Abstract
Biofuel and bioenergy systems are integral to most climate stabilization scenarios for displacement of transport sector fossil fuel use and for producing negative emissions via carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, the net greenhouse gas mitigation benefit of such pathways is controversial due to concerns around ecosystem carbon losses from land use change and foregone sequestration benefits from alternative land uses. Here, we couple bottom-up ecosystem simulation with models of cellulosic biofuel production and CCS in order to track ecosystem and supply chain carbon flows for current and future biofuel systems, with comparison to competing land-based biological mitigation schemes. Analyzing three contrasting US case study sites, we show that on land transitioning out of crops or pasture, switchgrass cultivation for cellulosic ethanol production has per-hectare mitigation potential comparable to reforestation and severalfold greater than grassland restoration. In contrast, harvesting and converting existing secondary forest at those sites incurs large initial carbon debt requiring long payback periods. We also highlight how plausible future improvements in energy crop yields and biorefining technology together with CCS would achieve mitigation potential 4 and 15 times greater than forest and grassland restoration, respectively. Finally, we show that recent estimates of induced land use change are small relative to the opportunities for improving system performance that we quantify here. While climate and other ecosystem service benefits cannot be taken for granted from cellulosic biofuel deployment, our scenarios illustrate how conventional and carbon-negative biofuel systems could make a near-term, robust, and distinctive contribution to the climate challenge.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 21968-21977 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |
Volume | 117 |
Issue number | 36 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Sep 8 2020 |
Externally published | Yes |
Funding
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Dennis Ojima and Daniel L. Sanchez for their encouragement on this topic. We acknowledge partial support as follows: São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Grant 2014/26767-9 (to J.L.F., T.L.R., E.A.H.S., J.J.S., and L.R.L.); The Center for Bioenergy Innovation (CBI), a US Department of Energy (DOE) Research Center supported by Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the DOE Office of Science under Grant DE-AC05-00OR22725 (to J.L.F., T.L.R., K.P., and L.R.L.); US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA/NIFA) Grants 2013-68005-21298 (to J.L.F. and K.P.), 2017-67019-26327 (to J.L.F. and K.P.), and 2012-68005-19703 (to T.L.R.); The Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (CABBI), a DOE Research Center supported by Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the DOE Office of Science under Grant DE-AC05-SC0018420 (to D.S.L. and S.P.L.); the Energy Biosciences Institute (D.S.L. and S.P.L.); the São Paulo Research Foundation (L.R.L.); and the Link Foundation (L.R.L.). Competing interest statement: The Energy Biosciences Institute was funded by BP America, Inc.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
BP America, Inc. | |
Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation | DE-AC05-SC0018420 |
U.S. Department of Energy | |
Link Foundation | |
National Institute of Food and Agriculture | 2012-68005-19703, 2017-67019-26327, 2013-68005-21298 |
National Institute of Food and Agriculture | |
Office of Science | DE-AC05-00OR22725 |
Office of Science | |
Biological and Environmental Research | |
Energy Biosciences Institute | |
Center for Bioenergy Innovation | |
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo | 2014/26767-9 |
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo |
Keywords
- BECCS
- Biofuels
- Ecosystem modeling
- Life cycle assessment
- Negative emissions