scenario, carbon sequestration parity was achieved within 1 year. In the stemwood scenario, times to carbon sequestration parity and carbon debt repayment were 91 and 112 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates were robust when parameter values were varied. Modelling experiments showed that increasing growth rates for regenerating 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 terminology and methodologies for forest bioenergy studies.

14 – Environmental life cycle assessment of lignocellulose-to-bioalcohol production

The production of biofuel from cellulosic residues can have both environmental and financial benefits. A particular benefit is that it can alleviate competition for land conventionally used for food and feed production. In this research, we investigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production of ethanol, biomethane, limonene and digestate from citrus waste, a byproduct of the citrus processing industry. The study represents the first life cycle-based evaluations of citrus waste biorefineries. Two biorefinery configurations are studied—a large biorefinery that converts citrus waste into ethanol, biomethane, limonene and digestate, and a small biorefinery that converts citrus waste into biomethane, limonene and digestate. Ethanol is assumed to be used as E85, displacing gasoline as a light-duty vehicle fuel; biomethane displaces natural gas for electricity generation, limonene displaces acetone in solvents, and digestate from the anaerobic digestion process displaces synthetic fertilizer. System expansion and two allocation methods (energy, market value) are considered to determine emissions of co-products. Considerable GHG reductions would be achieved by producing and utilizing the citrus waste-based products in place of the petroleum-based or other non-renewable products. For the large biorefinery, ethanol used as E85 in light-duty vehicles results in a 134% reduction in GHG emissions compared to gasoline-fueled vehicles when applying a system expansion approach. For the small biorefinery, when electricity is generated from biomethane rather than natural gas, GHG emissions are reduced by 77% when applying system expansion. The life cycle GHG emissions vary substantially depending upon biomethane leakage rate, feedstock GHG emissions and the method to determine emissions assigned to co-products. Among the process design parameters, the biomethane leakage rate is critical, and the ethanol produced in the large biorefinery would not meet EISA’s requirements for cellulosic biofuel if the leakage rate is higher than 9.7%. For the small biorefinery, there are no GHG emission benefits in the production of biomethane if the leakage rate is higher than 11.5%. Compared to system expansion, the use of energy and market value allocation methods generally results in higher estimates of GHG emissions for the primary biorefinery products (i.e., smaller reductions in emissions compared to reference systems).