Potentials, Limitations, Co-Benefits, and Trade-Offs of Biochar Applications to Soils for Climate Change Mitigation

被引:88
|
作者
Tisserant, Alexandre [1 ]
Cherubini, Francesco [1 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU, Dept Energy & Proc Engn, Ind Ecol Programme, NO-7034 Trondheim, Norway
关键词
biochar; pyrolysis; food security; climate mitigation; negative emission technology; carbon dioxide removal; life-cycle assessment; environmental assessment; biogeochemical cycles; biophysical effects; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; VOLATILE ORGANIC-COMPOUNDS; BLACK CARBON; AGRICULTURAL SOILS; BIOMASS PYROLYSIS; AMENDED SOILS; RURAL-AREAS; LAND-USE; ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS;
D O I
10.3390/land8120179
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Biochar is one of the most affordable negative emission technologies (NET) at hand for future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which is typically found essential to stabilizing global temperature rise at relatively low levels. Biochar has also attracted attention as a soil amendment capable of improving yield and soil quality and of reducing soil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this work, we review the literature on biochar production potential and its effects on climate, food security, ecosystems, and toxicity. We identify three key factors that are largely affecting the environmental performance of biochar application to agricultural soils: (1) production condition during pyrolysis, (2) soil conditions and background climate, and (3) field management of biochar. Biochar production using only forest or crop residues can achieve up to 10% of the required CDR for 1.5 degrees C pathways and about 25% for 2 degrees C pathways; the consideration of dedicated crops as biochar feedstocks increases the CDR potential up to 15-35% and 35-50%, respectively. A quantitative review of life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies of biochar systems shows that the total climate change assessment of biochar ranges between a net emission of 0.04 tCO2eq and a net reduction of 1.67 tCO2eq per tonnes feedstock. The wide range of values is due to different assumptions in the LCA studies, such as type of feedstock, biochar stability in soils, soil emissions, substitution effects, and methodological issues. Potential trade-offs between climate mitigation and other environmental impact categories include particulate matter, acidification, and eutrophication and mostly depend on the background energy system considered and on whether residues or dedicated feedstocks are used for biochar production. Overall, our review finds that biochar in soils presents relatively low risks in terms of negative environmental impacts and can improve soil quality and that decisions regarding feedstock mix and pyrolysis conditions can be optimized to maximize climate benefits and to reduce trade-offs under different soil conditions. However, more knowledge on the fate of biochar in freshwater systems and as black carbon emissions is required, as they represent potential negative consequences for climate and toxicity. Biochar systems also interact with the climate through many complex mechanisms (i.e., surface albedo, black carbon emissions from soils, etc.) or with water bodies through leaching of nutrients. These effects are complex and the lack of simplified metrics and approaches prevents their routine inclusion in environmental assessment studies. Specific emission factors produced from more sophisticated climate and ecosystem models are instrumental to increasing the resolution and accuracy of environmental sustainability analysis of biochar systems and can ultimately improve the characterization of the heterogeneities of varying local conditions and combinations of type feedstock, conversion process, soil conditions, and application practice.
引用
收藏
页数:34
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Balancing co-benefits and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation innovations under mixed crop-livestock systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe
    Homann-Kee Tui, Sabine
    Valdivia, Roberto O.
    Descheemaeker, Katrien
    Sisito, Gevious
    Moyo, Elisha N.
    Mapanda, Farai
    CABI AGRICULTURE & BIOSCIENCE, 2023, 4 (01):
  • [22] Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+
    Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J.
    McDermott, Constance
    Vijge, Marjanneke J.
    Cashore, Benjamin
    CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2012, 4 (06) : 646 - 653
  • [23] Balancing co-benefits and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation innovations under mixed crop-livestock systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe
    Sabine Homann-Kee Tui
    Roberto O. Valdivia
    Katrien Descheemaeker
    Gevious Sisito
    Elisha N. Moyo
    Farai Mapanda
    CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 4
  • [24] A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals
    Singh, Gerald G.
    Cisneros-Montemayor, Andres M.
    Swartz, Wilf
    Cheung, William
    Guy, J. Adam
    Kenny, Tiff-Annie
    McOwen, Chris J.
    Asch, Rebecca
    Geffert, Jan Laurens
    Wabnitz, Colette C. C.
    Sumaila, Rashid
    Hanich, Quentin
    Ota, Yoshitaka
    MARINE POLICY, 2018, 93 : 223 - 231
  • [25] Balancing clean water-climate change mitigation trade-offs
    Parkinson, Simon
    Krey, Volker
    Huppmann, Daniel
    Kahil, Taher
    McCollum, David
    Fricko, Oliver
    Byers, Edward
    Gidden, Matthew J.
    Mayor, Beatriz
    Khan, Zarrar
    Raptis, Catherine
    Rao, Narasimha D.
    Johnson, Nils
    Wada, Yoshihide
    Djilali, Ned
    Riahi, Keywan
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2019, 14 (01)
  • [26] Co-benefits of climate change mitigation for infectious disease control
    Semenza, Jan C.
    Rockloev, Joacim
    LANCET PLANETARY HEALTH, 2024, 8 (10): : e720 - e720
  • [27] Sustainability transitions in the agri-food system: Evaluating mitigation potentials, economy-wide effects, co-benefits and trade-offs for the case of Austria
    Preinfalk, Eva
    Bednar-Friedl, Birgit
    Mayer, Jakob
    Lauk, Christian
    Mayer, Andreas
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2024, 226
  • [28] Co-benefits and trade-offs between agriculture and conservation: A case study in Northern Australia
    Stoeckl, N.
    Chaiechi, T.
    Farr, M.
    Jarvis, D.
    Alvarez-Romero, J. G.
    Kennard, M. J.
    Hermoso, V.
    Pressey, R. L.
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2015, 191 : 478 - 494
  • [29] Co-benefits and trade-offs in the water-energy nexus of irrigation modernization in China
    Cremades, Roger
    Rothausen, Sabrina G. S. A.
    Conway, Declan
    Zou, Xiaoxia
    Wang, Jinxia
    Li, Yu'e
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2016, 11 (05):
  • [30] Co-benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation
    Onaindia, Miren
    Fernandez de Manuel, Beatriz
    Madariaga, Iosu
    Rodriguez-Loinaz, Gloria
    FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2013, 289 : 1 - 9