IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i5p1581-d146517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Issues Regarding Biofuels and Carbon Uptake

Author

Listed:
  • John M. DeCicco

    (University of Michigan Energy Institute, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

Abstract

Questions regarding the net effect of biofuels on carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions have been difficult to resolve because of methodological uncertainties. One method of choice is lifecycle assessment (LCA), which takes a fuel product system as its object of analysis. LCA uses a static system model, with carbon flows averaged over a defined “lifecycle”. Although it may evaluate some carbon stock changes, the LCA convention of treating biogenic CO 2 emissions as fully offset by the carbon embodied in a biofuel’s feedstock renders its results independent of the dominant portion of carbon uptake on the land from which the feedstock is sourced. An application of material flow analysis termed annual basis carbon (ABC) accounting captures system dynamics and is fully sensitive to changes in carbon uptake. This paper compares the LCA and ABC methods, and contrasts their respective results for a case study of real-world biofuel production. It highlights the large impact of baseline carbon uptake, which can affect the sign of the results from either a likely decrease or a likely increase in net CO 2 emissions even before considering economically-induced effects. Implications include the need for further methodological work, new program-scale model development, an empirical re-analysis of biofuel systems, and a reconsideration of existing public policies and research priorities.

Suggested Citation

  • John M. DeCicco, 2018. "Methodological Issues Regarding Biofuels and Carbon Uptake," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1581-:d:146517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1581/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1581/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meng, Fanyi & Su, Bin & Thomson, Elspeth & Zhou, Dequn & Zhou, P., 2016. "Measuring China’s regional energy and carbon emission efficiency with DEA models: A survey," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-21.
    2. John M. DeCicco, 2015. "The liquid carbon challenge: evolving views on transportation fuels and climate," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 98-114, January.
    3. Thomas Buchholz & Stephen Prisley & Gregg Marland & Charles Canham & Neil Sampson, 2014. "Uncertainty in projecting GHG emissions from bioenergy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(12), pages 1045-1047, December.
    4. John DeCicco, 2013. "Biofuel’s carbon balance: doubts, certainties and implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(4), pages 801-814, December.
    5. John M. DeCicco & Danielle Yuqiao Liu & Joonghyeok Heo & Rashmi Krishnan & Angelika Kurthen & Louise Wang, 2016. "Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 667-680, October.
    6. Richard J. Plevin, 2017. "Assessing the Climate Effects of Biofuels Using Integrated Assessment Models, Part I: Methodological Considerations," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1478-1487, December.
    7. Minghao Li & Wendong Zhang & Dermot J. Hayes & Riley Arthur & Yantao Yang & Xiudong Wang, 2017. "China's New Nationwide E10 Ethanol Mandate and Its Global Implications," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications apr-fall-2017-2, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    8. Zeng, Shihong & Jiang, Chunxia & Ma, Chen & Su, Bin, 2018. "Investment efficiency of the new energy industry in China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 536-544.
    9. Richard H. Moss & Jae A. Edmonds & Kathy A. Hibbard & Martin R. Manning & Steven K. Rose & Detlef P. van Vuuren & Timothy R. Carter & Seita Emori & Mikiko Kainuma & Tom Kram & Gerald A. Meehl & John F, 2010. "The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7282), pages 747-756, February.
    10. Marland, G. & Turhollow, A.F., 1991. "CO2 emissions from the production and combustion of fuel ethanol from corn," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 16(11), pages 1307-1316.
    11. Rajagopal, D. & Plevin, Richard J., 2013. "Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-82.
    12. McCarl, Bruce A., 2008. "The Lifecycle Carbon Footprint, Bioenergy and Leakage: Empirical Investigations," Lifecycle Carbon Footprint of Biofuels Workshop, January 29, 2008, Miami Beach, Florida 49100, Farm Foundation.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shou-Heng Liu & Jun-Sheng Lu & Yi-Chiun Chen, 2018. "Sustainable Recovery of CO 2 by Using Visible-Light-Responsive Crystal Cuprous Oxide/Reduced Graphene Oxide," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Karol Tucki & Olga Orynycz & Andrzej Wasiak & Antoni Świć & Remigiusz Mruk & Katarzyna Botwińska, 2020. "Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from a Diesel Engine Powered by Lignocellulose Derived Fuel for Better Management of Fuel Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-29, January.
    3. Chih-Chun Kung & Bruce A. McCarl, 2018. "Sustainable Energy Development under Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-4, September.
    4. Hu, Yulin & Gong, Mengyue & Xing, Xuelian & Wang, Haoyu & Zeng, Yimin & Xu, Chunbao Charles, 2020. "Supercritical water gasification of biomass model compounds: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John M. DeCicco, 2017. "Author’s response to commentary on “Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use”," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 123-129, September.
    2. Plevin, Richard J. & Delucchi, Mark A. & O’Hare, Michael, 2017. "Fuel carbon intensity standards may not mitigate climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 93-97.
    3. Sun, Yong & Liu, Baoyin & Sun, Zhongrui & Yang, Ruijia, 2023. "Inter-regional cooperation in the transfers of energy-intensive industry: An evolutionary game approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    4. Robert D. De Kleine & Timothy J. Wallington & James E. Anderson & Hyung Chul Kim, 2017. "Commentary on “carbon balance effects of US biofuel production and use,” by DeCicco et al. (2016)," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 111-119, September.
    5. Hoekman, S. Kent & Broch, Amber, 2018. "Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A literature review. Part II – Biodiversity, land use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 3159-3177.
    6. Huaming Chen & Jia Liu & Ying Li & Yung-Ho Chiu & Tai-Yu Lin, 2019. "A Two-stage Dynamic Undesirable Data Envelopment Analysis Model Focused on Media Reports and the Impact on Energy and Health Efficiency," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-23, April.
    7. Morrison, Geoff M. & Witcover, Julie & Parker, Nathan C. & Fulton, Lew, 2016. "Three routes forward for biofuels: Incremental, leapfrog, and transitional," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 64-73.
    8. John M. DeCicco & Danielle Yuqiao Liu & Joonghyeok Heo & Rashmi Krishnan & Angelika Kurthen & Louise Wang, 2016. "Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 667-680, October.
    9. Wigley, Tom M.L. & Hong, Sanghyun & Brook, Barry W., 2021. "Value-added diagnostics for the assessment and validation of integrated assessment models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    10. Lianshui Li & Yang Cai & Liang Liu, 2019. "Research on the Effect of Urbanization on China’s Carbon Emission Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    11. Yeh, Sonia & Witcover, Julie & Lade, Gabriel E. & Sperling, Daniel, 2016. "A review of low carbon fuel policies: Principles, program status and future directions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 220-234.
    12. Zhang, Mingming & Pang, Zhichao & Liu, Liyun & Yang, Zikun & Zhou, Dequn, 2024. "Risk assessment of China's overseas energy investments considering the response ability to major risk events: A case study of COVID-19," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    13. Koponen, Kati & Soimakallio, Sampo & Kline, Keith L. & Cowie, Annette & Brandão, Miguel, 2018. "Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy – Choice of reference system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 2271-2280.
    14. Thomas Buchholz & John Gunn & Bruce Springsteen & Gregg Marland & Max Moritz & David Saah, 2022. "Probability-based accounting for carbon in forests to consider wildfire and other stochastic events: synchronizing science, policy, and carbon offsets," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Dutta, Anupam & Bouri, Elie & Rothovius, Timo & Uddin, Gazi Salah, 2023. "Climate risk and green investments: New evidence," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    16. Cai, Yiyong & Newth, David & Finnigan, John & Gunasekera, Don, 2015. "A hybrid energy-economy model for global integrated assessment of climate change, carbon mitigation and energy transformation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 381-395.
    17. Chateau, J. & Dellink, R. & Lanzi, E. & Magne, B., 2012. "Long-term economic growth and environmental pressure: reference scenarios for future global projections," Conference papers 332249, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Chen, Zhenling & Zhang, Xiaoling & Ni, Guohua, 2020. "Decomposing capacity utilization under carbon dioxide emissions reduction constraints in data envelopment analysis: An application to Chinese regions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. Yang, Baochen & An, Haokai & Song, Xinyu, 2024. "Oil price uncertainty and corporate inefficient investment: Evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Weiwei Liu & Xiaoke Wang & Bojie Liu & Yunjian Luo & Fei Lu & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2018. "Full accounting of the greenhouse gas budget in the forestry of China," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 643-666, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:5:p:1581-:d:146517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.