<<

Prospects of Biochar Use in Deborah Page-Dumroese Hongmei Gu Nate Anderson Rick Bergman A lile background Using forestry feedstocks to: • Reduce wildfire risk • Lessen insect and disease risk • Improve water relaons • Healthy / • Soil resilience to drought and flood • 10 long-term forestry field trials

Overview

harvesng and feedstock management • Changing forest producvity • Understanding the benefits • migaon Historic Issues of Land Management in the USA • 1979 • “A major problem confronng forestry is how to more efficiently harvest mber without creang unacceptable impacts on the forest environment.”

• “The full ulizaon of residual material le in the following and operaons, and disease, and insect aack, and windthrow has long been a source of concern and frustraon to the forest manager.”

From: Environmental Consequences of Timber Harvesng in the northern Rocky Mountains. GTR-INT-190 Too much of a good thing… • Sites with too much logging slash • Wildfire risk • Not feasible to broadcast burn • Piles are created (and burned) Common pracces on many forest sites

• Piled and burned • from harvest operaons • Burning alters soil condions • Long-term alteraons

Long-term impacts of pile burning

• Many hectares impacted from hot, concentrated fires • Loss of OM • Nutrient volalizaon • Few trees or shrubs • Oen non-nave species Forest Supply Chain Context Current harvesng model: Forest biomass to 1. trees (harvester) 5. Trucking (chipped biomass)

6. BIOENERGY! 2. Moving biomass (forwarding) 3. Storage (drying)

4. Chipping (roadside or mill) Or: Forest biomass to waste

1. Felling trees (harvester)

6. NO ENERGY and no C sequestraon!

2. Moving merchantable biomass 3. Piling or Storage (drying)

4. Burning Envisioned ‘in woods’ model: Forest biomass to bioenergy

5. Trucking 1. Felling trees (high value bio-oil, (harvester) Biochar, pellets)

6. BIOENERGY!

2. Moving biomass to landing (forwarding)

3. Slash piles 4. Chip, create biochar, spread (drying) on forest sites Concerns about biomass harvesng and ecosystem services

• Destrucon of wildlife • Decline of fresh and quanty • Visual impacts • Erosion • Overall negave impact on long- term producvity, sustainability, or changes in succession Assessing the Effects of Biomass Removal for Bioenergy Stand level Do biomass utilization treatments impact stand Question 2 production?

Do biomass utilization treatmentsQuestion impact 3 vegetation composition, natural regeneration, and ecosystem structure?

Do individual trees respond to biomass utilizationQuestion treatments? 1 level Regeneration Do biomass utilization treatments impact Questionartificial regeneration? 4

Soil producvity DoesQuestion total removal 5 of excess biomass alter soil productivity? (Jang et al., 2014) 40 years of Bioenergy Harvesng data

• Forest sites are resilient • Idenfy sites that are sensive to compacon or other impacts • Soil rebounds within a rotaon (or less)

Biochar is equivalent to nave in forest ecosystems

is common in fire-adapted ecosystems • Fire suppression decreases charcoal inputs • Biomass removal decreases the likelihood of fire occurring • Applying biochar as a co-product of removes wildfire hazard and retains soil ecosystem funcon What can biochar do on forest sites? What can biochar do on forest sites? Changes in decomposion rate

60 Biochar alters the rate of 50 decomposion • Increasing soil organic 40 Year 1 maer for water, nutrients 30 Year 2 Year 3 and microbial acvity Weight loss (%) 20 Year 4 Year 5 10

0 Control Wood Biochar Ferlizer Biochar + chips only only Ferlizer What can biochar do on forest sites? Changes in tree growth

3,5

3 Biochar alters tree growth • Within 5 years an 8% 2,5 increase in tree height 2 increment.

1,5 • Both above- and belowground long-term 1 Height growth increment (m) carbon sequestraon 0,5

0 Control Wood chips Biochar Ferlizer Biochar + only only Ferlizer What can biochar do on forest sites? Changes in

16 Biochar alters soil moisture 14 • Within 3 years we see 12 increases in soil water 10 holding capacity 8 5 cm depth • Decreases insect and 10 cm depth 6 Soil Moisture (%) disease risk 4 • Healthier forest stands 2 0 Control Biochar Wood chips Is this feasible? • Conducted -Cycle Analyses for Biochar-based Acvated Carbon(AC) and compared to -based AC • Cradle-to-gate LCA Impact category Unit Biochar AC Coal AC Global warming kg CO2 eq 8.60 18.28 Fossil fuel depleon MJ surplus 17.09 22.65

• Made acvated carbon from managed forest residues • Physical properes of acvated carbon were beer than coal-based AC Global warming impacts for electricity

1,079

w/o biochar

0,748 0,720

0,499 w/ biochar carbon sequestration

0,330 GWP (kg CO2 eq/kWh)

0,046

COAL NATURAL GAS NORTHWEST US GRID BIOMASS TUCKER RNG (W/O C TUCKER RNG SYNGAS (W/ C SEQUEST) SEQUEST)

22 Understanding harvest and biochar risks and benefits Harvest • Lile evidence that long-term site producvity declines with bioenergy harvesng • Biochar increases carbon sequestraon and may increase site producvity Biochar • Match biochar to sites to maintain microbial acvity Some final thoughts Forest biomass is a promising feedstock for bioenergy, biochar, and • Widely available as a byproduct of mber harvesng • Avoids slash pile impacts on the soil • Renewable • Can achieve energy objecves of reducing GHG emissions of fossil fuel • Revive the declining industrial base in many rural US communies • Using a supply chain approach increases efficiencies for delivering biochar products

Thank you