CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Environmental Impact and SustainabilityBioenergy crop production and managementAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Greenhouse gas emission timing in life cycle assessment and the global warming potential of perennial energy crops

Open access
Almeida, Joana, Degerickx, Jeroen, Achten, Wouter M.J., Muys, Bart·2015·Carbon Management
DOI 10.1080/17583004.2015.1109179
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Presently, climate metrics in life-cycle assessment (LCA) aggregate the emission of greenhouse gases in one impact-triggering instant, rather than accommodating its distribution along a timeline. There have been efforts to make the global warming potential (GWP) metric dynamic to study temporary carbon storage in wood products. In this article, we test the use of dynamic LCA on bioenergy production from Jatropha oil in Mali, which offers temporary carbon sequestration in biomass and soil. We built a life-cycle inventory for land conversion to jatropha after cropland and fallow land. The assessment was made for one and for 10 consecutive rotations, and yielded dynamic emission profiles over the years. We found that dynamic LCA is sensitive to variations in emission over time, and that it resulted in lower GWP compared to the conventional static approach following IPCC rules, except for early times of analysis. But the largest variation occurs within dynamic LCA between readings at different times of analysis. The choice of time of analysis in the dynamic LCA methodology has no theoretical grounds and is therefore subjective. In the particular case of this short-lived product, we did not find an added value for the provoked increase in complexity of LCA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17583004.2015.1109179

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Shine KP, Derwent RG, Wuebbles DJ, Morcrette JJ. Radia- tive forcing of climate. In: Climate Change: The IPCC Scien- tific Assessment, Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1990).
  2. Tanaka K, Peters GP, Fuglestvedt JS. Policy update: multi- component climate policy: why do emission metrics matter? Carbon Manage. 1(2), 191À197. doi:10.4155/ cmt.10.28 (2010). · DOI
  3. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al. (Eds). IPCC, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA (2007).
  4. Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF et al. Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestra- tion and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.18(1), 230À240. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0451-6 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kendall A. Climate change mitigation: deposing global warming potentials. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4(5), 331À332. doi:10.1038/nclimate2218 (2014). · DOI
  6. Levasseur A, Brandão M, Lesage P et al. Valuing tempo- rary carbon storage. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2(1), 6À8 (2012).
  7. Reisinger A, Meinshausen M, Manning M. Future changes in global warming potentials under representative con- centration pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 6(2), 024020. doi: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024020 (2011). · DOI
  8. Cherubini F, Gasser T, Bright RM, Ciais P, Stromman AH. Linearity between temperature peak and bioenergy CO 2 emission rates. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4(11), 983À987 (2014).
  9. Peters GP, Aamaas B, Lund MT, Solli C, Fuglestvedt JS. Alternative global warming metrics in life cycle assess- ment: a case study with existing transportation data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(20), 8633À8641. doi:10.1021/ es200627s (2011). · DOI
  10. Aamaas B, Peters GP, Fuglestvedt JS. Simple emission metrics for climate impacts. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4(1), 145À170. doi:10.5194/esd-4-145-2013 (2013). · DOI
  11. Cherubini F, Bright RM, Strùmman AH. Global climate impacts of forest bioenergy: what, when and how to measure? Environ. Res. Lett. 8(1), 014049. doi:10.1088/ 1748-9326/8/1/014049 (2013). · DOI
  12. Olivi e DJL, Peters GP. Variation in emission metrics due to variation in CO 2 and temperature impulse response functions. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4(2), 267À286. doi:10.5194/ esd-4-267-2013 (2013). · DOI
  13. O'Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Jones AD, Kendall A, Hop- son E. Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels' greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Envi- ron. Res. Lett. 4, 024001 (2009).
  14. DeCicco J. Biofuels and carbon management. Clim. Chang. 111(3), 627À640. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0164-z (2012). · DOI
  15. Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe B. Accounting for time- dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43(18), 7142À7147. doi:10.1021/es900529u (2009). · DOI
  16. Kendall A. Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17(8), 1042À1049. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0436-5 (2012). · DOI
  17. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Brandão M, Samson R. Assessing temporary carbon sequestration and storage projects through land use, land-use change and forestry: comparison of dynamic life cycle assessment with ton- year approaches. Clim. Chang. 115(3À4), 759À776. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0473-x (2012). · DOI
  18. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Samson R. Biogenic car- bon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 17(1), 117À128. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Dyckhoff H, Kasah T. Time horizon and dominance in dynamic life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 18(6):799À808. doi:10.1111/jiec.12131 (2014). · DOI
  20. Yang J, Chen B. Global warming impact assessment of a crop residue gasification project: dynamic LCA perspec- tive. Appl. Energy 122(0), 269À279. doi:10.1016/j. apenergy.2014.02.034 (2014). · DOI
  21. Almeida J, Moonen PCJ, Soto I, Achten WMJ, Muys B. Time explicit global warming potential of Jatropha biofuel pro- duction in Mali. In: Fulfilling LCA's Promise À Proceedings from the LCA XIII International Conference. Orlando, FL, United States, 68À77, 1À3 October 2013.
  22. Almeida J, Moonen PCJ, Soto I, Achten WMJ, Muys B. Effect of farming system and yield in the life cycle assess- ment of jatropha-based bioenergy in Mali. Energy Sustain. Dev. 23, 258À265. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2014.10.001 (2014). · DOI
  23. Achten WMJ, Trabucco A, Maes WH et al. Global green- house gas implications of land conversion to biofuel crop cultivation in arid and semi-arid lands À lessons learned from jatropha. J. Arid Environ. 98, 135À145. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.06.015 (2013). · DOI
  24. Degerickx J, Almeida J, Moonen PCJ, Vervoort L, Muys B, Achten WMJ. Impact of Jatropha curcas L. plantations on above-and belowground carbon stocks: a field study in Mali. GCB Bioenergy. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12288 (2016) (In Press). · DOI
  25. Takimoto A, Nair VD, Ramachandran Nair PK. Contribu- tion of trees to soil carbon sequestration under agrofor- estry systems in the West African Sahel. Agrofor. Syst. 76(1), 11À25. doi:10.1007/s10457-008-9179-5 (2009). · DOI
  26. Nakamura S, Hayashi K, Omae H et al. Validation of soil organic carbon dynamics model in the semi-arid tropics in Niger, West Africa. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 89(3), 375À385. doi:10.1007/s10705-010-9402-4 (2011). · DOI
  27. Falloon P, Smith P, Coleman K, Marshall S. Estimating the size of the inert organic matter pool from total soil organic carbon content for use in the Rothamsted car- bon model. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30(8/9), 1207À1211. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00256-3 (1998). · DOI
  28. Weiherm€ uller L, Graf A, Herbst M, Vereecken H. Simple pedotransfer functions to initialize reactive carbon pools of the RothC model. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 64(5), 567À575. doi:10.1111/ejss.12036 (2013). · DOI
  29. Baumert S. Life cycle assessment of carbon and energy bal- ances in jatropha production systems of Burkina Faso [PhD thesis]. University of Bonn (2014).
  30. Nallathambi Gunaseelan V. Biomass estimates, characteris- tics, biochemical methane potential, kinetics and energy flow from jatropha curcus on dry lands. Biomass Bioenerg. 33(4), 589À596. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.09.002 (2009). · DOI
  31. Kaonga ML, Coleman K. Modelling soil organic carbon turnover in improved fallows in eastern Zambia using the RothC-26.3 model. For. Ecol. Manage. 256(5), 1160À1166. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.017 (2008). · DOI
  32. Trabucco A, Achten WM, Bowe C et al. Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate. GCB Bioenerg. 2(3), 139À151 (2010).
  33. Davis SJ, Burney JA, Pongratz J, Caldeira K. Methods for attributing land-use emissions to products. Carbon Man- age. 5(2), 233À245. doi:10.1080/17583004.2014.913867 (2014). · DOI
  34. Bessou C, Ferchaud F, Gabrielle B, Mary B. Biofuels, greenhouse gases and climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 31(1), 1À79. doi:10.1051/agro/2009039 (2011). · DOI
  35. Bationo A, Wani SP, Bielders CL, Vlek PLG, Mokwunye AU. Crops residue and fertilizer management to improve soil organic carbon content, soil quality and productivity in the desert margins of West Africa. In: Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems. Lal R, Kimble JM, Stew- art BA (Eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA (2000).
  36. Ollinger SV, Richardson AD, Martin ME et al. Canopy nitrogen, carbon assimilation, and albedo in temperate and boreal forests: functional relations and potential cli- mate feedbacks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105(49), 19336À19341. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810021105 (2008). · DOI
  37. Muñoz I, Campra P, Fern andez-Alba AR. Including CO 2 - emission equivalence of changes in land surface albedo in life cycle assessment. Methodology and case study on greenhouse agriculture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15(7), 672À681. doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0202-5 (2010). · DOI
  38. Bright RM, Cherubini F, Strùmman AH. Climate impacts of bioenergy: inclusion of carbon cycle and albedo dynam- ics in life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 37(0), 2À11. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.01.002 (2012). · DOI
  39. Port U, Brovkin V, Claussen M. The influence of vegetation dynamics on anthropogenic climate change. Earth Syst. Dyn. 3(2), 233À243. doi:10.5194/esd-3-233-2012 (2012). · DOI
  40. Lammertsma EI, de Boer HJ, Dekker SC, Dilcher DL, Lotter AF, Wagner-Cremer F. Global CO 2 rise leads to reduced maximum stomatal conductance in Florida vegetation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(10), 4035À4040. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100371108 (2011). Websites 101. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Climpag (2013). www.fao.org/nr/climpag 102. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Almeida, J., Degerickx, J., Achten, W. M. J., & Muys, B.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
Corresponding author
Muys, Bart
ORCID
Venue
Carbon Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-11-02
Volume
6
Issue
5-6
Pages
185-195
ISSN
  • 1758-3004 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-3012
DOI
10.1080/17583004.2015.1109179
OpenAlex
W2328896570
Cited by
28
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Carbon Management (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Bioenergy crop production and management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
dynamic life cycle assessment, global warming potential, Jatropha, bioenergy, perennial energy crops, land conversion, fallow, cropland, emission profiles, Mali

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review