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
  • [31] Life-cycle assessment to unravel co-benefits and trade-offs of large-scale biochar deployment in Norwegian agriculture
    Tisserant, Alexandre
    Morales, Marjorie
    Cavalett, Otavio
    O'Toole, Adam
    Weldon, Simon P.
    Rasse, Daniel P.
    Cherubini, Francesco
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2022, 179
  • [32] Identifying trade-offs and co-benefits of climate policies in China to align policies with SDGs and achieve the 2°C goal
    Liu, Jing-Yu
    Fujimori, Shinichiro
    Takahashi, Kiyoshi
    Hasegawa, Tomoko
    Wu, Wenchao
    Takakura, Jun'ya
    Masui, Toshihiko
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2019, 14 (12)
  • [33] Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector
    Bustamante, Mercedes
    Robledo-Abad, Carmenza
    Harper, Richard
    Mbow, Cheikh
    Ravindranat, Nijavalli H.
    Sperling, Frank
    Haberl, Helmut
    Pinto, Alexandre de Siqueira
    Smith, Pete
    GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2014, 20 (10) : 3270 - 3290
  • [34] Evaluating Health Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation in Urban Mobility
    Wolkinger, Brigitte
    Haas, Willi
    Bachner, Gabriel
    Weisz, Ulli
    Steininger, Karl W.
    Hutter, Hans-Peter
    Delcour, Jennifer
    Griebler, Robert
    Mittelbach, Bernhard
    Maier, Philipp
    Reifeltshammer, Raphael
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2018, 15 (05)
  • [35] Case studies in co-benefits approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation
    Spencer, Benjamin
    Lawler, Josh
    Lowe, Celia
    Thompson, LuAnne
    Hinckley, Tom
    Kim, Soo-Hyung
    Bolton, Susan
    Meschke, Scott
    Olden, Julian D.
    Voss, Joachim
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2017, 60 (04) : 647 - 667
  • [36] Climate change mitigation: trade-offs between delay and strength of action required
    Naomi E. Vaughan
    Timothy M. Lenton
    John G. Shepherd
    Climatic Change, 2009, 96 : 29 - 43
  • [37] Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies in the transport sector
    Shaw C.
    Hales S.
    Howden-Chapman P.
    Edwards R.
    Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4 (6) : 427 - 433
  • [38] The implications of initiating immediate climate change mitigation - A potential for co-benefits?
    Schwanitz, Valeria Jana
    Longden, Thomas
    Knopf, Brigitte
    Capros, Pantelis
    TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2015, 90 : 166 - 177
  • [39] A review on co-benefits of mass public transportation in climate change mitigation
    Kwan, Soo Chen
    Hashim, Jamal Hisham
    SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY, 2016, 22 : 11 - 18
  • [40] Climate change mitigation: trade-offs between delay and strength of action required
    Vaughan, Naomi E.
    Lenton, Timothy M.
    Shepherd, John G.
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2009, 96 (1-2) : 29 - 43