Journal Home > Volume 4 , Issue 1
Forest Ecosystems 2017, 4(1): 21 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0081-8
Research | Open Access | Issue | Published: 14 September 2016

Life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and biochar land application in Northwestern Ontario, Canada

Show Author's Information Krish Homagain1 ( ),  Chander Shahi1,  Nancy Luckai1,  Mahadev Sharma2
Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Rd., Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada
Ontario Forest Research Institute, 1235 Queen Street E, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2E5, Canada
Keywords:
Pyrolysis, Biomass, LCA, Biochar, LCCA, SimaPro, Bioenergy, Wood Pellets
Cite this article:
Homagain K, Shahi C, Luckai N, et al. Life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and biochar land application in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Forest Ecosystems, 2017, 4(1): 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-016-0081-8
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

467

Views

8

Downloads

Citations

65

Crossref

N/A

WoS

74

Scopus

0

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article
Background

Replacement of fossil fuel based energy with biochar-based bioenergy production can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change and global warming. However, the production of biochar-based bioenergy depends on a sustainable supply of biomass. Although, Northwestern Ontario has a rich and sustainable supply of woody biomass, a comprehensive life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production technology has not been done so far in the region.

Methods

In this paper, we conducted a thorough life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) of biochar-based bioenergy production and its land application under four different scenarios: 1) biochar production with low feedstock availability; 2) biochar production with high feedstock availability; 3) biochar production with low feedstock availability and its land application; and 4) biochar production with high feedstock availability and its land application- using SimaProⓇ, EIOLCAⓇ software and spreadsheet modeling. Based on the LCCA results, we further conducted an economic assessment for the break-even and viability of this technology over the project period.

Results

It was found that the economic viability of biochar-based bioenergy production system within the life cycle analysis system boundary based on study assumptions is directly dependent on costs of pyrolysis, feedstock processing (drying, grinding and pelletization) and collection on site and the value of total carbon offset provided by the system. Sensitivity analysis of transportation distance and different values of C offset showed that the system is profitable in case of high biomass availability within 200 km and when the cost of carbon sequestration exceeds CAD ＄60 per tonne of equivalent carbon (CO2e).

Conclusions

Biochar-based bioenergy system is economically viable when life cycle costs and environmental assumptions are accounted for. This study provides a medium scale slow-pyrolysis plant scenario and we recommend similar experiments with large-scale plants in order to implement the technology at industrial scale.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

Life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and biochar land application in Northwestern Ontario, Canada

Show Author's information Krish Homagain1 ( ), Chander Shahi1, Nancy Luckai1, Mahadev Sharma2
Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Rd., Thunder Bay, ON P7B 5E1, Canada
Ontario Forest Research Institute, 1235 Queen Street E, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2E5, Canada

Abstract

Background

Replacement of fossil fuel based energy with biochar-based bioenergy production can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change and global warming. However, the production of biochar-based bioenergy depends on a sustainable supply of biomass. Although, Northwestern Ontario has a rich and sustainable supply of woody biomass, a comprehensive life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production technology has not been done so far in the region.

Methods

In this paper, we conducted a thorough life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) of biochar-based bioenergy production and its land application under four different scenarios: 1) biochar production with low feedstock availability; 2) biochar production with high feedstock availability; 3) biochar production with low feedstock availability and its land application; and 4) biochar production with high feedstock availability and its land application- using SimaProⓇ, EIOLCAⓇ software and spreadsheet modeling. Based on the LCCA results, we further conducted an economic assessment for the break-even and viability of this technology over the project period.

Results

It was found that the economic viability of biochar-based bioenergy production system within the life cycle analysis system boundary based on study assumptions is directly dependent on costs of pyrolysis, feedstock processing (drying, grinding and pelletization) and collection on site and the value of total carbon offset provided by the system. Sensitivity analysis of transportation distance and different values of C offset showed that the system is profitable in case of high biomass availability within 200 km and when the cost of carbon sequestration exceeds CAD ＄60 per tonne of equivalent carbon (CO2e).

Conclusions

Biochar-based bioenergy system is economically viable when life cycle costs and environmental assumptions are accounted for. This study provides a medium scale slow-pyrolysis plant scenario and we recommend similar experiments with large-scale plants in order to implement the technology at industrial scale.

Keywords: Pyrolysis, Biomass, LCA, Biochar, LCCA, SimaPro, Bioenergy, Wood Pellets

References(47)

AAFC Agriculture and Agri Food Canada (2008) Analysis of the logistical costs associated with second generation biofuel feedstocks modelled supply chain logistical costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production in Canada. http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/publications/economic-publications/alphabetical-listing/analysis-of-the-logisticalcosts-associated-with-second-generation-biofuel-feedstocks-modelled-supply-chain-logistical-costs-associatedwith-cellulosic-ethanol-production-in-canada/?id=1247181726624

Alam MB, Pulkki R, Shahi C (2012) Woody biomass availability for bioenergy production using forest depletion spatial data in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(3):506-516
DOI Google Scholar
Bank of Canada (2013) Selected historical interest rates for Canada. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/interestrates/selected-historical-interest-rates/

Bruun EW, Muller-Stover D, Ambus P, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2011) Application of biochar to soil and N2O emissions: potential effects of blending fast-pyrolysis biochar with anaerobically digested slurry. Eur J Soil Sci 62:581-589
DOI Google Scholar

Cleary J, Wolf DP, Caspersen JP (2015) Comparing the life cycle costs of using harvest residue as feedstock for small- and large-scale bioenergy systems (part Ⅱ). Energy 86:539-547
DOI Google Scholar
Coleman M, Page-Dumroese D, Archuleta J, Badger B, Chung W, Venn T, Loeffler D, Jones G, and McElligott K (2010) Can Portable Pyrolysis Units Make Biomass Utilization Affordable While Using Bio-Char to Enhance Soil Productivity and Sequester Carbon? USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-61. 2010
EPA Environment Protection Agency (2010) Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Environment Protection Agency USA. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses

Galinato SP, Yoder JK, Granatstein D (2011) The economic value of biochar in crop production and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy 39:6344-6350
DOI Google Scholar

Gautam S, Pulkki R, Shahi C, Leitch M (2010) Economic and energy efficiency of salvaging biomass from wildfire burnt areas for bioenergy production in northwestern Ontario: A case study. Biomass & Bioenergy 34:1562-1572
DOI Google Scholar
GDI Green Development Institute (2010) Environmental input output life cycle assessment. http://www.eiolca.net/

Hacatoglu K, James McLellan P, Layzell DB (2011) Feasibility study of a Great Lakes bioenergy system. Bioresource Technology 102(2):1087-1094
DOI Google Scholar

Homagain K, Shahi C, Luckai N, Sharma M (2015) Life cycle environmental impact assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and utilization in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. J For Res 26:799-809
DOI Google Scholar
IBI International Biochar Initiative (2016) Biochar research and educational resources. http://www.biocharinternational.org/research/education [Accessed 10 Dec 2015]
IEA International Energy Agency (2015) World Energy outlook 2015: Executive summary. Paris, France
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency (2012) Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series. Biomass for power generation Volume 1. https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-BIOMASS.pdf

Kaliyan N, Morey RV, Tiffany DG (2015) Economic and environmental analysis for corn stover and switchgrass supply logistics. Bioenergy Res 8:1433-1448
DOI Google Scholar
Kennedy M, Wong R, Vandenbroek A, Lovekin D, Raynolds M (2011) Biomass Sustainability Analysis. An assessment of Ontario-sourced forest-based biomass for electricity generation. FINAL REPORT. Revision C. Pembina Institute, Alberta

Klinar D (2016) Universal model of slow pyrolysis technology producing biochar and heat from standard biomass needed for the techno-economic assessment. Bioresour Technol 206:112-120
DOI Google Scholar
Kulyk N (2012) Cost-benefit analysis of the biochar application in the U.S. Cereal Crop Cultivation. Technical Report # 12. Center for Public Policy and Administration University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Kung CC, Mccarl BA, Cao XY (2013) Economics of pyrolysis-based energy production and biochar utilization: A case study in Taiwan. Energy Policy 60:317-323
DOI Google Scholar
Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for environmental management: An introduction. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management science and technology. Earthscan, London, Washington D.C., pp 1-12
Lyman R (2015) Climate change targets for Canada examining the implications. The Road to Paris—Climate Change Talks December 2015. http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/climate_change_implications_Lyman.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2016

Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J (2010) Maize yield and nutrition during 4Â years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant and Soil 333(1-2):117-128
DOI Google Scholar
McCarl BA, Peacoke C, Chrisman R, Kung C-C, Sands RD (2009) Economics of biochar production, utilization and greenhouse gas offsets. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management science and technology. Earthscan, London, Washington D.C., pp 341-358
McElligott K, Page-Dumroese D, Coleman M (2011) Bioenergy production systems and biochar application in forests: potential for renewable energy, soil enhancement, and carbon sequestration. RN-46. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, pp 1-14https://doi.org/10.2737/RMRS-RN-46
DOI
MNRF Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2015) Forest management units in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. http://www.efmp.lrc.gov.on.ca/eFMP/home.do
MOECC Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (2015) Ontario carbon target news release. Ontario ministry of environment and climate change. https://news.ontario.ca/ene/en/2015/05/ontario-first-province-incanada-to-set-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target.html
NREL National Renewal Energy Laboratory (2010) Techno-Economic Analysis of Biomass Fast Pyrolysis to Transportation Fuels. National Renewal Energy Laboratory of the United States. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46586 November 2010. p73.
OPG Ontario Power Generation (2012) Atikokan Generating Station bio-mass fuel suppliers announced: meeting the needs of a growing economy in Northwestern Ontario. http://www.opg.com/news/releases/121122Atikokan%20Fuel%20Contracts_FINAL.pdf [Assessed 13 July 2014]

Patel M, Zhang XL, Kumar A (2016) Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 53:1486-1499
DOI Google Scholar
PowerMax (2015) 1000kw Biomass pyrolysis/gasification system technical specification. http://powermax1234.en.ec21.com/Biomass_Gasifier_Power_Plant-7762130_7762661.html

Pratt K, Moran D (2010) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of global biochar mitigation potential. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1149-1158
DOI Google Scholar
PRé Consultants (2013) SimaPro Software for life cycle assessment. www.pre-sustainability.com/software. Accessed May 2014.

Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR, Lehmann J (2010) Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential. Environ Sci Technol 44:827-833
DOI Google Scholar

Rogers JG, Brammer JG (2012) Estimation of the production cost of fast pyrolysis bio-oil. Biomass Bioenergy 36:208-217
DOI Google Scholar

Ronsse F, van Hecke S, Dickinson D, Prins W (2013) Production and characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. GCB Bioenergy 5:104-115
DOI Google Scholar

Shackley S, Hammond J, Gaunt J, Ibarrola R (2011) The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Manage 2:335-356
DOI Google Scholar

Simon D, Tyner WE, Jacquet F (2010) Economic analysis of the potential of cellulosic biomass available in France from agricultural residue and energy crops. Bioenergy Res 3:183-193
DOI Google Scholar

Sohi SP (2013) Pyrolysis bioenergy with biochar production-greater carbon abatement and benefits to soil. GCB Bioenergy 5:i-iii
DOI Google Scholar

Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Archer DW, Ippolito JA, Collins HP, Boateng AA, Lima IM, Lamb MC, McAloon AJ, Lentz RD, Nichols KA (2012) Biochar: A synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J Environ Qual 41:973-989
DOI Google Scholar

Upadhyay TP, Shahi C, Leitch M, Pulkki R (2012) Economic feasibility of biomass gasification for power generation in three selected communities of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Energy Policy 44:235-244
DOI Google Scholar

Winsley P (2007) Biochar and bioenergy production for climate change mitigation. NZ Sci Rev 64:5-10
Google Scholar
Wood SM, Layzell DB (2003) A Canadian Biomass Inventory: Feedstocks for a Bio-based Economy. BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Queen's University Ontario, Canada

Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1:56
DOI Google Scholar
WPAC Wood pellet association of Canada (2013) Canadian Wood Pellet production outlook 2013. Wood pellet association of Canada. http://www.pellet.org/about/publications

Yoder J, Galinato S, Granatstein D, Garcia-Prez M (2011) Economic tradeoff between biochar and bio-oil production via pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1851-1862
DOI Google Scholar
Zhang Y (2010) Life cycle environmental and cost evaluation of bioenergy systems. University of Toronto, Dissertation
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 31 May 2016
Accepted: 26 August 2016
Published: 14 September 2016
Issue date: March 2017

Copyright

© 2016 The Author(s).

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Financial contributions from (1) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through Industrial Postgraduate Scholarships (NSERC-IPS), (2) Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) and (3) Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for this study are highly acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Return