IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i7p3163-d1112781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Parametric Study on Dynamic Biogenic Carbon of Harvested Wood Products: Biomass Rotation Period vs. Product Lifetime

Author

Listed:
  • Stéphane Kouamé

    (Aachen-Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials (AMIBM), Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, 6167 RD Geleen, The Netherlands)

  • Ali Ghannadzadeh

    (Aachen-Maastricht Institute for Biobased Materials (AMIBM), Faculty of Science and Engineering, Maastricht University, 6167 RD Geleen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Harvested wood products (HWPs) are a class of products that are recognized for their potential to mitigate climate warming: the absorption of CO 2 , which is necessary to the growth of their biomass feedstock, temporarily reduces the amount of CO 2 present in the Earth’s atmosphere, effectively mitigating global warming. This study decided to look into the effect of changing two important parameters associated with HWPs: the rotation period of the biomass used for their raw material (effectively, the rate of CO 2 absorption), and the length of their lifetime (effectively, the amount of time the captured carbon is stored within them in the form of embodied carbon). For this purpose, a carbon accounting calculator, Quantis’ Biogenic Carbon Footprint Calculator for Harvested Wood Products (BCFC-HWP), was employed. The Biogenic Global Warming Potential (GWP bio ) metric, which was used by the BCFC-HWP to describe the climate impact of a wooden product’s embodied carbon, was analyzed for its evolution with respect to the two identified parameters. The results showed that while GWP bio followed a consistent decrease with respect to the product lifetime parameter, it showed a non-consistently evolving trend with respect to biomass rotation period i.e. first decreasing then increasing. This made the confrontation of both parameters’ effect complex mathematically, such that no clear-cut conclusions on the relative benefits of changing one parameter versus the other were made. Nonetheless, a valuable resolution was made based on the observations regarding the evolution of GWP bio with respect to the lifetime of an HWP: the results indicated that extending the lifetime of an HWP is an advantageous strategy in decreasing the climate effect of the considered product.

Suggested Citation

  • Stéphane Kouamé & Ali Ghannadzadeh, 2023. "A Comparative Parametric Study on Dynamic Biogenic Carbon of Harvested Wood Products: Biomass Rotation Period vs. Product Lifetime," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-11, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:7:p:3163-:d:1112781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/7/3163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/7/3163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles Breton & Pierre Blanchet & Ben Amor & Robert Beauregard & Wen-Shao Chang, 2018. "Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Emily Hope & Bruno Gagnon & Vanja Avdić, 2020. "Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change Policies on the Market for Forest Industrial Residues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Kevin Allan & Adam R. Phillips, 2021. "Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Low and Mid-Rise Mass Timber Buildings with Equivalent Structural Steel Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Jim Hart & Francesco Pomponi, 2020. "More Timber in Construction: Unanswered Questions and Future Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Eun-Kyung Jang & Yeo-Chang Youn, 2021. "Effects of Wood Product Utilization on Climate Change Mitigation in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Su, Shu & Ju, Jingyi & Guo, Qiyue & Li, Xiaodong & Zhu, Yimin, 2023. "A temporally dynamic model for regional carbon impact assessment based on city information modeling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Galimshina, Alina & Moustapha, Maliki & Hollberg, Alexander & Padey, Pierryves & Lasvaux, Sébastien & Sudret, Bruno & Habert, Guillaume, 2022. "Bio-based materials as a robust solution for building renovation: A case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 316(C).
    7. Cavalcanti, Eduardo J.C. & Carvalho, Monica & B. Azevedo, Jonathan L., 2019. "Exergoenvironmental results of a eucalyptus biomass-fired power plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Long, Ting & Pan, Huanxue & Dong, Chao & Qin, Tao & Ma, Ping, 2019. "Exploring the competitive evolution of global wood forest product trade based on complex network analysis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 525(C), pages 1224-1232.
    9. Shanshan Wang & Jiaxin Chen & Michael T. Ter‐Mikaelian & Annie Levasseur & Hongqiang Yang, 2022. "From carbon neutral to climate neutral: Dynamic life cycle assessment for wood‐based panels produced in China," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1437-1449, August.
    10. Otavio Cavalett & Sigurd Norem Slettmo & Francesco Cherubini, 2018. "Energy and Environmental Aspects of Using Eucalyptus from Brazil for Energy and Transportation Services in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Matthias Buyle & Amaryllis Audenaert & Pieter Billen & Katrien Boonen & Steven Van Passel, 2019. "The Future of Ex-Ante LCA? Lessons Learned and Practical Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-24, October.

    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:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:7:p:3163-:d:1112781. 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.