Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?

View through CrossRef
AbstractShort rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply. In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks. Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply. However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession. It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits. We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations. Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values. C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement. A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years. For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession. Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years. This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.e., emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.
Title: Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice?
Description:
AbstractShort rotation plantations are often considered as holding vast potentials for future global bioenergy supply.
In contrast to raising biomass harvests in forests, purpose‐grown biomass does not interfere with forest carbon (C) stocks.
Provided that agricultural land can be diverted from food and feed production without impairing food security, energy plantations on current agricultural land appear as a beneficial option in terms of renewable, climate‐friendly energy supply.
However, instead of supporting energy plantations, land could also be devoted to natural succession.
It then acts as a long‐term C sink which also results in C benefits.
We here compare the sink strength of natural succession on arable land with the C saving effects of bioenergy from plantations.
Using geographically explicit data on global cropland distribution among climate and ecological zones, regionally specific C accumulation rates are calculated with IPCC default methods and values.
C savings from bioenergy are given for a range of displacement factors (DFs), acknowledging the varying efficiency of bioenergy routes and technologies in fossil fuel displacement.
A uniform spatial pattern is assumed for succession and bioenergy plantations, and the considered timeframes range from 20 to 100 years.
For many parameter settings—in particular, longer timeframes and high DFs—bioenergy yields higher cumulative C savings than natural succession.
Still, if woody biomass displaces liquid transport fuels or natural gas‐based electricity generation, natural succession is competitive or even superior for timeframes of 20–50 years.
This finding has strong implications with climate and environmental policies: Freeing land for natural succession is a worthwhile low‐cost natural climate solution that has many co‐benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services.
A considerable risk, however, is C stock losses (i.
e.
, emissions) due to disturbances or land conversion at a later time.

Related Results

“The Earth Is Dying, Bro”
“The Earth Is Dying, Bro”
Climate Change and Children Australian children are uniquely situated in a vast landscape that varies drastically across locations. Spanning multiple climatic zones—from cool tempe...
Fully Mechanized Harvesting in Aged Oak Coppice Stands
Fully Mechanized Harvesting in Aged Oak Coppice Stands
Coppice is a traditional forest management system used all over the world. It takes advantage of fast early growth and the vegetative reproduction of the respective trees. Coppice ...
Eucalyptus pellita Coppice vs. Seedlings as a Re-Establishment Method in South Sumatra, Indonesia
Eucalyptus pellita Coppice vs. Seedlings as a Re-Establishment Method in South Sumatra, Indonesia
Eucalyptus pellita can be regenerated through coppice. We report on the first known study of full-rotation productivity of E. pellita coppice and seedling re-establishment methods....
Ethics of climate change : a normative account
Ethics of climate change : a normative account
Consider, for instance, you and your family have lived around a place where you enjoyed the flora and fauna of the land as well as the natural environment. Fishing and farming were...
“Lavender Haze” in the Airways
“Lavender Haze” in the Airways
Introduction Taylor Swift has dominated global press in recent years through the success of her Eras Tour, her use of authenticity in branding (Khanal 234), and her choreographed e...
Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel
Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel
AbstractUnder the current accounting systems, emissions produced when biomass is burnt for energy are accounted as zero, resulting in what is referred to as the ‘carbon neutrality’...
Climate and Culture
Climate and Culture
Climate is, presently, a heatedly discussed topic. Concerns about the environmental, economic, political and social consequences of climate change are of central interest in academ...
Should China subsidize cofiring to meet its 2020 bioenergy target? A spatio‐techno‐economic analysis
Should China subsidize cofiring to meet its 2020 bioenergy target? A spatio‐techno‐economic analysis
AbstractChina has developed ambitious bioenergy installation targets as part of its broader goals to increase its renewable energy‐generating capacity and decarbonize its economy. ...

Back to Top