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
  • [41] Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies in the transport sector
    Shaw, Caroline
    Hales, Simon
    Howden-Chapman, Philippa
    Edwards, Richard
    NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE, 2014, 4 (06) : 427 - 433
  • [42] Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: opportunities and trade-offs
    Locatelli, Bruno
    Pavageau, Charlotte
    Pramova, Emilia
    Di Gregorio, Monica
    WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-CLIMATE CHANGE, 2015, 6 (06) : 585 - 598
  • [43] Climate mitigation forestry-temporal trade-offs
    Skytt, Torbjorn
    Englund, Goran
    Jonsson, Bengt-Gunnar
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2021, 16 (11)
  • [44] Transitioning to Low-Carbon Economies under the 2030 Agenda: Minimizing Trade-Offs and Enhancing Co-Benefits of Climate-Change Action for the SDGs
    Iacobuta, Gabriela Ileana
    Hohne, Niklas
    van Soest, Heleen Laura
    Leemans, Rik
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (19)
  • [45] Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change
    Blanford, Geoffrey
    Merrick, James
    Richels, Richard
    Rose, Steven
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2014, 123 (3-4) : 527 - 541
  • [46] Trade-offs between mitigation costs and temperature change
    Geoffrey Blanford
    James Merrick
    Richard Richels
    Steven Rose
    Climatic Change, 2014, 123 : 527 - 541
  • [47] Intergenerational approaches to climate change mitigation for environmental and mental health co-benefits
    Kennedy, Angel M.
    Gislason, Maya K.
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH, 2022, 8
  • [48] Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union
    Workman, Annabelle
    Blashki, Grant
    Bowen, Kathryn J.
    Karoly, David J.
    Wiseman, John
    CLIMATE POLICY, 2019, 19 (05) : 585 - 597
  • [49] Co-benefits of air pollution control and climate change mitigation strategies in Pakistan
    Mir, Kaleem Anwar
    Purohit, Pallav
    Cail, Sylvain
    Kim, Seungdo
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2022, 133 : 31 - 43
  • [50] Ethical implications of a co-benefits rationale within climate change mitigation strategy
    Oliveira, Rita Vasconcellos
    Thorseth, May
    ETIKK I PRAKSIS, 2016, 10 (02): : 141 - 170