| PUBLICATIONS | | Subtopic: Carbon sequestration 22 items found | |
| | Sort by: Title | Date | Results per page: |
| | Comparative Life Cycle Assessments: Carbon Neutrality and Wood Biomass Energy | | Roger A. Sedjo | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-11 | April 2013 | | Abstract: Biomass energy is expected to play a major role in the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels over the next several decades. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA 2012) forecasts increases in the share of biomass in US energy production from 8 percent in 2009 to 15 percent by 2035. The general view has been that carbon emitted into the atmosphere from biological materials is carbon neutral—part of a closed loop whereby plant regrowth simply recaptures the carbon emissions associated with the energy produced. Recently this view has been challenged, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering regulations to be applied to biomass energy carbon emissions. A basic approach for analyses of environmental impacts has been the use of life cycle assessment (LCA), a methodology for assessing and measuring the environmental impact of a product over its lifetime—from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling. However, LCA approaches vary, and the results of alternative methodologies often differ (Helin et al. 2012). This study investigates and compares the implications of these alternative approaches for emissions from wood biomass energy, the carbon footprint, and also highlights the differences in LCA environmental impacts. | | | | Forest Carbon Economics: What We Know, What We Do Not, and Whether it Matters | | Molly K Macauley and Nathan Richardson | | Climate Change Economics | December 2012 | Vol. 3, No.4 | | | | | | Blue Carbon: Global Options for Reducing Emissions from the Degradation and Development of Coastal Ecosystems | | Juha V. Siikamäki, James N. Sanchirico, Sunny Jardine, David W McLaughlin, Daniel F. Morris | | RFF Report | November 2012 | | | | | | The Carbon Footprint of Wood for Bioenergy | | Roger A. Sedjo | | Resources | 2012 (181) | | | | | | Blue Carbon: A Potentially Winning Climate Strategy | | Juha V. Siikamäki, James N. Sanchirico | | Resources | 2012 (181) | | | | | | REDD+ and Community-Controlled Forests in Low-Income Countries: Any Hope for a Linkage? | | Randy Bluffstone, Elizabeth J.Z. Robinson, Paul Guthiga | | RFF Discussion Paper EfD 12-11 | October 2012 | | Abstract: Deforestation and forest degradation are estimated to account for between 12 percent and 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. These activities, largely in the developing world, released about 5.8 Gt per year in the 1990s, which was more than all forms of transport combined. The idea behind REDD+ is that payments for sequestering carbon can tip the economic balance away from loss of forests and in the process yield climate benefits. Recent analysis has suggested that developing country carbon sequestration can effectively compete with other climate investments as part of a cost-effective climate policy. This paper focuses on opportunities and complications associated with bringing community-controlled forests into REDD+. About 25 percent of developing country forests are community controlled; therefore, it is difficult to envision a successful REDD+ program without coming to terms with community controlled forests. It is widely agreed that REDD+ offers opportunities to bring value to developing country forests, but there are also concerns related to insecure and poorly defined community forest tenure, informed by often long histories of government unwillingness to meaningfully devolve ownership rights to communities. Further, because communities are complicated systems, there is also concern that REDD+ could destabilize existing well-functioning community forestry systems. | | | | Comments on EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants | | Dallas Burtraw, Arthur G. Fraas, Karen L. Palmer, Nathan Richardson | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-31 | July 2012 | | Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) performance standards for power plants are an important step forward in regulating GHGs in terms of both their substantive impact and legal precedent. Nevertheless, we have some concerns with the proposal, which we discuss in the following comments submitted to the agency. The majority of our comments are directed to ways that EPA can increase certainty for the industry—reducing costs and, possibly, improving environmental outcomes. We highlight two specific areas of concern. First, the current proposal contributes to the significant uncertainty facing existing sources. Second, EPA’s proposed averaging option for new facilities that will install carbon capture-and-storage (CCS) technology in the future, although intended to create a flexible pathway, unfortunately creates some new regulatory uncertainty. We also comment on EPA’s decision to combine most coal and gas generators into a single source category. We believe this decision is legally valid and practically important, and that EPA should resist pressure to reconsider. | | | | Flexible Mandates for Investment in New Technology | | Dalia Patino Echeverri, Dallas Burtraw, Karen L. Palmer | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-14 | March 2012 | | Abstract: Regulators often seek to promote the use of improved, cleaner technology when new investments occur; however, technology mandates are suspected of raising costs and delaying investment. We examine investment choices for electricity generation under a strict emissions rate performance standard requiring the installation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) on fossil-fired plants. We compare the strict standard with a flexible one that imposes a surcharge for emissions in excess of the standard. A third policy allows the surcharge revenue to fund later CCS retrofits. Analytical results indicate that increasing flexibility leads to earlier introduction of CCS, lower aggregate emissions and higher profits. We test this using multi-stage stochastic optimization, with uncertain future natural gas and emissions allowance prices. Under perfect foresight, the analytical predictions hold. With uncertainty, these predictions hold most often but we find outcomes that contradict the theory. In some cases, investments are delayed to enable the decisionmaker to learn additional information. | | | | Setting the Carbon Bar: Measurement, Reporting, and Verification in Bilateral Forestry Agreements | | Daniel F. Morris, Anne Riddle | | Issue Brief 11-11 | September 2011 | | | | | | Ecosystem Good and Service Co-Effects of Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration: Implications for the US Geological Survey’s Land Carbon Methodology | | James W. Boyd, David S. Brookshire | | RFF Discussion Paper 11-22 | May 2011 | | Abstract: This paper describes specific ways in which the analysis of ecosystem goods and services can be included in terrestrial carbon sequestration assessments and planning. It specifically reviews the U.S. Geological Survey’s LandCarbon assessment methodology for ecosystem services. The report assumes that the biophysical analysis of co-effects should be designed to facilitate social evaluation. Accordingly, emphasis is placed on natural science strategies and outputs that complement subsequent economic and distributional analysis. | | | | Long-Term Risks and Short-Term Regulations: Modeling the Transition from Enhanced Oil Recovery to Geologic Carbon Sequestration | | Alexander Bandza, Shalini Vajjhala | | RFF Discussion Paper DP 08-29 REV | July 2010 | | Abstract: Recent policy debates suggest that geologic carbon sequestration (GS) will play an important role in any carbon-constrained future. As GS evolves from its current role as an end-stage process withinenhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations to a long-term, dedicated emissions mitigation option, regulations must simultaneously evolve to address the risks of potential carbon dioxide (CO2) migrationunderground and leakage to the surface. Because CO2 injection practices are currently based on petroleum industry extraction techniques, risk assessment and regulatory frameworks are also derived from these experiences, and EOR serves as a critical point of departure for GS. In this paper, we develop a basicengineering–economic model of four strategies associated with key deployment pathways in the portfolio of EOR and GS projects: (a) an indifferent strategy, where EOR is the priority without any consideration for long-term sequestration, (b) an afterthought strategy, where EOR is the primary goal, and a site is latersecured for sequestration, (c) a planned strategy, where oil extraction and CO2 injection are co-optimized from the start, and (d) a dedicated strategy, where GS is the sole priority. We evaluate these strategies based on scenarios of oil and CO2 prices; leakage estimates; and transportation, injection, and monitoring costs from the literature and practice. Major results reveal that the afterthought strategy is the dominant strategy (i.e. the strategy with the greatest revenues) under a range of scenarios. This finding suggests that GS regulatory design needs to anticipate the use of the potentially leakiest or “worst” sites first. | | | | Assessing Investment in Future Landsat Instruments: The Example of Forest Carbon Offsets | | Molly K. Macauley, Jhih-Shyang Shih | | RFF Discussion Paper 10-14 | March 2010 | | Abstract: We extend the theory of quality-adjusted expenditure indices to estimate benefits from public investment. In particular, we model the selection of new instruments (in the form of remote-sensing devices) to enhance the longest-operating U.S. satellite-based land-observing program, Landsat. We then apply the model to the use of Landsat in measuring global forest carbon sequestration. Improving measurement of the role of forests in storing carbon has become a prominent concern in climate policy. By characterizing the value of Landsat data in forest measurement, the expenditure function allows us tohelp inform public investment decisions in the satellite system. The expenditure function also makes explicit the sensitivity of the selection of instruments for the satellites to the value of Landsat information, thus linking instrument choice explicitly to policy design. | | | | The Bioeconomics of Conservation Agriculture and Soil Carbon Sequestration in Developing Countries | | Wisdom Akpalu, Anders Ekbom | | RFF Discussion Paper EfD 10-07 | March 2010 | | Abstract: Improving soil carbon through conservation agriculture in developing countries may generate some private benefits to farmers, as well as sequester carbon emissions, which is a positive externality to society. Leaving crop residue on the farm has become an important option in conservation agriculture practice. However, in developing countries, using crop residue for conservation agriculture has theopportunity cost of feed for livestock. In this paper, we model and develop an expression for an optimum economic incentive that is necessary to internalize the positive externality. A crude value ofthe tax is calculated using data from Kenya. We also empirically investigated the determinants of the crop residue left on the farm and found that it depends on the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of thesoil, the prices of maize, whether extension officers visit the plot or not, household size, the level of education of the household head, and alternative cost of soil conservation. | | | | Managing Climate-Related International Forest Programs: A Proposal to Create the International Forest Conservation Corporation | | Nigel Purvis, Raymond J. Kopp, Andrew R Stevenson | | Issue Brief 09-07 | June 2009 | | | | | | International Forest Carbon in Congress: A Survey of Key Congressional Staff | | Lou Leonard, Raymond J. Kopp, Nigel Purvis | | Issue Brief 09-03 | February 2009 | | | | | | Regulating the Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide | | Elizabeth J. Wilson, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, Mark Boner, Christopher Bunting, Mark A. De Figueiredo, Jenny Gode, Carlo C. Jaeger, David W. Keith, Sean T. McCoy, R. Stuart Haszeldine, Melisa F. Pollak, David M. Reiner, Edward S. Rubin, Asbjørn Tor | | Environmental Science & Technology | April 2008 | Vol. 42, No. 8 | pp. 2718-2722 | Related Discussion Paper 07-13 | | | | | | An International Regulatory Framework for Risk Governance of Carbon Capture and Storage | | Shalini Vajjhala, Jenny Gode, Asbjørn Torvanger | | RFF Discussion Paper 07-13 | May 2007 | | Related journal article | | Abstract: This essay was prepared as part of a workshop on carbon capture and sequestration held by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) in Washington, DC, from March 15–16, 2007. The goal of the workshop was to bring together researchers, practitioners, and regulators from Europe, the United States, and Australia to outline the attributes that an effective regulatory regime for carbon capture and storage should possess. This essay focuses specifically on providing an overview of eight fundamental elements that we believe any effective international and national regulatory structure must address: 1) classification of carbon dioxide (CO2); 2) oversight of CO2 capture and storage; 3) site ownership and storage rights; 4) site operation and management; 5) long-term management and liability; 6) regulatory compliance and enforcement; 7) links to CO2 markets and trading mechanisms; and 8) risk communication and public acceptance. This essay is one of 12 collected for the workshop, and the recommendations herein are the views of the authors and do not reflect the views of their agencies, the IRGC, or specific workshop discussions. | | | | Prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage Technologies | | Soren T. Anderson, Richard G. Newell | | RFF Discussion Paper 02-68 | January 2003 | | Related journal article | | Abstract: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies remove carbon dioxide from flue gases for storage in geologic formations or the ocean. We find that CCS is technically feasible and economically attractive within the range of carbon policies discussed domestically and internationally. Current costs are about $200 to $250 per ton of carbon, although costs are sensitive to fuel prices and other assumptions and could be reduced significantly through technical improvements. Near-term prospects favor CCS for certain industrial sources and electric power plants, with storage in depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Deep aquifers may provide an attractive longer-term storage option, whereas ocean storage poses greater technical and environmental uncertainty. Vast quantities of economically recoverable fossil fuels, sizable political obstacles to their abandonment, and inherent delay associated with developing alternative energy sources suggest that CCS should be seriously considered in the portfolio of options for addressing climate change, alongside energy efficiency and carbon-free energy. | | | | Forest Carbon Sequestration: Some Issues for Forest Investments | | Roger A. Sedjo | | RFF Discussion Paper 01-34 | August 2001 | | Abstract: A major problem being faced by human society is that the global temperature is believed to be rising due to human activity that releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, i.e., global warming. The major culprit is thought to be fossil fuel burning, which is releasing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The problem of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide can be addressed a number of ways. One of these is forestry and forest management. This paper examines a number of current issues related to mitigating the global warming problem through forestry. First, the overall carbon cycle is described, and the potential impact of forests on the buildup of atmospheric carbon is examined. A major focus is the means by which forests and forest management can contribute to the sequestration of carbon. The potential role of forests and forestry in sequestrating carbon to reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is now well recognized. A number of alternative approaches to utilizing forestry and forest management for carbon sequestration are examined. These include forest protection; the management of forests for carbon for joint products, i.e., the management of forests to generate both carbon and timber as products; the establishment of plantation forests dedicated to carbon sequestration; and increased production of wood products. Replacing other materials with wood will sequester carbon while reducing energy requirements, thereby reducing carbon emissions. Studies examining the costs of carbon sequestration using forestry are also discussed. The recent Kyoto Protocol (K.P.) explicitly recognizes certain forestry activities as “certifiable” for sequestration credits. But some definitions and aspects of carbon sequestration through forestry were left incomplete or inadequately defined by the Protocol. Furthermore, the KP has changed due to the recent withdrawal of the US for the Protocol (although not from the Kyoto Process). Nevertheless, further clarification is necessary to understand the full potential and set of opportunities from forestry both within the framework of the Protocol and more generally. Alternative types of vehicles for sequestration credits are discussed below,m both within and outside the context of the KP , and their advantages and disadvantages in terms of periods covered and liability are also examined. Finally, some ongoing real-world activities utilizing forestry specifically to sequester carbon are discussed. | | | | Can Carbon Sinks be Operational? An RFF Workshop Summary | | Roger A. Sedjo, Michael A. Toman, Richard A. Birdsey, Pekka E. Kauppi, Ian Noble, Sandra Brown, Suzi Kerr, Olga N. Krankina, Pedro Moura-Costa | | RFF Discussion Paper 01-26 | July 2001 | | Abstract: An RFF Workshop brought together experts from around the world to assess the feasibility of using biological sinks to sequester carbon as part of a global atmospheric mitigation effort. The chapters of this proceeding are a result of that effort. Although the intent of the workshop was not to generate a consensus, a number of studies suggest that sinks could be a relatively inexpensive and effective carbon management tool. The chapters cover a variety of aspects and topics related to the monitoring and measurement of carbon in biological systems. They tend to support the view the carbon sequestration using biological systems is technically feasible with relatively good precision and at relatively low cost. Thus carbon sinks can be operational. | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| FILTER PUBLICATIONS | | By Topic | | | By Type | | | By Author | | | | Display All Publications |
|
|
|
|
|