Vol 447|10 May 2007
COMMENTARY
A handful of carbon
Locking carbon up in soil makes more sense than storing it in plants and trees that eventually decompose,
argues Johannes Lehmann. Can this idea work on a large scale?
o meet the challenges of global climate
T change, greenhouse-gas emissions must
be reduced. Emissions from fossil fuels
are the largest contributor to the anthropo-
genic greenhouse effect, so a reduction in fos-
sil-energy use is a clear priority1. Yet, because
some emissions will be unavoidable, a respon-
sible strategy also means actively withdrawing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere2. Such
carbon sequestration faces multi-faceted chal-
lenges: the net withdrawal of carbon dioxide
must be long term and substantial, the process
must be accountable and must have a low risk
of rapid or large-scale leakage. One near-term
technology that can meet these requirements
is biochar sequestration. When combined
with bioenergy production, it is a clean energy
technology that reduces emissions as well as
sequesters carbon3. In my view, it is therefore
an attractive target for energy subsidies and for
inclusion in the global carbon market.
An existing approach to removing carbon
from the atmosphere is to grow plants that
sequester carbon dioxide in their biomass or
in soil organic matter2 (see graphic, overleaf).
Indeed, methods for sequestering carbon diox-
ide through afforestation have already been
accepted as tradable carbon offsets under
the Kyoto Protocol. But this sequestration can
be taken a step further by heating the plant
biomass without oxygen (a process known as
low-temperature pyrolysis). Pyrolysis converts
trees, grasses or crop residues into biochar, with
twofold higher carbon content than ordinary
J. LEHMANN
Sequestering biochar in soil, which makes soil
darker in colour, is a robust way to store carbon.
biomass. Moreover, biochar locks up rapidly The bottom line is that plant biomass
decomposing carbon in plant biomass in a
much more durable form4.
decomposes in a relatively short period of time,
whereas biochar is orders of magnitudes more
stable. So given a certain amount of carbon that
No limits cycles annually through plants, half of it can be
The precise duration of biochars storage taken out of its natural cycle and sequestered
time is under debate, with opinions ranging in a much slower biochar cycle (see graphic).
from millennial (as some dating of naturally By withdrawing organic carbon from the cycle
occurring biochar suggests) to centennial of photosynthesis and decomposition, biochar
timescales (as indicated by some field and sequestration directly removes carbon diox-
laboratory trials)5. Whether biochar remains ide from the atmosphere. Pyrolysis does have
in soils for hundreds or thousands of years, it costs associated with the machinery and heat-
would be considered a long-term ing (around US$4 per gigajoule)
sink for the purposes of reduc- Biochar offers and is dependent on a supply of
ing carbon dioxide emissions. the chance to turn cheap biomass. But the bigger
Moreover, the storage capacity question is whether this approach
of biochar is not limited in the bioenergy into a can be scaled up to national and
same way as biomass sequestra- carbon-negative regional, or even global, scales.
tion through afforestation, con- industry. At the local or field scale, bio-
version to grassland or no-tillage char can usefully enhance exist-
agriculture2. Agricultural lands converted to ing sequestration approaches. It can be mixed
no-tillage, for example, may cease to capture with manures or fertilizers and included in
additional carbon after 1520 years, and even no-tillage methods, without the need for addi-
forests eventually mature over decadal and tional equipment. Biochar has been shown to
centennial timescales and start to release as improve the structure and fertility of soils,
much carbon dioxide as they take up. thereby improving biomass production 3 .
Biochar is a lower-risk strategy than other Biochar not only enhances the retention6 and
sequestration options, in which stored carbon therefore efficiency of fertilizers but may, by
can be released, say, by forest fires, by convert- the same mechanism, also decrease fertilizer
ing no-tillage back to conventional tillage, or run-off.
by leaks from geological carbon storage. Once For biochar sequestration to work on a much
biochar is incorporated into soil, it is difficult to larger scale, an important factor is combining
imagine any incident or change in practice that low-temperature pyrolysis with simultaneous
would cause a sudden loss of stored carbon. capture of the exhaust gases and converting
143
COMMENTARY NATURE|Vol 447|10 May 2007

Net carbon withdrawal Net carbon withdrawal This calculation does not consider the indi-
from atmosphere: 0% from atmosphere: 20%
rect benefits associated with biochar which
do not currently have a dollar value from
reduced pollution of surface or groundwaters.
CO2 CO2 Subsidies to support biochar sequestration, in
conjunction with bioenergy production, would
is

is
tosynthes

tosynthes
Respiration be sufficient to jump-start this technology. US

Respiration
Senator Ken Salazar is working on compre-

Carbon release 50%

Carbon release ~5%

hensive legislation, as part of the 2007 Farm
Pho

Pho

25%
Bill, that would provide significant support for
biochar research and development.

Easy to monitor

50%
When it comes to including biochar in emis-
Bioenergy: sions-trading schemes, accountability is more
carbon neutral straightforward than with other soil seques-
50%

Pyrolysis 25% (reduces tration methods. Both the conversion of

emissions biomass into biochar and its application to
from fossil fuels)
soil are readily monitored, without additional
25%
costs. No complex predictive models or ana-
lytical tools are required, as is the case with
Soil carbon Biochar other soil sequestration approaches. The
source of biochar additions can easily be iden-
Biochar sequestration: tified by soil analyses, if desired for verifica-
Carbon sequestration
carbon negative
by photosynthesis:
(reduces emissions tion under carbon-trading schemes. Tracing
carbon neutral the source of carbon in soil back to a change in
from biomass)
agricultural practice, or other photosynthetic
them to energy as heat, electricity, biofuel or by photosynthesis suggest that converting all source, is much more difficult, and therefore
hydrogen3. Depending on the feedstock used US cropland to Conservation Reserve Pro- currently not accepted under the Kyoto Pro-
and bioenergy produced, low-temperature grams in which farmers are paid to plant tocol. Because these barriers do not exist for
pyrolysis with gas capture (but no sequestra- their land with native grasses or to no-tillage biochar sequestration, in my opinion there is
tion) can be a carbon-neutral energy source. would sequester 3.6% of US emissions per year no reason why the associated emission reduc-
Most companies that generate bioenergy in this during the first few decades after conversion9; tions should not be allowed into trading mar-
way view biochar merely as a byproduct that that is, just a third of what one of kets under current agreements.
can itself be burned to offset fossil-fuel use and the above biochar approaches can Would returning The consequences of climate
reduce costs. But our calculations suggest that theoretically achieve. Although biochar to the change are already being felt1
emissions reductions can be 1284% greater these calculations highlight the and there is an urgency not only
if biochar is put back into the soil instead of potential of biochar, realistic
soil make more to identify but also to implement
being burned to offset fossil-fuel use7. Biochar projections will require rigorous financial sense solutions. Biochar sequestration
sequestration offers the chance to turn bioen- economic and environmental than burning it? does not require a fundamental
ergy into a carbon-negative industry. analyses10. scientific advance and the under-
The million-dollar question is: can biochar Most, if not all, approaches to bioenergy, lying production technology is robust and sim-
sequestration and the associated bioenergy including corn ethanol production, are costly. ple, making it appropriate for many regions of
production make a real difference to national Pyrolysis plants that use biochar to offset fos- the world. It does, however, require studies to
and global carbon budgets? sil-fuel consumption are financially viable only optimize biochar properties and to evaluate
when inexpensive feedstock is continuously the economic costs and benefits of large-scale
Promising approaches available in sufficient quantities, for example deployment.
I have calculated emissions reductions for animal wastes, clean municipal wastes or for- Johannes Lehmann is in the Department of Crop
three separate biochar approaches that can est residues collected for fire prevention. But and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
each sequester about 10% of the annual US would returning biochar to the soil make more York 14853, USA.
fossil-fuel emissions (1.6 billion tonnes of financial sense than burning it? There are some
carbon in 2005)8. First, pyrolysis of forest potential savings to be made by reduced ferti- 1. IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (2007).
residues (assuming 3.5 tonnes biomass per lizer use and through possible gains in agri- 2. Lackner, K. S. Science 300, 16771678 (2003).
hectare per year) from 200 million hectares of cultural productivity, but the answer to this 3. Lehmann, J. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (in the
US forests that are used for timber production; question depends largely on the value that car- press).
4. Baldock, J. A. & Smernik, R. J. Org. Geochem. 33, 10931109
second, pyrolysis of fast-growing vegetation bon markets assign to emissions reductions. (2002).
(20 tonnes biomass per hectare per year) At present, the Chicago Climate Exchange 5. Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. & Rondon, M. Mitigation Adapt.
grown on 30 million hectares of idle US crop- is trading carbon dioxide at US$4 per tonne. Strateg. Glob. Change 11, 403427 (2006).
Liang, B. et al. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 17191730 (2006).
land for this purpose; third, pyrolysis of crop These prices are expected to rise over the com- 6. 7. Gaunt, J. & Lehmann, J. Presentation at Power-Gen
residues (5.5 tonnes biomass per hectare per ing years to decades to US$2585 per tonne, Renewable Energy and Fuels From Plant to Power Plant
year) for 120 million hectares of harvested US assuming that societies accept the social costs (Las Vegas, 6 March 2007).
cropland. In each case, the biochar generated of climate change11. We calculate that biochar 8. report EIA Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2005
number DOE/EIA-0573 (2006).
by pyrolysis is returned to the soil and not sequestration in conjunction with bioenergy 9. Jackson, R. B. & Schlesinger, W. H. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
burned to offset fossil-fuel use5. Even greater from pyrolysis becomes economically attrac- 45, 1582715829 (2004).
emissions reductions are possible if pyrolysis tive7, under one specific scenario, when the 10. McCarl, B. A. & Schneider, U. A. Science 294, 24812482
(2001).
gases are captured for bioenergy production. value of avoided carbon dioxide emissions 11. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review
Similar calculations for carbon sequestration reaches $37 per tonne. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

144