Biochar Carbon Sequestration

Christoph SteinerLaurens RademakersWinfried E. H. Blum

In Tropical Land Use Systems

Greenhouse gas emissions

Biofuels fossil fuel substitutionHolly K Gibbs et al 2008 Environ. Res. Lett. 3

Annual biofuel carbon saving (tons C/ha/year)

Biofuels may substitute fossil fuels but not sequester carbon

Biofuels carbon debtHolly K Gibbs et al 2008 Environ. Res. Lett. 3

Biofuels considerations

Induced land use change

The need to double food production until 2050 Tilman at al. 2001, Science 292

Dependency on non-renewable resources (fossil fuels, rock phosphate, Hall

and Hall 1993, Cordell et al. 2009)

Environmental changes• soil degradation• climate change

Importance of Waste Biomass Utilization!Biofuels, Carbon Sequestration and Soil Restoration

Waste biomass or wasted biomass

Fast growing biomass supply

Conditions for Biochar Carbon Sequestration

Conditions soils

• Low CEC and importance of SOC• Acidity• Fast decomposition of labile SOC

78 million ha of land is severely damaged in Indonesia (Ministry of

Forestry Indonesia (2009)

= completely depleted function of:• Water retention•Erosion control• Nutrient cycling• Climate regulation•Carbon accumulation

Conditions for Biochar Carbon Sequestration

Maximizing fuel use to avoid deforestation?• biochar contains 50% of the C and 50% of the energy• Alternative fuels?

Is Biochar always the best option?

A living tee can do more for the climate than biochar• Conservation of the carbon stock• Local soil protection and climate regulator

Conditions for Biochar Carbon Sequestration

Conditions for Biochar Carbon Sequestration

Biochar from alternative fuels distributed evenly in the landscape would not increase C and hardly impact soil fertility.

Crop residues are in use

Palm Oil Sector

Palm Oil Sector

Sheil et al. (2009) based on data from FAOSTAT

Empty fruit bunches 1.55 Mg ha-1 yr-1

Fiber 1.63 Mg ha-1 yr-1

Shells 1.10 Mg ha-1 yr-1

(Yusoff 2006).

10.4 Mg ha-1 yr-1 pruned fronds and90 Mg ha-1 palm trunks and fronds at renovation, every 20 to 30 years (Yusoff 2006)

Palm Oil Sector

A Mill with a capacity of 60 Mg FFB h-1

Generates 83,000 Mg yr-1

EFB

Accumulating biomass• Nutrients leached and lost• Diseases & pests• Carbon released as CO2 and CH4

Palm Oil Sector waste biomass

< 50% of the carbon used for energy production

Biomass Biomass

Mg ha-1 yr-1

Biochar – C1

Mg ha-1 yr-1

CO2

Mg ha-1 yr-1

At the mill

EFB 8% of FFB (dry weight) 1.55 0.33 1.21

Fiber 8 % of FFB (dry weight) 1.63 0.34 1.25

Shell 5.5% of FFB (dry weight) 1.10 0.23 0.84

Total at the mill 4.28 0.9 3.30

In the field

Fronds3 11.4 2.39 8.77

Trunks4 3.02 0.63 2.31

Fronds and rachis4 0.58 0.12 0.44

Total in the field 15.00 3.14 11.52

Total (mill + field) 19.28 4.04 14.82

Biomass data from Yusoff (2006) and Sheil et al. (2009). 1Biochar-Carbon assuming a conversionefficiency of 30% and a mean carbon content of 70. 2The dry weight of fronds from annualpruning, 3every 25 years at renovation (75.5 and 14.4 Mg ha-1 25 yrs-1)

EFB1 EFB2

Carbonized

EFB

Compost1

N (%) 1.25 1.45 2.86

P (%) 0.11 0.31 0.34

K (%) 2.07 5.93 2.30

Ca (%) 0.42 0.54 1.27

Mg (%) 0.20 0.40 0.63

Table 2 Nutrient concentrations in EFB, carbonized EFB and EFB Compost

1Source (Salétes et al. 2004b) co-composted with nutrient rich POME, 2Carbonized at 500°C University of Georgia

Palm Oil Sector nutrient cycling

7 yrs

Paraserianthes falcataria

2 yrs

Acacia mangium

2 yrs

Wood Plantations

Wood Plantations residues (8 yrs rotation)

56.4 Mg ha-1

(Hardiyanto et al. 2000)

28.2 Mg ha -1 suitable for biochar production (Okimori et al. 2003)

5640 Mg of biochar = 17,000 Mg CO21000 ha yr-1 and a carbonization efficiency of 0.2 , 0.7 Mg ha-1 yr-1)

Logging Concessions

CL Biochar C RIL Biochar C

Mg ha-1

Branches, stumps, and butt roots

67 16.75 46 11.5

Destroyed trees 67 16.75 14 3.5

Dead trees within 1 yr 7 1.75 4 1

Lianas destroyed 5 1.25 7 1.75

Understory plants 2 0.5 2 0.5

Total 148 37 73 18.25

Biomass data Pinard et al. 1996

Logging Concessions Dead Biomass

Logging Concessions decomposing wood and regenerating

forest

• Ecological functions of decomposing wood• Relatively fast forest regeneration if undisturbed• Biochar may create an incentive to increase the damage

Logging Concessions areas of degradation

Logging Concessions reforestation on problem areas

Tropical forest conversion contribute 25% of the global CO2

emissions. Palm et al. 2004, Environment, Development and Sustainability

1.31 Pg yr-1 (billion tons) of biomass is cleared in all secondary forests (fallow vegetation) Fearnside 2000, Climatic Change

~50% of C remains as charcoal ~2% of C remains as charcoal

Photo: Steve Welch

Slash and Char as Alternative to Slash and Burn

0.2 Pg yr-1 of C could be offset if slash and burn is replaced by slash and char Lehmann et al. (2006)

Car

bo

n S

tock

Soil

Fert

ility

Time (yrs)

Sustainable Slash and Burn

Slash and Char -linear

Slash and Char -exponential

Slash and Char carbon accumulation

Slash and Char changed nutrient and carbon cycle?

Increased yields with biochar Lehmann and Rondon 2006, Steiner et al 2007, Plant and Soil

Increased retention of fertilized nitrogen = fertilization efficiencyLehmann et al 2003, and Steiner et al 2008

Reduced acidityTopoliantz et al 2005, Steiner et al 2007

Increased mineral nutrition (mainly K) Steiner et al 2007

Increased Cation Exchange CapacityTeixeira et al, unpublished

www.biocharfund.org

Slash and Char research results

Biochar Production emissions of PIC

Global Warming

Potential (GWP)

Emission Factors from Biomass

Burning 1

GHG 20 yr 100 yr 500 yr Tropical

Forest

Charcoal

Making

Agricultural

residues

CO2 1 1 1 1580 440 1515

CH4 72 25 7.6 6.8 10.7 2.7

N2O 310 289 153 0.20 0.03 0.07

1 Emission factors are given in gram species per kilogram dry matter burned.

(Andreae and Merlet, 2001)

Slash and Char fallow biomass accumulation

Lehmann et al. 2002

ForestAge

Woody BiomassMg ha-1

Biochar YieldMg C ha-1

4 119.6 31.7

4 72.7 19.3

5 35.2 8.5

8 30.4 7.3

8 81.8 19.7

10 49.8 12.6

East Kalimantan 47 Mg dry matter in 6 years, Jepsen (2006)

•7.7 Mg of CO2 ha-1 yr-1 if slash-and-burn is replaced by slash-and-char•15 Mg of CO2 ha-1 yr-1 if all available residues are carbonized in oil palm plantations•4.2 Mg of CO2 ha-1 yr-1 if all available residues are carbonized in wood plantations and,•Range from 66 to 136 Mg of CO2 ha-1 if all available residues are carbonized after logging operations.

Land Use System C sequestration potentialMg CO2 ha-1 yr-1

Slash and Char 7.7

Oil Palm Plantations 15

Wood plantations 4.2

Charcoal Carbon Sequestration & and Carbon Trade

Biochar Carbon Sequestration

Common LULUCF obstacles Biochar advantage

Additionality Biochar competes with charcoal

Permanence(in particular in a changing climate)

Biochar is recalcitrant independent from climate and management

Leakage Unlikely if only waste or wasted biomass is used

Land tenure(in particular for fallow plots)

Once in the soil it does not matter if ownership changes

How to provide access to carbon credits for small scale projects (small farmers)?

Photo: Biocharfund

How to provide access to carbon credits for small scale projects (small farmers)?

Aggregated transaction costs are currently averaging about $200,000 per project. (UNDP, CDM User’s Guide)

Slash and Char obstacles

Monitoring

Reporting

Verification

Fertilizer in exchange for biochar? Income form agriculture not from carbon sequestration

Implementation costs – ex-ante-credits

Community monitoring as applied in REDD programs

Thanks to Supporters