New research has challenged the view that wood bioenergy is carbon neutral, and shows wood pellets actually emit more CO2/kWhr than coal.
New research has challenged the view that wood bioenergy is carbon neutral, and shows that wood pellets burned in European and UK power plants actually emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilowatt hour than that generated by coal.
This is because wood is both less efficient at the point of combustion and has larger processing and supply chain emissions than coal. Their research shows that using wood instead of coal in power generation increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, worsening climate change until—and only if—the harvested forests regrow.
Wood is increasingly being used to replace coal as a source of electricity generation in many regions such as the European Union (EU) , where policymakers have declared it “carbon neutral.” However, researchers at MIT, Climate Interactive, and UMass Lowell reveal that displacing coal with wood for power generation can make climate change worse for many decades or more.
In the new study, “Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy”, the researchers examine the climate impact of replacing coal power generation in the EU and UK with wood pellets sourced from forests in the Southern United States. The research is published today in Environmental Research Letters. (The paper can be accessed online at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/pdf )
US forests are a main source for EU wood pellet imports, which have been rising as demand has grown. These forests grow back slowly, so it takes a long time to repay the initial “carbon debt” incurred by burning wood instead of coal. For forests in the central and eastern US, which supply much of the wood used in UK power plants, the payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44 to 104 years, depending on forest type—and assuming the land remains forest. If the land is developed, or converted to agricultural use, then the carbon debt is never repaid and grows over time as the harvested land emits additional carbon from soils.
Lead researcher Prof. John Sterman sums up the findings this way: “It’s like an investment in which you give your bank $1,000 today. They promise to pay you back, but only over 80 years, and only if they don’t go out of business first or decide there’s something else they’d rather spend your money on. You’re better off if you keep your money. In the same way, it’s better to keep the trees on the land and keep all that carbon out of the atmosphere.”
The researchers also explored an increasingly common scenario in which hardwood forests harvested for bioenergy are replaced with faster-growing loblolly pine plantations. Surprisingly, replanting with fast-growing pine plantations worsens the CO2 impact of wood because managed plantations do not sequester as much carbon as natural forests.
They also found that continued growth in wood use, as many predict, will worsen climate change throughout the rest of this century, or longer. This is because the first impact of substituting wood for coal in power generation is an increase in CO2 emissions. Even if the forests eventually regrow, notes Prof. Sterman, each year the new carbon debt from increased harvest and combustion outweighs the regrowth, just as borrowing more on a credit card each month than one is able to pay back will steadily increase what he or she owes. For countries using wood bioenergy as a component of their climate policies this could take them backwards. Indeed, bioenergy from wood made up 44% of the EU’s renewable energy production in 2015.
“We’re seeing many of the countries, states, and even institutions leading on climate embracing bioenergy from wood because they think it is ‘carbon neutral.’ Our analysis shows that these good intentions may be leading to outcomes that are bad for the climate: net carbon emissions that are worse than coal for many decades and, potentially, for the rest of this century or more,” says co-author Juliette Prof. Rooney-Varga.
Porf. Sterman says, “A molecule of CO2 emitted today has the same impact on the climate whether it comes from coal or biomass. Declaring that biofuels are carbon neutral, as the EU, UK and others have done, erroneously assumes forest regrowth happens quickly and fully offsets the emissions from biofuel production and combustion. One way to address the challenges raised in this study would be to count emissions where they occur, for example, at a power plant, and monitor and count carbon removed from the atmosphere by regrowth on the harvested land.”
Critically, the analysis does not support continued coal use as it is the most carbon intensive fuel and a major contributor to climate change. The researchers stress energy efficiency, solar, wind and storage as the cheapest, safest, and quickest ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions while providing the goods and services people need.
- Remote W.A. pub to sell beer and solar, in community push away from dieselby Sophie Vorrath on 20 February 2020 at 5:39 PM
- Solar has smashed the centralised energy model, but can it bridge the social divide?by Gill Owen Essay Prize on 20 February 2020 at 11:27 AM
- Community solar at grid prices, no subsidies required – here’s howby Tosh Szatow on 20 February 2020 at 10:46 AM
- Is Tesla about to drop price of Model Y before first deliveries?by Bridie Schmidt on 20 February 2020 at 2:04 PM
- Tesla shares spike again as analysts embrace EV and “illuminating” solar storyby Bridie Schmidt on 20 February 2020 at 12:50 PM
- BMW’s new response to Tesla Model 3 is a hybrid pack for its own 3 Seriesby Bridie Schmidt on 20 February 2020 at 12:00 PM