Trees for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution: the issue of cost vs. carbon benefit
✍ Scribed by Anil Baral; Gauri S. Guha
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 2004
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 326 KB
- Volume
- 27
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0961-9534
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
This study compares the costs and quantity of carbon mitigation by a orestation and fossil fuel substitution based on simple mathematical models of carbon stocks and ows assuming the growth conditions of trees in the southern US. Signiÿcant carbon beneÿt can be obtained by substituting biomass derived from short-rotation woody crops (SRWC) for coal or gasoline as opposed to sequestering carbon in standing trees. When biomass substitutes fossil fuel, the use of a given piece of land is not limited to just the period until the forest matures, as in the case of a orestation. At present high costs of existing biomass-based technologies and unavailability of cost-e ective technologies (e.g., biomass-integrated gasiÿer/steam-injected gas turbine (BIG/STIG)) limits carbon sequestration to a orestation/reforestation for which the costs have been found to be modest. If growth rates of trees in a orested/reforested lands could be increased to the levels that are comparable to SRWC, more carbon beneÿt could be realized for a short-term horizon from a orestation than using biomass to displace fossil fuels. Carbon sequestered through a orestation projects can be used to earn carbon credits to meet carbon reduction targets through Kyoto mechanisms. As biomass-based technologies such as BIG/STIG or conversion of biomass to ethanol become commercially viable in the future, growing SRWC for substituting fossil fuels may become a cost-e ective strategy to combat climate change.