A new integrated framework to estimate the climate change impacts of biomass utilization for biofuel in life cycle assessment

被引:28
|
作者
Liu, Weiguo [1 ,2 ]
Xu, Junming [3 ]
Xie, Xinfeng [4 ]
Yan, Yan [1 ,2 ]
Zhou, Xiaolu [1 ]
Peng, Changhui [1 ,2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Northwest Agr & Forestry Univ, Coll Forestry, Ctr Ecol Forecasting & Global Change, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, Peoples R China
[2] Qinling Natl Forest Ecosyst Res Stn, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, Peoples R China
[3] Inst Chem Ind Forest Prod CAF, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[4] Michigan Technol Univ, Sch Forest Resources & Environm Sci, Houghton, MI 49931 USA
[5] Univ Quebec Montreal, Inst Environm Sci, Dept Biol Sci, CP 8888, Montreal, PQ H3C 3P8, Canada
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Life cycle assessment; Biomass-to-biofuel; Climate change impact; Biogenic CO2 emissions; Compensation; Carbon sequestration; LAND-USE CHANGE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; SOIL CARBON; BIOENERGY; EMISSIONS; RESIDUE; ENERGY; GAS; DECOMPOSITION; EXPANSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122061
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The urgent need for climate change mitigation and the potential threat of energy crisis have allowed the popularity of biomass for biofuels to increase. However, the approaches to assess the climate change impacts of biomass utilization are still questionable. To allow a more accurate assessment, we developed a new framework by integrating six impact components including (1) fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) biogenic CO2 emissions-loss, (3) biogenic CO2 emissions-combustion, (4) emissions from land-use practice change, (5) regrowth for compensation, and (6) difference in carbon sequestration. To illustrate the performance of the framework, seven case studies, which covered the first-, second-, and third-generation biofuels, were conducted. The majority of the positive impacts were contributed to by the fossil fuel-derived emissions, biogenic CO2 emissions, and regrowth for compensation. For the first-generation biofuels, the life cycle GHG emissions were much higher than those of energy-equivalent fossil fuels (144 and 218 kg CO2/GJ for Soybean-to-Biodiesel and Corn-to-Ethanol). The second- and third-generation biofuels had less accountable positive GHG emissions (-62 to 53 kg CO2/GJ) due to the offset of negative impacts from land-use practice change and difference in carbon sequestration. However, the negative effects are not determinist. High uncertainty from model-simulated carbon sequestration and decomposition is perceivable. High life cycle GHG emissions for the second- and third-generation biofuels are possible.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Determination of the life cycle climate change impacts of land use and albedo change in algal biofuel production
    Fortier, Marie-Odile P.
    Roberts, Griffin W.
    Stagg-Williams, Susan M.
    Sturm, Belinda S. M.
    ALGAL RESEARCH-BIOMASS BIOFUELS AND BIOPRODUCTS, 2017, 28 : 270 - 281
  • [2] Life cycle assessment is the most relevant framework to evaluate biofuel greenhouse gas burdens
    De Kleine, Robert D.
    Anderson, James E.
    Kim, Hyung Chul
    Wallington, Timothy J.
    BIOFUELS BIOPRODUCTS & BIOREFINING-BIOFPR, 2017, 11 (03): : 407 - 416
  • [3] An updated framework for climate change impact assessment of bioenergy and an application in poplar biomass
    Hao, Hongke
    Dai, Li
    Wang, Kui
    Xu, Junming
    Liu, Weiguo
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2021, 299
  • [4] Integrated assessment of biomass supply and demand in climate change mitigation scenarios
    Daioglou, Vassilis
    Doelman, Jonathan C.
    Wicke, Birka
    Faaij, Andre
    van Vuuren, Detlef P.
    GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2019, 54 : 88 - 101
  • [5] HIGH RISK OF ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE REQUIRING CLOSELY ESTIMATE BIOFUEL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
    Vilums, Sandis
    14TH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE: ENGINEERING FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 2015, : 295 - 300
  • [6] Life Cycle Assessment of New Willow Cultivars Grown as Feedstock for Integrated Biorefineries
    Krzyzaniak, M.
    Stolarski, M. J.
    Szczukowski, S.
    Tworkowski, J.
    BIOENERGY RESEARCH, 2016, 9 (01) : 224 - 238
  • [7] Current limits of life cycle assessment framework in evaluating environmental sustainability - case of two evolving biofuel technologies
    Holma, Anne
    Koponen, Kati
    Antikainen, Riina
    Lardon, Laurent
    Leskinen, Pekka
    Roux, Philippe
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2013, 54 : 215 - 228
  • [8] Flexible pavement performance and life cycle assessment incorporating climate change impacts
    Blaauw, Sheldon A.
    Maina, James W.
    Mturi, Georges A. J.
    Visser, Alex T.
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 104
  • [9] Environmental sustainability of Finnish pork production: life cycle assessment of climate change and water scarcity impacts
    Sanna Hietala
    Kirsi Usva
    Marja-Liisa Vieraankivi
    Virpi Vorne
    Jouni Nousiainen
    Ilkka Leinonen
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2024, 29 : 483 - 500
  • [10] Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment methods in biofuel production
    Aashish Prasad
    Maria Sotenko
    Thomas Blenkinsopp
    Stuart R. Coles
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2016, 21 : 44 - 50