Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T12:05:25.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Systems Integration for Biochar in European Forestry: Drivers and Strategies

from Part I - The Interdisciplinary Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2016

By
Saran P. Sohi  and
Tom Kuppens
Edited by
Viktor J. Bruckman ,
Esin Apaydın Varol ,
Bașak B. Uzun  and
Jay Liu
Viktor J. Bruckman
Affiliation:
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Esin Apaydın Varol
Affiliation:
Anadolu University, Turkey
Bașak B. Uzun
Affiliation:
Anadolu University, Turkey
Jay Liu
Affiliation:
Pukyong National University, South Korea
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Biochar is a product with multiple functions and a range of uses, and which could be manufactured from a range of biomass types, including wood and forest residues. Economic production and use of biochar may take place within spatial boundaries that contrast greatly in total area and patchiness. At the moment, however, biochar is generally considered at a project level and assessed quite narrowly from the perspective of soil or crop effects or energy yield. This chapter presents a set of scenarios for how biomass from trees grown in different contexts might lead to production of biochar used and deployed for contrasting purposes in multiple markets. The integration required across markets and sectors is considered, distinguishing options that are more or less spatially contained (circular versus directional), with implications for environmental sustainability. Four types of forestry are considered as a source of biomass: brownfield sites, short rotation forestry, short rotation coppice, and trees on amenity land. As well as forestry, horticulture, agriculture and the urban landscape are considered as consumers of biochar, often as a formulated product. The scenarios emphasize the range of opportunities that may be available, but also the complexity of the systems fit, which includes aspects of spatial logistics and questions of scale.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biochar
A Regional Supply Chain Approach in View of Climate Change Mitigation
 , pp. 70 - 95
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adeyeye, A., Barrett, J., Diamond, J., Goldman, L., Pendergrass, J. and Schramm, D. (2009). Estimating US Government Subsidies to Energy Sources 2002–2008. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.Google Scholar
Basu, P. (2010). Biomass Gasification and Pyrolysis – Practical Design and Theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Beesley, L., Moreno, E., Fellet, G., Carrijo, L. and Sizmur, T. (2015). Biochar and heavy metals. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation, Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. (eds.). 2nd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E. and Gomez-Eyles, J. L. (2010). Effects of biochar and green waste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environmental Pollution, 158, 2282–2287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, W., Masek, O., Graham, M. and Wüst, D. (2015). Inherent organic compounds in biochar – their content, composition and potential toxic effects. Journal of Environmental Management, 156, 150–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlile, W. R., Cattivello, C. and Zaccheo, P. (2015). Organic growing media: constituents and properties. Vadose Zone Journal, 14, doi:10.2136/vzj2014.09.0125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaney, R. L., Angle, J. S., Broadhurst, C. L., Peters, C. A., Tappero, R. V. and Sparks, D. L. (2007). Improved understanding of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction and phytomining technologies. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36, 1429–1443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, B., Yuan, M. and Qian, L. (2012). Enhanced bioremediation of PAH-contaminated soil by immobilized bacteria with plant residue and biochar as carriers. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 12, 1350–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherubini, F. (2010). The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for producing energy and chemicals. Energy Conversion and Management, 51, 1412–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christis, M. (2012). An exploration of the economic value of pyrolysis oil from short rotation wood. MSc thesis, Hasselt University, the Netherlands (in Dutch).Google Scholar
de Jong, E., Higson, A., Walsh, P. and Wellisch, M. (2012). Biobased Chemicals – Value Added Products from Biorefineries. IEA Bioenergy – Task 42 Biorefinery. Vienna: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Defra, (2007). Growing Short Rotation Coppice – Best Practice Guidelines for Applicants to Defra’s Energy Crops Scheme. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).Google Scholar
Drake-Brockman, G. R. (1996). Establishment and Maintenance of a Woodfuel Resource. Forest Research Technical Note 17/96. Rugeley: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Edwards, R. A., Šúri, M., Huld, T. A. and Dallemand, J. F. (2005). GIS-based assessment of cereal straw energy resource in the European Union. In Proceedings of the 14th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Paris, France, 17–21 October.Google Scholar
Environment Agency (2014). Regulatory Position Statement on the Environmental Regulation of Wood. Bristol: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
European Commission (1999). Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 on a forestry strategy for the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, 26.2.1999, C 56.Google Scholar
European Commission (2000). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Official Journal of the European Communities, 28.12.2000, L 332/ 91–111.Google Scholar
European Commission (2006). Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, 30.12.2006, L396/1–849.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009a). Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Official Journal of the European Communities, 29.1.2008, L24/8–29.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009b). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 20009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities, 5.6.2009, I140.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013a). A New EU Forest Strategy: for Forests and the Forest-Based Sector. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013b). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Relating to Fertilisers, Liming Materials, Soil Improvers, Growing Media and Plant Biostimulants and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. Brussels: European Commission. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/183_entr_fertilisers_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Evangelou, M. W. H., Conesa, H. M., Robinson, B. H. and Schulin, R. (2012). Biomass production on trace element-contaminated land: a review. Environmental Engineering Science, 29, 823–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2006). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2006: Progress Towards Sustainable Forest Management. Forestry Paper, 147. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
Freddo, A., Cai, C. and Reid, B. (2012). Environmental contextualisation of potential toxic elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in biochar. Environmental Pollution, 171, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galinato, S.P., Yoder, J. K. and Granatstein, D. (2011). The economic value of biochar in crop production and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy, 39, 6344–6350.Google Scholar
Ghosh, M. and Singh, S. P. (2005). A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization of its byproducts. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 3, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbins, J. and Chalmers, H. (2008). Preparing for global rollout: a ‘developed country first’ demonstration programme for rapid CCS deployment. Energy Policy, 36, 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilber, I., Blum, F., Leifeld, J., Schmidt, H.-P. and Bucheli, T. D. (2012). Quantitative determination of PAHs in biochar: a prerequisite to ensure its quality and safe application. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 60, 3042–3050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, Y., Lei, M., Duan, L. and Longhurst, P. (2015). Integrating phytoremediation with biomass valorisation and critical element recovery: a UK contaminated land perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy, 83, 328–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keegan, D., Kretschmer, B., Elbersen, B. and Panoutsou, C. (2013). Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 7, 193–206.Google Scholar
Kokossis, A. C. and Yang, A. (2010). On the use of systems technologies and a systematic approach for the synthesis and the design of future biorefineries. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 34, 1397–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuppens, T., van Dael, M., Vanreppelen, K., Thewys, T., Yperman, J., Carleer, R., Schreurs, S., van Passel, S. (2015). Techno-economic assessment of fast pyrolysis for the valorization of short rotation coppice cultivated for phytoextraction. Journal of cleaner production, 88, 336–344.Google Scholar
Laird, D. A., Brown, R. C., Amonette, J. E. and Lehmann, L. (2009). Review of the pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 3, 547–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margeot, A., Hahn-Hagerdal, B., Edlund, M., Slade, R. and Monot, F. (2009). New improvements for lignocellulosic ethanol. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 20, 372–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGlashan, N. R., Workman, M. H. W., Caldecott, B. and Shah, N. (2012). Negative Emissions Technologies. Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Briefing paper No. 8. London: Imperial College.Google Scholar
Méndeza, A., Terradillos, M. and Gascó, G. (2013). Physicochemical and agronomic properties of biochar from sewage sludge pyrolysed at different temperatures. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 102, 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monforti, F., Lugato, E., Motola, V., Bodis, K., Scarlat, N. and Dallemand, J.-F. (2015). Optimal energy use of agricultural crop residues preserving soil organic carbon stocks in Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44, 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanarella, L. and Lugato, E. (2013). The application of biochar in the EU: challenges and opportunities. Agronomy, 3, 462–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, F., Kindred, D., Bhogal, A., Roques, S., Kerley, J., Twining, S., Brassington, T., Gladders, P., Balshaw, H., Cook, S. and Ellis, S. (2014). Straw Incorporation Review. Research Review No. 81, HGCA. Kenilworth: Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.Google Scholar
Pulford, I. D. and Watson, C. (2003). Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by trees – a review. Environment International, 29, 529–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sasaki, N. and Putz, F. E. (2009). Critical need for new definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘forest degradation’ in global climate change agreement. Conservation Letters, 2, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, A. W., Gillespie, I., Hirsch, M. and Begley, C. (2011). Biosecurity and sustainability within the growing global bioeconomy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohi, S. P., McDonagh, J., Novak, J., Wu, W. and Miu, L.-M. (2015). Biochar systems and system fit. In: Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation. 2nd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 735–759.Google Scholar
Stals, M., Thijssen, E., Vangronsveld, J., Carleer, R., Schreurs, S. and Yperman, J. (2010). Flash pyrolysis of heavy metal contaminated biomass from phytoremediation: influence of temperature, entrained flow and wood/leaves blended pyrolysis on the behaviour of heavy metals. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 87, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, J., Bird, L. and Smith, H. (2009). Carbon Taxes: A Review of Experience and Policy Design Considerations. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-47312. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).Google Scholar
Thewys, T. and Kuppens, T. (2008). Economics of willow pyrolysis after phytoextraction. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 10, 561–583.Google Scholar
Thewys, T., Vassilev, A., Meers, E., Nehnevajova, E., van der Lelie, D., and Mench, M. (2009). Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater: lessons from the field. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 16, 765–794.Google Scholar
Thomassen, G., Van Dael, M., Lemmens, B. and Van Passel, S. (2016). A review of the sustainability of algal-based biorefineries: Towards an integrated assessment framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (in press) 10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.015.Google Scholar
UNFCCC (2002). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh Session, Marrakesh 29 October to 10 November 2001, FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).Google Scholar
Van Dael, M., Van Passel, L., Pelkmans, L., Guisson, R., Swinnen, G., and Schreurs, E. (2012). Determining potential locations for biomass valorization using a macro screening approach. Biomass and Bioenergy, 45, 175–186.Google Scholar
Van Dael, M., Márquez, N., Reumerman, P., Pelkmans, L., Kuppens, T. and Van Passel, S. (2014). Development and techno-economic evaluation of a biorefinery based on biomass (waste) streams - case study in the Netherlands. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining, 8, 635–644.Google Scholar
Van Laer, T., De Smedt, P., Ronsse, F., Ruysschaert, G., Boeckx, P., Verstraete, W., Buysse, J. and Lavrysen, L. J. (2015). Legal constraints and opportunities for biochar: a case analysis of EU law. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voets, T., Neven, A., Thewys, T. and Kuppens, T. (2013). GIS-based location optimization of a biomass conversion plant on contaminated willow in the Campine region (Belgium). Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 339–349.Google Scholar
Whitman, T., Scholz, S. M. and Lehmann, J. (2010). Biochar projects for mitigating climate change: an investigation of critical methodology issues for carbon accounting. Carbon Management, 1, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. (2010). Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1, 56. doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X., Wang, H., He, L., Lu, K., Sarmah, A., Li, J., Bolan, N. S., Pei, J. and Huang, H. (2013). Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20, 8472–8483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×