Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Pyrolysis biochar systems for recovering biodegradable materials: A life

cycle carbon assessment
Rodrigo Ibarrola ⇑, Simon Shackley, James Hammond
UK Biochar Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JN, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A life cycle assessment (LCA) focused on biochar and bioenergy generation was performed for three ther-
Received 21 February 2011 mal treatment configurations (slow pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis and gasification). Ten UK biodegradable
Accepted 4 October 2011 wastes or residues were considered as feedstocks in this study. Carbon (equivalent) abatement (CA)
Available online 25 November 2011
and electricity production indicators were calculated. Slow pyrolysis systems offer the best performance
in terms of CA, with net results varying from 0.07 to 1.25 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock treated. On the
Keywords: other hand, gasification achieves the best electricity generation outputs, with results varying around
Biochar
0.9 MWhe t1 of feedstock. Moreover, selection of a common waste treatment practice as the reference
Biodegradable waste
Pyrolysis
scenario in an LCA has to be undertaken carefully as this will have a key influence upon the CA perfor-
Gasification mance of pyrolysis or gasification biochar systems (P/GBS). Results suggest that P/GBS could produce
Life cycle assessment important environmental benefits in terms of CA, but several potential pollution issues arising from con-
taminants in the biochar have to be addressed before biochar and bioenergy production from biodegrad-
able waste can become common practice.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Although post-consumer waste is a small contributor to global

To address the indisputable issue of global warming, the
European Union’s aim is to advocate a limit of 2 °C increase of
the global average temperature by 2050, compared to pre-indus-
trial levels, for which atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) will need to remain below 550 ppm of CO2 equiva-
lent (where ‘equivalent’ refers to the six greenhouse gases referred
to in the Kyoto Protocol) (EC, 2007). However, it has been sug-
gested that this stabilization concentration implies an 82% proba-
bility of exceeding 2 °C (Anderson and Bows, 2008). Their
analysis suggests that, in order to have a 93% probability of not
exceeding this temperature increase, the concentration would
need to be stabilized at, or below, 350 ppm of CO2 eq. (lower than
the current 430 ppm concentration).
To achieve this stabilization in concentrations, it will be imper-
ative for local and national governments to design and implement
strategies to mitigate the release of GHG emissions generated by
anthropogenic activities and also to begin to remove CO2 from
atmosphere. The main objective of these strategies should be the
identification of actions to deliver an integrated management of
natural resources and the resulting waste generated from
consumption activities.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0 131 6507252; fax: +44 0 131 6620478.
E-mail address: rodrigo.ibarrola@ed.ac.uk (R. Ibarrola).
GHG emissions (around 5%) with a total of approximately
1300 Mt CO2 eq. in 2005 (Bogner et al., 2007) a more sustainable
and less carbon-intensive waste management sector could encour-
age emission reductions in other sectors that contribute to higher
emission rates (e.g. agriculture, energy generation, etc.).
For example, carbon abatement (i.e. emission reductions) could
be achieved if thermal treatment technologies such as pyrolysis or
gasification are considered as part of sustainable land use prac-
tices. This abatement could come from the avoided methane emis-
sions of biodegradable waste disposal in landfills, from the fossil
fuel emissions displaced by renewable energy generation, by the
fixation of carbon in the char (biochar) produced during the treat-
ment process, and by the enhanced soil and crop effects which may
arise if the biochar is used as a soil amendment.
This type of waste-bioenergy-soil management system is called
a pyrolysis or gasification biochar system (P/GBS). P/GBS are start-
ing to be considered as an important mechanism for the sustain-
able treatment of other types of biomass since they have the
potential to provide significant CA (Hammond et al., 2011) as well
as economic benefits for some feedstocks (Shackley et al., 2011).
However, pyrolysis technologies, and to a lesser extent gasification,
have not been widely deployed at large scale, although a handful of
large working facilities do exist. This paper seeks to estimate the
potential carbon benefits (or detriments) of widespread pyrolysis
or gasification use, assuming that technological problems associ-
ated with scale up can be overcome.

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.005
860 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868

Depending on the energy value and carbon content of the example animal feed or wood board manufacture, indirect land
waste, the materials typically obtained by, and used within use change could occur as a result.
P/GBS systems are syngas, bio-liquid (including bio-oil) and a char Secondly, there is less evidence to support the CA and economic
usually denominated as biochar if the intention is to use it for safe benefits from using non-virgin feedstocks in P/GBS systems. Only a
and beneficial applications to soil, or charcoal if the intention is to handful of studies or reviews have analysed the CA implications of
use it for other purposes such as energy generation, land restora- P/GBS systems based on non-virgin feedstocks treatment
tion, etc. (Shackley and Sohi, 2010). The solid, gas and liquid yields (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Shackley and Sohi, 2010).
vary depending on the production conditions and technology Applying this LCA methodology, the objectives of the present
design. The highest char yields are obtained by slow pyrolysis study will be to address the CA and energy benefits of P/GBS based
(up to 35% of the total treated biomass), while the highest bio-oil non-virgin material treatment (biochar and energy generation).
(up to 75% of the total treated biomass) or syngas (up to 85% of Three different configurations for thermal treatment (slow pyroly-
the total treated biomass) yields can be produced by fast pyrolysis sis, fast pyrolysis, and gasification) will be tested.
or gasification, respectively (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009).
The main feedstock sources that are considered for P/GBS
research and deployment purposes are usually virgin biomass
2. Methodology
(organic material that has not been subject to chemical or biolog-
ical transformation, amendment or treatment – such as agrofor-
2.1. Feedstock selection and LCA design
estry residues or bioenergy crops) and, to a lesser extent,
non-virgin feedstocks (materials that are chemically and/or biolog-
The feedstocks analysed are materials that fall into the category
ically transformed, such as biodegradable municipal or industrial
of urban biodegradable waste (e.g. sewage sludge, green waste,
waste).
food waste, wood waste, used cardboard) and materials derived
The methodology that is most often used in order to clearly
from their treatment (e.g. digestates from anaerobic digestion
identify the potential economic and environmental benefits associ-
(AD) or dense refuse derived fuel, DRDF). Urban wastes must be
ated with each stage of a value-chain is life cycle analysis (LCA). In
thoroughly separated before being used for processes such as pyro-
this research we will use this methodology to focus solely on non-
lysis or gasification, or contaminants could be formed. Other biode-
virgin feedstocks for two reasons.
gradable materials or residues derived from industrial processes
Firstly, the utilization of these feedstocks in P/GBS would not
such as paper manufacturing or recycling, poultry processing or
usually incur impacts usually associated with bioenergy crops or
whisky production (e.g. paper sludge, poultry litter, whisky
virgin feedstock production (e.g. land use competition for food pro-
remains/draff) are considered. These were selected following crite-
duction (Tenenbaum, 2009) or carbon debt incurrence from land
ria such as local availability and their current waste treatment or
clearing and preparation (Fargione et al., 2008) since the genera-
disposal context in the UK, this being the reference scenario or sys-
tion of the waste in urban or rural areas would occur with or with-
tem (RS).
out P/GBS as a result of the production and consumption of goods
Considering the aforementioned, we established incineration as
and services in all sectors of the economy. Note that in cases where
the RS for poultry litter and DRDF, cattle feed as the RS for whisky
the non-virgin feedstock is diverted from another purpose, for
draff, recycling as the RS for cardboard, landfills as the RS of

Fig. 1. P/GBS system boundaries and life cycle stages. Arrows denote flows where T refers to transportation stage.
 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868
sewage sludge, garden and green waste, food waste, wood waste,
and paper sludge, and land-spreading as the RS for digestates.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is not analysed as a separate waste
treatment RS since we do not consider it primarily as a technology
that could be substituted by thermal treatment, but rather as a sys-
tem capable of providing a product (digestate) with complemen-
tary benefits if used either to produce biochar or by mixing it
with any other type of biochar generated. In this study we consider
AD digestate as a feedstock that is diverted from the RS – land-
spreading.
The life cycle stages included in the analysis of the P/GBS are the
transportation and the treatment of the feedstock with pyrolysis or
gasification technologies, the transportation of the char produced,
and the utilization of it either as a soil amendment (biochar in soils
scenario, BSS) or as a fuel for combustion (charcoal combustion
scenario, CCS) in order to compare the CA benefits from both sce-
narios. For the feedstock treatment life cycle stage, it was assumed
that all feedstocks are source separated and thus, there are no
waste compositional variations that could affect the biochar or
energy yields.
Finally, the LCA was developed with an attributional approach
(i.e. focusing on describing the environmentally relevant physical
flows to and from a life cycle and its subsystems (Finnveden
et al., 2009)), using information (heating values, carbon contents)
from the literature to calculate the CA that can be achieved per life
cycle stage of the P/GBS, including the abatement associated with
the RS that the P/GBS is potentially displacing. The stages analysed
and the system’s boundaries are detailed in Fig. 1.
2.2. Carbon abatement from conventional treatment or disposal
systems (RS)
2.2.1. Landfill disposal
Carbon balances from landfill disposal of sewage sludge, green
waste, food waste, waste wood and paper sludge are calculated
(Table 1) with the following equations proposed in the Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Houghton et al., 1997)
and adjusted by Gaunt and Cowie, 2009:
CH4 ðtonnes of non-recovered emissions per tonne of dry biomassÞ
¼ MGP  ð1  RÞ  ð1  OXÞ
CH4 ðtonnes of recovered emissions per tonne of dry biomassÞ
¼ MGP  R
MGP ¼ MCF  DOC  DOCf  16=12
where:
 MGP stands for methane generation potential (t CH4/tonne of
dry biomass);
Table 1
Net carbon balance for landfill RS.
Feedstock Tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock
Non-recovered
emissions
Wood 1.1250
Garden and green 1.1025
Food 0.8550
Sewer or paper sludge 0.9000
Cardboard 1.0125
861
 R is the recovered methane, with a value of 70%;
 OX is the oxidation factor of methane by microbial activity, and
has a default value of 10% for managed landfills;
 MCF is the methane correction factor or the part of the waste
that will decompose under aerobic conditions, with a default
value of 1 for managed landfills;
 DOC stands for degradable organic carbon (50% for dry waste
wood, 49% for green waste, 38% for food waste, 12% for sewage
and paper sludge, (IPCC, 2006);
 DOCf is the fraction of DOC that is degraded, and has a default
value of 50% for all the wastes considered in this RS except food
waste, which has a default value of 77% due to lower lignin con-
tents (IPCC, 2006);
 F is the fraction of CH4, by volume, in the landfill gas generated
and has a default value of 50%;
 16/12 is molecular weight ratio CH4/C.
For this landfill disposal scenario, it was assumed that 44% of
the methane emissions recovered (R) are used for electricity gener-
ation (Jackson et al., 2008). This percentage is used to calculate the
electricity from fossil fuels that is displaced if the electricity gener-
ated (assuming a 30% efficiency of the combustion engine) is
incorporated to the grid (methane electricity offset), and the
resulting carbon abatement, using an emission factor of 0.149 kg
of CO2 eq. MJ1 (CT, 2009). The rest of the methane emissions
recovered are assumed to be flared as carbon dioxide (with 100%
destruction efficiency in the flare) and thus, not contemplated in
this study since biogenic CO2 is considered to be neutral with
respect to global warming (Gentil et al., 2009).
Moreover, non-recovered methane emissions (30%, 1  R) are
assumed to be released directly to the atmosphere. The biogenic
carbon that is not degraded and thus, not released as methane, is
considered as avoided CO2 emissions (carbon storage offset).
In summary, net carbon balances associated to each waste in
this scenario account for the non-recovered methane emissions,
the methane electricity offset derived from the recovered
emissions, and the avoided CO2 emissions resulting from the
non-degradable carbon in the landfills (see Table 1).
2.2.2. Incineration
Carbon abatements associated with the energy generated by the
ð1Þ incineration of waste (electricity offset) are calculated using a
methodology developed by AEA Technology plc and North Energy,
Ltd. (AEA, 2008), whereby a mass balance is performed to calculate
the waste input necessary to produce 1MWh of electricity as
output, according to the following formula:
ð2Þ   
3:6 100
Waste input ðtonnesÞ ¼ 1MWhe   ð4Þ
ð3Þ HV Ef
where:
 HV is the heating value (dry weight) of the waste in MJ/kg (see
Section 2.3);
Electricity offset Carbon storage offset Total emission
or abatement or abatement balance from landfills
0.1182 0.8750 0.1318
0.1159 0.8575 0.1291
0.0898 0.6650 0.1002
0.0946 0.7000 0.1054
0.1064 0.7875 0.1186
862 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868
 Ef is the efficiency of the process (27%) (Nussbaumer, 1998;
Thornley et al., 2009);
 Offsets and CA are calculated assuming that the electricity gen-
erated (1 MWhe) displaces electricity from the grid using
0.149 kg of CO2 eq. MJ1 as the carbon emission factor. CO2
emissions from the process are not accounted for since these
are considered as part of the natural carbon cycle.
2.2.3. Recycling, cattle feed, and land-spreading
Carbon abatements associated to RS such as cardboard recy-
cling, cattle feed with draff, or land-spreading of digestates were
not calculated as in the case of the landfill disposal or incineration
RS. Instead, available values from the literature were used as we
considered the literature information available for these scenarios
to be more reliable.
Regarding cardboard recycling, a value of 0.9 tonnes of
CO2 eq. t1 of cardboard was used. This value is considered as a
CO2 saving or abatement when a system that recycles cardboard
displaces a system where there is a mix of cardboard disposal in
landfills. The savings are associated with energy consumption
parameters from virgin paper production and waste to energy
incineration processes, which consume twice as much energy per
functional unit as paper or cardboard recycling. Thus, a waste
management system that replaces these processes with recycling
generates CO2 savings (WRAP, 2006).
Whisky draff is considered to be a type of distiller’s dried grain
with solubles (DDGS), which is a by-product from the production
of ethanol using wheat as a raw material. A value for the
abatement achieved by the usage of whisky draff as cattle feed
(0.11 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of draff) was obtained by multiplying
the carbon abatement credit value (0.17 g eq. CO2 MJ1) derived
from the substitution of soy meal with DDGS (JRC, 2006) by the
heating value of the draff.
Finally, for AD digestates, the GHG abatement value
(0.016 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of digestate) of the reference system
was obtained from (Barton, 2008), where the benefits of soil condi-
tioning when the compost/digestate replaces the utilization of peat
in soils are considered.
2.3. Carbon abatement from bioenergy generation (electricity offset)
by thermal treatment (slow pyrolysis, fast pyrolysis, and gasification)
CA associated with bioenergy generation from the three differ-
ent thermal treatment configurations considered are derived from
Eq. (4), which is based on a mass balance that calculates the bio-
mass input necessary to produce 1 MWh of electricity as output.
Biochar yields and the energy efficiencies can be varied depending
on the treatment configuration.


1 MWhe  3:6HV 100
Waste input tonnes ¼  ð5Þ
1  BChY Ef
where:
 HV is the heating value (dry weight) of the feedstock (20 MJ/kg
for wood, 15 MJ/kg for sewage sludge, 18 MJ/kg for garden and
green waste, 17 MJ/kg for food waste, 15 MJ/kg for AD digestate,
14 MJ/kg for paper sludge, 17 MJ/kg for cardboard, 18 MJ/kg for
dense RDF, 15 MJ/kg for poultry litter, 14 MJ/kg for whisky draff,
ECN, 2010);
 BChY is biochar yield, expressed as a percentage of the waste
input by dry weight (35% for slow pyrolysis, 15% for fast pyro-
lysis and 5% for gasification, Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Brewer
et al., 2009);
 Ef is the efficiency of the process (20% for slow and fast pyroly-
sis, and 30% for gasification (Thornley et al., 2009)).
 In terms of this analysis, moisture content values of 15–20%
were used for feedstocks that usually have low moisture
content values (wood waste, cardboard, RDF), while conserva-
tive values of 40–50% were used for feedstocks that usually
have high moisture contents (sewage and paper sludge, dige-
state, whisky draff, food waste, garden and green waste, and
poultry litter). These values were taken from AEA, 2008; EC
2003; ECN, 2010, Bosch and Napit, 1992.
Offsets and CA associated to energy generation by pyrolysis and
gasification and to the CCS are calculated the same way as in
Section 2.2.2. However, the CA for the CCS were calculated assum-
ing the same heating value of 28 MJ/kg (ECN, 2010) for all the types
of charcoal produced due to a lack of literature information regard-
ing the energy content variation associated to charcoals produced
from these type of feedstocks. An analysis related to the uncertain-
ties of using this same value for all the feedstocks considered is
included in Section 3.5.
Emissions from construction of the pyrolysis plant and process
fuel consumption are considered and the parameters are taken
from (AEA, 2008; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Elsayed and
Mortimer, 2001) and normalised per tonne of waste processed
(see Fig. 4).
2.4. Carbon abatement from carbon storage in biochar (carbon storage
offset) and enhanced soil and crop effects
The amount of biochar generated is obtained by multiplying
BChY by the biomass input from the mass balance performed for
each feedstock. The total carbon (or gross amount) fixed by the
treatment process is calculated using the values of biochar gener-
ated and the percentages of carbon fixed in the biochar which are
obtained from different literature sources (Das et al., 2008; ECN,
2010; Phan and Ryu, 2007; Shinogi et al., 2002; Strezov, 2009).
The approach used to quantify the time biochar carbon remains
present in soils (or mean residence time, MRT) has been explained
in detail elsewhere (Hammond et al., 2011). The labile or unstable
carbon fraction (assumed to be 15%) is excluded, as it is rapidly
decomposed to CO2 and therefore lost (Lehmann and Joseph,
2009). Of the remaining biochar carbon it was assumed the 20%
would be lost over a 100 year period. This gives a carbon stability
factor (CSF) factor of 0.68; that is 68% of all the carbon originally
in the char post-pyrolysis will remain in the soil after 100 years.
The effects of biochar on soil and crop processes are also esti-
mated using the approach from Hammond et al., 2011. Five out-
comes are considered for 30 t/ha biochar applications to grow
wheat: a 5% increase in net primary productivity (NPP); a 5%
reduction in the rate of soil organic carbon (SOC) decomposition;
a 10% decrease in N fertiliser use; a 5% decrease in P and K fertilis-
ers use, and a 15% decrease of soil N2O emissions. It was also
assumed that the biochar produced from all the feedstocks has
the same effects. Whilst probably inaccurate, it would be impossi-
ble at present to meaningfully differentiate the variation associ-
ated with each feedstock due to a lack of scientific evidence on
the real effects of biochar in soils.
Although the assumptions made are best estimates based upon
reading of the available literature and expert surveys (e.g. Verhei-
jen et al., 2009; Shackley and Sohi, 2010), they are still highly
uncertain and there is much case-by-case variability. Average esti-
mates might change as more evidence related to these impacts
starts to emerge.
2.5. Transportation
Emissions associated with waste transport from source to treat-
ment plants and for biochar transport from treatment plants to
fields were calculated assuming distances of 100 km and the
 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868 863

utilization of 25 tonne truck towing with emissions data (0.895 kg
CO2/km) taken from UK standard factors (Defra, 2008).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. CA associated to RS, biochar yields and feedstocks utilized
Carbon abatements associated to the feedstocks previously
mentioned are influenced by several factors in P/GBS. The first
one is the accounting of the net abatement associated with the
RS displaced, which varies according to the type of feedstock trea-
ted (see Table 2).
The highest abatements of the RS are achieved because of the
generation of energy by incinerators or the reduction of energy
consumption by the recycling processes, while the lowest ones
are achieved by landspreading, and cattle feed. Results suggest that
landfills achieve no abatements (or release emissions, illustrated in
italics) even though it was considered an electricity offset due to
the combustion of methane emissions captured as well as the car-
bon storage offset associated to the non-degradable carbon frac-
tion of the feedstocks. This is because of the non-recovered
methane emissions and because of the low methane utilization
percentage (44%) of the portion of methane recovered, thus wast-
ing a large potential for bioenergy generation.
This RS CA inclusion alters significantly the overall CA achieved
by a P/GBS and the relative contribution of the life cycle stages to
the total abatement, especially when the comparison is made for
feedstocks that could be diverted simultaneously from no abate-
ment RS to high abatement RS (e.g. wood waste, green waste or
cardboard). Fig. 2 illustrates this situation, where it is evident that
the highest CA are obtained when waste is diverted from no abate-
ment RS such as landfills, since the emissions associated to landfills
are accounted as an abatement in P/GBS due to the scenario substi-
tution (i.e. emissions are mitigated from landfills since the feed-
stock is treated in P/GBS). Therefore, the role that the reference
system has in GHG accounting when implementing and designing
a P/GBS that is going to treat municipal waste is of greatest
importance.
For the LD scenario, emissions from landfills were accounted as
abatement in the P/GBS, whereas abatements achieved by inciner-
ation or recycling RS where accounted as emissions once the asso-
ciated feedstocks are diverted to P/GBS.
Another important factor is the amount of biochar produced by
the treatment process (biochar yield), since the greatest CA is
achieved when the P/GBS is configured to produce the highest

Table 2
CA associated to different RS.

Tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of Sewage Garden and Food Urban Paper DRDF Poultry Cardboard AD Whisky
feedstock sludge Green Wood sludge litter digestate Draff
Landfill disposal 0.105 0.129 0.154 0.132 0.105 – – 0.119 – –
Incineration 0.350 0.560 0.397 0.623 0.327 0.596 0.350 0.397 – –
Recycling – – – – – – – 0.900 – –
Landspreading 0.016 – – – – – – – 0.016 –
Cattle feed – – – – – – – – – 0.110

Fig. 2. Effect of RS in net CA for different biodegradable wastes (LD stands for landfill diversion, ID stands for incineration diversion, RD stands for recycling diversion). For the
LD scenario, emissions from landfills were accounted as abatement in the P/GBS, whereas abatements achieved by incineration or recycling RS where accounted as emissions
once the associated feedstocks are diverted to P/GBS.
864 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868
Fig. 3. Net CA for three thermal treatment configurations. Positive numbers are abatements and negative numbers are emissions.
biochar yield as in the case of slow pyrolysis (see Fig. 3). Therefore,
if the system produces less biochar as in fast pyrolysis or
gasification, the abatement from carbon storage and soil and crop
effects decreases affecting the overall net emissions (see Fig. 3),
even if it is considered that the abatement from the electricity
offset increases due to the increase in bioenergy generation.
Moreover, the overall CA associated to fast pyrolysis and
gasification are similar for most of the feedstocks due to the
tradeoffs associated to the change in the CA achieved by the carbon
storage offset, soil effects and the electricity offset when the
biochar yield parameters are decreased for these technologies.
Finally, CA can be achieved when all the feedstocks are treated
by any of the three technology configurations except for cardboard,
which only achieves abatements when treated with slow pyrolysis.
This happens because the CA achieved by systems that treat card-
board with fast pyrolysis or gasification technologies is not higher
than the CA achieved by the RS of this feedstock (recycling). There-
fore, we considered that a P/GBS that substitutes a RS that achieves
higher CA ends up releasing emissions.
3.2. Relative contribution of life cycle stages to overall carbon
abatement
Relative contributions of life cycle stages were calculated
dividing the CA associated to each life cycle stage by the overall
CA achieved by the P/GBS. Results suggest that for slow pyrolysis
systems with landfills as RS and configured to produce 35% of
biochar per tonne of feedstock, the carbon storage offset represents
the highest relative contribution to the overall abatement
(40–60%), followed by the electricity offset (20–30%) and the soil
effects (20–30%). Carbon storage and electricity offset contribu-
tions are always higher than the soil effects contribution for any
of the feedstocks analysed, but may increase or decrease signifi-
cantly if the assumptions regarding MRT and labile fraction
assumptions are varied.
This situation changes completely when the system is config-
ured with lower biochar yields as occurs with fast pyrolysis and
gasification, where the relative contribution of the electricity offset
increases (47% and 76%, respectively), while decreasing the carbon
storage offset (31% and 10%, respectively) and the soil effects con-
tribution (11% and 3%, respectively since less biochar is produced,
the main product being syngas or bio-oil for bioenergy.
Emissions from transportation represent a minor proportion
(1–3%), and likewise the abatement associated with the RS
(10–15%) and the pyrolysis plant construction and operation
(1–2%). However, the proportion associated with this life cycle
stage may vary significantly if other types of RS able to achieve
higher CA are considered, as was previously discussed.
3.3. Comparison of CA for biochar as soil and crop enhancer vs.
charcoal for combustion
Results of the LCA are presented in Fig. 4, where a comparison of
the CA achieved when the char produced is used either as a fertil-
izer or fuel is performed. The analysis considers slow pyrolysis, as
this is the P/GBS that achieves the highest CA, and the 10 different
waste feedstocks mentioned previously.
CCS stands for charcoal combustion scenario, BSS stands for
biochar usage in soils scenario. Net emissions are calculated by
subtracting the emissions associated to the RS (first bar) to the
abatement associated to the CCS or BSS.
In terms of CA, the best functional unit to analyse the perfor-
mance of P/GBS using this methodology is tonnes of CO2 eq. t1
of feedstock, as the Eq. (3) is designed to calculate the amount of
mass (or feedstock) that is necessary to produce one constant unit
of electricity.
Results suggest that CA range from 0.07 tCO2 eq. (cardboard) to
1.25 tCO2 eq. (wood waste) per tonne of feedstock, for the scenario
where the char is used for soil and crop enhancement purposes in
the field. On the other hand, when the biochar produced is used as
a fuel for combustion within the system, results range from no net
abatement due to the high CA of the RS (e.g. 0.166 tonnes of
CO2 eq. emissions for cardboard) to maximum net abatements of
0.91 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock (wood waste).
The highest abatements can be achieved in the cases when the
biochar is produced from wastes that have high heating values,
carbon contents, and that can be diverted from no abatement or
low abatement scenarios such as landfills, cattle feed, or land-
spreading. On the other hand, when these cases are compared with
the ones where the biochar is produced from wastes with inciner-
ation or recycling RS, the CA are significantly lower due to the high
abatements achieved by these RS.
Moreover, results for the CCS are always lower than the results
for the BSS (except for paper sludge) but not significantly, except
 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868 865

Fig. 4. CA (tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock) for PBS based in the slow pyrolysis treatment of several biodegradable wastes or residues with different RS. CCS stands for
charcoal combustion scenario, BSS stands for biochar usage in soils scenario. Net emissions are calculated by subtracting the emissions associated to the RS (first bar) to the
abatement associated to the CCS or BSS.

for the feedstocks that achieve high carbon storage offsets due to
the high carbon contents in the biochar produced (e.g. food waste,
wood waste, cardboard, whisky draff). This means that some feed-
stocks such as sewage sludge, AD digestate or paper sludge could
be treated to produce biochar for soil amendments or charcoals
for combustions without having a meaningful contrast in the over-
all abatement achieved by the slow PBS.
Moreover, all the CA achieved by the CCS are still significant if
compared against the fossil coal emission factor (2.3 tonnes of
CO2 eq. t1 of coal), meaning that combustion processes using
charcoals derived from PBS are less carbon intensive than common
fossil charcoals.
Few results from this study are comparable with the results
from other studies due to a lack of literature regarding the thermal
treatment of biodegradable waste accounting for carbon storage
and soil effects. An LCA focused on bioenergy crops, agricultural
residues, and biomass waste (Roberts et al., 2010) reports an abate-
ment of 0.885 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of yard waste treated by slow

Predicted electricity generation (MWhe t-1) for thermal treatment technologies

1.4

Slow
1.2 pyrolysis

Fast
pyrolysis
0.8

0.6
Gasification

0.4

0.2
Incineration

0
Sewage Garden Food Urban AD DRDF Paper Poultry Cardboard Whiskey
sludge and Green Wood Digestate Sludge Litter Draff

Fig. 5. Predicted electricity generation.

866 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868

pyrolysis, while another one focused on green waste management
(Lehmann and Joseph, 2009) reports abatements of 1.1 tonnes of
CO2 eq. t1 of garden waste; compared to 1.02 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1
of green waste in this study. However, these results account for
certain soil effects only (e.g. reduced N2O soil emissions).
Moreover, an LCA focused on agroforestry residues (Hammond
et al., 2011) which takes into consideration similar assumptions
from soil effects, reports results of around 1.17 tonnes of
CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock for sawmill wood residues and 1.15 tonnes
of CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock for small round wood, as compared to
1.25 tonnes of CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock for urban wood waste in this
study.
3.4. Results for predicted electricity generation from three thermal
treatment configurations and comparison against incineration
Considering the assumptions made, results suggest that an
average electricity generation of 0.9, 0.6 and 0.4 MWhe t1 of feed-
stock can be achieved by gasification, slow pyrolysis and fast pyro-
lysis respectively (see Fig. 5). These results confirm the analysis
achieved by Hammond et al. (2011) where in terms of electricity
generation, gasification achieves higher generation than fast or
slow pyrolysis. This is due to electrical efficiencies associated with
each configuration.
Another factor that influences these results is that our model
considers that in all three configurations, both the oil and syngas
produced is used to produce electricity. Therefore, if the biochar
yield decreases as in gasification, the bio-oil and syngas produced
increase, leading to a significant change in the amount of electricity
produced.
The treatment of biodegradable waste using gasification is fa-
voured when the process considers feedstocks with high heating
values, such as wood waste, garden refuse derived fuel or card-
board since they can be used to generate a higher amount of elec-
tricity per tonne of feedstock. However, the amount of energy
generation depends heavily on the moisture content of the feed-
stock; hence, in order to produce more energy it is better to con-
sider feedstocks with low moisture contents.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed on key parameters of the
slow pyrolysis process. These parameters were modified making
variations from an initial to a final scenario in order to understand
the changes in the CA net values achieved by the slow pyrolysis
process. For example, a labile fraction high variation aims to mea-
sure the change in the overall CA if the labile fraction of the biochar
is varied from 0% (initial scenario) to 70% (final scenario), or the
electrical efficiency variation measures the change in CA if the effi-
ciency is varied from 10% (initial scenario) to 30% (final scenario).
Results comparing CA variations for the different feedstocks are
presented in Table 3 and illustrate that the largest variations in
terms of CA occur when char stability and SOC variables are chan-
ged, as compared to other soil effects (i.e. fertilizer reduction or
N2O emission decrease) that do not have a significant influence.
Changes in the electrical efficiency also impact the overall CA.
Percentages for each feedstock represent how much the net CA
reported in Fig. 4 vary when the system’s variables are changed.
High variation percentages of between 100% and 560% were
obtained for feedstocks that have high abatement RS such as DRDF,
poultry litter or cardboard due to the low overall CA achieved by
PBS treating such wastes. In contrast, feedstocks with low abate-
ment RS and high CA such as food waste, green waste, wood waste
or sewage sludge are associated with variation percentages of
between 10% and 70%, depending on the variable that is changed.
In other words, this means that the sensitivity to uncertainty is
much greater for feedstocks with high abatement RS.
Moreover, comparing CA of CCS and BSS considering the
assumptions made for this sensitivity analysis, results suggest that
CA for the BSS will always be higher than the CA achieved by the
CCS except in the following cases:
 When the labile and unstable fraction of the stored carbon is
over 30% (leaving the rest of the variables constant), for feed-
stocks with the lowest carbon storage offsets such as sewage
sludge, digestate or paper sludge;
 When the time horizon variable of the MRT is increased from
100 to 300 years (leaving the rest of the variables constant)
for all the feedstocks analysed except wood waste, where the
CA from the BSS is still higher than for the CCS, due to the high
carbon storage offset achieved by wood waste biochars;
 When the time horizon variable of the MRT is increased from
100 to 200 years and the labile and unstable fraction of the
stored carbon is over 40% for all the feedstocks analysed except
wood waste, cardboard and whisky draff;
 When there are no soil effects related to NPP increase and the
reduction in SOC decomposition rate, except for wood waste
and whisky draff.

Table 3
Sensitivity analysis results for slow pyrolysis biochar systems.

Change (%) Sewage Garden and Food Urban AD DRDF Paper Poultry Card Whisky
sludge (%) Green (%) (%) Wood (%) Digestate (%) Sludge (%) Litter (%) board Draff (%)
(%) (%)
Char stability
Labile fraction high 0–75 34 35 43 41 40 96 32 74 285 56
variation
Labile fraction low 0–30 14 14 17 16 16 38 13 30 114 22
variation
MRT 500 years, time 100–400 years 31 32 40 38 37 101 29 74 565 53
horizon variation
Pyrolysis process
Electrical Efficiency 10–30 25 31 21 28 30 157 25 44 423 23
Char yield 25–35 20 16 23 18 24 78 19 56 167 33
Soil effects
Fertilizer reduction 0–50 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 7 1
SOC increase at 30 t/ha 0–20 97 71 69 54 123 472 109 208 372 95
N2O emission decrease 0–75 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 6 1
Char combustion
Heating value of char 25–35 MJ/kg 26 22 24 21 32 156 27 76 83 39
 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868
3.6. Other issues arising from the production of biochar from
biodegradable waste
Although it is not the scope of this study to include a quantita-
tive or qualitative analysis about the possible issues derived from
biochar production, we believe it is important to briefly point them
out before biochar and bioenergy production from biodegradable
waste become common practice.
One of these issues is that biochar materials produced from
non-virgin feedstocks may have a higher risk of having contami-
nants than those produced from virgin feedstocks (Shackley and
Sohi, 2010). The most common pollutants that can be found in
wastes such as sewage sludge, wood waste or RDF are heavy
metals or organic compounds such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), dioxins, and, to a lesser extent, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) due to the presence of such chemical (or precursors) in
adhesives or additives in various industrial processes and their
high persistence in the environment (Amlinger et al., 2004).
Moreover, recent evidence has found that the thermal treatment
process itself may be another source of pollutants such as PAHs
(Garcia-Perez, 2008; Shackley and Sohi, 2010) or source of precur-
sors of pollutants (Shatowitz and Brandt, 1994).
Finally, other environmental impacts such as acidification,
caused by the release of acid substances (SO2, SO3, NOx, HCl, or
HF) contained in the feedstock, or eutrophication caused by excess
emissions of nitrogen oxides and nitrates, have been associated
with the pyrolysis and gasification of municipal waste (Khoo,
2009).
The risks associated with the utilization of urban biodegradable
waste could be decreased by the inclusion and effective design of
waste separation and collection systems as part of the integral
implementation of a P/GBSPBS. For example, impurity rates
decrease when a door-to-door (kerbside) collection system is
implemented rather than using in-road container systems
(Morselli et al., 2008). Moreover, compost produced from sepa-
rately collected organic household waste showed a significant
decrease in potential toxic elements as compared to compost pro-
duced from non-separated municipal solid waste (Amlinger et al.,
2004).
The elaboration of a quality protocol for the utilization of bio-
char for soil enhancement purposes, similar to the standards that
have been already developed for the compost industry in the UK,
would also help. Although some problems have recently been de-
tected in the elaboration and implementation of these standards
(Farrell and Jones, 2009), they give useful guidelines for pollution
levels and product application.
4. Conclusions
A LCA of 10 different biodegradable waste feedstocks was per-
formed from a carbon abatement and bioenergy generation point
of view, and based on theoretical calculations and data available
in the literature. Whilst bearing in mind that pyrolysis and gasifi-
cation are yet uncommon at large scale, preliminary results sug-
gest the following:
 Pyrolysis and gasification technologies are able to generate car-
bon abatement by the treatment of any type of waste (except
cardboard) when the system considers that the biochar pro-
duced is used for either soil and crop enhancement or combus-
tion activities;
 Slow pyrolysis systems are associated with the highest net car-
bon abatements since they produce the highest biochar yields;
 Relative contribution of the P/GBS life cycle stages to carbon
abatement are dominated by the carbon storage offset in slow
867
pyrolysis configurations and by the electricity offset in fast
pyrolysis and gasification configurations. The pyrolysis process
and transportation emissions are a minor proportion of the
overall abatement;
 CA for slow pyrolysis vary from 0.07 to 1.25 tonnes of
CO2 eq. t1 of feedstock, depending on the waste treated and
the configuration of the system;
 Reference systems have a major influence on the overall carbon
abatement per functional unit. The highest abatements by P/
GBS can be achieved when the biodegradable waste is diverted
from no or low abatement reference systems such as landfills,
land spreading, or cattle feed, as compared to high abatement
reference systems such as recycling or incineration;
 For almost all the cases, the abatements are higher when the
biochar produced by P/GBS is used for soil and crop enhance-
ment purposes, as compared to the scenario where the charcoal
is used for combustion purposes;
 In terms of energy generation, gasification generates more
energy for any feedstock treated than fast or slow pyrolysis
since it is the technology that achieves the highest electrical
efficiency and the lowest level of char.
Acknowledgements
This research was performed as part of the Master of Science
degree in Environmental Sustainability at University of Edinburgh
with special help of the UKBRC.
References
AEA, 2008. BEAT2 (Biomass Environmental Assessment Tool): User Guide. AEA
Technology and North Energy, 72pp.
Amlinger, F., Pollak, M., Favoino, E., 2004. Heavy metals and organic compounds
from wastes used as organic fertilisers. European Commission.
Anderson, K., Bows, A., 2008. Reframing the climate change challenge in light of
post-2000 emission trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 366,
3863–3882.
Barton, J.R., 2008. Carbon-making the right choice for waste management in
developing countries. Waste Management 28, 690–698.
Bogner, J., Abdelrafie, A.M., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Mareckova, K.,
Pipatti, R., Zhang, T., 2007. Waste management. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R.,
Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, p. 4pp.
Bosch, D., Napit, K., 1992. Economics of transporting poultry litter to achieve more
effective use as fertilizer. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47 (4), 342–
346.
Brewer, Catherine E., Schmidt-Rohr, Klaus, Satrio, Justinus A., Brown, Robert C.,
2009. Characterization of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems.
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 28 (3), 386–396.
CT, 2009. Conversion Factors. Carbon Trust.
Das, K.C., Garcia-Perez, M., Bibens, B., Melear, N., 2008. Slow pyrolysis of poultry
litter and pine woody biomass: Impact of chars and bio-oils on microbial
growth. Journal of Environmental Science and Health: Part A 43, 714–724.
Defra, 2008. Guidelines to Defra’s GHG Conversion Factors: Annexes updated April
2008. Defra, London.
EC, 2003. Refuse derived fuels, current practice and perspectives. Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels.
Climate Change 2007: Limiting global climate change to 2 degrees Celsius: The way
ahead for 2020 and beyond. Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels.
ECN, 2010. Phyllis database for biomass and waste.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P., 2008. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science 319, 1235–1238.
Farrell, M., Jones, D., 2009. Heavy metal contamination of a mixed waste compost:
metal speciation and fate. Bioresource Technology 100, 4423–4432.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., et al., 2009. Recent developments
in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1), 1–21.
Garcia-Perez, M., 2008. The formation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins
during pyrolysis. Washington State University, 63pp.
Gaunt, J., Cowie, A., 2009. Biochar greenhouse gas accounting and emissions trading.
In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management,
Earthscan, London, pp. 317-340.
Gentil, E., Christensen, T.H., Aoustin, E., 2009. Greenhouse gas accounting and waste
management. Waste management & research: the journal of the International
Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association. ISWA 27 (8), 696–706.
868 R. Ibarrola et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 859–868
Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S., Brownsort, P., 2011. Prospective lifecycle carbon
abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39, 2646–
2655.
Houghton, J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Lim, B., Tréanton, K., Mamaty, I., Bonduki, Y., Griggs,
D.J., Callander, B.A., 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Hadley Centre Meteorological Office, United
Kingdom.
IPCC, 2006. Waste generation, composition and management data. IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Chap. 2.
Jackson, J., Choudrie, S., Thistlethwaite, G., Passant, N., Murrells, T., Watterson, J.,
Mobbs, D., Cardenas, L., Thomson, A., Leech, A., Li, Y., Manning, A., Walker, C.,
Brophy, N., Sneddon, S., Pierce, M., Thomas, J., Brown, K., 2008. UK Greenhouse
Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2006, Annual Report for submission under the
Framework Convention on Climate Change. National Air Emissions Inventory,
AEA Technology Harwell, Oxon.
JRC, 2006. Analysis of future automotive fuels and power trains in the European
context. European Commission.
Khoo, H., 2009. Life cycle impact assessment of various waste conversion
technologies. Waste Management 29, 1892–1900.
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and
Technology. Earthscan, London.
M.A. Elsayed, Mortimer, N.D., 2001. Carbon and energy modelling of biomass
systems: conversion plant and data updates. Sheffield University.
Morselli, L., Vassura, I., Passarini, F., 2008. Integrated Waste Management.
Technologies and Environmental Control. Sustainable Development and
Environmental Management 4, 159–170.
Nussbaumer, T., 1998. Technical and economic assessment of the technologies for
the conversion of wood to heat, electricity and synthetic fuels, Biomass for
Energy and Industry, 10th European Conference and Technology Exhibition,
Germany.
Phan, A.N., Ryu, C., 2007. Characterisation of slow pyrolysis products from
segregated wastes for energy production. Journal of Analytical and Applied
Pyrolysis 81, 65–71.
Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R., Lehmann, J., 2010. Life cycle
assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic and climate
change potential. Environmental Science and Technology.
Shackley, S., Sohi, S.P., 2010. An assessment of the benefits and issues associated
with the application of biochar to soil. Defra, London, 132pp.
Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Gaunt, J., Ibarrola, R., 2011. The feasibility and costs of
biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Management 2 (3), 335–356.
Shatowitz, B., Brandt, G., 1994. Dioxin emissions from wood combustion.
Chemosphere 29, 2005–2013.
Shinogi, Y., Yoshida, H., Koizumi, T., Yamaoka, M., Saito, T., 2002. Basic
characteristics of low-temperature carbon products from waste sludge.
Advances in Environmental Research 7, 661–665.
Strezov, V., 2009. Thermal processing of paper sludge and characterisation of its
pyrolysis products. Waste Management 29, 1644–1648.
Tenenbaum, D.J., 2009. Biochar: carbon mitigation from the ground up, environews
innovation. Environmental Health Perspectives 112, 117.
Thornley, P., Upham, P., Huang, Y., Rezvani, S., Brammer, J., Rogers, J., 2009.
Integrated assessment of bioelectricity technology options. Energy Policy 37,
890–903.
Verheijen, F., Jeffery, S., Bastos, A.C., van der Velde, M., Diafas, I., Parsons, C., 2009.
Biochar Application to Soils: A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil
Properties, Processes and Functions. Joint Research Centre Institute for
Environment and Sustainability. Ispra, Italy.
WRAP, 2006. Environmental benefits of recycling: An international review of life
cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector. Waste Resources
and Action Programme.