Collison & Associates Limited Low Carbon Innovation Centre Introduction to Biochar Bioenergy...

Collison & Associates Limited

Low Carbon Innovation Centre

Introduction to BiocharBioenergy Potential, Implications for Agriculture, Strategy

Bruce Tofield, Low Carbon Innovation Centre, UEA

[email protected]; Tel: 07787-512556


Intercepting the carbon cycleby burying carbon captured by plants

Carbon flows in the natural carbon cycle far exceed manmade emissions. Biochar, applied to soil, can permanently remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Theoretically, it might be possible to offset all manmade ghg emissions.


Unlike compost or plant residues, biochar does not degrade in soils

•Compost and other organic material in soils is valuable but mineralises (converts to CO2) in just a few years.

•Biochar will remain essentially unchanged for hundreds or even thousands of years – carbon sequestration really is possible


Potential Global Importance

“There is one way we could save ourselves, and that is through the massive burial of charcoal”

James Lovelock



"Biochar may represent the single most important initiative for humanity’s environmental future. The biochar approach provides a uniquely powerful solution, for it allows us to address food security, the fuel crisis, and the climate problem, and all in an immensely practical manner.”

Tim Flannery



“Biochar has the potential to sequester

almost 400 billion tonnes of carbon by

2100 and to lower atmospheric carbon

dioxide concentrations by 37 parts per

million.”Professor Tim Lenton, UEA



‘Slash and Burn’ to ‘Slash and Char’ in the developing world?


A combination of some ofman’s oldest technologies

The productivity of Amazonian dark earth soils – created by early agriculturalists using charcoal – first stimulated interest in biochar as both a sequestering agent and as an agent to promote agricultural productivity


In poor soils enhanced productivity can be substantial

Char added Normal soil

Picture from Black is the new green, Nature, 442, 624-626, 2006


The impact on global agriculture could be of huge importance

“We have got to deal with increased demand for

energy, increased demandincreased demand for foodfood, increased increased

demanddemand for waterwater, and we've got to do that while

mitigating and adapting to climate changeclimate change. And we

have but 21 years to do it”

Professor John BeddingtonChief Scientific Advisor to HM Government andHead of the Government Office for Science,March 2009


The impact on global agriculture could be of huge importance

“Trials of agrichar - a product hailed as a saviour of Australia’s

carbon-depleted soils and the environment - have doubled and, have doubled and,

in one case, tripled crop growthin one case, tripled crop growth when applied at the rate of 10 10

tonnes per hectaretonnes per hectare … For the wheat, agrichar alone was about

as beneficial for yields as using nitrogen fertiliser onlyas beneficial for yields as using nitrogen fertiliser only ... Soil

biology improved, the need for added fertiliser reducedneed for added fertiliser reduced and

water holding capacity was raisedwater holding capacity was raised ... The trials also measured

gases given off from the soils and found significantly lowersignificantly lower

emissionsemissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxidenitrous oxide…”

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/updates/issues/may-2007/soils-offer-new-hope


Different to CCS

CCS will add approx 50 per cent to the cost of a coal plant – the captured CO2

must then be shipped/piped and injected as at the Krechba gas production plant in Algeria;£90million to fund detailed preparatory studies for two to four UK demonstration projects which will cost £billions? (UK Budget, April 2009)


CCS longer term and essential

CoalCoal is responsible for 70 per cent of 185 Mt CO2 from electricity generation, i.e. 130 Mt CO2130 Mt CO2. CCSCCS could in principle decarbonise 85%decarbonise 85% of these emissions – about 110 Mt110 Mt. Essential by 2050 – nothing before 2020nothing before 2020.


Biochar vs CCS

• CCS is essential to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply

• CCS reduces CO2 emissions from fossil fuels it does not eliminate them

• Biochar removes CO2 emissions from the atmosphere

• In the UK biochar might yield a few million tonnes CO2 saving with current biomass sources – CCS needs to aim for over 100 m tonnes

• Using gasifier technology, biochar can be produced today – few barriers to entry – major bioenergy benefit for the Region

• Potential major benefits for agriculture and soils in addition to carbon sequestration


UK Bioenergy StrategyBiochar not mentioned

Urgent action necessary if to mainstream


Bioenergy 5 per cent of total UK energy by 2020?

•All present-day resources will be needed to meet 2020 renewable energy targets.

•Current technology is combustion for electricity or heat.

•Little or no biochar will be produced

•CHP gives biggest benefit

Annex B: UK Biomass Strategy, 2007


Burning straw for electricity?

Gas Straw

Coal

Grid 2020

Biomass: Carbon Sink or Carbon Sinner?Environment Agency, April 2009

•Straw burning power stations generating electricity only may have no lower CO2 emissions than gas-powered CCGT


The Importance of getting it right

“Biomass plants generating only electricity, a number of which are currently in development, cannot have a long-term future in the UK’s energy mix as they are not able to produce sufficiently low carbon energy.”

“The infrastructure being developed in the UK now will form a major component of the country’s generating capacity in 2030.”

Biomass: Carbon Sink or Carbon Sinner?Environment Agency, April 2009


Feedstock technologies are long-term and uncertain

•Innovation according to DBERR,Renewable Energy Consultation2008


The Importance of getting it right:Feedstock technologies

“…given the complexity of the technical and economic challenges

involved, in reality, the first commercial plants are unlikely to be

widely deployed before 2020 … Both sets of technologies

remain unproven at the fully commercial scale … and have

significant technical and environmental barriers yet to

overcome.”

Sims et al, From 1st to 2nd generation biofuel technologieshttp://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2079


The Importance of getting it right:Liquid biofuels vs CHP

“...the policy of using liquid biofuels directly for transportation

may not be the best approach to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions or increase energy security. Biofuels can be used far

more efficiently in stationary facilities to generate heat or to co-

generate heat and electricity than they can as liquid

transportation fuels”

Howarth et al (2009), Biofuels and the environment in the 21st century. In: Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use (eds. Howarth R.W., and Bringezu S).


Gasification for CHP is a technology that is cost effective today


The technology is not new!

But today’s technology for CHP is efficient and cost effective


Rural and urban CHP in E of England – with added biochar?

Economic and Technical Leadership!

• Up to 2m tonnes (?) biomass and biowaste available in the region

• Two-thirds of this is biowaste (?)

• Up to 100 UEA-size gasifiers (?)

• What yield of biochar possible?

• Properties of biochar from gasifier?

• Properties of biochar from biowaste?

• Major bioenergy benefit for the Region

• Potential major benefits for agriculture and soils in addition to carbon sequestration – where to focus?


Rural and urban CHP in E of England – with added biochar?

Economic and Technical Leadership!


Low Carbon Innovation Centre

Thank you

Bruce Tofield, Low Carbon Innovation Centre, UEA

[email protected]; Tel: 07787-512556

Collison & Associates Limited Low Carbon Innovation Centre Introduction to Biochar Bioenergy...

Documents

Transcript of Collison & Associates Limited Low Carbon Innovation Centre Introduction to Biochar Bioenergy...