# Carbon Storage Quantification
**URL:** https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559
**Category:** LCA Data & Tools
**Created:** [June 24, 2022, 3:21pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559 "2022-06-24T15:21:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@lauren.wingo](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/lauren.wingo)
#### Post date: [June 24, 2022, 3:21pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/1 "2022-06-24T15:21:20Z")
Is there a widely adopted method for carbon storage quantification? I am aware that Aureus Earth is developing methodology, but interested to hear if there’s current methodology in place that firms are using.
For proper LCA methodology, biogenic carbon is reported alongside LCA results. However, the biogenic carbon value would be attributing the full carbon sequestration benefit to the building design, whereas the true benefit is from the carbon storage potential of bio-based products. How do we tell this story quantitatively rather than qualitatively? I realize this is a complex topic, but I’m curious how others are approaching this, when LCA results (depending on end-of-life assumptions) can show timber as a higher impact option when the carbon storage benefits are not accounted for.
---
### Author:  [@Luke-Lombardi](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/Luke-Lombardi)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2022, 5:15pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/2 "2022-06-27T17:15:07Z")
@jayarehart have you published your research on this yet?
There’s also the WWF tool that looks at how long the material takes to grow and duration of storage as a product:
> **[Biogenic Carbon Footprint Calculator for Harvested Wood Products | Projects |...](https://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/biogenic-carbon-footprint-calculator-for-harvested-wood-products)**
>
> World Wildlife Fund - The leading organization in wildlife conservation and endangered species.
And the Upstream tool developed by ZGF (CC: @jacob.dunn) that I believe is currently under incubation by the CLF:
> **[Measuring Lifecycle Impacts of Wood With New Sustainable LCA Tool | ZGF](https://www.zgf.com/ideas/3356-new-tool-helps-designers-measure-lifecycle-impacts-of-wood)**
>
> UpStream is a wood lifecycle calculator that allows designers to make more informed decisions on their material choices. Addressing embodied carbon of wood through a variety of stages, the tool has the potential to lead to more sustainable forestry p
---
### Author:  [@will.nash](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/will.nash)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2022, 8:15pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/3 "2022-06-27T20:15:50Z")
Thanks Luke - do you know why Quantis assumes 70% of a tree makes its way into long lived products when other reports put the figure at 20 - 30%?
---
### Author:  [@Luke-Lombardi](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/Luke-Lombardi)
#### Post date: [June 28, 2022, 6:06pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/5 "2022-06-28T18:06:32Z")
hey @will.nash - I’m not familiar with Quantis’ methodology, but I’d reference this table that @jayarehart shared elsewhere on the CLF community. If I look at the baseline assumptions in the WWF tool, a tree would have a rotation period of ~70yrs and assumed life of 50yrs as a building material. From the table, that looks like a GWP100 factor of 10-15% and you’d need to use the material for closer to 100yrs to get up to a factor of 70%
So it’s better to find products that grow quick and last a long time!
Jay – correct me if I’m wrong anywhere 🙂
I think this probably has some assumptions baked in for sourcing forest model and EoL\*
> [@Quantifying the Carbon Uptake of Hempcrete](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/quantifying-the-carbon-uptake-of-hempcrete/1965/5):
>
> Since there isn’t a lot of hempcrete out there (yet), the end-of-life hasn’t been studied extensively (others please chime in if you are familiar with sceanrios). For the biogenic part, it will decay at some point, yet the binder will hold onto the carbon until calcined again. So depending on how the hempcrete is processed at the end of its life, I expect that the decay time will be longer than just green hemp due to the alkalinity of the binder inhibiting decay. So, even though at some point s…
WWF tool excerpt (more plots, figures, and customization possible in the tool!)
---
### Author:  [@lauren.wingo](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/lauren.wingo)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2022, 5:07pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/6 "2022-06-29T17:07:33Z")
Thanks @Luke-Lombardi! Totally simple answer, just as I suspected…
Maybe the simple answer I am seeking warrants a more simple question:
**For wbLCA practitioners, do you consider the biogenic carbon value reported by LCA tools to = carbon storage of the wood products used in the building?**
---
### Author:  [@jackrusk](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/jackrusk)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2022, 11:33pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/7 "2022-06-29T23:33:25Z")
The figure there is from Guest et al. (2013). DOI here:
[https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00507.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00507.x)
For what it’s worth, I considering using those GWPbio factors for a white paper LCA a few years ago and was told by a mutual friend of Geoffrey (the study’s lead author) and I that he strongly recommended against applying them in analyses beyond the narrow scope of the published model. But the trend you’re indicating (fast growing products with a long dwell time are better) seems generally well-supported.
---
### Author:  [@heyslivers](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/heyslivers)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2022, 2:58am UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/8 "2022-07-05T02:58:23Z")
Lauren,
I agree with your assumption. I would say the sequestered biogenic carbon in a building is directly related to the volume of wood installed. To put forestry aside for the moment, if the wood product has an EPD, the sequestered carbon would be under module C3/C4.
---
### Author:  [@heyslivers](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/u/heyslivers)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2022, 7:43pm UTC](https://community.carbonleadershipforum.org/t/carbon-storage-quantification/5559/9 "2022-07-08T19:43:44Z")
See [Calculating the Carbon Stored in Wood Products - WoodWorks | Wood Products Council](https://www.woodworks.org/resources/calculating-the-carbon-stored-in-wood-products/?utm_source=Predictive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ML%20Program%20Update%20-%20Mass%20Timber&utm_term=00v4P00002F4NGiQAN&org=2488&lvl=100&ite=964&lea=1595803&ctr=0&par=1&trk=a1M6Q000004f6uQUAQ)
“_Every cubic foot of Douglas fir-larch stores the equivalent of 55 lb of carbon dioxide!_”