|
Thursday, April 26, 2007 The Case for Burying CharcoalResearch shows that pyrolysis is the most climate-friendly way to consume biomass. By Tyler Hamilton
Several states in this country and a number of Scandinavian countries are trying to supplant some coal-burning by burning biomass such as wood pellets and agricultural residue. Unlike coal, biomass is carbon-neutral, releasing only the carbon dioxide that the plants had absorbed in the first place. But a new research paper published online in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy argues that the battle against global warming may be better served by instead heating the biomass in an oxygen-starved process called pyrolysis, extracting methane, hydrogen, and other byproducts for combustion, and burying the resulting carbon-rich char. Even if this approach would mean burning more coal--which emits more carbon dioxide than other fossil-fuel sources--it would yield a net reduction in carbon emissions, according to the analysis by Malcolm Fowles, a professor of technology management at the Open University, in the United Kingdom. Burning one ton of wood pellets emits 357 kilograms less carbon than burning coal with the same energy content. But turning those wood pellets into char would save 372 kilograms of carbon emissions. That is because 300 kilograms of carbon could be buried as char, and the burning of byproducts would produce 72 kilograms less carbon emissions than burning an equivalent amount of coal. Such an approach could carry an extra benefit. Burying char--known as black-carbon sequestration--enhances soils, helping future crops and trees grow even faster, thus absorbing more carbon dioxide in the future. Researchers believe that the char, an inert and highly porous material, plays a key role in helping soil retain water and nutrients, and in sustaining microorganisms that maintain soil fertility. Johannes Lehmann, an associate professor of crops and soil sciences at Cornell University and an expert on char sequestration, agrees in principle with Fowles's analysis but believes that much more research in this relatively new area of study is needed. "It heads in the right direction," he says. Interest in the approach is gathering momentum. On April 29, more than 100 corporate and academic researchers will gather in New South Wales, Australia, to attend the first international conference on black-carbon sequestration and the role pyrolysis can play to offset greenhouse-gas emissions. Lehmann estimates that as much as 9.5 billion tons of carbon--more than currently emitted globally through the burning of fossil fuels--could be sequestered annually by the end of this century through the sequestration of char. "Bioenergy through pyrolysis in combination with biochar sequestration is a technology to obtain energy and improve the environment in multiple ways at the same time," writes Lehmann in a research paper to be published soon in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. |



Comments
hsfrey on 04/26/2007 at 1:37 AM
6
This is like saying that you put half as much CO2 into the atmosphere if you dump half of your gasoline onto the ground and don't burn it.
What am I missing here?
Buckwheat469 on 04/26/2007 at 2:32 AM
31
RickJ on 04/26/2007 at 4:03 AM
5
tjh on 04/27/2007 at 12:45 PM
2
RickJ on 05/02/2007 at 6:25 AM
5
nekote on 04/26/2007 at 5:35 AM
109
In essence, an entry for Branson's prize of $25 million for the best way to sequester a Gigaton, per year, of Carbon (or is it CO2?).
This effort is to have a negative - not 0 - carbon foot print.
green_tech_watch on 04/28/2007 at 4:33 PM
1
Think of capturing C02, compressing it, piping it or putting it into tankers. There would need to be much infrastructure to get this to happen. Then you have to find out where you can put the CO2.
Carbon in solid form can be easily scattered on farmland.
zephod on 04/26/2007 at 5:29 AM
1
nick47g on 04/26/2007 at 1:40 PM
17
djs on 04/26/2007 at 4:33 AM
16
mbmurphy777 on 04/26/2007 at 2:49 PM
14
djs on 04/27/2007 at 4:04 AM
16
ericzundel on 04/26/2007 at 6:46 AM
1
AlanM on 04/26/2007 at 2:31 PM
1
Hardheadjarhead on 04/26/2007 at 9:55 AM
15
If the char makes for increased crop yields, I see it as a money making and exportable product.
Viv on 04/26/2007 at 12:13 PM
8
mbmurphy777 on 04/26/2007 at 2:55 PM
14
Fires need oxygen to burn, and packed dirt just doesn't allow for sufficient penetration.
abcarterjr on 04/26/2007 at 2:09 PM
45
Forest generates Juniper slash & string cut high
plains grass that can be run thru a chipper then
charcoaled into compost for the kitchen garden.
mbmurphy777 on 04/26/2007 at 2:45 PM
14
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independence-and.html
It could allow replacement of natural gas and coal fired electricial generation and offset some liquid fossil fuels. Transitioning to electrified transport would dramatically reduce the liquid fuels requirement, hence some of the surplus char could be sequestered.
farmboy on 04/26/2007 at 6:53 PM
2
TrueGrit on 04/27/2007 at 12:04 AM
1
Eprida suggests that they have a method of converting basic charcoal into a soil fertilizer and paying farmers to bury it with their crops. Farmers could have an endless supply.
rlindsl on 04/27/2007 at 3:28 PM
7
If you are going to truck the char, you should do an analysis comparing that to trucking the raw biomass to a char facility that could utilize the waste heat in the process.
The most efficient use of char sequestration would be onsite and it would enrich the depleted soil lowering the cost and total use of fertilizers in silviculture.
The onsite char utilization would be a benefit to the thinning of high fuel load forsets in the western United States where the biomass is remote and of little economic value. These forest lands tend to have marginal soils that would benefit from this treatment. A sequestration subsidy might move these fuel load reduction projects into... the black. Sorry.
Greg on 05/26/2007 at 12:41 PM
3
Have a look at the following link:
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/multimedia/mpResearch/2006/heft03/3_06MPR_20_25.pdf
erinbyers on 06/25/2007 at 11:09 AM
1