The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK

Technical Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation Potentials of Biochar Soil Incorporation in Germany

“…Following the procedure applied by Shackley et al (2011), we derive the type and amount of feedstocks that could be valuable synthesis gas (or syngas), a mixture of CO and H2, can be used for heat and power generation or be transformed into transport fuels (Slade et al 2011). In practice, the precise application is dependent on the quality of the pyrolysis by-product (Mahinpey et al 2009).…”

“…Other studies (e.g., Hammond et al 2011;Roberts et al 2010;Gaunt and Cowie 2009) analyze the GHG emissions that can be avoided per tonne (t) of biomass turned into biochar, however, without providing an estimate of the biomass potentials that could be available for biochar production. For slow-pyrolysis biochar from a variety of woody and straw feedstocks and miscanthus, Hammond et al (2011) have calculated net avoided GHG emissions due to biochar soil incorporation (including agricultural benefits) and energy generation from the pyrolysis by-products in the UK in the range of 0.7-1.3 t CO2e per oven-dry tonne of feedstock.…”

“…For slow-pyrolysis biochar from a variety of woody and straw feedstocks and miscanthus, Hammond et al (2011) have calculated net avoided GHG emissions due to biochar soil incorporation (including agricultural benefits) and energy generation from the pyrolysis by-products in the UK in the range of 0.7-1.3 t CO2e per oven-dry tonne of feedstock. A similar study by Roberts et al (2010) has focused on slow-pyrolysis biochar from corn stover, switchgrass and yard waste in the United States (US).…”

“…Covering residue biomass from agriculture and forestry transformed in large-scale slow-and fast-pyrolysis plants in developed regions and biomass resources collected for stoves in rural areas transformed in small-scale slowpyrolysis projects in developing regions, Pratt and Moran (2010) find that biochar stove and kiln projects in developing regions tend to abate more GHGs than pyrolysis-plant scenarios in developed regions. Shackley et al (2011), in turn, focus on a variety of slow-pyrolysis biochar scenarios in the UK. Including the provision of renewable energy by the pyrolysis byproducts, but abstracting from agricultural benefits of biochar soil incorporation, they find that an annual abatement of 6 Mt CO2e could be economically viable.…”

“…GHG mitigation potentials are, furthermore, touched upon in the economic assessments of biochar provided by Pratt and Moran (2010) -also with a global focus -and Shackley et al (2011) for the United Kingdom (UK). Covering residue biomass from agriculture and forestry transformed in large-scale slow-and fast-pyrolysis plants in developed regions and biomass resources collected for stoves in rural areas transformed in small-scale slowpyrolysis projects in developing regions, Pratt and Moran (2010) find that biochar stove and kiln projects in developing regions tend to abate more GHGs than pyrolysis-plant scenarios in developed regions.…”