U.S.-FocUSed Biochar report - BioEnergy Lists

Other Global NPP. projections To better understand the differences in NPP between the US and other partsof the world, a good starting point is an article by Field. 49 The greater productivity of the Southeastern part of theUS stands out in these world maps, while also demonstrating that the tropics are superior even to Florida. TheNPP in Field’s study was slightly less than 60 GtC/yr.A comparative study by Berndes is perhaps the most often quoted. 50 However he does not look at the US andhis range of estimates is so broad as to not be helpful for this work. Several of those he compared, but especiallyone by the USEPA, 51 well exceed the estimates in the BTV. The differences are primarily in the different assumptionsof future technological progress. The BTV and the BBTV conservatively assumed only minor technologicalimprovements.By far the most optimistic view of Biomass in the future we have seen was a Swedish study 52 which justified (intheir Figure 9), 1300 EJ of available Biomass energy. Almost 1000 EJ of the total came from “Biomass productionon surplus agricultural land.” Converting to carbon units by dividing by 17 GJ/tonne biomass gives about 80B-wedges and therefore about 20 C-wedges. Using the assumed 10% ratio between the US and world totals again,we see that the BBTV’s 4 B-wedge assumption would be about twice easier to achieve5.6 Unaddressed Scenario Issues.5.6.1 Economics - Influence on the BBTV ProjectionsB-wedge costs. Ideally, the cost of Biochar should have been a central part of the BBTV Scenario of Section 5.4.The lowest price we have heard is in Brazil at $75 per tonne, for relatively small bags of char (not Biochar) beingsold retail along a highway. Biochar is being sold commercially in large quantities at a reported $500/ton on theUS East coast. Small quantity sales at $1 per pound ($2200/tonne) are known to occur. All these from resourcesthat might have a negative cost (can receive a “tipping fee”) or might cost $100/tonne or more. The further elaborationof costs is outside the technical limits of this Section.Hardware costs No aspect of the hardware economics should disfavor Biochar – as Chemical Engineers todaywork routinely with biomass inputs. The magnitude of hardware costs for modern charcoal sales for the homebarbecue market is kept confidential, but there are many companies involved. The equipment to produce charis not particularly complicated. Like all manufactured products, equipment should become less expensive asexperience and manufacturing output accumulates.Life-cycle Assessments (LCAs). A recent life-cycle assessment for Biochar is important 53 Dr. Kelli Roberts hasshown that today, Biochar can be economically competitive in some situations with small travel distances. Moresuch Biochar LCAs are needed.5.6.2. Other Influences on the Future of BiocharImproved plant species Previous subsections identified future technological progress as the main driver for alarger future NPP (and therefore more available B-wedges). That in turn, if true for food crops, will open up morefarm land for energy crops. This optimism is based on a growing improved understanding of genomes. It was notfound necessary in the BBTV to invoke Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification of Organisms (GMO),49 http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/982246.dtl50 Berndes, G., Hoogwijk, M. and van den Broeck, R.: 2003, ‘The contribution of biomass in the future global energy supply: Areview of 17 studies’, Biomass and Bioenergy 25, 1–28.51 Lashof, D.A. and D.A. Tirpak, eds. Policy options for stabilizing global climate. 1990, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation: NewYork, Washington, Philadelphia, London.52 http://www.worldbioenergy.org/system/files/file/Report%20091130_final.pdf53 http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/ES&T%2044,%20827-833,%202010%20Roberts.pdf62U.S.-Focused Biochar Report:Assessment of Biochar’s Benefits for the United States of America