biochar carbon sequestration 2010... · biochar carbon sequestration christoph steiner laurens...
Post on 14-Jul-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Biochar Carbon Sequestration
Christoph SteinerLaurens RademakersWinfried E. H. Blum
In Tropical Land Use Systems
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 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
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
Accumulating biomass• Nutrients leached and lost• Diseases & pests• Carbon released as CO2 and CH4
Palm Oil Sector waste biomass
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
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)
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
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
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
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
top related