News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Burn, bury and bargain with it: biochar ticks the green boxes 

Burn, bury and bargain with it: biochar ticks the green boxes

01 Jun, 2009 04:56 PM
What unites Malcolm Turnbull, Tim Flannery and James Lovelock? Enthusiasm for biochar: one of the most intriguing solutions to global warming and a possible boon for investors.

Biochar, the charcoal-like residue when biomass (such as agricultural or council waste) undergoes pyrolysis (combustion at 400-550 degrees, without oxygen), has the potential to pull large amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

There is no commercial biochar production in Australia yet but there is palpable excitement; about 200 people attended a biochar conference on the Gold Coast last week. Others were turned away.

According to Philip Sutton and David Spratt's Climate Code Red, published last year, when Joe Herbertson of sustainability consultancy Crucible Carbon first read about biochar technology "the hairs went up on the back of my neck. This is the best news on climate change I've ever heard."

Crucible Carbon is the unlisted, private company Malcolm Turnbull championed this year when launching his Green Carbon Initiative, saying biochar was a "win-win" for jobs, the environment and agriculture given its potential to absorb 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, or 20 per cent of the country's total.

Heady stuff. Crucible Carbon is chaired and co-owned by Herbertson, a former head of BHP Billiton's corporate research labs in Newcastle. Crucible is developing its own pyrolysis unit and is focusing on the potential to create renewable, baseload energy for regional towns - as well as saleable renewable energy certificates - from the biogas which is a byproduct of the process.

The company has received more than $300,000 of grant funding since it was founded in 2007 and is exploring opportunities to raise up to $12 million in early-stage capital - a combination of debt and equity is most likely - from wealthy individuals and trade partners.

If successful, the money raised will fund development of a commercial-scale pyrolysis unit, to generate about three megawatts of electricity from 24,000 dry tonnes of biomass, as well as 8000 tonnes of biochar - and a three-year payback for investors.

Crucible is also technology partner in the Rainbow Bee Eater project (named after the bird) in Western Australia's wheat belt, backed by a prominent farmer, Ian Stanley, and the WA Agriculture Department. The project aims to convert agricultural residues and woody crops into biochar and renewable energy.

About $1.5 million has been invested in the project over the past 18 months, by among others listed miner Alumina Ltd, which is interested in offsetting its own emissions using biochar.

Alumina believes 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year could be stored using biochar by 2020. In January, its chief executive, John Bevan, said he was "not aware of any other potential large scale mitigation option that could commence capturing and storing carbon in this way within several years".

Stanley says field trials applying biochar to wheat crops are already demonstrating the agricultural benefits.

It is just one example. Lukas van Zwieten, of the NSW Department of Primary Industries and Energy, helped organise last week's biochar conference and presented a paper showing the greatest potential market for biochar was as a soil amendment, valued at between $100 and $1000 a tonne.

That's a big range, which just shows it is early days. The char can be used to improve the efficiency of fertilisers and also can be a physical amendment to the soil. Its value depends heavily on the type of application - the type of biomass used as feedstock, the soil it is applied to, the crop being grown etc.

The department extrapolated from a one-tenth scale trial to conclude that a pyrolysis unit processing four dry tonnes an hour of waste from a chicken facility (mainly manure and sawdust) could yield 2.3 megawatts an hour of electricity, saleable to the grid for $750,000 a year (assuming a price of $40/MWh). Renewable energy certificates could be sold for another $1 million (assuming a price of $55 per MWh).

The unit would also produce 12,000 tonnes of biochar a year worth - this is the big part - up to $6.4 million based on the extra sweet corn and fava beans yielded after application of biochar in the department's trial. The productivity increase was substantial - almost double, in some cases.

The trial used a pyrolysis unit made by BEST Energies, the most established Australian company in the field.

BEST is also raising money to build an $8 million-$10 million commercial-scale plant with backers including Transfield Services. The plant will turn green waste from Sydney councils into electricity and biochar.

BEST director Adriana Downie told GBIZ the most exciting potential for biochar was to be "carbon negative" but the emissions trading schemes proposed in Australia were skewing the application of the technology towards renewable energy generation, because there was no recognition of the carbon sequestered using biochar.

In Canberra this week, Downie pushed for recognition of carbon offsets using biochar under the draft Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and in the position Australia's climate negotiators will take to next week's pre-Copenhagen meeting in Bonn.

The International Biochar Initiative is lobbying for the same thing globally. In an open letter to the initiative last year, Flannery, the environmental campaigner and former Australian of the Year, said biochar "may represent the single most important initiative for humanity's environmental future".

In a recent New Scientist interview, the British scientist and conservationist James Lovelock - after summarily dismissing the efficacy of carbon trading initiatives, renewable energy and carbon sequestration - was effusive: "There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal.

"The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so.

"What we can do is [get] farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little carbon dioxide is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon.

"This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it."

But maybe we will.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Perhaps readers should refer to last weeks discussion on this issue. Fundamentally, this approach CONTINUES our desire as a community to solve out problems by burying material - after all landfilling has been so successful. Perhaps we should focus on capturing the value of carbon rather than burying it in a form that makes no significant contribution to productivity. Once again the agriculture sector is being mislead and needs to reassess its leadership (or lack of)..
Posted by Tim, 2/06/2009 8:18:19 AM
I do not understand the logic of collecting, transporting and converting crop residues to produce a carbon byproduct to transport back to the farm to bury. Why not bury the crop residue in the first place and build soil carbon on-farm? If you want to use crop residues to generate 'green' electricity use a high temperature plant and recover the full energy content. I can just see a new MIS scheme in this to grow woody crops to produce the boimass to create bichar. Would such production displace valid food or fibre production? There is no net gain in carbon sequestration if the biomass is not new material produced for the process. If it just relies on re-routing existing 'biomass' I do not see the net gain in reducing atmospheric carbon. Feedlot, poultry, piggery and city green waste should all be composted and buried in our agricultural soils. Other wastes such as sugarcane mill waste, rice hulls and rice straw should go into electricity generation on site. There may be a case to put sawmill waste into biochar, or even the waste timber collected at waste mangement sites as they are not easily composted but they would still have good value in producing energy directly.
Posted by geoff, 2/06/2009 9:23:05 AM
Re: Geoff on 2/06/2009, You are missing one essential point, biochar has a proven sequestration period of several thousand years, while burying the crop residue has a sequestration value of at best five years. There are also numerous other advantages to biochar that adds value to the whole process. When more people start to think outside the box, it will become clearer.
Posted by Lakka, 2/06/2009 11:28:59 AM
Malcolm Turnbull is a businessman. How many shares does Malcolm own in Crucible Carbon or what financial interest does he or his family have would be the better question? I tend to think this could be money spinner for big business, and yet the Coalition robbed the farmers of the benefit of the carbon they (the gov.) tied up with woody weed regrowth. The two actions don't seem to be from the same coalition.
Posted by John Michelmore, 2/06/2009 1:39:13 PM
Turnbull is probably in it to keep the charade going about Carbon. He and his mates in the banking sector plan to make huge profits from the dodgy industry. The same Push that collapsed the world economy are now going for the derivative markets associated with carbon trading.
Posted by Len, 2/06/2009 2:03:52 PM
I'm with Geoff on this... the fascination with biochar is that it is a tangible product which can be bought and sold. Crop residues and animal manures originated from the soil and need to be returned to the soils to ensure the long-term health and functionality of this vital resource. There is already a proven practice to sequester atmospheric carbon - perennial pastures, especially native species. However, the farmers who grow these pastures are the ones who can benefit financially through the sale of soil carbon...and that notion isn't appreciated by the Federal government as they haven't yet worked out how to tax it!!
Posted by bush goddess, 2/06/2009 6:16:25 PM
Someone care to tell us how to heat biomass to 400c-550c in a pollution free manner. That is hellishly hot, in fact it is about twice the temperature that is needed and available to convert superheated water under high pressure to steam to drive conventional steam driven turbines in a geothermal power station.
Posted by DAW, 3/06/2009 12:32:46 PM
You want to know all the secrets about biochar ?

This book will help !

http://www.biochar-books.com

Here practice and theory merge under a single cover of "The Biochar Revolution" and reveals hidden secrets of science called Biochar

Posted by new_biochar_land, 25/01/2011 12:57:08 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
A biochar sample
A biochar sample
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
01 June, 2009
29 May, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you support the recommendation to maintain the national beef levy at $5 per head sold?

Yes
(39.2%)

No
(51.6%)

Undecided
(9.2%)

Total Votes: 697
Poll Date: 31 May, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...