New study shows biochar to decrease nitrous oxide emissions
Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas and a precursor to compounds that contribute to the destruction of the ozone. Intensively managed, grazed pastures are responsible for an increase in nitrous oxide emissions from grazing animals’ excrement. Biochar is potentially a mitigation option for reducing the world’s elevated carbon dioxide emissions, since the embodied carbon can be sequestered in the soil. Biochar also has the potential to beneficially alter soil nitrogen transformations.
It’s science Sunday, so I’m reprinting this news release from the American Society of Agronomy. It’s the short, readable version of the full study, “Biochar Incorporation into Pasture Soil Suppresses in situ Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Ruminant Urine Patches.”
Many readers have expressed interested in biochar (aka “charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass” aka “a C-rich product that is manufactured by thermal decomposition of organic material under a limited oxygen supply at relatively low temperatures (<700°C),” as the study puts it).
I’ll run a longer post on biochar later this year. For now, here’s the rest of the release:
Laboratory tests have indicated that adding biochar to the soil could be used to suppress nitrous oxide derived from livestock. Biochar has been used for soil carbon sequestration in the same manner.
In a study funded by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology,scientists at Lincoln University in New Zealand, conducted an experiment over an 86-day spring/summer period to determined the effect of incorporating biochar into the soil on nitrous oxide emissions from the urine patches produced by cattle. Biochar was added to the soil during pasture renovation and gas samples were taken on 33 different occasions. The study was published in the March/April 2011 issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.
Addition of biochar to the soil allowed for a 70% reduction in nitrous oxide fluxes over the course of the study. Nitrogen contribution from livestock urine to the emitted nitrous oxide decreased as well. The incorporation of biochar into the soil had no detrimental effects on dry matter yield or total nitrogen content in the pasture.
Arezoo Taghizadeh-Toosi who conducted the study, says that under the highest rate of biochar, ammonia formation and its subsequent adsorption onto or into the biochar, reduced the inorganic-nitrogen pool available for nitrifiers and thus nitrate concentrations were reduced. Such effects would have diminished the substrate available for microbial nitrous oxide production.”
Research work is ongoing and still required to determine seasonal effects, and the effects of repeated urine deposition.
The full article is available for no charge for 30 days following the date of this summary. View the abstract at https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/40/2/468.
The study itself concludes:
If other studies confirm the relatively long residence time expected of biochar in the soil, then the “win-win” situation of both sequestering C while reducing N2O emissions may prove achievable.
So perhaps biochar can contribute to a full wedge of soil-based GHG reductions post-2030, as I’ve suggested (see “The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm“).
For more on biochar, see Biochar Discussion List Web Site and the International Biochar Initiative.
Related Posts:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
CoolPlanetBioFuels claims it can make carbon-negative gasoline with a process that turns plant tissue into fuel and a charcoal-like soil additive called biochar that would sequester carbon. The firm is developing a machine that uses heat, pressure and mechanical force instead of the fermentation process that produces most of today’s biofuels.
CoolPlanet’s machine works more like cracking, where complicated hydrocarbons like crude oil are broken into simpler ones like gasoline and kerosene. CoolPlanet’s machines will fit into standard shipping containers and can be linked together at a feedstock site.
“It’s a micro-refinery,” Mike Cheiky, co-founder and CEO of CoolPlanet, told the Business Times.
Google Ventures did not disclose the amount of the investment, but regulatory filings indicate that it was up to $17.7 million. GE Corp., NRG Energy, ConocoPhillips and Northbridge Venture Partners are also investors in CoolPlanet. Cheiky said the money will go toward fueling CoolPlanet’s expansion. It has outgrown its 7,500-square-foot lab space into an 80,000-square-foot testing floor where it will build its first micro-refinery prototypes. One module would provide about a million gallons of fuel a year, “which sounds like a lot, but that’s the flow from a shower head,” Cheiky said. The goal is to gang together at least 10 units per site for a 10-million-gallon a year source. http://biochar.be/everything-biochar/technology/121-grass-to-gas-firm-lands-google-capital.html
I’m glad to see the continuing analysis of biochar. It’s an intriguing technology, and holds a great deal of promise as one of the small pieces in the climate change solutions big picture. I see many people around my area jumping on the biochar bandwagon, and would love to know if there are tips for ensuring their efforts will have the desired result (for example, is it better to collect blow-downs, and burn those, rather than cutting live trees; or does thinning saplings from a new growth stand enable the remaining trees to be much more effective at sequestration, thus increasing the benefits? Are there specific timing techniques for determining the best time to cut off the oxygen when burning? Is it better to use some species of tree rather than others? Does copicing or pollarding trees as a means of farming biochar fuel make sense?)
I had read a couple of years ago about a risk that cutting down trees in order to burn them for biochar purposes could, at least in some areas, have the effect of increasing nitrogen emissions due to the soil being disturbed in the cutting process – emissions whose impact would outweigh any benefits from carbon sequestration provided by the biochar. Do you know if further studies have been done on that topic?
I don’t think it’s possible, or necessarily desirable, to put the biochar genie back in the bottle, but I’d love to know if there are ways to ensure it will accomplish the goal of reduced warming, while preventing deforestation.
I’ve often thought that maybe there were limits on the amount of biochar that could be put back into the ground. For agricultural soils, that certainly must be the case. But then it occurred to me that we could put tons of this stuff into coal mines. Or other mines, for that matter.
All I know is that we ignore Lovelock’s ideas at our peril. He seemed extreme a few years ago, but not so much now.
Excellent post.
Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass, and differs from charcoal only in the sense that its primary use is not for fuel, but for biosequestration or atmospheric carbon capture and storage. Charcoal is a stable solid rich in carbon content, and thus, can be used to lock carbon in the soil. Biochar is of increasing interest because of concerns about climate change caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG)..
International Biochar Initiative:
As a 2,000 year-old practice that has been updated with modern technology, biochar is one of the few technologies that is relatively inexpensive, widely applicable, and quickly scalable. The key to advancing biochar is recognition that we really can’t afford not to pursue it because of these benefits:
• Biochar holds carbon (C) to help fight global warming and provide economic value in a future carbon-restrained economy
• Additional C and Non-C emissions reductions from biochar systems
• Bioenergy co-products (syngas, bio-oil, heat) can provide clean, renewable energy
• Water quality impacts (reduced nutrient leaching)
• More fertile soil to boost food security and preserve cropland diversity
• Enhanced soil water retention
• Reduced need for chemical fertilizer
• Agricultural waste is reduced and used as a valuable soil enhancer
• Reduced soil erosion, degradation
• Discourages deforestation by making croplands more fertile
• Distributed, on-farm systems
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Joe says there is something about biochar
On the large scale and it’s good to know
More to do something.
I’m glad you’re looking at biochar, but be wary of claims or even individual studies. We’ve been led astray too many times by other biomass engineering projects- ethanol, cellulosic fueled power plants, “fast growing” tree farms replacing plantations or even native grasses, and much else.
The timber and ag industry are notorious for playing games with data, particularly when it comes to CO2 emissions and sequestration. I’ve learned this first hand in some of my own published research. Let’s believe in biochar when a major analysis is performed by a group of independent researchers (no foresters or ag economists need apply) skilled in botany, organic chemistry, and atmospheric science. If no such study exists, maybe we should pass.
Most of the independent research on land application of biochar is being done by soil scientists and agronomists – they have the expertise and experience needed to do good science in the area, and their research is by-and-large independent of the ag and forestry industries. The biochar picture is not yet a clear one, and the jury is still out on how big a role biochar could practically play in climate mitigation. Fortunately, a number of scientists are hard at work to better understand the biochar potential.
(Joe, I can provide you a good contact or two of scientists involved in biochar C sequestration and agronomy research.)
I think Biochar is promising and should be a major part of the solution but its effectiveness in reducing emission is almost entirely dependent on the input fuel. A lot of waste wood, paper and such should definitely be using biochar methods for disposal. I’ve yet to see a compelling study on using targeted growth of plants specifically for Biochar purposes though, perhaps a fast growing material such as bamboo that can be periodically cut back without disturbing the soil?
While I certainly want to see biochar and other technologies prove to be useful tools to fight CC, I’ve always been, how shall I put this — skeptical? — about moving it from a proven technology to a sustained, widespread practice on a scale that can make a meaningful contribution.
Finding the right technology is a terrific first step, but there are always more hurdles to get over in terms of economics, politics, and public perceptions.
Beware of the fossil fuel industry’s influence on the biochar debate.
They’d be tickled pink by the thought of mankind permanently burying a carbon neutral fuel.
Biochar is another name charcoal which requires lots of heat to produce. Solid wood (maple, hickery or mesquite) or wood waste from mills is the usual source of charcoal. Agriculutral waste from plant crops can be used from biochar.
Coke is a charcoal prepared from certain grades of coal.
There are also charcoals prepared from oil. Carbon electrodes (i.e graphite) for smelting of alumimium are prepared fron nat nat gas or oil
Here’s my take from a horticulutural perspective.
Soil, the skin of the planet, is a major regulator of life. The oceans by dint of their immense volume are likely preeminent. Just because something is thin (think of the atmosphere) does not presuppose it is insignificant.
In my line of work it’s astounding to me how nearly every word spoken demeans soil. Dirt, dirty, filthy, lower than dirt… Yet it truly is our mother.
Because we demean the soil that grants us life we are sealing our fate.
Or, because we nourish our mutual skin we revitalize the planet that creates all life.
Yes, from the basic objectives, gassification
To produce biochar and energy for improved
Farm yields to electricty is divergent from
Some other ways and needs to maintain
Its own methods and goals.
Read a quote this weekend about how it’s
Only been about one hundred years since
The left and the right hand shoe became
Popular.
Obama invests in biochar (bio char) and algae-to-fuel (Original Article)
18 September 2009
The US DOE has awarded Arizona Public Service (APS) a $7.5 million (€5 million) investment in algae-derived biofuels and biochar.
The investment was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The project was launched as the White House released proposed regulations for implementing tough new auto emissions standards in 2012.
APS will seek to grow algae fast enough to absorb carbon dioxide released from burning biochar to make electricity. The biochar will in turn be created from syngas released from coal.
According to the Department of Energy, ‘Funding will enable APS to scale up its algae cultivation concept by about two orders of magnitude and scale up its hydrogasification concept by one order of magnitude. Researchers expect that the algae farm will reuse CO2 at a rate of 70 metric tons per acre per year.’ http://www.outbackbiochar.com/in-the-news/obama-supports-biochar.html
The claimed benefit
<>
is a one time effect that ends after the black carbon is saturated.
So this is far from a panacea, unless you intend to keep spreading black carbon on fields and pastureland ad infinitum. That black stuff would eventually find its way into rivers and then oceans.
Law of Unintended Effects, anyone?
A better solution would be find some bacteria that could “fix” the urea and other nitrogen compounds without letting them decompose into nitrous oxide. But that is another can of worms, I guess.
Using the progress of natural processes
timeline, putting fossil fuels back into the
air starts the sequence of the natural
timeline over at the starting place,right?
Where humanity is reliant on other life
forms that take carbon from the air and
water producing oxygen making a livable
environment. Seems humanity isn’t in
control of making the environment more
lively.
Will someone please engineer and market a small, appliance sized, or even minivan sized biochar producing device?
I’ve got many tons of dead wood laying on the ground and in still standing dead trees that can be easily converted to biochar if only such a device existed. Instead of rotting on the ground releasing methane and CO2, this biomass could be plowed into the soil, or just spread over the top as is manure, or dumped down spent mine shafts.
There could even be a market for biochar. It’s claimed to be a non-chemical fertilizer.
Nice to hear about this crucial core solution again.
The micro-refinery project Prokaryotes dug out looks promising. But the product char could turn out bio-degrading too much/quick. Also, methinks old 19th century physico-chemistry should suffice. Not much innovation needed I guess. The first city gas lanterns were fed by wood gas! I’ve been talking about “Standard Wood Oil Co.” for many years: Mobile micro-refineries (perhaps drawn by oxen) browsing the sick or dying forests (e.g. current American/Canadian bark beetle epidemic, soon to come: Amazon rain forest) reducing dead trees to char. But add some nitrogen – otherwise char reduces humus!
Lots of wood is currently burned completely for home or communal heating (world leader is Austria). If you keep the char, you only loose 25% of the energy content. That would still be cheaper than using fossil oil for heating: The fossil fool’s cost of 1 metric ton of char (in Germany Feb. 2011) is/was -343€ (incl. VAT)…
P.S.: From my experiments (alas not yet long-time) it is no problem to have 50% char in soil and still get superior results. Just take care of the carbon/nitrogen ratio and cycle char through manure and compost.
Theoretically biochar can sequester all excess carbon in the atmosphere within less than a century (if tipping point not crossed…). According to Folke Günther’s 2008 “carbon numbers” blog post, 2Gt C could be sequestered per year. Even 1Gt C would be quite a dent. Add to that synergistic benefits like reduction of nitrogen runoff and outgassing, enhanced water retention and improved soil life – and the effect gets even greater.
Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel. The unintended consequence has been the flowering of our civilization. Our science has now realized the consequences and developed a more encompassing wisdom.
Modern Agriculture has evolved in the ability to remove the limitations to plant growth, from burning forest for ash fertilizers, to bison bones, to Guano islands, then in 1913, to crafty Germans figuring out how to suck nitrogen from the air to now with natural gas derived fertilizers. These chemical fertilizers have over come nutrient limits to growth for 100 years.
NPK and the “Green Revolution” in genetics have brought us to where we are, all made possible by basically mining soil carbon stocks. So we have now hit a carbon limit in two distinct ways. The first is continued loss of soil carbon content, the second is fossil carbon energy cost. The present farming system spends ten cents of fossil energy delivering one cent of food energy.
We can not go back, but we can go forward with our newly acquired wisdom. Wise land management, Conservation Agriculture and afforestation can build back our soil carbon, Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, (living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
We can rectify the carbon cycle, and beyond that, biochar systems serve the same healing function for the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, toxicity in soils and sediments and as a feed additive cut the carbon foot print of livestock by 50%.
Recent NATURE STUDY;
Sustainable bio char to mitigate global climate change
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html
For those looking for an overview of biochar and its benefits, These authors have done a very nice job of distilling a great deal of information about biochar and applying it to the US context:
US Focused Biochar report: Assessment of Biochar’s Benefits for the USA
http://www.biochar-us.org/pdf%20files/biochar_report_lowres.pdf