Radiative forcing effects of forest fertilization and biomass substitution

Similar documents
Climate change effects of wood products and bioenergy

Wood construction and climate change mitigation

Sector: Market, Forest Management and Climatic Impacts-Towards an

Climate benefits from biomass use for energy and material

GWP factors and warming payback times as climate indicators of forest biomass use cycles

The global warming potential of wood fuels (GWP bio )

Impacts of end-use energy efficiency measures on life cycle primary energy use in an existing Swedish multi-story apartment building

Bioenergy and climate. Hillevi Eriksson, Swedish Forest Agency

CARBON BALANCE OF DIFFERENT SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS. Timo Pukkala

Estimating the forest biofuel resource: Jan-Erik Nylund

Environmental tradeoffs associated with utilizing harvest slash

The European Commission s science and knowledge service. 29 March Joint Research Centre. CO 2 performance of forest bioenergy: What do we know?

Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution

to increase harvesting level.

Introduction. GCB Bioenergy (2013) 5, , doi: /gcbb.12010

The use of energy wood

Climate impacts of forest bioenergy: issues of scale

FOREST BIOMASS FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION POTENTIALS, MANAGEMENT AND RISKS UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE

CO 2 perturbation and associated global warming potentials following emissions from biofuel based on wood

Piritta Pyörälä & Heli Peltola & Harri Strandman & Kilpeläinen Antti & Asikainen Antti & Kirsti Jylhä & Seppo Kellomäki

CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS OF FOREST BIOENERGY AFFECTED BY DECOMPOSITION MODELLING COMPARISON OF THE Q AND YASSO MODELS

Vulnerability of Northern Forests and Forestry:

Biomass production of coppiced hybrid aspen in agricultural soil in Finland - 3 year results

Expanding our concept of forest inventory opportunities for the future

Forests and climate change mitigation - energy system transformation and the 2-degree target

Scope and methodology for measuring the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Carbon Profile of the Canadian Forestry Industry

KANTOJEN KORJUUN VAIKUTUKSET MAAPERÄN RAVINNEDYNAMIIKKAAN JA RAKENTEESEEN

Climate change in the Arctic region

Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment a review

The carbon cycle and forest-climate interactions: principles and considerations Werner A. Kurz Natural Resources Canada Canadian Forest Service

Mobilizing sustainable bioenergy supply chains

Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns

Wooden Biomass in the Energy Sector - EU and international perspective -

Climate change effects over the lifecycle of a building

Sveaskog s green bonds

Integration of Wood Fuel Utilization in Forest Management Practice

Expanding System Boundaries in Attributional LCA to Assess GHG Emissions and Climate Impacts of Advanced Biofuels and Bioenergy Pathways

in Finland and future prospects

Biomass production of coppiced hybrid aspen in agricultural land in Finland - 3 year results

USDA GLOBAL CHANGE FACT SHEET

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION BILLERUDKORSNÄS ARTISAN

Carbon accounting of forest bioenergy: from model calibrations to policy options

Carbon footprint of electricity generation. Stephanie Baldwin POST

MOTTI USER S GUIDE version 3.3. Natural Resources Institute Finland

Impact of Agricultural Production on Climate Change

Is energy from woody biomass positive for the climate?

State of knowledge: Quantifying Forest C capacity and potential. Tara Hudiburg NAS Terrestrial Carbon Workshop September 19 th, 2017

Maintaining soil fertility in biomass for bioenergy production systems

FINAL REPORT for PROJECT

Greenhouse Gas Balances of Bioenergy Systems

Instruments for Reaching Climate Objectives -

Forest Carbon and Silviculture

Forest bioenergy or forest carbon: A review

The Big Picture: Relationship between Forests and Climate Change

Carbon sequestration: Forest and soil

Bioenergy from Northern Europe a key component in transitioning to a fossil-free economy

Dan Binkley Northern Arizona University and SLU (thanks to KSLA and Wallenberg professorship)

Grass and grass-legume biomass as biogas substrate

Ecosystem science perspectives on boreal forests and climate change mitigation. Sean C. Thomas Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto

Prof Brendan Mackey, PhD

THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF CANADA S FOREST SECTOR TO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION BILLERUDKORSNÄS DECOR

Gold Standard Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) GHG Emissions Reduction & Sequestration Methodology

Determination of biomass, minerals content and depletion of nutrients as a result of different systems of utilisation in clear-cut Scots Pine forests

IEA Task-43 Bioenergy Supply Mobilisation of forest biomass supply chains in the boreal and temperate biomes. Mark Brown, FIRC-USC

Biochar for the safe and long-term sequestration of CO 2 carbon

The potential role of Canada s forest sector in mitigating climate change

Optimal Forest Management with Carbon Benefits Included. Ann Kristin Raymer, Terje Gobakken and Birger Solberg

BILLERUDKORSNÄS LIQUID FC

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION BILLERUDKORSNÄS CARRY

Assessing the environmental effects of biomass scenarios in Sweden -from a nutrient perspective

BillerudKorsnäs Supreme

State of resources reporting

Recent developments in LCA parameters

Environmental Measures

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Status on Land Use Change and Forestry Sector in Myanmar

3 (1) Acacia spp. Eucalyptus spp. Tectona grandis. Pinus spp. Pinus caribaea. Mixed Hardwoods. Mixed Fast-Growing Hardwoods.

Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by using wood to protect against soil liquefaction

Soil carbon modelling applied for nation-wide forest carbon inventory

Forest Carbon Management:

AVAILABILITY OF WOOD BIOMASS FOR BIOREFINING

Pools and fluxes of carbon in Finnish forests and their socio-economic implications

Main innovation types of forest biomass supply chains

Summary of the Harvested Wood Products Workshop Rotorua, New Zealand, February Justin Ford-Robertson and Angela Duignan

Kathryn Piatek 1. Professor of Forest Management and Soils, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

Consequences of an increased extraction of forest biofuel in Sweden

Primary Energy Implication of Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery in Residential Buildings

Energy Flows and Carbon Emissions: Combustion of Wood

Korsnäs white. Environmental Product Declaration

Korsnäs Liquid lc. Environmental Product Declaration

Action plan to counteract soil acidification and to promote sustainable use of forestland

BillerudKorsnäs White

Indirect emissions of forest bioenergy: detailed modeling of stump-root systems

Impact of ventilation heat recovery on primary energy use of apartment buildings built to conventional and passive house standard

Reducing the carbon footprint of coffee production through improved fertilizer management. Katharina Plassmann

Why scarify? Yearly scarified area in Sweden Source: Swedish official statistics

Dr. G. S. Haripriya 1

The global forest sector model of the European Forest Institute (EFI- GTM) and its applications.

OBJECTIVES OF SOFO 2018: MAKING THE CASE FOR FORESTS

LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF INTENSIVE BIOMASS HARVESTING IN BOREAL FOREST ENVIRONMENT

Transcription:

Radiative forcing effects of forest fertilization and biomass substitution Roger Sathre and Leif Gustavsson Ecotechnology, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden IEA Bioenergy Task 38 Conference Brussels, Belgium 8-10 March 2010

Background Forest growth in boreal forests with mineral soil is often limited by nitrogen availability Fertilization can more than double biomass productivity in some stands (Bergh et al. 1999) Previous research using static (i.e. non-time-dependent) methods shows that the net GHG balance of forest fertilization is positive, i.e. avoided emissions due to increased substitution and C-stock are greater than additional emissions due to fertilization (Sathre et al. 2010)

Question Fertilization occurs first and substitution and C-stock increase occur later, so: Does fertilization of boreal forests reduce radiative forcing?

Analytical approach We compare production and use of biomass from a hectare of fertilized and non-fertilized forest land in northern Sweden We calculate annual net emissions of CO 2, N 2 O and CH 4 for each system, over a 150-year period with 1-year time steps We calculate annual atmospheric concentration decay of each emission, and calculate resulting radiative forcing change for each year

GHG flows and C stock changes considered CO 2, N 2 O and CH 4 from production and application of fertilizer N 2 O emission from fertilized soil Soil C stock change due to fertilization CO 2 from fossil fuels used for biomass harvest and transport Avoided CO 2 emissions from using biomass to substitute for materials and fuels C-stock change in living trees C-stock change in wood products C-stock change in soil and decaying biomass

Tracking of GHG stocks and flows Atmosphere CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 Avoided CO 2 emission Biomass remaining in forest after harvest (natural decomposition) Forest management Forest growth Energy substitution Harvested biomass (product use) Material substitution Dynamics of stocks and flows assessed in 1-year time steps Avoided emissions are treated at negative emissions

Forest management and growth Unit hectare stands of Norway spruce located in northern Sweden* Forest growth modelled with DT model (Sathre et al. 2010) Fossil energy used for forest operations (establishment, thinning, harvest, and transport) (Berg and Lindholm 2005) Fossil energy used for recovery and transport of forest residues (Eriksson et al. 2007) Fossil emissions occur during year of forest operation * Effect of fertilization will be less significant in central and southern Sweden

Fertilization (1) Fertilized stand receives small, frequent N or NPK doses based on tree needle analyses of nutrient requirements We assume 10 applications of 125 kg N during rotation (at years 11,13,15,17,19,21,23,33,43,53 of 69-year rotation) CO 2, N 2 O and CH 4 emission from production of fertilizer (Davis and Haglund 1999) CO 2 emission from helicopter application of fertilizer (Mead and Pimentel 2006)

Fertilization (2) We assume 1% of the applied N is released as N 2 O, during year of application (Nordin et al. 2009) We do not consider potential CH 4 oxidation changes in soil We assume soil C-stock increase due to fertilization is rapid during first 50 years, then slows (Eriksson et al. 2007) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Years

Harvested biomass: Large-diameter stemwood used for material substitution Used for production of wood construction material to substitute reinforced concrete construction (Gustavsson et al. 2006) Avoided material production energy emissions occur at year of harvest Residues from wood processing (net after internal use) and construction site used as bioenergy at year of harvest Avoided cement process CO 2 emissions occur at different times: Calcination emission at year of harvest Slow carbonation uptake (18%) during 50-year service life Rapid carbonation uptake (20%) when concrete is crushed (Dodoo et al. 2009) C-stock in wood building materials during 50-year building life span Demolition wood used as bioenergy at end of building life

Harvested biomass: Energy substitution to replace fossil fuels Slash from thinnings and final harvest: 75% of branches and 25% of needles Stumps: 50% of recoverable stumps and coarse roots Small-diameter stemwood ( pulpwood ): 100% (might also be used for pulp or wood products) This biomass substitutes either coal or fossil gas, taking into account relative conversion efficiencies and full fuel-cycle emissions (Gustavsson et al. 2006) Combustion emissions return to the atmosphere as CO 2

Decay of biomass left in forest We assume decay into CO 2 at a negative exponential rate Decay constants of: -0.046 for stumps (Melin et al. 2009) -0.074 for branches (Palviainen et al. 2004) -0.170 for needles (Palviainen et al. 2004) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Years

Flows of CO 2, N 2 O and CH 4 Annual net emission of each GHG is treated as a pulse emission Atmosphere CO 2 N 2 O CH 4 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 Avoided CO 2 emission Biomass remaining in forest after harvest (natural decomposition) Forest management Forest growth Energy substitution Harvested biomass (product use) Material substitution

Atmospheric decay of unit pulses of GHGs ( CO t t 2) t = 0.217 + 172.9 0.259e + 18.51 0.338e + 0. 186 e t 1.186 ( N 2 O) t = e t 114 t ( ) 12 CH 4 t = e N 2 O CO 2 CH 4 (IPCC 1997, 2001, 2007) Years

Radiative forcing (W/m 2 ) due to GHG concentration change F CO 2 = 3.7 ln(2) ln 1 + CO CO 2 2ref ( N O + N O N O ) FN O = 0.12 2 2 ref 2 2 ( CH + CH CH ) FCH = 0.036 4 4ref 4ref 4 ref where CO 2ref = 383ppmv, N 2 O ref = 319ppbv, CH 4ref = 1774ppbv Assumes relatively minor marginal changes in GHG concentrations Spectral overlap between N 2 O and CH 4 is not considered Radiative forcing not related to GHGs (e.g. albedo change) is not considered (IPCC 1997, 2001, 2007)

Tree biomass production 350 300 Fertilized Unf ertilized ) 250 a /h (tc s 200 a m io b e 150 tr g in iv L 100 50 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Years Average production rate is about doubled by fertilization Large-diameter stemwood is 38% of total biomass

50 Annual net emissions 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0-50 -100-150 -200-250 -300-350 -400 50 Fertilized CO2 (t/ha) CH4 (kg/ha) N2O (kg/ha) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0-50 -100-150 -200 Non-fertilized -250-300 -350-400 Coal is reference fossil fuel

Annual radiative forcing 5E-10 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0-5E-10-1E-09-1.5E-09-2E-09-2.5E-09-3E-09 Non-fertilized Fertilized -3.5E-09-4E-09 Coal is reference fossil fuel

Cumulative radiative forcing 5E-08 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0-5E-08-1E-07-1.5E-07 Non-fertilized Fertilized -2E-07-2.5E-07-3E-07 Coal is reference fossil fuel

Cumulative radiative forcing: Coal or fossil gas is reference fossil fuel 5E-08 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0-5E-08-1E-07-1.5E-07-2E-07 Non-fertilized, Fossil gas Non-fertilized, Coal Fertilized, Fossil gas Fertilized, Coal -2.5E-07-3E-07

Cumulative radiative forcing: Different forest fuel recovery amounts 5E-08 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 Non-fertilized -5E-08-1E-07-1.5E-07 Fertilized No forest fuels Pulpwood Pulpwood+Slash Pulpwood+Slash +Stumps -2E-07-2.5E-07-3E-07 Coal is reference fossil fuel No forest fuels Pulpwood Pulpwood+Slash Pulpwood+Slash +Stumps

Conclusions Forest fertilization can significantly increase biomass production Material and energy substitution potentials increase when fertilization is used Average C stock in tree biomass, forest soils and wood products increase when fertilization is used Additional GHG emissions due to fertilization are small compared to increases in substitution benefits and C-stock Annual and cumulative radiative forcing is consistently lower for the fertilized forest system

Thank you roger.sathre@miun.se

References Berg S and Lindholm EL. 2005. Energy use and environmental impacts of forest operations in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 33-42. Bergh J, Linder S, Lundmark T and Elfving B. 1999. The effect of water and nutrient availability on the productivity of Norway spruce in northern and southern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 119: 51-62. Davis J and Haglund C. 1999. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of Fertiliser Production Fertiliser Products Used in Sweden and Western Europe, Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, SIK-report No. 654. Dodoo A, Gustavsson L and Sathre R. 2009. Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53: 276-286. Eriksson E, Gillespie A, Gustavsson L, Langvall O, Olsson M, Sathre R and Stendahl J. 2007. Integrated carbon analysis of forest management practices and wood substitution. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 671-681. Gustavsson L, Pingoud K and Sathre R. 2006. Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concreteand wood-framed buildings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11: 667-691. IPCC.1997. An Introduction to Simple Climate Models Used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report. IPCC Technical Paper II. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report. IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report. Mead DJ and Pimentel D. 2006. Use of energy analysis in silvicultural decision-making. Biomass and Bioenergy 30: 357-362. Melin Y, Petersson H and Nordfjell T. 2009. Decomposition of stump and root systems of Norway spruce in Sweden: a modelling approach. Forest Ecology and Management 257:1445-1451. Nordin A, Lundmark T, Grip H, Nilsson M and Ericson L. 2009. Miljöanalys av behovsanpassad gödsling på skogmark. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Report. Palviainen M, Finér L, Kurka AM, Mannerkoski H, Piirainen S and Starr M. 2004. Decomposition and nutrient release from logging residues after clear-cutting of mixed boreal forest. Plant and Soil 263: 53-67. Sathre R, Gustavsson L and Bergh J. 2010. Primary energy and greenhouse gas implications of increasing biomass production through forest fertilization. Biomass and Bioenergy (in press).