In their effort to promote the use of peat for fuel, many arguments have been brought forward by the industry to differentiate peat from other fossil fuels, including young versus old age, slow versus non-renewability, loose versus compact structure, much versus little water content, little versus advanced transformation, Holocene versus pre-Holocene origin, etc., etc.
Yet none of the above properties differentiates peat from other fossil fuels with respect to the effect their combustion has on the climate. Discussion on the above topics merely distracts from the real problem.
Similar to burning other fossil fuels, peat combustion releases Carbon from a long-term store. Without exploitation the Carbon would have remained in this store more or less indefinitely. Here lies the fundamental difference between ‘biomass’ fuels (like wood and straw) and ‘fossil’ fuels (like peat and coal).
By burning biomass fuels, organic material is oxidized that would be oxidized by decay in the foreseeable future anyhow. In case of fuel combustion, humans consume the energy, whereas in case of decay microbes consume the energy provided by oxidation. In both cases the same amount of CO2 ends up in the atmosphere.
By burning fossil fuels, organic material is oxidized that otherwise would have remained stored for thousands and thousands of years. In contrast to biomass, peat would – without exploitation – not end up in the atmosphere as CO2. This applies whether the peat is 10 or 1,000 or 100,000 years old. Therefore, combustion of peat leads to a net emission of CO2 to the atmosphere.
As peat has a lower calorific value than coal, oil or gas, burning peat produces more CO2 per unit of generated energy than most other fossil fuels. This is largely determined by chemical properties that – without substantial net energy losses – cannot be altered. As a consequence, replacing other fossil fuels by peat will lead to higher CO2 emissions.
The increased CO2 emission by peat combustion is – with respect to its climate effect – not compensated by peat-formation in still peat accumulating natural peatlands. For compensation of additional emissions an additional sink is needed. Natural, peat accumulating peatlands have always been part of the greenhouse balance and do not constitute this additional sink. Therefore, peat accumulation in natural mires does not compensate for emissions from peat combustion.
As combustion of peat results in more CO2 emissions than combustion of coal, life cycle analyses of peat combustion concentrate on the ‘before’ and ‘after’ part of the life cycle. These ‘before’ and ‘after’ parts do not concern emission values of burning peat, but changes in land use.
The life cycle analyses of peat fuel combustion
presented by the Swedish and Finnish peat industry are selective and unfair.
They focus on worst case scenarios with respect to the ‘before’ and best case
scenarios with respect to the ‘after’ components. Accounting under UNFCCC/Kyoto
levels the playground, draws the larger, national picture and puts emissions
from peatlands in the right perspective. As a result, the use of peat for
energy is unattractive under the ‘
The worst case scenario of the pre-extraction phase comprises agricultural peatlands with very high current greenhouse gas emissions. The higher the emissions in the pre-extraction phase, the smaller the net-effect of peat extraction. It is assumed that the carbon store of heavily drained agricultural peatlands will be emitted in foreseeable future anyhow and extraction merely speeds up the process. This ignores that the emissions from agricultural peatlands easily can be reduced by rewetting. Like other fossil fuels, the peat resource from agricultural peatlands is finite and rapidly decreasing unless pristine peatlands continue to be reclaimed
The best case scenario of the post-extraction phase (after-use of cut-over peatlands) involves growing of biofuel crops that replace fossil fuels. The larger the area of biofuel crops, the larger the mitigating effect will be. To maximise the area that thus can be used for biofuel crops, the amount of peat extracted per hectare should be minimised. Carrying this (actually perverse) principle to its logical conclusion the most positive scenario for climate is to refrain from peat extraction and use rewetted peatlands for biofuel cultivation.
Even within the current, suboptimal, framework of the ‘Climate Change Convention’ (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, conservation of peatlands in UNFCCC Annex I countries can be profitable during the first commitment period (2008-2012). Avoided emissions from rewetting degraded peatlands can be accounted under the Kyoto Protocol if they are combined with some form of land use, either under Annex A (agriculture) or LULUCF (cropland and grassland management).
Currently, tens of millions of hectares of drained and degraded peatlands globally are responsible for over 3 Gtons of CO2 emissions, representing a value of €70,000 million per year. This forces us to focus on rewetting of drained peatlands to avoid emissions and on cultivating suitable crops under wet conditions. Crops grown on rewetted peatlands (‘paludicultures’) not only bring employment and revenue as such, but also reduce emissions (possibly to the point of net sequestration).
Peat enterprises and IPS should be taking on this challenge instead of trying to increase the market for a fossil, finite, and environmentally damaging fuel like peat:
The future of peatlands is in conservation.
Hans Joosten & John Couwenberg