Energy 36 (2011) 2011e2016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Biochar as a viable carbon sequestration option: Global and Canadian perspective

Darko Matovic*
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queens University, 99 University St, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 11 January 2010
Received in revised form
19 August 2010
Accepted 18 September 2010
Available online 25 October 2010

Biochar production and mixing in soil are seen as the best options for atmospheric carbon sequestration,
providing simultaneous benets to soil and opportunities for distributed energy generation. The proximity of biomass source and biochar dispersal greatly reduces the energy and emissions footprint of the
whole process. The viability of the whole biochar process is examined from two boundary points: is there
enough biomass around to have signicant impact on the atmospheric CO2 levels and is there enough
soil area for biochar dispersal. The answers are soundly positive, both for the world as a whole and for
Canada, for which a more detailed analysis was done. However, the massive adoption of biochar solution
is critically dependent on proper recognition of its carbon sequestration impact its soil improvement
potentials. To that extent the International Biochar Initiative, together with national chapters, including
recently formed Canadian Biochar Initiative, are actively promoting biochar related research and policy
framework. This paper addresses the questions of availability of sources and sites that would benet
from its dispersal.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Biochar
Carbon sequestration
Global warming
Forestry
Forest re
Biomass

1. Introduction
Current trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration calls for
dramatic reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions in order to
avoid runaway scenario of potentially catastrophic temperature
and sea level rise. The annual mean CO2 growth rate was signicantly higher for the period from 2000 to 2005 (4.1
0.1 Pg/yr),
compared with the ux in the 1990s (3.2
0.1 Pg/yr), even though
only 45% of combined anthropogenic emissions have remained in
the atmosphere, the rest being naturally sequestered by terrestrial
and oceanic systems ([1], p. 515). In addition to curbing the fossil
fuel and cement industry CO2 emissions, several strategies for CO2
sequestration are being proposed. A special IPCC report on carbon
capture and storage (CCS) [2] lists seven climate change mitigation
options: carbon capture and storage, energy efciency, switch to
low-carbon fuels, nuclear power, renewable energy, enhancement
of biological sinks and reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gas
emissions. Of these options, only enhancement of biological sinks
and CCS from biomass combustion products can remove CO2
already in the atmosphere. Other mitigation options only reduce or
prevent further emissions. CCS is energy intensive option requiring
additional emissions associated with carbon capture. A natural gas
power plant (even when in combined cycle) emits equal or less

* Tel.: 1 613 533 6824; fax: 1 613 533 6489.

E-mail address: darko@me.queensu.ca.
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.031

amount of CO2 than the one run on coal, with CCS [3]. It is estimated
that CCS in Europe in 2020 will result in an increase in the
production cost of electricity by coal and natural gas technologies of
30e55% [4]. Little is known about the long-term storage issues [5],
from slow seepage into the atmosphere or sea water to the catastrophic release as in the case of LakeNyos disaster [6]. Overall, CCS
has many obstacles to overcome, if it was to become a viable carbon
emissions reduction strategy, and even then, the expected time
frame for full implementation may be around 2050 [2]. Other
proposed methods include injecting CO2 into chemically reactive
rock, even dead wood burial [7].
Production and deposition of biochar (or black carbon, as it is
sometimes called [8]) into the soil are rapidly gaining recognition as
a viable option in permanent carbon storage, while its benets to
soil fertility continue to emerge.
A number of methods can be used for producing biochar.
Modern biochar is a product that can be manufactured from
almost any uncontaminated organic matter, such as crop residues,
bark, stem timber (logs), non-stem logging residues (bark,
branches, tree-tops), various grasses and agricultural plant residues. The main processes for modern char production are fast or
slow pyrolysis (biomass heating without air or oxygen) or gasication (run in the regime that leaves charcoal residue). Biochar
production is typically self sufcient in energy requirements and
can produce surplus energy as heat or biofuel for use in various
energy conversion processes, including transportation and electricity production.

2012

D. Matovic / Energy 36 (2011) 2011e2016

This paper is focused on three aspects of biochar production

and dispersion:
1. Can we offset the full annual CO2 level increase by using
biochar?
2. How much carbon can be sequestered worldwide and in
Canada?
3. Is there enough soil area for its dispersal?

avoidable (e.g. dust exposure during application, soil compaction

and risk of passing the contaminants to the soil if biochar is
produced from contaminated source material, esp. if it contains
heavy metals). Other potential pitfalls, such as the loss of minerals if
the crop residues are removed for char production to be dispersed
elsewhere, can easily be avoided by the appropriate policies in
biochar production and use.
2. Potentials for carbon removal: world

The anthropogenic impact on carbon dioxide atmospheric levels

can principally be attacked in three ways: (a) CO2 production
reduction via phasing out fossil fuel use; (b) CO2 capturing and
storage from the source and (c) CO2 capturing and storage from the
air. Of course, the overall strategy that is pursued now and will be
pursued in the near future is a mix of all three. For completeness,
we should add the fourth mechanism for the atmospheric CO2
reduction, namely, natural capture via terrestrial carbon cycle. In
fact, it is this last mechanism that is mostly counted on for climate
change mediation, combined with emission reductions. Direct
capture from the source (e.g. power plant ue gases) seems to be
favoured among all the capturing options by the policy makers
today, although it is limited to large scale plants situated in good
location. Currently, most economically viable projects are those
that combine CCS with oil/gas extraction, already practiced in US,
Canada, Brazil, Turkey, Hungary, Croatia, Norway and few other
countries [9,10].
Carbon capture from air is being contemplated on an industrial
scale by the closed-cycle sodium hydroxide absorption at a cost of
$500/tC (USD), or by a combination of biomass with carbon capture
and sequestering at roughly half the cost [11]. Signicant cost, both
in energy and nance, is associated with compressing carbon
dioxide and pumping it into the ground. Biochar production and
distribution do not incur that cost at all, and offer additional agricultural and ecological benets. This triple benet puts is in
a unique position among various sequestration options: it can be
produced by relatively simple processes (that need to be nonpolluting, nevertheless), it can be produced wherever there is
biomass and soil (i.e. practically everywhere) and it improves soil
quality. The role of biochar as a viable sequestration vehicle has
recently been recognized formally, in the draft negotiating text for
the upcoming Copenhagen round of Climate Change talks:
Consideration should be given to the role of soils in carbon
sequestration, including through the use of biochar and enhancing
carbon sinks in drylands [12].
What is the optimal amount of biochar addition to soil? Kurth
et al. [13] investigated different soils that have undergone 1e3
forest res in the last 100 years and found that they contain
between 0.3% and 0.9% of charcoal. Estimates of the optimum in
agricultural soil range between 1% and 5%. For purposes of this
study, it is assumed that the charcoal is added to the soil at the 3%
level to the top 30 cm, i.e. 13.5 t/ha.
The question of biochar interaction with soils, while important
and even critical to the policy of biochar incorporation into arable
soils, is beyond the scope of this paper. A recent comprehensive
review done by the EU commission [14] found . a small overall,
but statistically signicant, positive effect of biochar application to
soils on plant productivity in the majority of cases. The greatest
positive effects were seen on acidic free-draining soils. M work
needs to be done in this area, leading to more specic knowledge
about optimal conditions and concentrations in various agricultural
scenarios. Black carbon is also seen as benecial in binding
anthropogenic hydrophobic organic compounds (e.g. persistent
aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyl, pesticide and
herbicides) in soil, responsible for 80e90% of total uptake of trace
HOC in soils [15]. The negative effects of biochar on soil are mainly

Storing biochar rather than burning it forfeits 32 MJ/kg  C of

heat energy. This is certainly more than CCS penalty, estimated at
10e30% for large power plants [2]. However, CCS can only be
applied in the very specic cases of large-scale power plants close
to suitable storage reservoirs. Optimal siting for CO2 storage usually
invokes efciency penalty, since combined heat and power (CHP)
utilization opportunities are lost. It is often quoted that the largescale power plans have higher efciency, and this is certainly true
if measured by the ratio of fuel caloric value to electricity produced
(up to 40%). In reality, smaller, community-based CHP plants achieve much higher overall efciencies, around 75%. In addition,
charcoal production can be done in a much more distributed way,
e.g. on farms and forest grounds, drastically reducing transportation costs and energy use both for biomass supply and for
charcoal dispersal. An additional efciency penalty, when biomass
is used in large energy plants is in transportation. Lower caloric
value of biomass (per weight and especially per volume) means
that substantial amount of energy is lost in transportation.
If we focus now on biochar production and distribution/storage,
we rst ask if there is enough raw material available to have
a meaningful impact on the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Fig. 1
illustrates overall carbon budget for all planetary ecosystems
(atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic) ([1], p. 515). The arrows with
numbers represent annual uxes in GtC/yr, while the numbers in
the boxes represent the totals contained in each reservoir (atmosphere, vegetation, soil & detritus, fossil fuel reservoirs, surface,
intermediate and deep ocean, marine biota and ocean bottom
surface sediments). The reservoir gures do not include the lithographic storage, estimated at 20 PtC, i.e. 99.8% of the total terrestrial
carbon [16], since it can be considered inert on a millennial and
shorter time scales. Anthropogenic annual emissions of carbon due
to fossil fuel use and cement production are 7.2
0.3 GtC/yr in
2000e2005 period, as indicated in ref. [1], Table 7.1, page. 516. Of
this total, 4.1 GtC/yr remains in the atmosphere, increasing the CO2
concentration, while 3.1 GtC/yr is being absorbed by terrestrial and
oceanic systems (1 GtC/yr and 2.1 GtC/yr, respectively), as indicated
in Fig. 1.
To examine the potential for carbon sequestration via terrestrial
biomass conversion to biochar we will assume that the biomass
available for conversion is 10% of the net primary production (NPP),
currently estimated at 60.6 Gt/yr [17]. This estimate ts well within
the range of 15 models reviewed in [18], placing NPP in the
44.4e66.3 GtC/yr range. Further calculations are summarized in
Table 1.
As seen in the table, 10% of NPP of biomass would be more than
sufcient to offset the entire annual CO2 increase in the atmosphere
(4.8 vs. 4.1 GtC/yr). The next question is where this amount of
biochar would be dispersed. As will be discussed later, the most
benecial use of biochar is in mixing it with soil. As a soil constituent it is both chemically stable and biologically benecial. If we
assume adding 3% of biochar (by mass) into the top 30 cm of the
total agricultural land area (standing at w45 mil. km2 worldwide
[19]), the capacity worldwide would be 600 GtC of biochar. The
average soil density for this calculation was assumed to be 1.5 t/m3
(Loam with 40% sand, 22% clay and 38% silt [20]), amounting to 13.5

D. Matovic / Energy 36 (2011) 2011e2016

2013

Fig. 1. The global annual carbon cycle with anthropogenic uxes adjusted for the 2000e2005 period, showing the main annual uxes (arrows) and reservoir sizes (gures in boxes).
All units are in GtC for reservoirs and GtC/yr for uxes. Pre-industrial natural uxes and reservoir sizes are shown in black, anthropogenic ones are shown in red. Source: IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, p. 515, adjusted with Tables 7.1 and 7.2 data from the same report.

tones of charcoal per hectare. At the rate of 3 GtC/yr, this potential

reservoir would be available for 2 centuries. The brief analysis
above has been done for natural new biomass growth only. Even
more could be achieved by utilizing short rotation biomass crops,
such as poplar and willow. Estimates of that potential are outside
the scope of this paper.
The deposition of biochar into agricultural soil seems to provide
several benets to soil quality. Laboratory research [21,22] and
historical ndings [23,24] indicate that incorporation of charcoal
into the soil has demonstrable benets to soil fertility, recognized
both in the laboratory and by traditional soil management practices
on a millennial scale. This is particularly demonstrated in the
Amazon region of South America, where the patches of dark,
almost black soil are scattered in sizes from 0.5 ha to more than
120 ha. Research into these soils conrmed anthropogenic inuence in their creation, mainly through systematic burning and
burial of organic material and ash and provided detailed soil

analysis data. The effect of black carbon on the soil fertility is still
based mostly on anecdotal evidence, albeit strong one. McCann et
al. [24] attribute the benets to the introduction of charged (active)
surfaces and the increase in soil pH, suppressing Al activity toxic to
soil biota. Glasser et al. [23] attribute longevity of black carbon in
the Terra preta soil to the carbon polyaromatic structure, making it
chemically and microbially resistant, able to survive in the environment over thousands of years. Complex structure and
morphology of the charcoal are illustrated by the sample taken
from a ponderosa pine forest in Northern Idaho, which was
exposed to re 79 years prior to collection [25], Fig. 2. As more
research is done in correlating the crops yield with mixing of biochar into the soil, there will be more solid experimental evidence,
and certainly additional best practice recommendations.
Laird [26] offered an interesting paradigm change by arguing
that the biomass debate should shift from the current how much

Table 1
Potentials for worldwide carbon sequestration via biochar production and dispersion over agricultural land.
Item

Value

Comments

Net primary production (NPP)

Percentage of NPP for biochar
Resultant biochar production

60.6 GtC/yr Source [9]

10.00%
3 GtC/yr
Assume 50% of biomass
carbon is converted into
biochar
Carbon offset via combustible
1.8 GtC/yr Assume 60% emission
products (60% of 50% biomass)
displacement efciency of
the combustion portion
(50% of biomass). The
remaining 40% (1.3 GtC/yr)
is used up for running
pyrolysis
Annual increase in atmospheric
4.1 GtC/yr Amount of CO2 that remains in
the atmosphere, out of the
C due to fossil fuels and cement
total of 7.2 GtC/yr released
industry
by humans.

Fig. 2. An electron micrograph of charcoal collected from a ponderosa pine forest in

Northern Idaho, U.S., which was exposed to re 79 years prior to collection. Source:
Brimmer, 2006 [16].

2014

D. Matovic / Energy 36 (2011) 2011e2016

Fig. 3. Total Canadian GHG emissions [GtCO2 equivalent]. Source [18].

can be harvested without doing too much damage into how to design
integrated agricultural biomass-bioenergy systems that build soil
quality and increase productivity so that both food and bioenergy
crops can be sustainably harvested.
3. Potentials for carbon removal: Canada
Canadian CO2 emissions history in a post-Kyoto period is illustrated in Fig. 3 [27]. It is clear from the graph that the trend of CO2
emissions has been the opposite from the Kyoto targets for the
most of the post-Kyoto period. Small temporary drops in the 1991
and 2001 can be explained mainly by economic downturns, while
the drop in the 2004e2006 period illustrates the major contribution of tar-sands to the overall Canadian emissions. The data for
total above do not include land use, land-use change and forestry
(45 Mt CO2 [27]) and Canadian share of international aviation
(w7 Mt CO2, assuming total aviation as 2% of total emissions, i.e.
w15 Mt CO2 minus 7.7 Mt CO2 emissions from domestic aviation,
already included in the total). These sources add up 50 Mt CO2/yr, or
6.7% of the reported total. Together, the new total becomes
w797 Mt CO2/yr, or 217 Mt C/yr (conversion factor 3.67 tCO2/tC).
We will examine here if conversion of biomass from forest and
agricultural sources could offset this total.
Using the same assumptions as for the world production above
(Table 1) we would need approximately 271 Mt of bone-dry
biomass per year (producing w136 MtC/yr of biochar for dispersal,
i.e. converting 50% of the original biomass and offsetting additional
81 MtC/yr of emissions by displacing fossil fuel, i.e. 30% of the
original biomass e either as a syngas, methane or liquid biofuel).
Where would that biomass potentially come from? We next
examine 4 potential sources in Canada: forestry resources, forest
re reduction, pine beetle infested trees and agricultural residues.

[28]. The total biomass on the forested land is 29,574 Mt (oven-dry),

or 29,383 Mm3 [29]. Based on these gures the average volume
density is 94.8 m3/ha, biomass density is 95.4 t/ha, C density is
42 tC/ha and CO2 equivalent density is 187 tCO2/ha. How much of
that biomass is sustainably available annually? There are various
ways to answer this question, depending on the intended biomass
use, harvesting strategy and the notion of surplus and residual
biomass. For example, if the main product is roundwood for lumber
or pulp and paper, the tree stems are the primary harvesting target
while bark, three-tops and branches are residuals. If the primary
product is biomass as energy source then bark and branches, even
foliage becomes harvesting target, especially if the biomass is
pelletized. With biochar, the focus is further shifted somewhat,
depending on the biochar production strategy (larger centralized,
vs. small-scale distributed). Comparison and optimization of these
strategies are out of scope of this survey. Instead, two approaches
with different but comparable outcomes will be used as an
illustration.
A well managed forestry resource is harvested in rotation, followed by replanting and regeneration. Assuming that harvesting
occurs on average on a 100 yr cycle, we can calculate sustainable
new biomass as an average density of a 100-year old forest (130 t/
ha) over 1% of the total stocked area (27.5 M ha), to the total of
357.4 Mt/yr of biomass. If we assume that half of that biomass can
be converted into biochar, this gives 178.7 Mt/yr of biomass, or 58%
of the target amount of 271 Mt/yr.
Alternatively, if we use the total annual new biomass estimate
[28] of 197 Mm3/yr of merchantable timber, corresponding to
199 Mt/yr of biomass (factor 1.01 [29]) and again assume that half of
that is available for biochar conversion, that would amount to
approx. 100 Mt/yr of biomass, i.e. 37% of the target amount.
3.2. Forest re reduction

3.1. Forestry resources

The total forest area in Canada is 310.1 Mha, of which 274.9 Mha
(88%) is stocked (i.e. known to have signicant tree population)

Forest res are highly variable events, with the immediate

impact on greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. For example, in the
1990e2007 period an annual area under forest re in Canada varied

D. Matovic / Energy 36 (2011) 2011e2016

2015

between 0.63 and 7.1 Mha [30], with the average of 2.33 Mha.
Compared to a typical harvested area of w1 Mha, the average area
under the re is more than twice the total harvested area! Using
average biomass density (95.4 t/ha), this represents the range of
60e676 Mt/yr, with the average of 222 Mt/yr or 82% of the total
target biomass. Can this amount or a portion of it be turned into
char instead of ash and dead biomass? Fire is a central part of the
life cycle of many Canadian ecosystems. Robust new trees quickly
emerge to replace the burnt aged forest. In some species (e.g. Pinus
banksiana), it also opens the seed cones, allowing the species to
reproduce and survive [30].
Annual CO2 emissions from forest res reported to the IPCC
were between 11 and 291 Mt CO2/yr in a 1990e2007 time span
[31]. These are apparently low values, since the emissions corresponding to the average forest density of 187 tCO2/ha would be an
order of magnitude larger (117 and 1327 Mt CO2/yr, respectively).
Clearly, only a small proportion of the biomass is immediately
burnt, but the remaining dead biomass continues to release GHG
gases slowly in subsequent years. For the most part, converting
biomass into biochar and spreading it locally would have similar
ecological impact as the wildre itself, with one substantial
difference: the organic carbon would be mostly converted into
inorganic, black carbon, instead of being pumped back into the
atmosphere as CO2, thus it would be a long lasting carbon
sequestration vehicle. How could that be done, to what extent it is
feasible to replace naturally occurring re, knowing fully well that
it is impossible to eliminate re altogether, should be a subject of
intensive research, technical innovation and public debate.
Here, we estimate that 20% of the total average area of forest
burnt annually could be converted to biochar, enlarging the re
corridors and achieving similar ecological impact as if that area
burnt naturally, but xing the biomass carbon instead of releasing it
to the atmosphere, either as an immediate release, or a slow release
due to the dead biomass decay. This amounts to 222 Mt/yr biomass,
representing 82% of the total target biomass that would fully offset
current Canadian GHG emissions.

Fast rotation cellulosic crops, such as poplar or willow represent

an intensive, farming of biomass, either for energy, chemical raw
material or sequestration vehicle via biochar. McKenney et al. [35]
conducted detailed analysis of land availability and possible
biomass production as a function of yield at 10e20 m3/(ha yr) and
the price of at $10e50/tCO2 (CAD).. As the yield and sequestration
price go up, so does the available land for rapid rotation silviculture.
Here we adopt 16 m3/(ha yr) yield and $25 (CAD) per ton of CO2,
resulting in 52 Mha of land available, to the total of 840 Mt of
biomass, or 310% of the target.

3.3. Pine beetle infestation

3.6. All sources combined

Another major tree killer in Canada (after wildre) is the insect

infestation. In Canada, the mountain pine beetle infestation is the
most serious epidemic, killing 9, 10 and 7 Mha of forest in 2006,
2007 and 2008, respectively [32]. Total cumulative impact of the
epidemics is about 620 Mt of merchantable timber on 14.5 Mha
[33]. If we consider all the biomass in that area as a biochar source,
the amount is much larger. Based on the average BC forest biomass
density of 169 t/ha [30], this would amount to 2450 Mt of biomass,
or 1180 Mt/yr just for 2008. This is conservative estimate of the
biomass density, since mountain pine beetle destroys older forest
stands (60 years and more), while younger trees ght the beetle
more successfully. The wide range of estimates associated with
these gures calls for further investigation and innovation in
handling this carbon source. Of course, this is not sustainable
source of biomass, but nevertheless, converting a portion of this
amount into biochar would prevent release of its carbon back into
the atmosphere. At present, we will take the gure of 271 Mt/yr as
a plausible portion for several years ahead, representing 23% of the
area affected, but 100% of the target biomass amount.

All sources are combined in Table 2, expressed as Mt/yr and as

a percentage of the target amount of 271 Mt/yr of biomass that
would offset total Canadian annual CO2 emissions.
Clearly, there is enough biomass to offset total Canadian GHG
emissions (5.74 times total annual target mass). Large potentials lay
in forest re mitigation through a slash and char strategy and in
fast rotation wood crops.
The potentials for spreading the biochar lay in mixing it with
soil, in brown soil remediation and depositing it in the forest oor.
Historically, forests have undergone periodic res all across Canada,
and adding charcoal to the forest oor would be similar to the
natural process of forest rejuvenation after the re. Looking at the
arable land alone (67.5 mil. km2 [19]) and using the same concentration of 3% 30 cm deep (13.5 tC/ha), the total agricultural soil
capacity would be 911.3 MtC. Given the need to sequester 136 MtC/
yr, this resource would be lled up in about 6.7 years. This is
much lower capacity than the worldwide one. Despite the vast land
area of Canada (9 mil. km2), agricultural land represents only 7.4%
of the total. Clearly, other deposit sites should be looked upon and
there are plenty: forest oor, mine tailings (dry) and various brown
soil remediation sites. Further research is needed in this area.

3.4. Agricultural land

For this survey, no food stocks are considered as biochar sources
(grain, oil seeds, etc.). Detailed analysis of straw/stover availability
of various crops in [34] indicates that 44 Mt/yr of agricultural
residues (out of the 56 Mt/yr total) are sustainably removable.

Table 2
Sources of biomass in Canada, in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the pool of
271 Mt/yr, required to offset total Canadian GHG emissions from fossil fuels, cement
industry and land use.
Biomass source

Mt/yr

% of 271 Comments
Mt/yr

50% of annual forest

biomass production
Forest re reduction

178.7

66

222

82

Pine beetle infestation

271

100

Agricultural residues
Fast rotation silviculture

44
840

16
310

Total

Assumes 1% of the stocked forest

area harvested annually, 130 t/ha
Assumes 20% of burnt forest was
converted to biochar, at 94.5 t
biomass per hectare
23% of the biomass affected in
2008 (7 Mha).
Residues sustainably available.
Based on 16 m3/ha yield and price
of $25 CAD per tone CO2
sequestered, resulting in harvesting
area of 52 Mha.

1555.7 574

This would represent 16% of the target biomass. While this may
look like a small amount compared with the other sources surveyed
above, this is the low hanging fruit in terms of biochar operations,
since the biomass is right where the biochar is needed most, i.e. in
the farmers elds.
3.5. Fast rotation silviculture

4. Conclusions
Biochar is indeed a viable carbon sequestration option for the
planet as a whole, as well as for Canada. The overall biomass

2016

D. Matovic / Energy 36 (2011) 2011e2016

reserves seem to be sufcient to fulll the sequestration need and

still provide other substitutions for fossil fuel use.
If 10% of the world biomass NPP is converted into charcoal,
at 50% yield and 30% energy from volatiles, it would sequester
4.8 GtC/yr, approx. 20% more than the current annual increase of
atmospheric carbon, at 4.1 GtC/yr.
Mixing biochar in soil at the rate of 13.5 t/ha (3% of the upper
30 cm layer) provides storage space that would last 2 centuries.
Various studies indicate soil fertility increases with the addition of
biochar, while the carbon so deposited remains chemically stable
for millennia. Further research is needed to characterize best char
morphology for maximum benets to soil, and perhaps variations
to match various soil and climate conditions.
Canada has large reserves of biomass available for biochar
production. Combined sources from forest harvesting, forest re
reduction, mountain pine beetle infestation, agricultural residues
and fast rotation silviculture provide the biomass source more than
5 times larger then the annual requirements of 271 Mt/yr that
would fully offset total carbon emissions. However, the land
capacity to store that carbon is more limited, especially when only
the agricultural land is considered.
The review of potential biochar application worldwide and in
Canada, presented here, does not tackle the economic or the policy
aspects of mass production, distribution and application of biochar.
These questions are of critical importance in any implementation
scenario, but are out of scope of this preliminary survey.
Further research is needed in biochar production, its effects on
soil and other biochar storage options, to name just the few here.
More complete list of research areas is posted at the Canadian
Biochar Initiative web site [36].
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the reviewers whose constructive suggestions assisted in revising the text and resulted in more coherent and
accurate account of the topics covered.
References
[1] Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Avery KB, et al., editors.
IPCC 2007: contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
[2] Metz B, Davidson O, Coninck H, Loos M, Meyer L, editors. IPCC 2005: carbon
dioxide capture and storage. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
[3] Viebahn P, Nitsch J, Fischedick M, Esken A, Schuewer D, Supersberger N,
et al. Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy
technologies regarding structural, economic and ecological aspects in
Germany. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control; 2007:121e33. doi:10.1016/S17505836(07)00024-2.
[4] Tzimas E, Peteves S. The impact of carbon sequestration on the production
cost of electricity and hydrogen from coal and natural-gas technologies in
Europe in the medium term. Energy 2005;30:2672e89.
[5] Holloway S. Underground sequestration of carbon dioxide e a viable greenhouse gas mitigation option. Energy 2005;30:2318e33.
[6] Le Guern F, Sigvaldason GE. The LakeNyos event and natural CO2 degassing.
J Volcanol Geoterm Res 1989;39:95e276.
[7] Zeng N. Carbon sequestration via wood burial. Carbon Balance Manage
2008;3:1. doi:10.1186/1750-0680-3-1.
[8] Fowles M. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomas
Bioenerg 2007;31:426e32.
[9] ZEP. European technology platform for zero emission fossil fuel plants (ZEP)
strategic overview. EU; March 2007.

[10] Domitrovic D. Current status of CO2 injection projects in Croatia, carbon

capture and storage, response to climate change. In: Regional workshop for CE
and EE Counties, CO2Net East; 27e28 Feb., 2007.
[11] Keith DW, Ha-Duong M, Stolaroff JK. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from
the air. Clim Change 2006;74:17e45.
[12] UNFCCC. Negotiating text for the Ad Hoc working Group on long-term
Cooperative Action under the convention. Link, http://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2009/awglca6/eng/08.pdf. p. 36, [accessed 25.05.09].
[13] Kurth VJ, MacKenzie MD, DeLuca TH. Estimating charcoal content in forest
mineral soils. Geoderma 2006;137:135e9.
[14] Verheijen F, Jeffery S, Bastos AC, van der Velde M, Diafas I. Biochar application
to soils, JRC scientic and technical reports. EUR 24099 EN. EU Commission;
2010. doi:10.2788/472.
[15] Cornelissen G, Gustafsson O, Bucheli TD, Jonker MTO, Koelmans AA, van
Noort PCM. Extensive sorption of organic compounds to black carbon, coal
and kerogen in sediments and soils: mechanisms and consequences for
distribution, bioaccumulation and biodegradation. Environ Sci Technol
2005;39:6881e95.
[16] Klas D. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. Acad. Press; 1998.
p. 24.
[17] Amonette JE, Lehmann JC, Joseph S. Terrestrial carbon sequestration with
biochar: a preliminary assessment of its global potential. EOS Trans AGU
2008;88(52). Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract U42A-06.
[18] Cramer W, Kicklighter DW, Bondeau A, Moiore III B, Churkina G, Nemry B,
et al. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP):
overview and key results. Glob Change Biol 1999;5(Suppl. 1):1e15.
[19] World Resources. Roots of Resilience. p. 210, http://pdf.wri.org/world_
resources_2008_roots_of_resilience.pdf [accessed 02.05.09].
[20] Saxton KE, Rawls WJ, Romberger JS, Papendick RI. Estimating generalized soilwater characteristics from texture. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1986;50(4):1031e6.
[21] Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems e a review. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 2006;11(2):395e419.
[22] Rondon MA, Lehmann J, Ramires J, Hurtado M. Biological nitrogen xation by
common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biol
Fertil Soils 2007;43:699e708.
[23] Glaser B, Guggenberger G, Haumaier L, Zech W. Persistence of soil organic
matter in archaeological soils (Terra Preta) of the Brazilian Amazon region. In:
Rees RM, Bell BC, Campbell CD, Watson CA, editors. Sustainable management
of soil organic matter. CAB International; 2001.
[24] McCann JM, Woods WI, Meyer DW. Organic matter and anthrosols in Amazonia: interpreting the Amerindian legacy. In: Rees RM, Bell BC, Campbell CD,
Watson CA, editors. Sustainable management of soil organic matter. CAB
International; 2001.
[25] Brimmer, R.J., Sorption potential of naturally occurring charcoal in ponderosa
pine forests in western Montana (MS thesis). Missoula, MT: U. of Montana,
2006.
[26] Laird DA. The charcoal vision: a win-win-win scenario for simultaneously
producing bioenergy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil
and water quality. Agron J 2008;100(1):178e81.
[27] Government of Canada. Canadas 2007 greenhouse gas inventory e
a summary of trends, http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2007/
som-sum_eng.pdf [accessed 28.12.09].
[28] Lowe JJ, Power K, Gray SL. Canadas forest inventory 1991: the 1994 version.
An addendum to Canadas forest inventory 1991. CFS information report BCX-362. Pacic Forestry Centre: Victoria B.C; 1996.
[29] Power K, Gillis M. Canadas forest inventory 2001. CFS information report BCX-408. Victoria B.C: Pacic Forestry Centre; 2006.
[30] National Forestry Database. Canadian council of forest ministers, forest res
background, http://nfdp.ccfm.org/res/background_e.php [accessed 28.12.09].
[31] National Forestry Database. Canadian council of forest ministers, dynamic
report generated at, http://nfdp.ccfm.org/dynamic_report/dynamic_report_
ui_e.php; Dec. 28, 2009.
[32] Walton A, Hughes J, Eng M, Fall A, Shore T, Riel B, et al. Provincial-level of the
current mountain pine beetle outbreak: update of the infestation projection
based on the 2007 provincial aerial overview of forest health and revisions of
the Model (BCMPB. V5). Gov. of British Columbia, Forest Management
Branch; 2008.
[33] Forests and Range. Mountain pine beetle information, infestation information,
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/facts.htm#infestation
[accessed 28.12.09].
[34] Wood SM, Layzell DB. A canadian biomass inventory: feedstocks for a biobased economy. Canada: BIOCAP; 2003.
[35] McKenney DW, Yemshanov D, Fox G, Ramlal E. Cost estimates for carbon
sequestration from fast growing poplar plantations in Canada. For Pol Econ
2004;6:345e58.
[36] Canadian Biochar Initiative. Needed research, http://www.biochar.ca/
NeededResearch.htm [accessed 05.05.09].