CostsBiochar PDF

Review
The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in

theUK
Carbon Management (2011) 2(3), 335356
Simon Shackley1, Jim Hammond1, John Gaunt2 & Rodrigo Ibarrola1

Biochar allows long-term (multi-centennial) soil carbon storage, with potential benefits for agricultural
sustainability (e.g., productivity, reduced environmental impacts and water retention). Little is know about
the costs of producing biochar and this study attempts to provide a break-even selling point for biochar,
accounting for costs from feedstock to soil application and revenues from electricity generation and gate
fees. Depending on the assumptions used, biochar in the UK context may cost between GB-148 t-1 and
389t-1 (US$-222 to 584) produced, delivered and spread on fields, which is a provisional carbon abatement
value of (GB-144 tCO21 to 208 tCO21). A negative cost indicates a profit-making activity. The most profitable
source of biochar is from wastes, but such materials will face complex regulatory issues and testing.
Biochar is a relatively new concept that has been promoted
primarily as a form of carbon storage but also for its potential benefits for bioenergy production (e.g., syngas, bio-oil
and heat), soils and crop productivity[13] . Other potential benefits include reduction of nitrate leaching [410] ,
adsorption of contaminants, such as arsenic and copper
from soils [11,101] and reduction of trace-gas emissions from
soils (nitrous oxide [N2O] and methane) [4,5,7,12] . Biochar
might also be useful to the waste-processing industry in
allowing the recovery of waste as a potentially useful
by-product [10] . However, many of these potential biochar functions remain highly uncertain. The most certain function is the carbon storage and reasonably good
estimates can be given of the recalcitrant carbon from
different biochar types and production methods [1315] .
Biochar is produced by thermochemical conversion in the
absence of oxygen (slow pyrolysis) and a simple schematic
of the process of production, supply and use is illustrated
in Figure1.
In this paper, we examine the potential opportunities
for deployment of biochar in the UK through:
Creating scenarios of biomass resource that might
be used for producing biochar, which, combined

with life cycle assessment data, can be used for
putting forth preliminary estimates of net carbon

equivalent abatement from biochar production
anduse;
Estimating the costs of producing biochar in the
UK context. Combining the feedstock-specific data

on carbon abatement and production cost, a
provisional marginal abatement cost curve can
bederived.
Scenarios for available feedstock, biochar supply
& technology scale
The resource pyramid approach [16] was used to distinguish between theoretical available resources (the
total amount currently accessible), realistic available
resources (which applies a first level of pragmatic
judgement to limit the supply) and viable available
resources (which applies a second level of pragmatic
judgement to further limit supply, taking particular
account of likely or possible other demands in the market place). Three different biomass supply scenarios of
viable available resources were then developed to reflect
the high level of uncertainty over availability given
uncertain demand and supply factors. These supply
scenarios include lower-, higher- and high-supply of
feedstocks available for pyrolysis (Table1) .
UK Biochar Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JN, UK
Carbon Consulting Ltd., 95 Brown Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
Author for correspondence: Tel.: +44 131 650 7862; E-mail: simon.shackley@ed.ac.uk
1
2
future science group
10.4155/CMT.11.22 2011 Future Science Ltd
ISSN 1758-3004
335
Review Shackley, Hammond, Gaunt et al.
Storage
715
Multiple biomass sources
Pyrolysis unit
Transport
UK019
Capital: 45101
Virgin feed: 54247
Non-virgin feed: 0
Transport
844
Avoided gated-fees
(wastes): 89124
Operation (gas, labor

and maintenance): 9119
Application of biochar to soil

5
Electricity sales: 37 and

subsidy 74
Carbon Management Future Science Group (2011)
Figure 1. Pyrolysis-biochar system: from source to sink.

Numbers indicate cost ranges (in GB per ton of biochar [t-1]) per process stage.
We distinguish between two general classes of material; virgin and non-virgin biomass[17] . Biomass derived
from whole (or parts of) plants and trees or from the
processing of biomass, where this
does not involve chemical or bioKey terms
logical transformation, amendment
Biochar: The porous carbonaceous
or treatment is virgin biomass. Any
solid produced by thermochemical
conversion of organic materials in an
biomass that does not fall under the
oxygen-depleted atmosphere that has
definition of virgin biomass resource
physiochemical properties suitable for
is non-virgin biomass. The distincthe safe and long-term storage of
tion is particularly important for
carbon in the environment and,
potentially, soilimprovement.
the risk assessment and regulation
ofbiochar.
Pyrolysis: The thermochemical
decomposition of organic material at
A wide range of (although not
elevated temperatures (usually >400C)
all potential) virgin and non-virin the absence of oxygen.
gin biomass feedstocks have been
Biomass: The biodegradable fraction of
included in the scenarios (Table1) ;
products, waste and residues from
for example, wood pellets, as a
agriculture (including vegetal and
relatively high value fuel, are not
animal substances), forestry and related
industries, as well as the biodegradable
included, only one imported feedfraction of industrial and
stock has been included (wood chip
municipalwaste.
from Canada), and not all types of
Carbon abatement: The net effect of
organic municipal and industrial
changes in GHG fluxes that result from
waste are included. Chicken litter
some action, process or intervention;
this paper considers only the
waste has not been included because
recalcitrant carbon in the biochar.
there are already several large faciliVirgin biomass: Biomass derived from
ties for fluidized bed combustion of
whole plants and trees, or the parts
this material with sale of the resulttherefore, or otherwise from the
ing ash to farmers. It is unlikely
processing of biomass, where this does
that supplies of chicken litter will
not involve chemical or biological
transformation, amendment
increase to the extent that new treatortreatment.
ment facilities would be required
336
Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)
[18] .
Municipal solid waste (MSW) treated through

mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) was also
excluded since such material is highly heterogeneous
and typically contains a wide-range of contaminants.
(There might be suitable non-soil applications of biochar from such materials and regulatory differences
between legislatures.)
The estimated theoretical available resource values in
Table1 are based upon other published or Government
assessments, with the realistic available and viable available resource levels being estimated through group
discussions. The assessment of sustainable bioenergy
feedstocks in the UK by the Supergen Biomass and
Bioenergy consortium [18] was an important resource. A
spreadsheet listing all the sources and assumptions can
be made available. In general, the lower viable resource
scenario for virgin biomass is 25% of the realistic available scenario while the higher and high viable resource
scenarios are 75% and 100% of the realistic available
scenario, respectively. These percentages are judgements, but no robust methodology for arriving at such
values is currently available. We have moderated these
percentages for the high viable available value in the case
of forestry, owing to the difficulty of applying biochar
to forestry systems (without which the removal of 100%
of harvestable biomass might result in a long-term loss
of nutrients).
There is no use of non-virgin resources in the lower
viable available scenarios, owing to concerns over its
contamination and potential pollution effects, while
percentage utilizations are 50 and 75%, respectively,
for the higher and high scenarios, the scaling-down
The feasibility & costs of biochar deployment in theUK Review
Table 1: UK biomass resource availability scenarios used for generating three supply scenarios.
Feedstock
Theoretical
available biomass
resource for
bioenergy (t yr-1
o.d.)
Realistic
available
biomass
resource for
pyrolysisbiochar systems
(t yr-1 o.d.)
6,300,000
Viable available resource assumed available for pyrolysis

Lower resource
(t yr-1 o.d.; %)
Higher resource
(t yr-1 o.d.; %)
4,725,000
25
75
2,400,000
1,800,000
25
3,150,000
2,362,500
25
880,000
341,000
1,606,000
4,107,505
2,012,500
800,000
341,000
86,000
4,107,505
2,012,500
25
25
25
0
25
1,181,250
413,438
767,812
450,000
157,500
292,500
590,625
206,719
38,390
200,000
85,250
21,500
0
503,125
50,000
210,000
50,000
210,000
25
25
12,500
52,500
21,057,005
16,494,505
5,040,000
2,520,000
50
1,260,000
75
1,890,000
4,481,000
2,240,500
50
1,120,250
75
1,680,375
1,065,000
6,250,000
3,600,000
1,509,000
540,000
798,750
6,250,000
3,600,000
1,509,000
405,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
50
50
50
50
399,375
3,125,000
1,800,000
754,500
202,500
75
75
75
100
75
599,063
4,687,500
2,700,000
1,509,000
303,750
4,276,000
2,138,000
19,461,250
0
0
50
1,069,000
9,730,625
75
1,603,500
14,973,188
High resource
(t yr-1 o.d.; %)
Virgin Biomass Resources

Wheat straw
Small scale
Large scale
Barley straw
Small scale
Large scale
OSR straw + other cereals
Small scale
Large scale
Forestry residues
Arboricultural arisings
Sawmill co-product
Wood pellets
Miscanthus, switchgrass and
short rotation coppice
cultivated on agricultural land
Reed canary grass
Short rotation forestry
contaminated or public land
Total virgin biomass resource
100
75
75
75
0
75
3,543,750
1,240,313
230,343
1,350,000
472,500
877,500
1,771,875
620,156
115,171
600,000
255,750
64,500
0
1,509,375
75
100
100
0
100
4,725,000
1,653,750
3,071,250
1,800,000
630,000
1,170,000
2,362,500
826,875
1,535,625
600,000
341,000
86,000
0
2,012,500
75
50
37,500
105,500
100
75
50,000
157,500
75
75
3,096,750
100
100
9,237,750
12,134,500
Non-virgin biomass resources

Construction and demolition
wood waste
Commercial and industrial
wood waste
Municipal solid waste wood
MBT waste
Green and food waste
Sewage sludge
Commercial and industrial
animal and vegetable waste
Poultry litter
Total non-virgin
biomassresource
Total minus MBT and
poultrywaste
Total virgin and non-virgin
biomass resource (including
MBT and poultry waste)
Total virgin and non-virgin
biomass resource (excluding
MBT and poultry waste)
26,761,000
16,235,000
11,073,250
5,536,625
8,682,188
47,818,005
35,955,755
3,096,750
18,968,375
27,107,688
37,292,005
27,567,755
3,096,750
14,774,375
20,816,688
MBT: Mechanical and biological treatment; o.d.: Oven dry; OSR: Oil seed rape.
www.future-science.com
337
compared with virgin resources being due to the greater

difficulty in using non-virgin materials. (An exception
is sewage sludge, a feedstock that appears to be better suited for use in slow pyrolysis, with commercial
examples in Japan [19] ; hence, 100% of the resource is
assumed to be available in the high scenario.) The main
categories of waste considered are: wood waste (construction and demolition, commercial, from MSW),
greenwaste (segregated and collected urban arisings),
animal and vegetable waste (commercial and industrial)
and sewagesludge.
Our estimates of the realistic and viable available
straw resource (just over 2 million over dry ton per
annum [odtpa]) to nearly 9million odtpa in the high
scenario) are greater than those given by [18] (1millionodtpa). Thornley et al. assume that less than 50%
of the straw could be removed from field in order to
maintain the soil organic carbon (SOC) level to an
acceptable sustainable level [18] . However, where that
straw is being used for producing biochar, and where
all or some of that biochar is being returned to the same
fields where the arable crop was cultivated, this constraint can be relaxed since carbon is being returned
to the soil, albeit in a largely recalcitrant form. The
amount of carbon returned to soil from keeping 50%
of the straw on the field is approximately 0.25tons per
tonne (tt-1) dry straw; returning biochar from all the
straw to the same field returns c. 0.21 tt-1 dry straw,
assuming the carbon content of the dry char by weight
is 60% [201] . Nutrients such as P, K and metals would
be better conserved where straw biochar is returned to
soil than where 50% of straw is removed, although straw
would probably contain more available nitrogen that
straw char. More research is required on the relative
benefits and costs of each strategy.
The scenarios suggest that there are between 3 and
12million tons of virgin biomass resource and from 0 to
9million tons of non-virgin biomass resource (excluding poultry waste and MBT) available in the UK for
producing biochar. An important proviso is that the scenarios are based upon existing or likely future biomass,
meaning already planned for or likely to be available
in the next decade. Consequently, potential changes
in biomass availability over the longer time-scale have
not been characterized in the scenarios. Various reviews
of the role of bioenergy and biofuels in the UK context have been undertaken (e.g., [20,21]). In 2005, the
Biomass Task Force estimated that approximately
1 million hectares of land could
Key term
be made available for non-food
Pyrolysis-biochar systems (PBS): A
uses in general, yielding 8million
combination of a specified pyrolysis
tons of energy crops. In retrospect,
technology, transport, distribution and
storage infrastructure and application
these numbers appear rather large,
of biochar.
implying as they do a large-scale
338
shift from use of existing arable land (of which there

are approximately 6million ha in the UK in total).
Since the Biomass Task Force report was published,
food security and terrestrial carbon debt issues have
risen up the policy agenda and the reluctance of British
farmers to shift towards the cultivation of energy crops
has become apparent [22] . Hence, estimates of energy
crops have been scaled-down and a far more modest
estimate of energy crop potential has been used here (of
just over 2million odtpa) [18] . Estimates of the availability of waste wood by the Biomass Task Force are
more consistent with the estimates in our scenarios: in
the case of wastes, there is not the same concern with
impacts on alternative land-use and hence food security,
although there are still of course alternative uses for the
waste (non-virgin)biomass.
Large-scale expansion of forestry has not been
accounted for, although it could, potentially, add substantially to virgin and non-virgin biomass resources.
The National Assessment of UK Forestry and Climate
Change (the Read Report) published in 2009, proposed that woodland planting be increased from 8360
ha per year to 23,200 ha per year to 2050[23] . The report
suggests a large increase in the use of woody biomass
for permanent uses (e.g. as building materials) as well as
for bioenergy. An assessment of the impact of increased
forestry in Scotland for the availability of biomass for
biochar production has been undertaken [24] . This suggests that large-scale expansion of forestry in Scotland
(by 15,000 ha per year, consistent with the ambitions of
the Read Report) would increase the available feedstock
for biochar production by 75150%.
Technology scales
The standard approach in evaluating technology costs

is to develop empirical relationships between component costs and power output (e.g., [25] for bioenergy
plant). This is difficult in the case of pyrolysis-biochar
systems (PBS) however, since there is a lack of peerreviewed data available on the realistic costs of slow
pyrolysis (contra fast pyrolysis) at different scales.
Therefore, it has been necessary to assemble the best
available data on the possible costs at different scales
from the published and grey literature and through
discussions with experts. However, a high degree of
uncertainty inevitably surrounds the estimates. It will
be difficult to reduce these uncertainties in the absence
of data from demonstration or commercial facilities.
In the absence of scale correlations, it was decided
to represent three potential sizes of pyrolysis
units(PUs): small-scale (~2000odtpa), medium-scale
(~16,000 odtpa) and large-scale (~185,000 odtpa).
The small-scale unit could take in feedstocks from a
number of farms, small woodmills and from city green
waste sources and so on. The medium-scale unit is an

industrial facility that produces electric power (and
potentially heat) for a single large consumer or for supply to the national electricity grid (with heat being supplied to a district heating system). The large-scale unit
is a large bioenergy power plant (but still very small
compared with a 1GW coal power plant). Another
obvious scale that could be included is a farm-scale
unit (processing approximately 200 t y1). Assuming a
farm of c. 200 ha growing arable crops, a farm-scale
unit could process approximately 50% of the straw
produced in a given year. Inclusion of this scale in
future work is important.
Technical assumptions with respect to the energy performance of the three PU scales are shown in Tables2&3,
although some of the information on the medium-scale
unit is commercial-in-confidence. Feedstocks are distributed between the different-sized pyroylsis units,
either to the two larger-scale units (large and medium),
or to the smaller-scaled unit. The proportions are shown
in Table3 and are judgements based upon the number of units in each scenario and the feedstock type;
for example, where large-scale collection, distribution
and production occurs (e.g., large-scale forestry and
municipal and industrial waste feedstocks), these are
used exclusively in medium-/large-scale units, while
arboricultural arisings (which are typically much more
dispersed) are used exclusively in small-scale units.
Straw and energy crops (short rotation coppice [SRC],
reed canary grass [RCG]) can be used both at the small
and large-scales, with two-thirds to four-fifths being
utilized at the larger-scales. The proportion of feedstock

going to the medium-/large-scale units is determined by
the biomass flow requirements of such units. However,
it is also influenced by the very large number of smaller
units that would be required to take a larger proportion
of the feedstocks.
For the medium-scale PU (16k odtpa), data from
one of the few demonstration slow pyrolysis units were
made available. The identity of the company and the
precise details have had to remain confidential. The
plant-specific data used is the value of electricity generated, the cost of natural gas to initiate the process,
the labor costs and other operational costs. For the
small-scale unit (2kodtpa) we have simply divided
the medium-scale unit electricity generation by eight,
while for the large-scale unit (185k odtpa), we have
multiplied the medium-unit electricity generation by
11.55, on the crude assumption that the conversion
efficiencies will be equivalent for the three differentlysized units. As a check, we also calculated the electricity generated from the large-scale unit by using the
Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool (BEAT 2 )
[26,202] . BEAT2 is a publicly-available tool provided by
the UK government and developed by UK energy consultants (North Energy Ltd. and AEAT Ltd.), which
can be used in bioenergy life cycle process-modeling[202] . Using best estimates from the literature [27] ,
BEAT2 was modified to include slow pyrolysis.
The approach we have adopted is, in some
ways, simpler than that of McCarl et al. [28] and of
Robertsetal.[29] who distinguish between pre-treatment
Table 2. Energy performance features of the three pyrolysis plant scales, number of pyrolysis units and
biochar production.
System parameter
Feedstock consumption (odt per year)
Process energy required (% of total
energygenerated)
Energy loss (% of total energy generated)
Total electricity efficiency (% energy content of
feedstock as delivered electricity) (modelled)
Number of pyrolysis units for lower
resourcescenario
Number of pyrolysis units for higher
resourcescenario
Number of pyrolysis units for high
resourcescenario
Biochar production (odt per year)
Biochar production yield (%)
Small-scale PU Medium-scale PU
2000
10
1520
As for medium-scale
875
16,000
10
Large-scale PU
184,800
10
1520
1520
Commercial-in- As for medium-scale
confidence
50
13
3000
117
39
4250
251
43
727
36%
5396
36%
38,202
36%
This refers to the energy used to dry the feedstock and to drive the pyrolysis process and other operations as a proportion of the total energy in the
bio-oil and syngas. The value can vary considerably depending upon moisture and system configuration[58].
Calculation of numbers of pyrolysis units assumes load factors of 0.4 (small), 0.6 (medium) and 0.8 (large).
Biochar production is calculated over a 10-year period with 2 years start-up conditions; hence reduced output compared to years 310: 61% of final
efficiency is achieved in year 1, 67% in year 2 and 100% in year 3.
odt: Oven dry tons; PU: Pyrolysis units.
339
Table 3. Assumptions and sources of data regarding costs and revenues.

Scale
Small-scale PU
Medium-scale PU
Large-scale PU
Scaled-down from mediumscale plant

Scaled-down from mediumscale plant
Provided by company based

on real-plant experience
Provided by company based
on real-plant experience
Labor
Assumes 1 person FTE using

standard wage rates
4 staff (manager, 2 workers,

1 admin)
Other operating costs
Personal communication, Jason

Cook, based upon farm-based
pyrolyser
Assumes use of 55-66 hp tractor
Provided by company
(based on real-plant
experience)
Included in capital costs
Scaled-up from mediumscale plant.

As for medium-scale in the
absence of a better way of
estimating.
estimating.
estimating.
Included in capital costs
System parameter
Electricity generation
Natural gas (to initiate pyrolysis)
Handling costs (capital)
Distribution of feedstocks to small-scale and to medium/large-scale pyrolysis units (%)

Wheat, barley, oil-seed rape straw
Forestry residues
Arboricultural arisings#
Sawmill co-products
Miscanthus
Imported Canadian woodchips
Short rotation coppice
Switchgrass##
Reed canary grass
Short rotation forestry, waste wood, green

and garden waste, sewage sludge, animal,
vegetable and food wastes
35
0
100
0
0
0
20
100
30% lower supply
23% higher supply
25% high supply
0
65
100
0
100
100
100
80
0
70% lower supply
77% higher supply
75% high supply
100
The operational costs and revenues take account of the fact that the first 2years of operation are not at full efficiency. All feedstocks are modelled equivalently with respect to
these costs and revenues. Not enough is known at present to distinguish between feedstocks with respect to their costs and properties.
The electricity generation of the large-scale unit was validated against data derived from the BEAT2 model assuming gas yield of 31.9% with a CV of 11MJ/kg. All process energy
assumed to be derived from bio-oil. Values agreed to within a few percentage.
Straw could be used at all scales.
Forestry residues from commercial operations would be collected more efficiently for use in larger units.
#
Arboricultural arisings are typically collected in reasonably small volumes hence could be utilised in small units.
More efficient use of sawmill waste is in larger units
It is assumed the crop would be sold to larger users

Only efficient if large volumes imported.
Could be grown and used at range of scales.

##
Unlikely to be a major energy crop in UK.
May have more potential as energy crop than switchgrass in UK and could be grown and used at range of scales.
Production, collection, sorting, separation and use more efficient at larger scales.
BEAT2: Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool (2); CV: Calorific value; FTE: Full time equivalent employee; PU: Pyrolysis units.
of biomass (including reception, drying, size-reduction,

storage and feeding) and the pyrolysis process perse.
In our analysis, some of the pre-treatment operations
are covered by the feedstock costs (drying and sizereduction), while others are covered by the plant capital
and operational costs (e.g., reception, storage, feeding).
Our analysis is also simpler than Roberts[29] in terms
of the modeling of the pyrolysis process, although the
medium-scale unit data is based on a real-plant. The
extrapolation of data from the medium to the other
scales remains a source of considerable uncertainty.
340
It is evident that the three technology scales are

point selections from an unknown range of options.
Crucially, the values are not validated against actual
experience with the exception of the medium-scale unit
and are not feedstock-specific (given the lack of any
appropriatedata).
Review of previous costbenefit analysis studies
Turning to the question of costs, the economic assessment of biochar should consider the total costs and
benefits of developing, implementing and managing
PBS. A simple framework is presented in Table 4 .

Information on many of these costs and benefits is currently not available as dominant technological designs
and management systems for biochar production and
application have not yet been developed. A related technology to pyrolysis is gasification but there are not,
to our knowledge, many commercially-viable biomass
gasification plants in industrialized countries. Biomass
gasification plants in Europe have tended to be unsuccessful in commercial terms, despite a considerable
investment in their development [30] . However, we have
used data from gasification plants to inform the calculation of capital and operating expenditure (CAPEX
and OPEX) for slow pyrolysis plants. Furthermore, the
financial benefits to agriculture of biochar application
to soil are insufficiently understood, both in the UK
context and globally. This leads to our reluctance to
undertake a full costbenefit analysis (CBA). A more
modest approach is adopted here, whereby an attempt
is made to calculate the production costs of biochar.
Some existing studies have attempted to undertake a
full life cycle assessment and/or CBA for biochar, but
have needed to assume the benefits of biochar in terms
of elevated crop yield and other agronomic impacts; for
example, Gaunt and Cowie [31] explored three scenarios
(low, medium and high) to represent soil responses to
a biochar addition at 5tha1. This included not only a
yield response, but also avoided CO2-equivalent emissions per hectare arising from the following changes:
N2O emissions from soil, field operations, fertilizer savings and increased levels of SOC. While three scenarios
are used, a zero value for agronomic impacts is only
used in one-sixth of cases, while increased emissions
from biochar addition are not assumed in any case.
There is an absence of definitive published evidence
(and in some cases no peer-reviewed publications) to
support many of these values either way.
For example, evidence regarding the impacts of biochar on N2O emissions are rather mixed, although suppression does appear to be the more frequent effect.
N2O suppression may be a pH-related effect, since wood
ash can also suppress N2O emissions [32] . There are,
as yet, no convincing studies on the impacts of biochar on the costs of field operations such as ploughing
and irrigation. The evidence relating to the impact of
biochar upon yield with and without fertilizer additions is currently ambiguous [3335] . The impact of biochar upon SOC from non-biochar sources is currently
uncertain, with some studies of boreal soils suggesting a reduction in SOC from biochar additions [36] ,
although other evidence, (e.g., studies of terra preta
soils) suggest an increase [3740] . The accumulation of
(non-biochar) SOC arising from biochar addition is an
important feedback in accounting for the net carbon
equivalent abatement of pyrolysis-biochar in some life
cycle assessments [41,42] . There is reasonably good evidence that biochar increases pH by 0.51 unit in most
cases for application rates of 30 t ha-1 [10] . There are no
published studies on the effects of biochar on product
quality, while effects on disease suppression and induced
resistance to disease are anecdotal.
McCarl et al. assume a 5% increase in crop yield
from a 5tha1 biochar addition, as well as a reduction
in lime and nutrient requirements [28] . Collison et al.
assume that an unspecified level of biochar application would result in a 5% increase in feed wheat and
potato yields, a 3% uplift in quality, a 10% reduction
in fertilizer use and a 5% reduction in cultivation costs
in the East of England region [43] . The overall effect
was a reduction in the total variable costs in the case
of biochar addition and a significant increase in per
hectare profitability (by GB143ha1 for feed wheat
and GB545 ha1 for potatoes). Roberts et al. [29]
assume a 7.2% increase in fertilizer use efficiency in
Table 4. Summary of costs and benefits associated with pyrolysis-biochar systems (assuming that the biochar does not
containcontaminants).
Total costs: cost of producing, delivering and applying biochar
Total benefits: value of biochar
Biochar
production
Transportation
and storage
Application
Energy
production
Agricultural
gains
Carbon
storage
Diffuse pollution
abatement
Feedstock
Equipment
Equipment
Electricity value
Yield gain
C abatement
Reduced nitrate
run-off
Transport
Utilities
Labor
New covered
storage facilities
Labor
Monitoring, verification
and reporting
Heat value
Quality
Reduced
fertiliser
Soil workability
Maintenance &
operation
Labor
Capital costs
Gate fee
Water retention
341
the US corn-belt context from biochar application,

although the supporting reference refers to a study of
an Amazonian soil.
However, the empirical evidence is less clear. A metaanalysis of the impacts of biochar on crop yields [44] has
shown an average from all studies (which have used replication) of a +10% response to biochar; however, the
studies are heavily skewed towards (sub-) tropical conditions on degraded soils. Field trial results from more
temperate regions are few and far between but tend to
show smaller (or no) yield increases compared with
sub-tropical field trials (e.g., [33] , UK Biochar Research
Centre (UKBRC) [unpublished data] and East Malling
Research). Yield responses in pot trials or in controlled
glasshouses are not readily extrapolated to real-world
field conditions [10,34,35] . Biochar additions at rates of
10, 25, 50 and 100 t ha-1 led to statistically significant
increases in crop yields compared with a control with no
addition, although other studies using 40 and 65 t ha-1
did not show any statistically significant yield increase.
Verheijen et al. speculate that the reasons for the wideranging response are variability in the biochar, crop
and soil types [44] . They also note that the mean yield
response for each application rate are positive and that
no single biochar application rate had a statistically significant negative effect on crop productivity. Negative
impacts upon plant growth have been reported from biochar addition and it has been speculated that sorption of
nitrogen by the char is one potential mechanism in an
N constrained context[45,46] .
McCarl et al. undertook a full CBA for biochar
in the context of the US mid-west [28] . This is for a
70,000t (feedstock)y1 plant, costing US$24million
(GB14.5million), assuming a 20-year lifetime and
a discount rate of 12%. McCarl et al. conclude that
slow and fast pyrolysis of maize residue for biochar
production and energy by-products is not profitable.
The net present value for fast pyrolysis is -US$45t1
feedstock and -$70t1 feedstock for
Key terms
slow pyrolysis. It is understood that
Renewables obligation certificate:
the data for the slow pyrolysis operaAgreen certificate issued to an
tion in the McCarl et al. study were
accredited generator for eligible
renewable electricity generated within
inferred, not derived from an operthe UK and supplied to UK customers by
ating pilot plant. Given that 1t feeda licensed electricity supplier. One ROC
stock converted to biochar results in
is issued for each megawatt hour (MWh)
approximately 1tCO2 equivalent
of eligible renewable output generated.
(CO
e) abatement [26] , and remov2
Feed-in tariff (FIT): a policy mechanism
ing the US$4 t CO2e abatement
to encourage deployment of renewable
energy sources that provide for:
value assumed by McCarl et al., the
guaranteed grid access, long-term
carbon abatement cost is therefore
contracts for the electricity supplied,
$49 to US$74t1CO2. This is simiand a purchase price that reflects
lar to, or lower than, the abatement
generation costs and tends towards
grid parity (i.e. enabling cost
costs commonly reported for many
equivalence with average grid power).
renewable energy technologies and
342
for CO2 capture and storage, in industrialized countries,

although cheaper carbon abatement options of course
exist [41, 47,48] .
There is a risk in putting too much credence on quantitative net present values in a situation of such high
uncertainty. It is, arguably, preferable not to attempt to
quantify variables where there is no empirical validation.
A total of 4060% of the agronomic value of biochar
in the above studies arises from unconfirmed impacts
other than crop yield (e.g., from changes in quality and
reduced fertilizer application) and the factors included
in different studies are not consistent (e.g., the impact
on crop quality is included in Collison et al. [43] , but
not in McCarletal.[28]). A further complication with
undertaking a CBA from a societal perspective, is that
transfer payments from one firm in the economy to
another should be excluded, such as revenue streams
that are, in effect, a cost (including as a lost revenue)
to another firm. This would apply to revenue from tipping fees, avoided landfill tax and payment of renewable
obligation certificates (ROCs) or feed-in tariffs.
A more limited approach than full CBA is to estimate the cost of producing, transporting and applying
biochar to the field and then working backwards to
what the break-even selling point (BESP) would be per
ton of biochar. The BESP is a production cost for a
ton of biochar; hence, the accumulative agronomic and
soil benefits of biochar plus any carbon-storage benefits that could be claimed (all expressed in monetary
terms) need to exceed BESP for a biochar strategy to be
financially viable (although with no return on investment at the margin). It is also valid in calculating the
BESP to include the effect of incentive schemes, avoided
gate-fees and landfill tax as it is the production cost
from the perspective of a prospective firm. This strategy
does assume that these financial (dis)incentives and
costs will continue into the near future, which is of
course not guaranteed. A schematic of the system that
is modeled is shown inFigure1.
A legitimate criticism of our approach is that we are as
guilty of using unconfirmed numbers and assumptions
as the above authors whose quantitative approach we
have questioned. Our defense is that a BESP cannot currently be calculated without resorting to assumption and
estimates. At least by not including additional uncertainties regarding agronomic and soil impacts, we are avoiding piling one uncertainty on top of another. Bracketing
uncertainties in this way also enables a better appreciation to be gained of the sensitivity of results to the uncertainties of particular interest in this papernamely the
costs of feedstock provision, transportation, processing
and deployment on farm. This bracketing thereby helps
in targeting future research on what aspects need to be
better understood to estimate costs more accurately.
Costs of pyrolysis-biochar process stages

Feedstock costs
A recent report from the National Non-Food Crops

Centre [49] has provided estimates of bioenergy feedstock and transportation costs. In our study, transportation from the feedstock production site to the pyrolysis
unit is assumed to occur in a single stage for small-scale
operations, or in two stages (with an intermediate storage facility on field or side of road or in an existing waste
handling facility) for large-scale operations. The data
we have used on feedstock and transportation costs is
largely derived from the study by Mortimer N et al [49]
and represents assumptions, practice and understanding
for the UK situation (Box1) .
Included in the feedstock costs are the effects of

biochar production on nutrient balance in soils where
straws are employed as a feedstock. The key issue here
is to compare the production of biochar from straw
with the alternative options, which are either to cut up
straw insitu and incorporate into field or to bale up and
remove for use or sale. There are different costs and
benefits associated with all three options, as detailed
in Box2.
Waste feedstocks costs were calculated from the
estimated gate fee charged to companies wishing to
dispose of waste. Since the pyrolysis unit operator typically receives a gate fee, the waste feedstock costs are,
in many instances, a source of revenue. The gate fee
Box 1. Detailed assumptions on transport and storage costs.

The detailed assumptions for each feedstock are presented in Mortimer N et al. [49] ; assumptions about transportation are also presented.
Data on the gate fees paid by waste producers who dispose of their wastes has been used [68,69] . Values for short rotation coppice and
short rotation forestry. in [49] assume bulk drying with electric fans; all other feedstocks are dried naturally. Values for Miscanthus chips
short rotation forestry credible within a pyrolysis-biochar systems. The values for sawmill residues have been inferred from [49,48] from the
value for a range of wood waste sources chipped and dried naturally.
The cost of existing farm storage is calculated at 0.35 per ton per week (cost of grain storage in [70] , assuming storage for an average
20-week period. For medium- and large-scale pyrolysis, it is assumed that biochar deployment will be contracted-out and storage will
occur in specially constructed units at a cost of 130 m2 floor space for construction of dedicated facilities (200 x 100 x 5m, load factor
0.5, with a capital recovery factor of 0.149 over 10 y). The annualized cost is 15 per ton of biochar. We assume that the load factor can
be increased to 0.8, reducing the costs of storage to 10 t-1. We also considered a lower-cost storage option, namely storing biochar at
the margin of fields in appropriate flexible containment. This would eliminate the need for lengthy indoor storage periods. A nominal
value of 1 t-1 was selected for this approach, although the extent to which this approach might be achievable and practicable is as
yet unknown. The results reported in the paper assume that off-farm storage is practised for biochar production from medium- and
large-scale units, whilst on-farm storage is the norm for production at the small-scale.
For the non-virgin waste feedstocks, it is assumed that some transportation is required in the baseline case (e.g. from disposal point to
landfill site, windrow or anaerobic digestor). An estimate of this transportation distance from the transport from pyroylsis unit to the farm
has been deducted, which is why the non-virgin waste feedstocks incur no additional transport requirement in this phase.
Box 2. Arable straw: use for producing biochar, field integration or sale.
It is assumed that: a) 100% of straw from a field would be removed (but that the stubble remaining after harvest will remain on field);
b) most (90%) of the phosphorus and potassium would be retained during pyrolysis while 45% of nitrogen is retained; and c) that the
biochar produced from the straw of a given field is returned to that same field. The nutrient content in straws is assumed to be: wheat:
5kgN, 1.3kgP2O5, 9.3kgK 2O per ton; barley: 6kgN, 1.5kgP2O5, 12.3kgK 2O per ton; oilseed rape: 7kgN, 2.2kgP2O5, 11.5kgK 2O per
ton, with a value of 1.13/kgN, 1.45/kg P2O5 and 1.00/kgK 2O [71] . Assuming that the straw, if not removed for pyrolysis, would have
been incorporated into the soil, the value of the loss of nutrients through pyrolysis is 4.23 per ton wheat straw, 5.18 per ton barley
straw and 5.82 per ton oilseed rape straw (using straw yields from [72] and [73] ). The net benefit of straw incorporation was found to be
16 (wheat), 20 (barley) and 21 (oil seed rape [OSR]) per ton. Where straw is removed from the field for sale, the costs of baling and
removal need to be accounted for and reduce the net benefits to 11 (wheat) and 17 (barley) (using prices in [72] and [204] ).
The net benefit of biochar production using an in situ mobile pyrolysis unit and incorporation into the same field (hence no need for
baling) (and only including the costs of straw management, not pyrolysis costs, biochar application costs or other benefits of the biochar)
was 11 (wheat) or 15 per ton (barley, OSR). However, where the straw is baled and removed for pyrolysis off-field, the net benefits
are -7 (wheat) to -10 (barley, OSR) per ton. The market price for straw ought to reflect the value of the nutrients contained within,
although the numbers above imply that the value of nutrients is not fully appreciated in the market. In order to take account of this,
we add the difference between the net benefit of direct straw incorporation and production of biochar in situ to the costs of feedstock
management (4, 5 and 6 a ton for wheat, barley and OSR, respectively).
Other estimates in the literature propose higher levels of nutrient loss from biochar production. For example, the paper by
Roberts KG et al[29] suggest that there is no loss of P and K but that no N is conserved. The quantity of N conserved during pyrolysis
is highly variable, depending on feedstock and production conditions [74] and it is unclear whether (or how much) the N in biochar is
available to the plant or to microorganisms. Compared with our assumptions, assuming no available N would reduce the nutrient value of
straw biochars by approximately 10% and would have little effect on the additional cost of nutrient management.
343
charged by pyrolysis unit operations was assumed to be

10% lower than the current landfill tax or gate fee costs
of the alternative waste management options, which
were assumed to be landfills for wood waste, windrows
for composting for green waste, and anaerobic digestion
for sewage sludge and food waste. These alternative
management gate fee costs are rated at the moment at
GB50 per ton of wood waste, 22 per ton of garden
and green waste, and 35 and 45 per ton of food waste
and sewage sludge, respectively. Wood waste gate fee
revenues at pyrolysis treatment plants could be lower
than the values that we present in this analysis if wood
recycling is considered as the alternative management
option, which at the moment has a gate fee of approximately 18 per ton of wood. The attraction of recycling
will increase as landfill taxes continue to rise, reaching
approximately 80 per ton in 2015.
Pyrolysis plant costs
There is a wide variation in the specific capital costs

for bioenergy systems, with smaller plants costing
substantially more per unit of installed capacity than
large plants, but advanced technologies not necessarily
costing significantly more per unit of installed capacity
than conventional technologies [50] . There are three
reasons for this. First, biomass feedstocks are bulkier
and require larger storage areas and handling facilities
than fossil fuels. These costs commonly constitute 20%
of the overall capital costs, this proportion remaining
constant regardless of the technology. Second, bioenergy systems require significant engineering design
input and this does not scale with capacity. Third,
many of the component parts (especially steam plant)

are optimized for larger-scale utilization and so procuring small-sized components costs proportionally more
than in the case of a larger-sizedcomponent.
Existing specific capital-cost estimates of bioenergy plant can be used to provide an estimate of what
a slow pyrolysis unit might cost. Two such systems
are described in Table5; a 2MWe wood gasifier and a
25MWe wood combustion facility [Patricia Thornley;
Pers. Comm] There is a large difference in the specific
capital costs of the two cases, due more to the difference in scale than to the differences in technology. As
with bioenergy systems in general, there are strong
economic drivers towards implementation of largerscale technological systems. Some analyses of costs and
recent policy incentives (e.g.,2009 banded Renewable
Obligation Certificate values in the UK) suggest that
a better return on investment will derive more from
larger, more-centralized units, than from smallerscale units [50] (though this could be subject to future
redesign of government incentivestructures).
The capital costs selected in the study include all
design, equipment, construction, civils and commissioning costs: they are GB575k (US$900k) for the
small-scale unit (2k odpta), 5,330k (US$8000k),
for the medium-scale unit (16k odtpa) and 27,500k
($41,250k) for the large-scale unit (184.8k odtpa). The
capital costs for the three-sized units are obtained from
Table5 assuming that the medium- and small-size PU
is comparable with the 2MW facility and the large-size
PU is comparable with the 25MW facility. We have
assumed that the project lifetime is over 20years and
Table 5. Specific capital costs of bioenergy plant that is analogous to pyrolysis plant.
Plant analogy
Wood gasification (power only)
Wood combustion (power only)
Installed capacity (MWe)

Specific investment costs (in kWe -1)
Feedstock rate at 30% moisture (kg s-1)
2
2400
0.64
25
1100
7.19
Cost (m kg s-1 installed capacity)

Major design differences for pyrolysis
7.5
Pyrolysis unit in place of downdraft gasifier
3.824
Pyrolysis unit in place of
combustionchamber
Addition of conveyors, augers, separation
equipment and storage silos for biochar
(replacing existing ash discharge unit)
Possible: smaller rated engine replacing
boiler and steam turbine
Material requirements similar; higher
control and design costs
There might be a small increase in costs
compared with combustion due to
additional handling, design and control
costs. Unlikely to exceed +20%
Addition of conveyors, augers, separation

equipment and storage silos for biochar
(replacing existing ash discharge unit)
Smaller rated engine for reduced
gasthroughput
Remarks on costs
Material requirements similar; design
costshigher
Direction of cost changes for pyrolysis-biochar unit There might be a small reduction in costs
compared with gasification unit, although
unlikely to be more than -20%
Specific capital costs of 250 kW gasifier with engine using woodchips assumed GB2300 kWh1.
344
Table 6. Comparison of capital and operating costs for a range of pyrolysis plants (2007USD).
Studies
Yearly feed
(odt)
Total capital
costs (US$m)
Yearly capital costs

(20yr., 8% interest)
(US$m)
Capital cost per odt

feedstock (US$)
Hinode-cho, Tokyo
McCarl et al.
Bridgwater et al. (2002)
fast pyrolysis
Bridgwater (2009) smallscale fast pyrolysis
Bridgwater (2009)
medium- scale fast
pyrolysis
Bridgwater (2009) largescale fast pyrolysis
Coaltec
UKBRC large-scale
UKBRC medium-scale
UKBRC small-scale
255,500
70,080
55.5
14.2
17.05
5.66
1.45
1.739
22.2
20.7
15.4
31.6
25.0
[28]
2000
2.7
0.28
140
26
[51]
16,000
11.0
1.12
70
13.2
[51]
160,000
52
5.3
33.1
6.2
[51]
184,800
16,000
2000
12.53
41.25
8.0
0.9
4.21
0.816
0.092
10.2
22.8
51
46
Total operating costs

per odt feedstock
(US$)
Ref.
[19]
[75]
[29]
5.0
60.5
54.5
Notes: US$/ exchange rate of 1.5.
The capital costs include both the pre-treatment and pyrolysis equipment except for the case of Bridgwater [51] andCoaltec [29].
Not including pre-treatment.
The operational costs are calculated in Bridgwater (2009) as 12% of the yearly capital charge. Since the authors used a capital recovery factor of 16%, we have
calculated the operational costs using that value rather than our value 10.2
odt: Oven dry ton.
UKBRC: UK Biochar Research Centre.
that the discount rate is 8%. These are favorable borrowing conditions made under the assumption that
projects would be attractive to governments who might
support such lending. The yearly capital recovery factor
under these assumptions is 0.102.
The capital costs per ton feedstock for the smalland medium-scale units are lower than other estimates
in the literature for a fast pyrolysis facility (Table6) (by
three-times for the small-scale and by 1.5-times for
the medium-scale unit). However, fast pyrolysis is a
more complex process than slow pyrolysis, owing to
the need to extract large amounts of bioliquid of a
reasonably high quality, hence its associated capital
costs are expected to be greater and a direct comparison is difficult. For the large-scale unit, there is
good agreement with the capital costs per ton feedstock of an existing 255k odtpa slow pyrolysis plant
in Japan (Hinode-cho, Tokyo) (Table6) . Expressed

in terms of electricity generation, the large-scale
unit costs 1100 kWh-1, which compares well with
the slow pyrolysis unit in McCarletal. [28] , with a
value of 1185kWh-1 ($1896kWh1) for a 12.5MWe
pyrolysisfacility.
Operational costs
The derivation of the operational and labor costs and

electricity revenues for each PU scale are presented in
Table3 while the actual values are shown for small-,
medium- and large-scale PUs in
Tables 710 . It can be seen that
Key term
the operational costs vary markCapital recovery factor: the ratio of a
edly between the three technology
constant annuity to the present value of
receiving that annuity for a given length
scales. The operational costs for the
of time.
medium-scale unit are from the
Table 7. Net costs of producing biochar at small-, medium- and large-scales, GB/t biochar applied to field.
Straw
SRC Arboricultural SRC and FRs Miscanthus Sawmill

arisings
residues
SRF Canadian FRs
Waste
wood
Green
C&I veg
waste and and animal
sewage
waste
sludge
Small scale
234
289
142
Medium
298
323
366
277
344
389
17
scale
Large scale
135
166
216
107
188
230
-148
C&I: Commercial and industrial; FR: Forestry residue; SRC: Short rotation coppice; SRF: Short rotation forestry.
51
44
-114
-120
345
Table 8. Costs of biochar produced from a small-scale pyrolysis unit,

GB/t biochar applied to field.
Sales of electricity
Renewable obligation
certificates
Avoided gate fee
Capital cost
Feedstock
Transport
Storage
Natural gas
Labor
Plant costs
Application to field
Net cost
Straw
Short rotation
coppice
Arboricultural
arisings
-37
-74
-37
-74
-37
-74
0
87
137
10
7
11
41
49
5
234
0
87
184
18
7
11
41
49
5
289
0
87
54
0
7
11
41
49
5
142
demonstration pilot-plant. The small-scale unit capital costs are largely estimated separately, although the
medium-scale costs have been scaled-down to obtain
the cost of natural gas to power the pyrolysisprocess.
Bridgwater estimates the operational costs of a
fastpyrolysis plant as being 12% of the yearly capital
charge (the latter being calculated as 16% of the overall
capital cost) [51] . The values obtained by this method
broadly agree with the values obtained by commercial consultants for large (30MW) and medium-scale
(2MW) electric biomass power plants (between 10 and
12% of capital charges, assuming yearly 16% capital
charge) [52] .
Table6 shows that our estimates of operational costs

at small- and medium-scale are much higher than if we
had used Bridgwaters methodology. Using the figure of
12% of our estimated capital costs (and assuming 16%
per year capital charge) we would obtain the following
operational cost figures: small-scale US$8.3t-1 feedstock
(compare our value of US$55 t-1); and medium-scale
US$9.6 t-1 feedstock (compared with US$60 t-1). The
smaller difference between our estimated operational
costs for small- and medium-scale units, and those
of equivalent-sized fast pyrolysis units estimated by
Bridgwater (ours being 2 and 4 those of Bridgwater
for small- and medium-scale, respectively) is explained
by the higher capital cost of the fast relative to the slow
pyrolysis plant. We chose to maintain the high operational costs in our default analysis because they were
derived from a real-world demonstration slow pyrolysis
unit. However, it is clearly possible that these real-world
operational costs are not truly representative of common practice as it evolves and as learning-processes take
effect [48] . Furthermore, different companies express
their plant costs in very different ways, so these values
could include a significant over head.
It was decided to use a lower value for operational
costs per unit feedstock in the case of the large-scale
unit, given that such a large unit is very unlikely to
be built unless significant learning to lower costs has
already taken place. In the absence of any objective
method for calculating operational costs, the values
for the medium-scale unit were carried over to the
large-scale unit, giving a value of US$5 t-1 feedstock.
(The same labor force should be able to operate and
Table 9. Costs of biochar produced from medium-scale pyrolysis, /t biochar applied to field.
Straw
SRC+FRs
Miscanthus
Sawmill
Residues
SRF
Canadian
FRs
Waste Green waste C&I veg and

Wood
& sewage
animal
sludge
waste
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
Renewable
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
obligation
certificatess
Avoided gate fee
0
0
0
0
0
0
-124
Capital cost
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
Feedstock
147
166
176
157
176
247
0
Transport
22
29
62
-8
39
13
12
Storage
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Natural gas
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Labor
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
Plant costs
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Net cost
298
323
366
277
344
389
17
C&I: Commercial and industrial; FR: Forestry residue; SRC: Short rotation coppice; SRF: Short rotation forestry.
346
-37
-74
-37
-74
-89
101
0
12
15
11
48
60
5
51
-96
101
0
12
15
11
48
60
5
44
Table 10. Costs of biochar produced from large-scale pyrolysis, UK/t biochar applied to field.
Straw
SRC+FRs
Miscanthus
Green waste &

sewage sludge
C&I veg and

animal waste
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
-37
ROCs
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
-74
Avoided gate fee
0
0
0
0
0
0
-124
-90
Capital cost
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Feedstock
147
179
195
156
190
258
0
0
Transport
29
29
62
-8
39
13
12
12
Storage
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
Natural gas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Labor
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Plant costs
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Net cost
135
166
216
107
188
230
-148
-114
C&I: Commercial and industrial; FR: Forestry residue; ROC: renewable obligation certificates; SRC: Short rotation coppice;
SRF: Short rotation forestry.
-37
-74
-96
45
0
12
15
1
4
5
5
-120
manage a large-scale PU as is required to operate a

medium-scalePU.) This compared well with the operational costs of Bridgwaters large-scale fast pyrolysis plant (US$6 t-1) and with the value calculated for
our large-scale plant using Bridgwaters methodology
(US$4.3t-1). Conversely, this approach may unfairly
bias the analysis in favor of the large-, compared with
the medium-scale PUs.
Storage & transport from pyrolysis unit to farm &
application to soil
Once the biomass has been pyrolysed, it needs to be

taken from the pyrolysis unit to a storage unit either on
the farm, or in a dedicated storage facility. If biochar
is to be widely deployed, large-scale storage facilities
are necessary. It could be argued that biochar can be
piled-up on a field margin or other space in the open
at low-cost and utilized as and when needed. However,
because biochar is frequently a dusty material when dry,
prone to absorb large quantities of water (e.g., a ton of
biochar can hold a ton of water without increasing in
Sawmill
residues
SRF
Canadian
FRs
Waste
Wood
volume), and could even pose a fire risk if stored inappropriately, it is questionable whether such a storage
approach would be practicable or acceptable, especially
if biochar were to become widely adopted. Therefore,
some sort of containment is likely to benecessary.
Virgin biomass resources will be available intermittently throughout the year; for example, at harvest times
through summerautumn, although some energy crops
(e.g., Miscanthus), are harvested in the spring. Some
non-virgin biomass resources will be more consistently
available throughout the year, although the availability
of others such as green waste will be skewed towards the
growing season. Opportunities for biochar application
to soils will also be skewed towards certain times of
the year; for example, spring and autumn, when crops
are not growing and fields are suitable for coping with
tractors and implements. The availability of biochar in
adequate quantities at the appropriate time would therefore probably require large storage capabilities. Such
storage facilities might be already available on farm,
or could be constructed on-farm for relatively small
Box 3. Cost of applying biochar to soils.

For the small-scale pyrolysis unit case where 727 tons of biochar are being applied per year (Table 2) , assume a fertiliser spreader conveys
6 tons of biochar per journey and assume that it takes 1 h for loading, wetting, transport to field, application and return journey, or 121
hours. Assuming 40 hours a week, this is 3 weeks work. Assuming the spreader costs 78,000, and a capital recovery factor of 0.149
(8% interest rate paid over 10 years), this is a yearly cost of 11,600. The proportion of this attributed to biochar application is: 3/52 X
11,600 = 669 per year. Labor costs are assumed to be 278 per week [70] and it is assumed that biochar application is a two person job.
The cost is therefore 3 x 2 x 278 = 1668. (We follow the convention in life cycle assessment work in allocating time use of equipment,
hence it is assumed that the farm is extracting an economic value from the spreader and tractor for the other 49 weeks of theyear.)
The tractor used to pull the spreader is assumed to be a 2-wheel drive, 4349 kW, costing 5110 to operate for 500 hours operation[70] .
The tractor cost is therefore: 121/500 x 5110 = 1237. The total application costs are therefore 3574 for 727 tons, or c. 5 a ton. This
value of 5 t-1 is assumed to hold for all cases, although it is likely that a contractor could reduce application costs by using purposebuilt machinery and undertaking application on a much larger scale. In the absence of specific information about such equipment and
practices, however, we have applied a common application to all scenarios.
347
quantities of biochar. Further details on storage costs

are provided in Box1 while application to soil costs are
explained in Box3.
Electricity generation
It is assumed that electricity is generated from the syngas

produced during pyrolysis at c. 35% efficiency of conversion [53,54] . The medium-scale PU demonstration unit
was used to estimate the quantity of electricity generated
and we simply scaled this up and down (i.e., divided this
by eight [small-scale PU] or multiplied by 11.55 [largescale PU]). The bioliquids are not used for electricity
generation; such liquids are used to generate heat for
feedstock drying. While it may be feasible in the future
to extract more useable energy from the bio-liquids, at the
current time there is technical uncertainty and no clear
dominantdesign.
It is also assumed that the conversion process would
qualify as a form of advanced pyrolysis assuming a syngas
calorific value of over 4 MJ per m3, which appears feasible
given that values in the literature are approximately 11
MJ per kg from intermediate pyrolysis [55] and typically
1316 MJ per kg for syngas [56] , and hence would attract
double ROCs for each MWh-1 generation under the UK
Governments current banding scheme for renewable
energy incentives [57] . The value of a MWh-1 is assumed
to be 50 (a reasonable market price in the 200910
period)[203] , hence the ROC value is 100 and the overall revenue from electricity generation is 150MWh-1.
The total cost of biochar delivered to the field
The total cost per ton biochar delivered to field from

small-, medium- and large-scale PUs is shown in Table7
and Figure2 for individual feedstocks. It is worthy of note
that we use the simplifying assumption that the costs of
feedstocks are the same regardless of the supply scenario
(low, higher and high). Clearly, in reality, feedstock costs
would vary depending upon (highly uncertain and unpredictable) supply and demand factors. The cost of production is calculated by subtracting revenue from the total
costs over a 10-year period and then dividing that number
by the quantity of biochar produced over that period. In
other words, any loss is distributed across the quantity of
biochar produced, giving a break-even selling point value.
Therefore, the numbers in Table7 represent the minimum
price that would have to be charged per ton of biochar
generated in order for the operation to be at least breakeven. With the exception of the upfront capital costs,
we decided not to use a discount factor given considerable uncertainty over the value of the future operational
costs and plant revenues. Where a profit is made by the
operation, we have indicated a negative production cost.
It may be preferable, in future, to ascribe a cost to biochar
based upon the relative value of all the by-products and a
reasonable rate of return on investment.
Depending on the assumptions used, biochar may
cost between -148 t1 and 389t1 (-$222584) delivered and spread on fields. There are potentially attractive
opportunities for producing biochar in terms of cheaper
Commercial and industral

vegetable and animal waste
Green waste and
sewage sludge
Waste wood
Canadian FRs
SRF
Sawmill residues
Miscanthus
SRC and FRs
Large scale
Medium scale
Small scale
SRC
Straw
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
500
GB/t biochar applied to field
Figure 2. Net cost of biochars produced with small-, medium- and large-scale pyrolysis.
FR: Forestry residue; SRC: Short rotation coppice; SRF: Short rotation forestry.
348
virgin feedstocks, such as arboricultural arisings and

some waste woods. Under scenarios where wastes can
be used as non-virgin feedstocks, biochar can be produced as a product at a profit. By using these, instead
of more expensive wood or straw feedstocks, it is possible to reduce the costs per ton of biochar produced in
a medium-scale unit by 6090% (Table9) . Owing to
much lower operating costs assumed for the large-scale
Sales of electricty
ROC
Avoided gate fee
Capital cost
Feedstock
Transport
Storage
Natural gas
Labor
Plant costs
Arboricultural
arisings
Short rotation
coppice
Straw
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 3. Breakdown of costs of biochar production at small scale.

ROC: Renewable obligation certificates.

Green waste and sewage sludge
Waste wood
Canadian FRs
Sales of electricty
ROC
Avoided gate fee
Capital cost
Feedstock
Transport
Storage
Natural gas
Labor
Plant costs
-300
-200
SRF
Sawmill residues
Miscanthus
SRC and FRs
Straw
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 4. Breakdown of costs of biochar production at medium scale.

FR: Forestry residue; ROC: Renewable obligation certificates; SRC: Short rotation coppice; SRF: Short rotation forestry.
349
unit, biochar production costs are quite scale-dependent with a big premium on producing at larger-scale.
It needs to be re-iterated that our assumed operational
costs at larger-scale remain speculative and optimistic.
Clearly, if operational costs at the smaller-scales could
be similarly reduced, then the biochar BESP could be
similarly reduced, although the opportunities for such
cost reduction at smaller-scales is lessobvious.
Some lower-cost straw options were explored, since
there can be a wide temporal and spatial variation in the
price of straw feedstock. For example, whilst wheat and
barley straw prices have been 3060 t1 during much
of 2008 and 2009, in 2007 the price of wheat straw was
more typically in the range 2030t1, and 3050t1for
barley straw [204] . At a price of 10t1 the costs of producing biochar from straw comes down significantly especially at the large-scale production unit where the cost
reduction is 75% (based on the data in Table10).
Analysis of the costs & sensitivity analysis
The breakdown of the costs is shown in Tables 810 and
Figures35 for small-, medium- and large-scale units,
respectively. The greatest costs are those for feedstock,
borrowing capital and operation. Small-scale biochar production benefits from lower transport cost, large-scale production from much lower capital and operational costs.
Avoided gate fees provide an important revenue stream
when the non-virgin feedstocks are utilized (although
gate-fees for some waste woods are likely to come down

as competition from other uses and from recycling grows
and could become a feedstock charge). Transport costs
for non-virgin feedstocks are also low because PBS introduces few additional transport requirements beyond those
already accounted for in waste management.
The ability to raise additional revenue through avoided
gate fees and the low transport costs all help to explain
why the use of non-virgin biomass waste resources provides a much more favorable economic outlook for a PBS.
Conversely, pyrolysis of such materials will probably pose
greater risks and more difficulty in addressing regulatory
questions and issues. Use of such materials might also
encounter skepticism and resistance from some farmers and land-owners. Another attractive option is to use
virgin feedstocks that are also relatively low cost, such as
arboricultural arisings and sawmill residues. At prices of
less than GB20t1, straw also looks to be an attractive
option, especially if storage costs can be minimized.
The production cost of biochar is highly sensitive to
capital and operational costs (CAPEX and OPEX). A
sensitivity analysis showed that the relationship between
biochar production cost and medium to high CAPEX
and OPEX is linear. Biochar production costs are not so
sensitive to CAPEX and OPEX changes at lower levels.
A halving of the value of OPEX / CAPEX assumed in
our analysis produces only a c. 1520% reduction in
biochar production costs.

Green waste and sewage sludge
Waste wood
Canadian FRs
Sales of electricty
ROC
Avoided gate fee
Capital cost
Feedstock
Transport
Storage
Natural gas
Labor
Plant costs
SRF
Sawmill residues
Miscanthus
SRC and FRs
Straw
-300
-200
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Figure 5. Breakdown of costs of biochar production at large scale.

FR: Forestry residue; ROC: Renewable obligation certificates; SRC: Short rotation coppice; SRF: Short rotation forestry.
350
Since the main economic value of biochar in the

UK is likely to be carbon storage, it is useful to convert the production costs into a marginal carbon abatement cost curve (MACC). This is done assuming the
following carbon contents of different types of fresh
biochar: wood-based virgin feedstocks: 75% [58] ; straw
virgin feedstocks: 60%[59,201] ; wood waste: 72% [60] ;
greenwaste and sewage sludge: 44% [61] and commercial and industrial animal and vegetable waste:
55% [201] . It is also assumed that 68% of the carbon
in the fresh biochar remains stabilized in the longterm (after 100years, a timescale relevant for climate
change policy) [26] . This is a simplification since the
long-term stability of recalcitrant carbon will vary
depending upon the feedstock, the pyrolytic production conditions and the receiving soil. However,
at present, there is no reliable method for calculating the long-term stability, hence a common value
is used for each feedstock here. The proportion of
long-term stable carbon content within biochar (by
mass) therefore varies between 0.3 (greenwaste) to
0.5 (woodyfeedstocks).
For each feedstock, the cost of

Key terms
abatement is then plotted against
Marginal carbon abatement cost: an
the quantity of carbon abatement,
assessment of the level of emissions
reduction that (a range of) measure(s)
which is feasible under a given
could deliver at a given point in time,
resource scenario. Figure 6 is an
against a projected baseline level of
example of one such MACC for bioemissions. They show how much CO2
char in the UK, in this instance for
each measure could save (the level of
abatement potential) and the
the higher feedstock scenario utilizassociated cost per ton of CO2.
ing small-, medium- and large-scale
PU technology. Included in the net
carbon equivalent abatement value is the recalcitrant
carbon in the biochar, plus the offset carbon emissions
arising from bioelectricity generation (compared with
the UK electricity grid average), as detailed in [41] .
The range of biochar production costs from different
feedstocks versus CO2 abatement amounts is shown
inFigure7.
We calculate the net carbon equivalent abatement
excluding the potential indirect impacts of biochar in
soil for reasons already provided. The MACC shows
that there are some attractive economic opportunities
for approximately 6million tons of CO2e abatement
250
199
184 208
156
163
144 155
150
80
76 80
100
50
18
19
2,000,000
4,000,000
90
57
-100
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
Volume (tCO2e)
12,000,000
-86
Forestry residue (chips)

Short rotation forestry (chips)
Oil rape seed straw (M)
Imported Canadian forestry (chips)
Wheat straw bales (L)
Miscanthus (chips) (L)

Sawmill residues
Barley straw bales (S)
Barley straw bales (L)
Short rotation coppice (chips) (L)
Waste wood (L)
-144
Commercial organic waste (L)
-150
-86
Sewage sludge (L)
-50
Domestic organic waste (L)
Cost() per ton of CO2e
200
Figure 6. Biochar marginal abatement cost (GBtCO2e-1) for higher feedstock supply scenario. Values do not
include indirect effects of biochars in soils on net CO2 equivalent abatement.
L: Large scale; M: Medium scale; S: Small scale.
351
389
350
289
300
250
216
200
234 277
135
150
118
88
100
25
36
5,000,000
4,000,000
50
0
-50 0
-100
6,000,000
8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000

Volume (tCO2e)
-94 -+94
-150
Sawmill residues
Wheat straw bales medium
scale short rotation coppice chips (S)
Short rotation forestry
Imported Canadian forestry (chips)
Barley straw bales (S)
Miscanthus (chips) (L)
Waste wood (M)
Wheat straw bales (L)
Oil seed rape straw (L)
Green waste, domestic food (M)
Waste wood (L)
Sewage sludge (L)

Commercial organic waste (M)
-197
Commercial organic waste (L)
-200
344
298
168
Domestic organic waste (L)
Cost(GB) per ton of biochar
400
Figure 7. Proctution cost curve for biochar from different feedstocks (cost in GB per ton versus quantity of
CO2abated).
L: Large scale; M: Medium scale; S: Small scale.
from biochar beyond which the abatement cost rises

quite steeply and biochar becomes a relatively expensive
abatement option if more than 8 million tons of CO2e
abatement is attempted.
The carbon abatement cost decreases if the stability of
the carbon in the biochar is higher, and/or if the carbon
content of the biochar is higher. For woody feedstocks,
the stability was increased to 95% and the carbon content
to 85% (giving a long-term stable carbon fraction of 0.8),

and this reduced the abatement cost by 37% (relative to
the values in Figure6). For non-woody feedstocks, stability
appears to be lower hence was kept at 68% and carbon
content increased by 5%. These changes reduced the carbon abatement cost by 8% (straws) to 15% (some wastes).
If the indirect impacts of biochar are included as represented in [41, Ibarrola R, Shackley S, Hammond J; sumitteddata] ,
Table 11. Preliminary and provisional estimate of annual biochar production and carbon abatement in the UK using three
scenarios for virgin and non-virgin biomass feedstock and the resulting land-use implications.
Feedstock
availability
Lower resource
Higher resource
High resource
352
Abatement per
annum (Mt CO2 eq.)
Biochar produced per annum

(thousands of tons)
Applied land area

(thousands of hectares)
CO2
Virgin biomass
resources
Non-virgin
biomass
resources
Total available
for use on land
Scenario 30/1:
30 t ha-1 first
year, then 1
tha-1
(20-y horizon)
Scenario 10/1:
10 t ha-1 first year,
then 1 t ha-1
(20-y horizon)
3.590
15.915
21.867
0.98
4.34
5.96
1019
2547
3267
0
1934
2902
1019
3514
4718
416
1434
1926
703
2423
3254
then the net carbon equivalent abatement of biochar

increases substantially (for many feedstocks it is doubled
compared with the baseline used here). This, in turn, can
halve the carbon abatement cost for virgin feedstocks;
however, too much credence should not be given to these
lower abatement costs given scientific uncertainty regarding the indirect effects of biochar. For this reason, we
present Figure6 as no more than a provisional marginal
abatement cost curve for a single scenario from a wide
range of potential scenarios. Defining the credible range
in the underlying data (e.g., on biochar carbon stability and carbon content and on the indirect impacts of
biochar) emerges as a key research requirement.
Table11 provides data on the total carbon abatement
in the UK from PBS deployment for each scenario
(including indirect effects and offset fossil fuel emissions
as specified in [26] , (from 1million tons C [equivalent]
per year in the low supply scenario to 6million tonsC
per year in the very high scenario, this representing
0.3 3% of 1990 UK GHG emissions or 1.5 10% of
the emission reductions required by 2020). Table11 also
indicates the area of land that might be implicated in
biochar deployment under each scenario. The key message is that available or suitable land is much less likely
to be a constraint than availability of suitable feedstocks.
Implications & conclusions
At present, estimating biochar production costs is
fraught with uncertainties. It is nonetheless important
that attempts to provide such estimates are undertaken
since costs are a crucial indicator in directing future
investment in RD&D. What is clear is that greater certainty on biochar production costs will not be forthcoming without much better data being available on the costs
of constructing and operating slow pyrolysis facilities, as
well as on their operational performance. The overriding
conclusion from this analysis is that there is a very wide
variation in biochar production costs. Where gate fee
revenues are available, as in the case of waste streams,
then producing biochar can be profitable. Where virgin
feedstocks are utilized, production costs can be very high
(hundreds of pounds per ton), translating into a high per
ton CO2 abatement costs (>100 tCO21).
Given that the current carbon price on the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme is 15 tCO21, it can be seen
that only waste feedstocks are feasible contenders for carbon abatement purposes at present. Conversely, many
other renewable energy options such as offshore wind,
wave and tidal power, are also similarly expensive and
first generation CO2 capture and storage is anticipated to
cost approximately 80 tCO21 [48,62] . Since many risk and
regulatory issues will arise from producing biochar from
waste streams and applying to agricultural land, it is vital
that a concerted effort to understand better the potential
hazards and how they may be ameliorated through feedstock quality control and process engineering is progressed
with urgency. Furthermore, the MACC analysis does not
account for the potential agronomic value of biochar. One
implication of the analysis is that efforts to maximize the
agronomic value of biochar are of great importance. The
ideal combination would, potentially, be a waste streamderived biochar incorporated into soils used for cultivating
a high-value agricultural crop where the benefits of the
biochar are well demonstrated andreproducible.
All new technologies face the challenge of high costs
in the early stage of their development, and pyrolysis is
no different. The route to market for new technologies
has frequently been through identification and exploitation of a favorable niche, in which a new technology is
(at least somewhat) protected from the harsh forces of
the unbridled market [63] . Governments frequently have
a role to play along with the private sector in identifying such niches and helping to nurture innovation, a
good example being the Dutch Governments Energy
Transitions Directorate [64] . Examples of possible niche
development of biochar are use of arboricultural, green
waste and wood waste arising from urban centers for
biochar production. More detailed techno-economic
evaluation of such options is an important next-step.
The model developed here needs to be further developed such that a fair comparison with other uses of the
same biomass can be undertaken. For instance, if the price
of electricity goes up, the operator would be incentivized
to produce less char and more electricity. The model we
have developed does not allow us to examine this particular question since it does not include a comparison
of PBS with, say, biomass combustion andgasification.
Future perspective
At the present time, biochar does not have any recognized
value for carbon storage, soils, agriculture or anything
else. It is likely, in many cases, to be illegal to spread it
upon land [65] and at present we do not known how local
communities might respond to the prospects of biochar
projects, although previous advanced biomass technology (gasification) projects have been abandoned, in part
due to local opposition [66] . Some environmental groups
have already expressed opposition [67] , although the larger
environmental NGOs have not yet published a position.
There is, currently, no mechanism for ascribing a financial
value to the recalcitrant carbon within the biochar and
nor is there an obvious route by which a value could be
given. The best prospect is likely to be with the establishment of a methodology for biochar that meets the
requirements of the Verified Carbon Market. Another
possibility is for inclusion of biochar within environmental stewardship schemes under the Common Agricultural
Policy of theEU.
353
The agronomic value of biochar is very poorly understood and the ability to predict its impact is very low.
Before farmers are likely to take-up the use of biochar, it
is probably necessary for the positive (and any negative)
effects of biochar addition to be properly understood
and more reproducible and predictable. Competition for
biomass resources is, meanwhile, intensifying as incentive schemes are developed for power, heat and chemical
feedstocks from biomass in Western Europe, the USA
and elsewhere. The competition is driving up the scarcity
and prices of feedstocks and there is a very real possibility that many large-scale sources of biomass will be tied
into reasonably long-term contracts with large energy
utilities in the next 510years. PBS face a problem in
this competition, in that they incur a large energy penalty, the deliverable electrical energy being under 50% of
that from a comparable combustion unit. Current policy
incentives are far more focused upon electricity production than upon carbon abatement, so the greater carbon
abatement efficiency of PBS does not necessarily win out.
All these factors make commercialization of largescale biochar production and deployment seems
unlikely in the short-term future, at least in the UK.
What might seem more likely, however, is the use of
residues and wastes from other biotechnological conversion processes as feedstock for pyrolysis, primarily
driven by the economics of waste disposal. This might

be from second generation fermentation, anaerobic
and aerobic digestion, hydrolysis, hydrothermal conversion, biosolids production and Fischer-Tropsch
conversion among other things. Biochar may become
an integral part of the new wave of bio-refinery technologies that are currently in development. This may
be the way that biochar establishes a niche for itself,
which might then grow-out to encompass other more
main-streamapplications.
Acknowledgements
The feedstock scenario evaluation was jointly undertaken by the current
authors with inputs from Patricia Thornley and Saran Sohi. Biochar
storage and application costs were calculated with Jason Cooks input.
We would like to thank: Patricia Thornley and Ondej Maek for
information on the costs of existing bioenergy and pyrolysis plant in the
UK and Japan; Saran Sohi for sharing his evaluation of the literature
on biochar impacts; Sohel Ahmed for help with graphics; and Peter
Brownsort and Rebecca Rowe for their comments on the manuscript.
We thank the following for funding the research: UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Science & Innovation
Award; and the European Regional Development Fund IVb programme (North Sea Region): Biochar: climate saving soils project.
Finally, we thank the Editor and the five reviewers, whose comments
helped improve the quality of themanuscript.
Executive summary
Scenarios for available feedstock, biochar supply & technology scale
Three scenarios for the UK context were developed to estimate the potential biomass resource available for the production of biochar: a
lower, higher and high scenario are presented. A distinction between virgin (no chemical or biological amendment) and non-virgin (all
other) bio-feedstocks is introduced; this is important with respect to regulatory and risk assessment issues for biochar.
The scenarios suggest that there are between 3 and 12million tons of virgin biomass resource and between 0 to 9million tons of nonvirgin biomass resource (excluding poultry waste and mechanically-biologically treated municipal solid waste) available in the UK for
producing biochar.
Review of previous costbenefit analysis studies
A high degree of uncertainty surrounds the indirect impacts of biochar in soils (effects on productivity, water retention, pollution
reduction, etc.), which precludes precise valuation of costs and benefits.
A more modest approach is to attempt to calculate the biochar production cost, taking account of the full value-chain from feedstock
cultivation to biochar application to soils including capital and operational costs, transport, storage and feedstock preparation costs;
including revenues from electricity generation and waste management. This does not bypass uncertainty, but limits it to some extent.
Costs of pyrolysis-biochar process stages
Three indicative sizes of pyrolysis technology were modelled: small (<2000 t feedstock yr-1), medium (<16,000 t yr-1) and large
(<185,000tyr-1). The costs were provided for a medium-sized demonstration plant, and estimated for the small- and large-scale unit by
comparison with the demonstration unit as well as existing plants. Economies of scale is an important factor in reducing capital and
operational costs of production in larger units.
The costs of producing biochar in the UK context range from between -148 per ton to 389per ton delivered and spread on fields a
provisional carbon abatement cost of -144 tCO2-1 to 208 tCO2-1 for the higher resource scenario. A marginal carbon abatement cost can be
estimated by plotting biochar production levels from the three production units against costs, although the latter are static with respect to
feedstock supply.
The greatest expense incurred in pyrolysis-biochar systems are the capital costs, feedstock costs and operational costs, while the largest
sources of revenue are from electricity generation and from received gate fee for wastes.
Biochar from imported wood chips, Miscanthus and short rotation forestry are among the most expensive types, while straw-based biochar is
close behind; wood waste and greenwaste-derived biochar are much cheaper (with a carbon abatement cost from (-144 tCO2-1 to 19 tCO2-1).
The attractiveness of wastes as a feedstock requires concerted effort on the risk assessment and appropriate regulation of the resultant
biochar; it also assumes continued gate fees and landfill tax at current levels.
354

papermill waste on agronomic performance and
soil fertility. Plant & Soil 327, 235246 (2010).
Financial & competing interests

disclosure
John Gaunt has a financial involvement in a company which is attempting to develop the commercial
market for biochar. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any
organization or entity with a financial interest in or
financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those
disclosed. No writing assistance was utilized in the
production of thismanuscript.
11
12 Rondon M, Ramirez JA, Lehmann J.
Charcoal additions reduce net emissions of

greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Proceedings of the 3rd USDA Symposium on
Greenhouse Gases and Carbon Sequestration.
Baltimore, USA, 2124 March 2005.
Bibliography
1
Shackley S, Sohi S. An assessment of the

benefits and issues associated with the
application of biochar to soil. DEFRA &
DECC, UK Government (2010).
Sohi S, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R. A

review of biochar and its use and function in
soil. Adv. Agronomy 105, 4782 (2010).
Lehmann J, Joseph S. Biochar for environmental

management: Science and technology. Earthscan,
London, UK (2009).
10
Singh BP, Hatton BJ, Singh B, Cowie AL,

Kathuria A. Influence of biochars on nitrous
oxide emission and nitrogen leaching from two
contrasting soils. Journal of Environmental
Quality 39. 39(4), 12241235 (2010).
Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S et al.
Influence of biochars on flux of N2O and CO2
from ferrosol. Aust. J. Soil Res. 48, 555568
(2010).
Lehmann J, Da Silva Jp Jr, Steiner C, NehlsT,
Zech W, Glaser B. Nutrient availability and
leaching in an archaeological anthrosol and a
ferralsol of the central amazon basin: fertilizer,
manure and charcoal amendments. Plant & Soil
249, 343357 (2003).
eesley L, Moreno-Jimenez E,
B
Gomez-Eyles J. Effects of biochar and
greenwaste compost amendments on
mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of
inorganic and organic contaminants in a
multi-element polluted soil. Environmental
Pollution 158(1) 155160 (2010 ).
technology of charcoal production. Ind. &

Eng. Chem. Res. 42(8), 16191640 (2003).
14
Lehmann J, Czimczic C, Laird D, Sohi S.

Stability of biochar in soil. In: Biochar for
environmental management. Lehmann J,
Joseph S (Eds). Earthscan, London, UK
317340 (2009).
15
Lehmann J, Skjemstad J, Sohi S et al.

Australian climate-carbon cycle feedback
reduced by soil black carbon. Nat. Geosci. 1,
832835 (2008).
16
Bradshaw J, Bachu S, Bonijoly D et al. CO2

storage capacity estimation: issues and
development of standards. Int. J. Greenhouse
Gas Cont. 1 6268 (2007).
17
DEFRA. OPSI. The biofuel (labelling)

regulations 2004. London, UK (2004).
18
Thornley P, Upham P, Tomei J. Sustainability

constraints on UK bioenergy development.
Energy Policy 37(12), 56235635 (2009).
19
asek O, Sohi S, Kiso J, Boag K. FCO

M
mission to Japan biochar. University of
Edinburgh August 2010 (2010).
20 The Royal Society. Sustainable biofuels:
Clough TJ, Ray JL, Sherlock RR,

CondronLM, Callaghan MO.
BuckthoughtLE. Nitrous oxide novel
mitigation methodologies: objective 2 biochar
effects on urinary-n N2O emissions. Report to
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lincoln
University, Lincoln, New Zealand. 15 (2008).
22 Sherrington C. Socio-economic constraints
Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S et al.

Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of
Sohi S, Haszeldine S. The potential of biochar

deployment in Scotland: A preliminary
assessment UKBRC Working Paper 7 (2010).
25 Caputo A, Palumbo M, Pelagagge P,
ScacchiaF. Economics of biomass energy

utilization in combustion and gasification
plants: effects of logistic variables Biomass &
Bioenergy 28, 3551 (2005).
26 Hammond J, Shackley S, Sohi S, BrownsortP.
Prospective life-cycle carbon abatement for

pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy
Policy 39, 26462655 (2011)
27 Brownsort P. Biomass pyrolysis processes:
review of scope, control and variability UKBRC

Working Paper 5 (2009).
13 Antal MJ, Gronli M. The art, science and
Clough TJ, Bertram JE, Ray JL, CondronLM.

Unweathered wood biochar impact on nitrous
oxide emissions from a bovine-urine-amended
pasture soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74(3), 852860
(2010).
Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J et al. Long

term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral
fertilization on crop production and fertility on
a highly weathered central amazonian upland
soil. Plant & Soil 291(12), 275290 (2007).
24 Ahmed S, Hammond J, Ibarrola R, ShackeyS,
prospects and challenges. Policy document

01/08, 84 (2008).
21
BMT. Biomass task force. Report to

government 82 (2005).
on renewable energy in the uk:
Understanding barriers to the development of
perennial energy crops and onshore wind
power. Scottish Agricultural College PhD
(2010).
23 R ead D, Freer-Smith P, Morison J, Hanley
N, West C, Snowdon P. Combating climate

change: a role for UK forests. From: An
Assessment of the Potential of the UKs Trees
and Woodlands to Mitigate and Adapt to
Climate Change. (p2149) The Stationery
Office, Edinburgh, Scotland (2009).
(2009)
28 McCarl B, Peacocke C, Chrisman R,
KungC-C, Sands R. Economics of biochar

production, utilisation and emissions. In:
Biochar for environmental management.
Lehmann J, Joseph S (Eds). Earthscan,
London. UK 341357 (2009).
29 Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR,
Lehmann J. Life cycle assessment of biochar

systems: estimating the energetic, economic
and climate change potential. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 44(2), 827833 (2010).
30 Faaij A. Bio-energy in europe: changing
technology choices. Energy Policy 34, 322343

(2006).
31
Gaunt J, Cowie A. Biochar, greenhouse gas

accounting and emissions trading. In: Biochar
for Environmental Management. Lehmann J,
Joseph S (Eds). Earthscan, London, UK
317340 (2009).
32 Klemedtsson L, Ernfors M, Bjrk R et al.
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by wood

ash application to a Picea abies (l.) karst. forest
on a drained organic soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
(2010).
33 Gaskin J, Speir R, Harris K et al. Effect of
peanut hull and pine chip biochar on soil

nutrients, corn nutrient status and yield
Agronomy J. 102(2), 623633 (2010 ).
34 Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Downie A et al. A
glasshouse study on the interaction of low

mineral ash biochar with nitrogen in a sandy
soil. Austr. J. Soil Res. 48, 569576 (2010).
35
Chan KY, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I, Downie

A, Joseph S. Agronomic values of greenwaste
biochar as a soil amendment. Austr. J. Soil Res.
45(8), 629634 (2007).
36 Wardle DA, Nilsson M-C, Zackrisson O.
Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest

humus. Science 320, 629 (2008).
37 Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen H,
Bogomolova I, Xu X. Black carbon

decomposition and incorporation into soil
355

microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 210219 (2009).
38 Spokas KA, Koskinen WC, Baker JM, Reicosky
DC. Impacts of woodchip biochar additions on

greenhouse gas production and sorption/
degradation of two herbicides in a minnesota
soil. Chemosphere 77, 574581 (2009).
52
53 Chiaramonti D, Oasmaa A, Solantausta Y.
Combined Heat and Power Partnership,

USA(2008).
55
stabilisation of biochar and green manure in

soil with different organic carbon contents
Austr. J. Soil Res. 48, 577585 (2010).
41 Committee on Climate Change. Building a
43 Collison M, Collison L, Sakrabani R,
57 HMG. The Renewables Obligation order 2009.
Asai H, Samson BK, Stephan HM et al.

Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice
production in northern Laos. Field Crops
Research 111, 8184 (2009).
47 Enkvist P-A, Naucler T, Rosander J. A cost
curve for greenhouse gas reduction The

McKinsey Quarterly (1), 3545 (2007).
48 Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change: The
Stern Review. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK (2007).
performance parameters and their influence on

biochar system benefits. Sch. GeoSci. MSc.
University of Edinburgh, 84 (2009).
Analysis of straw by x-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy Surf. Sci. Spectra 11 9196 (2004).
60 Ryu C, Sharifi VN, Swithenbank J. Waste
pyrolysis and generation of storable char. Int.J.

Ener. Res. 31(2), 177191 (2007).
61
51
356
Bridgwater A. Life cycle and techno-economic

assessment of the northeast biomass to liquids
project. 31 (2009).
Shinogi Y, Yoshida H, Koizumi T, YamaokaM,

Saito T. Basic characteristics of low-temperature
carbon products from waste sludge. Adv.
Environ.Res. 7, 661665 (2002).
62 Finkenrath M. Cost and performance of carbon
dioxide capture from power generation. IEA

Working Paper (2011).
63 Shackley S, Green K. Exploring transitions to
sustainable energy: decarbonisation of the UK.

Energy 32, 221236 (2007 ).
64 Markusson N, Moran B, Winskel M,
Bellingham R. Governing decarbonisation in

Scotland: exploring the transitons options.
Report to Scottish Government, Institute for
Advanced Studies, University of Strathclyde,
Scotland (2010).
65
50 Thornley P, Brammer J, Rogers J, Huang Y,
Rezvani S. Making bioelectricity economic in

the UK. Presented at: The17th Biomass
Conference Hamburg, Germany. 29 June 3
July 2009.
Pocketbook. (39th edition). The Andersons

Centre Melton Mowbray (2008).
71 Copeland J, Turley D. National and regional
supply/demand balance for agricultural straw in

Great Britain 17. National Non-Food Crops
Centre, York, UK (2008).
72 Nix J. Farm Management Pocketbook. (40th
edition) The Andersons Centre Melton

Mowbray (2009).
73 Galbraith D, Smith P, Mortimer N et al.
Review of greenhouse gas life cycle emissions,

air pollution impacts and economics of biomass
production and consumption in Scotland
(2006).
59 Jang G, Husseini G, Baxter L, Linford M.
49 Mortimer N, Evans A, Shaw V, Hunter A. Life
cycle and techno-economic assessment of the

north east biomass to liquids project 08/016.
National Non-Food Crops Centre, York, UK
(2009).
70 Nix J. The John Nix Farm Management
58 Brownsort P. Biomass pyrolysis processes:
46 Deenik JJ, Mcclellan T, Uehara G, Antal MJ,
Campbell S. Charcoal volatile matter content

influences plant growth and soil nitrogen
transformations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74,
12591270 (2010).
and logs: making the most of arboricultural

arisings in the mersey belt. Red Rose Forest and
Mersey Forest Report to Forestry Commission
North West England Conservancy (2006).
Statutory Instrument 785, (2009).
44 Verheijen F, Jeffery S, Bastos AC,
45
69 Levy S, Blandford N, Mayhead G. Of chips
Biomass gasification: state of the art

description. Intelligent Energy Europe, Austria
(2007).
TofieldB, Wallage Z. Biochar and carbon

sequestration: a regional perspective. (2009).
VanxDerVelde M, Diafas I, Parsons C. Biochar
application to soils: a critical scientific review of
effects on soil properties, processes and
functions. Ispra, Italy (2009).
Hornung A, Apfelbacher W, Koch W et al.

Thermo-chemical conversion of straw haloclean intermediate pyrolysis. Presented at:
The17th International Symposium on Analytical
and Applied Pyrolysis, Budapest, Hungary.
2126 May 2006.
56 Lettner F, Timmerer H, Haselbacher P.
42 Woolf D, Amonette J. Street-Perrott A,
Lehmann J,Joseph S. Sustainable biochar to

mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun.
DOI:10.1038/ncomms1053 (2010).
cycle assessment of biodegradable waste,

bioenergy generation and biochar productionin
Glasgow and Clyde Valley. Sch.GeoScie. MSc.
University of Edinburgh (2009).
54 USEPA. Catalog of CHP technologies.
40 Kimetu J, Lehmann J. Stability and
low-carbon economy. The Stationery Office,

London, UK (2008).
68 Ibarrola R. Pyrolysis for waste treatment: a life
Power generation using fast pyrolysis liquids

from biomass. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 11,
10561086 (2007).
39 Liang B, Lehmann L, Sohi S et al. Black carbon
affects the cycling of non-black carbon in soil.

Org. Geochem. 41, 206213 (2010).
climate saviour or climate endgame?

Biofuelwatch, London, UK (2008).
aul AA. Biomass UK sector review. Carbon

P
Trust, London, UK (2005).
Van Den Bergh C. Biochar and waste law: A

comparative analysis. Eur. Energ. Environ. Law
Rev. 243253 (2009).
66 Upham P, Shackey S. The case of a proposed
21.5 MWe biomass gasifier in Winkleigh,

Devon: implications for governance of
renewable energy planning. Energy Policy
34(15), 21612172 (2006).
67 Ernsting A, Rughani D. Climate geo-
engineering with carbon negative bioenergy:
74
Chan K, Xu Z. Biochar: Nutrient Properties

and Their Enhancement In: Biochar For
Environmental Management: Science and
Technology. Lehmann J, Joseph S (Eds).
Earthscan, London, UK 6784 (2009).
75 Bridgwater, A. The future for biomass pyrolysis
and gasification: status, opportunities and

policies for Europe. ALTERNER Programme,
European Commission, contract
4.1030/5/01-009/2001 (2002)
Patent
101 Wingate Jr, De Leij Faam, Hutchings T.
Method of forming ion exchange charcoal.

(GB2451509A), 51 (2009).
Websites
201 ECN Phyllis
www.ecn.nl/phyllis/
202 BIOMASS Energy Centre www.
biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_
pageid=74,153193&_dad=portal&_
schema=PORTAL
203 Department of Energy and Climate change
www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/
prices/prices.aspx
204 DEFRA: Average prices of hay and straw in
england and wales (weekly) 2009.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/
defra-stats-foodfarm-farmgate-commodityhaymth-110511.xls

CostsBiochar PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CostsBiochar PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Review

The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in

Simon Shackley1, Jim Hammond1, John Gaunt2 & Rodrigo Ibarrola1

be used for producing biochar, which, combined

putting forth preliminary estimates of net carbon

UK context. Combining the feedstock-specific data

future science group

10.4155/CMT.11.22 2011 Future Science Ltd

Review Shackley, Hammond, Gaunt et al.

Operation (gas, labor

Application of biochar to soil

Electricity sales: 37 and

Carbon Management Future Science Group (2011)

Figure 1. Pyrolysis-biochar system: from source to sink.

Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)

Municipal solid waste (MSW) treated through

future science group

The feasibility & costs of biochar deployment in theUK Review

Viable available resource assumed available for pyrolysis

Virgin Biomass Resources

Non-virgin biomass resources

future science group

Review Shackley, Hammond, Gaunt et al.

compared with virgin resources being due to the greater

Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)

shift from use of existing arable land (of which there

The standard approach in evaluating technology costs

future science group

The feasibility & costs of biochar deployment in theUK Review

waste sources and so on. The medium-scale unit is an

utilized at the larger-scales. The proportion of feedstock

future science group

Review Shackley, Hammond, Gaunt et al.

Table 3. Assumptions and sources of data regarding costs and revenues.

Scaled-down from mediumscale plant

Provided by company based

Assumes 1 person FTE using

4 staff (manager, 2 workers,

Other operating costs

Personal communication, Jason

Scaled-up from mediumscale plant.

Handling costs (capital)

Distribution of feedstocks to small-scale and to medium/large-scale pyrolysis units (%)

Short rotation forestry, waste wood, green

Straw could be used at all scales.

More efficient use of sawmill waste is in larger units

It is assumed the crop would be sold to larger users

Could be grown and used at range of scales.

of biomass (including reception, drying, size-reduction,

Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)

It is evident that the three technology scales are

future science group

The feasibility & costs of biochar deployment in theUK Review

PBS. A simple framework is presented in Table 4 .

Total benefits: value of biochar

future science group

Review Shackley, Hammond, Gaunt et al.

the US corn-belt context from biochar application,

Carbon Management (2011) 2(3)

for CO2 capture and storage, in industrialized countries,

future science group

The feasibility & costs of biochar deployment in theUK Review

Costs of pyrolysis-biochar process stages