Uncertainty in determining carbon dioxide removal potential of biochar

被引:0
|
作者
Kane, Seth [1 ]
Bin Thaneya, Ahmad [2 ]
Gursel, Aysegul Petek [2 ]
Fan, Jin [1 ]
Bose, Baishakhi [3 ]
Hendrickson, Thomas P. [4 ]
Nordahl, Sarah L. [4 ]
Scown, Corinne D. [3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Miller, Sabbie A. [1 ]
Horvath, Arpad [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[3] Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, Biol Syst & Engn Div, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[4] Lawrence Berkeley Natl Lab, Energy Anal & Environm Impacts Div, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[5] Joint BioEnergy Inst, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA
[6] Univ Calif Berkeley, Energy & Biosci Inst, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
来源
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS | 2025年 / 20卷 / 01期
关键词
pyrolysis; life-cycle assessment (LCA); Monte Carlo simulation; carbon sequestration; greenhouse gas emissions; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; BIOMASS GASIFICATION; ELECTRICITY-GENERATION; POWER-GENERATION; PYROLYSIS; PLANT;
D O I
10.1088/1748-9326/ad99e9
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
A quantitative and systematic assessment of uncertainty in life-cycle assessment is critical to informing sustainable development of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. Biochar is the most commonly sold form of CDR to date and it can be used in applications ranging from concrete to agricultural soil amendments. Previous analyses of biochar rely on modeled or estimated life-cycle data and suggest a cradle-to-gate range of 0.20-1.3 kg CO2 net removal per kg of biomass feedstock, with the range reported driven by differences in energy consumption, pyrolysis temperature, and feedstock sourcing. Herein, we quantify the distribution of CDR possible for biochar production with a compositional life-cycle inventory model paired with scenario-aware Monte Carlo simulation in a 'best practice' (incorporating lower transportation distances, high pyrolysis temperatures, high energy efficiency, recapture of energy for drying and pyrolysis energy requirements, and co-generation of heat and electricity) and 'poor practice' (higher transportation distances, lower pyrolysis temperatures, low energy efficiency, natural gas for energy requirements, and no energy recovery) scenarios. In the best-practice scenario, cradle-to-gate CDR (which is representative of the upper limit of removal across the entire life cycle) is highly certain, with a median removal of 1.4 kg of CO2e/kg biomass and results in net removal across the entire distribution. In contrast, the poor-practice scenario results in median net emissions of 0.090 kg CO2e/kg biomass. Whether this scenario emits (66% likelihood) or removes (34% likelihood) carbon dioxide is highly uncertain. The emission intensity of energy inputs to the pyrolysis process and whether the bio-oil co-product is used as a chemical feedstock or combusted are critical factors impacting the net carbon dioxide emissions of biochar production, together responsible for 98% of the difference between the best- and poor-practice scenarios.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle
    Keller, David P.
    Lenton, Andrew
    Littleton, Emma W.
    Oschlies, Andreas
    Scott, Vivian
    Vaughan, Naomi E.
    CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTS, 2018, 4 (03): : 250 - 265
  • [42] The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle
    David P. Keller
    Andrew Lenton
    Emma W. Littleton
    Andreas Oschlies
    Vivian Scott
    Naomi E. Vaughan
    Current Climate Change Reports, 2018, 4 : 250 - 265
  • [43] Nanoporous carbonaceous materials (biochar and activated carbon): recent progress and potential applications for arsenic removal
    Parlayici, Serife
    Bahadir, Muefit
    Pehlivan, Erol
    JOURNAL OF DISPERSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2024,
  • [44] Aligning incentives for carbon dioxide removal
    Reinhard, Christopher T.
    Planavsky, Noah J.
    Khan, Anu
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2023, 18 (10)
  • [45] Integrated Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Removal
    Rickels, W.
    Reith, F.
    Keller, D.
    Oschlies, A.
    Quaas, M. F.
    EARTHS FUTURE, 2018, 6 (03) : 565 - 582
  • [46] Wastewater Treatment for Carbon Dioxide Removal
    Masindi, Vhahangwele
    Foteinis, Spyros
    Renforth, Phil
    Chatzisymeon, Efthalia
    ACS OMEGA, 2023, 8 (43): : 40251 - 40259
  • [47] Carbon Dioxide Removal after Paris
    Lin, Albert C.
    ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY, 2019, 45 (03) : 533 - 582
  • [48] Comparing approaches for carbon dioxide removal
    Mac Dowell, Niall
    Reiner, David M.
    Haszeldine, R. Stuart
    JOULE, 2022, 6 (10) : 2233 - 2239
  • [49] Editorial: Governing Carbon Dioxide Removal
    Bellamy, Rob
    Geden, Oliver
    Fridahl, Mathias
    Cox, Emily
    Palmer, James
    FRONTIERS IN CLIMATE, 2021, 3
  • [50] The cost of permanent carbon dioxide removal
    Prado, Augustin
    Mac Dowell, Niall
    JOULE, 2023, 7 (04) : 700 - 712