木質バイオマスエネルギー変換経路のライフサイクル評価の方法論的調和について—レビュー
On the Methodological Harmonization of the Life Cycle Assessment of Woody Biomass-to-Energy Conversion Pathways—A Review (原題)
Baibhaw Kumar, Heriberto Cabezas
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本レビューは、燃焼・CHP・ガス化・熱分解・トレファクション・BECCSなど木質バイオマス変換経路のLCA手法を比較し、機能単位・システム境界・バイオ炭素の扱い・前処理・配分方法の差異が排出量推計のばらつきを生むと指摘する。4272件から98件を精査し、透明性と比較可能性を高める調和手法を提案する。政策立案者や事業開発者の投資判断に資する。
English
This review compares LCA methodologies for woody biomass-to-energy pathways (combustion, CHP, gasification, pyrolysis, torrefaction, BECCS), showing that differences in functional units, system boundaries, biogenic carbon treatment, pretreatment, and allocation drive wide emission-estimate variability. From 4,272 records, 98 studies were analyzed, and a harmonization framework is proposed to improve transparency and comparability for policy and investment decisions.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではバイオマス発電のFIT/FIP制度や非化石価値・GHG排出量算定において、バイオマス由来CO2の扱いやLCA手法のばらつきが課題となっている。本レビューは、企業の再エネ調達や排出量報告の基礎となるバイオマスLCAの標準化議論に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
Globally, biomass accounting under CSRD, ISSB, and GHG Protocol is contested, especially regarding biogenic carbon and temporal dynamics. This review's harmonization proposal supports more consistent disclosure and transition-finance evaluation of bioenergy projects.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:木質バイオマスLCAの方法論的ばらつきと調和の方向性を整理したレビューとして、比較研究の設計に有用。
🏢実務担当者:バイオマス調達や再エネ投資の際、LCA前提条件の違いが排出量評価に与える影響を理解する助けになる。
🏛政策担当者:バイオマスエネルギー支援策や排出量算定ルールの設計において、LCA調和の必要性を示唆する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Woody biomass is often promoted as a low-carbon energy source in global decarbonization efforts. However, LCA (life cycle assessment) evaluations of woody biomass-to-energy systems show very different environmental performance. Variations in technology and methodology across investigations can cause these inconsistencies. This review paper analyzes methodologies of LCAs of woody biomass conversion routes such as combustion, combined heat and power, gasification, pyrolysis, torrefaction-assisted systems, and new bioenergy with carbon capture configurations. A systematic literature review was conducted using Scopus, SpringerLink, and ScienceDirect, identifying 4272 records, of which 98 studies were retained for detailed analysis following the application of defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Functional unit selection, from biomass mass per unit to power or heat per unit, is highly variable, affecting comparability. Forest carbon stock fluctuations, infrastructure, and end-of-life treatment are inconsistently included in cradle-to-grave system boundaries. Static GWP100 methods are often used in biogenic carbon removal without considering temporal carbon dynamics. The importance of pretreatment steps like drying, pelletizing, and torrefaction cannot be overstated, even though they have a direct impact on the quality of the fuel, the efficiency of transportation, and the effectiveness of the conversion process downstream. The large range of stated emission levels for comparable technologies is further influenced by logistics assumptions, plant scale, and allocation mechanisms in cogeneration systems. The review synthesizes these methodological differences and proposes a harmonization methodology to increase woody biomass LCA transparency and comparability. By identifying important sources of outcome variability, this study helps policymakers, project developers, and industry stakeholders evaluate biomass energy investments and bring clarity to environmental decisions.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/en19173950first seen 2026-09-13 04:48:37
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。