Making Biochar Commercially Viable;Recent Experiences from around the World

Stephen Joseph

The Context

1. Most trials carried out with high application rates (> 2 tonnes/ha) with fine dusty material

2. Most biochar expensive (>$300/tonne)

3. Most unprocessed biochar can be difficult to apply

4. Results in terms of yields have been variable

5. Except for a few countries markets not developed

6. Fertiliser companies no incentive to innovate

Change in Approach to Developing Engineered/Designer Biochars

Properties a Function of Feedstock and Final Pyrolysis Temperature; Minerals and Water/Acid Soluble Organic Compounds Important

Chicken LitterBiochar (400C)Lots of Minerals (A) and pyrolysed seeds (B)

Chicken LitterBiochar (550C) Minerals melted lowing porosity and surface area (C). Woody biochar in litter high surface area (D)

A

B

CD

Harvey OR, Herbert BE, Kuo LJ, Louchouarn P. Generalized Two-Dimensional Perturbation Correlation Infrared Spectroscopy Reveals Mechanisms for the Development of Surface Charge and Recalcitrance in Plant-Derived Biochars. Environ. Sci. Technol., 46(19), 10641-10650 (2012).

General Correlation Between CEC (which is dependent on pH of Soil) and Recalcitrance

High Adsorption of heavy metals and ammonia

Greatest resistance to disease using greenhouse waste

Greatest adsorption of Nitrate and large organic molecules

Profitability and Many Plant Responses are Dependent on How Much Biochar is Added to the Soil; The Rmax Effect

Rate t/ha Rate t/ha Rate t/ha

Disease resistance/Sorption ability = D-Rmax ; Yield= G-Rmax

Jaiswal et al 2015 Plant and Soil

Biochar A Biochar B Biochar C

Profitability

Commercially Viable Products and Applications

1. Biochar Mineral NPK Fertilisers

2. Biochar Mineral Compost Biofertilisers for High Value Crops

3. Biochar and Energy in Waste Management

4. Remediation of Contaminated and Degraded Land with High Value Crops

5. Feeding to Animals and into Biogas Digestors

6. Foliar Sprays and Liquid Fertilisers

Feeding Biochar and Molasses to Cows (.33kg/day)Adding Dung Beetles

Increases Pasture Productivity by 25%

Si

PS K Ca Fe

N

Biochar Coated with nutrients and microbes

Composition of Biochar after being excreted

Biochar Increased Pasture Productivity by 25%; Biochar was taken through the soil to a depth of 40cm and has increased pH,

C and N content

C= 5.7 N=.48 pH= 5.4 C= 6.0 N=.47 pH= 6.2

Soil Properties No BC Soil Properties With BC

C= 2.1 N=.13 pH= 5.0 C= 3.6 N=.24 pH= 6.1

C= .67 N=.03 pH= 5.3 C= 2.0 N=.11 pH= 5.8

Depth

0-5cm

25cm

40cm

Analysis NSW DPI

Costs

1) Waste wood biochar from Silicon smelter purchased at $120/tonne and cost of biochar/molasses feed is 6 cents/day

2) Increased in labour to feed cows is 5 cents per day

Benefits

3) No hay is required as biochar can provide the same function as a fibre substitue. Cost of hay per cow is $1.10/day this includes feed and labour to spread the hay

4) No chemical fertiliser is required for pasture and no worm drench was needed.

5) After the first year of feeding biochar available P in the worst paddock went from 34ppm to 86ppm! The level for 95% pasture productivity is 52ppm using the CSIRO calculator

Benefits in Feeding Biochar to Cows and Adding Dung Beetles Over Three Years

Analysis NSW DPI

Benefits in Feeding Biochar to Cows and Adding Dung BeetlesNo Drenching and Insecticide, No Purchase Hay and Fertilisers

CP1= Buying hayCP2 = Growing hay. Contractor to harvestCP3 = Growing hay and harvesting oneself

Increase of $12,250/yr.

Competing uses of China’s straw: the socio-economics of biochar vs. bioenergy

1. Is processing straw into biochar a profitable business venture when compared to processing straw into bio-energy?

2. How are China’s current bio-energy policies affecting the profitability of biochar production compared to bio-energy production?

3. If it is not profitable, should biochar production be subsidised on environmental (carbon mitigation) grounds?

Policy and Market Setting

1. Many areas have banned the burning or dumping of residues. $28 Mg-1 straw paid to businesses that use straw for livestock rearing,

paper production or bioenergy generation

2. Financial incentives offered are structured as a feed-in-tariff ($0.12 kWh-1 produced from agricultural and waste forestry biomass), subsidised loans, tax breaks and/or grants (Zhang et al., 2014)

3. Briquette technology cheap and simple to use and briquettes sell for for similar price to coal

4. Low carbon rice husk biochar can be purchased from Bioenergy Plants for approximately $100/tonne. High quality biochar sells for between $300 and $500/tonne.

5. Meta –analysis shows yield increases 10% are seen at biochar application rates of greater than 10 tonnes/ha (base line case)

Clare et al 2014 Carbon Management

Cost Benefit Analysis from Producers Perspective: Pyrolysis is Unprofitable with Biochar Price of $100/tonne with Subsidies

Briquetting Gasification Pyrolysis

-80000000

-60000000

-40000000

-20000000

0

20000000

40000000

60000000

80000000

100000000

With subsidies

No Subsidies

RMB

Government subsidies are very influential to profitability as is the crop yield and price of the biochar. Break even is approximately $120/tonne with subsidy and $210/tonne with subsidy

Briquetting Gasification Pyrolysis

-60000000

-40000000

-20000000

0

20000000

40000000

60000000

80000000

100000000

120000000

140000000

With subsidies

No Subsidies

$300 /tonne biochar$100/tonne biochar

Compound Biochar NPK Clay Fertiliser20% Wheat Straw Biochar (90kg/ha), 5% Bentonite Clay

and 75%NPK Granule Applied at 450kg/ha

Demonstration Field Plot in Anh Hui. Farmer reported 18% and a reduction in disease

Experimental Results Field Trials; Rice Yield Increase 39%

Joseph et al 2013; Carbon Management

YieldChemical Fertiliser 8.2 +/- .75 t/haBioChar NPK Fertiliser 11.4 +/- 1.12t/ha

N Uptake GrainChemical Fertiliser 124.7 +/- 11.4kg/haBioChar NPK Fertiliser 153.6 =/- 15.0 kg/ha

Joseph et al 2013 Shifting Paradigms Carbon Management

Financial Analysis for Farmer with .45ha Land Based on Field Trial for One Season With Rice Assuming 1/5 Lower

Pesticide Use and Reduction of Urea from 126kg/ha to 111kg/ha. Rice Yield Increased from 8.2t/h to 11.4t/ha

Costs for Farmer Fertiliser NPK + urea $ $131.1 Biochar NPK +urea $ $128.4Seed $ $45.0 $45.0Pesticide $ $121.5 $97.2

Mechanical Harvesting $ $100 $100Total Cost $397.6 $370.6 Revenue Sale of Rice $ $1,365.3 $1,898.1

Income-Costs $ $967.7 $1,527.5% Increase in income % 58%

Economics Can Change When Biochar Applied at 100kg/ha with NPK but Depends on the Type of Biochar

0123456789

101112

CDABC

A

Yield

(To

nn

es/

ha) D

AB

CCF MS-BCF PH-BCFHW-BCF WS-BCF

Chemical compound fertilizer (CCF), maize straw (MS-BCF), peanut husk (PH-BCF), household waste (HW-BCF) and wheat straw (MW-BCF)) applied at 500kg/ha to rice paddy (Joseph et al 2013)

Biochar Produced with Mixed Feedstock, Minerals and Acid Activation + NPK

• Potato farmers wish to decrease their input of fertilisers, increase yields and also decrease loss through disease

• A new biochar with high mineral content was developed to enhance the efficiency of NPK fertiliser for growing seed potatoes

• Standard Fertilisation 7N;14P;14K at 778kg/ha• Replaced fertiliser with 5%, 10%,20% and 40% enhanced

biochar

Biochar Energy Systems (BES) Pty LtdLow Cost Open Source Transportable Trough Pyrolyser

Method of Making the Biochar

1. Make ash by taking the biochar from the pyrolyser at 350C, wet and add finely ground basalt and micro nutrients

2. mix and make into a fine slurry3. then add clay4. and then coat straw and chicken litter and allow to dry slowly5. pyrolyse at 425°C-450°C6. adjust pH to 7.5 with 50% solution of Phosphoric acid7. Mix NPK and biochar and allow to stand in bag for 2 weeks.

Material % Dry WeightWheat Straw 60%Poultry Litter 25%Bentonite/Iron Bearing Kaolinite 5%Basalt dust 4%Wheat Straw Ash 6%

Results of Trials with Enhanced Biochar; 20 tonne/ha Improvement

97.5

%NPK/2

.5%

BC

95%

NPK/5%

BC

90%

NPK/10%

BC

80%

NPK/20%

BC

60%

NPK/40%

BC

100%

NPK/10%

BC

Contro

l0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BIOCHAR TRIALBALLARAT 2013/14

TOTAL YIELD

YIE

LD

(T

/HA

)

Improvement in Saleable Seed Potatoes of 10% with 10% Biochar Replacement

97.5

%NPK/2

.5%

BC

95%

NPK/5%

BC

90%

NPK/10%

BC

80%

NPK/20%

BC

60%

NPK/40%

BC

100%

NPK/10%

BC

Contro

l0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

BIOCHAR TRIALBALLARAT 2013/14

PACKOUT PERCENTAGE

Results of Trials; Economics

• Farmer is only paid for the potato seedlings that are in the correct size range 120-150mm. The amount is given in the previous graph

• The amount earnt per hectare if 10% of biochar and 90% NPK is used is $23,100

• The amount earnt per hecatare if 100% NPK is used is $14,000

• By replacing approximately 80kg of NPK with an enhanced biochar the profit could be as high as $9100/hectare

Conservation Farming in Wheat Fields in South Australia

1.Injection of poultry litter biochar with diamonnium phosphate (DAP) underneath seeds in bands using a direct drilling seeder.

2.No Till Farming in calcareous soil with pH approximately 8.

3.Three replicates plots 1.5m by 13.5m

4.Various ratios of poultry litter biochar and DAP

5.Third year of testing on different sites. Same Trend as this test

2.000

2.200

2.400

2.600

2.800

3.000

3.200

3.400

Effect of banding Poultry Litter Biochar and DAP on Wheat Yield

DD

DCD

BCABAB

A A

Yield

(t/

ha)

Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 DAP kg/ha - 50 50 50 100 100 100 - -PL Biochar kg/ha - - 35 100 - 35 100 35 100 Mean Yield T/ha 2.517 2.612 2.899 2.876 2.943 3.132 3.124 2.654 2.555

3 replicates and random block design

Farmer with 500 hectares of Marginal Wheat Producing Fields Adds 35kg/ha of BC ($400/tonne) and 50kg/ha of DAP ($640/tonne) makes $50,000 more than apply 50kg/ha DAP

Conclusions; Biochar in Conservation Farming

1. Banding small amounts of high mineral ash biochar with chemical fertilisers the most profitable strategy for farmers with large amount of marginal land

2. Optimal ratio of biochar/DAP for different soils and different biochar types

3. Experience indicates that the high mineral ash biochars leads to greatest increase in yields for a constant chemical fertiliser input

4. Need to develop enhanced biochars that can boost yield well above 20% to really induce farmers to change their agronomic practice

Biochar For Waste Management; Where a Gate Fee and Electricity Subsidies Makes It Feasible

Feasibility of building a commercial demonstration plant capable of processing 30,000tyr-1 of dry organic waste in Adelaide Australia. The feedstocks could include green waste, wood waste, food waste and other organic waste material. The Waste Management company receives around 75% of Adelaide’s kerbside green organics as well as receiving some clean timber, clean green, food and biosolid waste. Gate fees and the cost of processing each waste vary considerably for different feedstocks

The market potential around Adelaide to be approximately 20,000 Mg y-1 and the expected price for biochar of $US130 Mg-1 and $US70/MWhr.

Biochar For Waste Management; Where Scale, a Gate Fee and Electricity Subsidies Makes It

Feasible for a Very Large PlantCompany Offer a b cCapacity tph 5 4 7Bio-Char (t) 44,413 115,813 99,422Electricity (MWhr) 396,932 368,960 792,134Oil (t) 0 0 0

Pyrolysis Equip Capex ($000AUD) $20,816 $18,662 $24,246

Total CapEx      

Total Operating Costs (Excluding interest and Income tax expense)

$102,017 $93,232 $126,178

EBITDA $34,264 $35,707 $98,733

Net Cash Proceeds after interest and tax $35,618 $36,337 $91,744

IRR 3.66% 4.86% 12.41%

Adding Small Quantities of Biochar to Pig Feed; Experiment from Nanjing Agricultural University

Increase of $12,250/yr.

Tools For Development of Formulations

• Collect/Utilise local knowledge from Innovative farmers

• Use existing guidelines for the supply of nutrients for different applications

• Established methods for determining soil constraints and measuring nutrient uptake efficiency

• If possible understand the effects of different BC application rates to plant disease response

Tools For Development of Formulations

• Determine what pyrolysis conditions, additives or surface treatments are required to improve specific characteristics of biochar (e.g. Mg helps adsorb P; Fe and Mn compounds assist in heavy metal uptake).

• Determine specific nutrient requirements for animals and then enhance biochar with these

• Need to use this information to develop cost effective formulations

Project definition- Crop; - expected yield (t/ha)- cultivation area (ha)- total expected output (t)

Crop Element Requirement- requirement db (kg/t) from db- total element requirement (kg)

Crop database - Crop Element Requirement (kg/t)- Desired pH and Eh for Optimal Growth and improvement in beneficial micro-organisms-

Soil specification- Soil Elements (kg/ha) from db- Available soil elements (kg/ha)- Nutrient Uptake Efficiency (%)- Total element available (kg)

Soil database (external)- Soil Type and basic properties - Soil Elements (kg/ha)- Soil physical and chemical constraints .

Fertilizer composition- biochar composition (t)- Material selection (t)- total elements added (kg)

Material database- Material Element contents (kg/t)- pH EC, Eh, Available NPK, DOC, CEC

Bussiness scenario- Total costs- Total quantities-Total Income-Total Profit

Bio-char composition- local available biomass (t)- material / labour costs- other (t) - Total elements added (kg)

Bussiness scenarios - Income, costs, profit- materials used

Proposed Methodology for Developing Cost Effective Biochar Formulations

Key Questions

• How do we persuade entrepreneurs/venture capitalists/governments to fund a new biochar based fertiliser industry?

• How do we build multidisciplinary teams to develop new cost effective products and more cost effective pyrolysis systems?

• How do we empower farmers to innovate with biochar as they can provide a faster path for product development?

• Shifting paradigms in research so that fit for purpose biochars are applied at rates that will provide a more profitable and sustainable income to farmers?