Received: 4 September 2018 Revised: 30 November 2018 Accepted: 30 November 2018

DOI: 10.1002/er.4361

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Costs of biomass pyrolysis as a negative emission

technology: A case study

Brian F. Snyder

Department of Environmental Science,

Energy Coast and Environment Bldg.,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
LA, USA
Correspondence
Brian F. Snyder, Department of
Environmental Science, Energy Coast and
Environment Bldg., Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
Email: snyderb@lsu.edu
Summary
Biomass pyrolysis is a promising method for the creation of biochar, a poten-
tially long‐lived carbon sink, and renewable fuels. While a number of studies
of the costs of pyrolysis exist, many fail to value the carbon storage benefit
associated with biochar. Here, we evaluate the costs of three types of small‐
scale pyrolysis systems (slow and fast, compared with gasification) in Costa
Rica. We find that under many combinations of model parameters, fast and
slow pyrolysis models are cost‐effective. Net present values are positive for slow
pyrolysis at carbon prices above $7 t−1, indicating that a low carbon price is
required to make slow pyrolysis cost‐effective. Likewise, fast pyrolysis is cost‐
effective at any positive carbon price. Gasification is generally more costly than
fast or slow pyrolysis, and the net present value of the gasification system is
only positive at electricity prices over $0.15 kWh−1 or carbon prices over
$150 t−1. Thus, both fast and slow pyrolysis models are promising methods
for atmospheric CO2 reduction.

KEYWORDS
biochar, Costa Rica, NPV, pyrolysis, social cost of carbon

1 | INTRODUCTION atmosphere.3 Like other NETs, a pyrolysis‐based NET

Pyrolysis is a method for the thermal decomposition of
organic material and has been studied as a means of dis-
posing of wastes and for generating energy products.1,2
Biomass pyrolysis produces three products: a carbona-
ceous biochar, a complex mix of liquid hydrocarbons
called bio‐oil, and syngas, which is principally composed
of H2, CO, and CH4. When applied to the soil, biochar is a
long‐lived carbon sink, and as a result, biomass pyrolysis
represents one type of negative emission technology
(NET). NETs are a class of technologies that are capable
of reducing the net CO2 concentration of the
will require an input of energy and money.
One way to determine if a NET is cost‐effective is to
compare the required economic subsidy with the social
cost of carbon (SCC). The SCC is an estimate of the costs
borne by future societies, in current dollars, due to the
emission of 1 t of CO2 today. The SCC is used for a variety
of policymaking such that a policy is said to be cost‐
effective if the cost of mitigating 1 t of CO2 falls under
the SCC. Applied to NETs, if the monetary subsidy
needed to make a NET cost‐effective is below the SCC,
we may conclude that the NET is a cost‐effective means
of CO2 mitigation.

Novelty statement: Biomass pyrolysis is a potential negative emission technology, but costs will vary significantly depending on system parameters. We
show that slow and fast pyrolysis can be cost‐effective when even a low social cost of carbon is assumed.

Int J Energy Res. 2019;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 SNYDER
Biological systems provide a promising means of
developing NETs because of the atmospheric carbon cap-
ture inherent in photosynthesis. However, biologically
based NETs require a conversion process in which the
biomass carbon can be stored and some of the energy in
the biomass recovered. There are several thermochemical
processes for the conversion of biomass to higher value
energy products and carbon storage. Table 1 shows the
basic properties of three selected methods and their prod-
ucts (see Tripathi et al6 for further details). In all three
thermochemical conversion processes, an organic mate-
rial is heated in the absence of oxygen, and a thermal
decomposition occurs in which the parent material is
modified into a complex mixture of compounds.7 The
products separate into a solid and vapor phase with the
vapor made up of condensable (at STP conditions) and
noncondensable portions. The solid portion is typically a
fine charcoal. The condensable portion is generally recov-
ered as a liquid (bio‐oil); the noncondensable portion is a
syngas.
Here, we aim to analyze the cost of an NET system
using fast pyrolysis, slow pyrolysis, and gasification sys-
tems in the tropical, developing world. We use estimates
of the SCC to monetize the carbon storage value. Because
of our focus on a tropical and middle‐income system,
many of the assumptions are different from the developed
and temperate world, due to the high growth rates and
low labor costs in the tropics. The paper begins with an
overview of existing economic analyses of thermochemi-
cal conversion systems, and we then describe the study
system and the model methods. We describe the model
results and conduct a sensitivity analysis, and the paper
ends with a discussion of limitations and conclusions.
2 | P Y R O L Y S I S SY S TEM CO S T S
Several studies have estimated the costs of pyrolysis sys-
tems. Because pyrolysis creates different products which
are of varying interest to different researchers, the unit
of analysis varies between studies; some studies have
examined the break‐even costs of electricity, while others
have studied the break‐even costs of bio‐oil, biochar,
and/or carbon. Table 2 describes selected economic
TABLE 1 Types and end‐products of pyrolysis
Mode Temperature, °C Residence Time, s
Fast 500 1 50‐75
Slow 400 >300
Gasification 800 >60
4 5
Source: Bridgewater and Laird
studies of pyrolysis, and while not intended to be exhaus-
tive, it is intended to highlight the most relevant analyses.
While pyrolysis may be cost‐competitive under some cir-
cumstances, results depend on the specifics of the model
system and the assumptions made by the researchers,
and generalizations across space or system configuration
are likely to be unreliable. Notably, many studies of
pyrolysis systems have either not included a price of car-
bon or have included a relatively low (less than $30 t−1)
cost of carbon. Here, we highlight a few selected studies
that are especially relevant to the present analysis either
because of their inclusion of a carbon price, their context
in developing or middle‐income nations, or their novelty.
Rhodes and Keith12 modeled a 150‐MW, US‐based
gasification system with and without carbon capture
and storage (CCS). Without CCS, they found the cost of
electricity to be just $0.059 kWh−1; with CCS, electricity
production costs increased to $0.082 kWh−1. Rhodes
and Keith did model carbon prices and found that these
electricity costs would require a carbon price of $102
and $123 t−1, respectively, to be cost‐competitive with
coal. However, the costs of biomass gasification with
CCS represent an early cost estimate of a biologically
based NET.
Roberts et al19 studied the break‐even costs of a slow
pyrolysis system using switchgrass, corn stover, or yard
waste as feedstocks. They assumed char costs of approxi-
mately $40 to $80 t−1 and an energetic return of $35 to
$55 t−1 of feedstock (depending on the feedstock).
Roberts et al did evaluate the effects of carbon prices
and found break‐even carbon prices of $2 t−1 CO2e for
yard waste, $40 t−1 CO2e for stover, and $62 t−1 for
switchgrass. Given current estimates of the SCC, yard
waste–based slow pyrolysis is likely cost‐effective, and
corn stover and switchgrass would be cost‐effective under
many SCC estimates.
Brown et al21 modeled the profitability of the fast and
slow pyrolysis of corn stover assuming an increasing
price for gasoline and carbon offsets over the 2015 to
2030 period. When feedstock costs were included, slow
pyrolysis was never profitable, but fast pyrolysis was
profitable even at high ($83 t−1) feedstock prices. Brown
et al did include a carbon price which escalated from
$17.33 to $39.16 t−1 over the 2015 to 2030 period. This
Liquid, % Gas, % Char, %
12‐25 13‐15
30 35 35
5 10 85
SNYDER 3

TABLE 2 Selected previous economic studies of pyrolysis

Pyrolysis Capital Biomass

Study Type Scale Costs Price Results

Farag et al8 Fast Large $3320 kW−1 $18 t−1 Bio oil price: $0.89‐$1.21 gal−1
Bridgwater et al9 Fast Large Variable $70 t−1 Break‐even electricity price: $0.09‐$0.18 kWh−1
−1 −1 −1
Peacocke et al 10
Fast Small $9000 t h $70 t Break‐even electricity price: $0.15 kWh−1
Large $900 t−1 h−1 Break‐even electricity price: $0.60 kWh−1
Bilek et al11 Gasification Small $2000 kW−1 0 Break‐even electricity price: $0.10 kWh−1
Rhodes and Keith12 Gasification Large $1250 kW−1 $50 t−1 Without CCS, break‐even electricity price: $0.059 kWh−1
With CCS, break‐even electricity price: $0.082 kWh−1
Caputo et al13 Gasification Large $3125 kW−1 $33 t−1 Break‐even electricity price: $0.13 kWh−1
Dowaki et al14 Gasification Large $4850 kW−1 $100 t−1 Break‐even electricity price: $0.144 to $0.329 kWh−1
Ringer et al15 Fast Large $29 million $30 t−1 Bio oil price: $7.62 GJ−1
−1 −1
Nouni et al 16
Gasification Small $1000 kW $34 t Break‐even electricity price: $0.26 kWh−1
Ruan et al17 Fast Small $266 000 t−1 h−1 $33 t−1 Net income of $42 000 year−1
McCarl et al18 Fast or slow Large $1896 kW−1 $59.44 t−1 Break‐even electricity price: $0.11 kWh−1
Roberts et al19 Slow Large $16 t−1 $37‐43 t−1 Break‐even carbon price $2‐$62 t−1
Sorenson20 Fast Large $10 million $45.33 t−1 Break‐even: $1.36 gal bio‐oil−1; $16 t biochar−1
Brown et al21 Fast Large $110 million $83 t−1 IRR = 15% at biofuel price of $2.98 gal−1
Slow $72 million $0 t−1 IRR = 8%
Jaroenkhasemmeesuk Fast Small $150 000 $24 t−1 Break‐even biofuel price: $1 L−1
and Tippayawong22
Li et al23 Gasification Large $510 million $83 t−1 Break‐even biofuel price: $5.59 gal−1
Hu et al24 Fast Large $317 million $80 t−1 Break‐even biofuel price: $3.09 gal−1
Carrasco et al25 Fast Large $427 million $69 t−1 Break‐even biofuel price: $6.35 gal−1
Pighinelli et al26 Fast Large $138 million $50 t−1 Break‐even electricity price: 0.34 to $0.62 kWh−1
Wang and Jan27 Fast Large $28.9 million $30 t−1 Break‐even bio‐oil price: $0.55 L−1

range is slightly lower than EPA estimates for the same
period; the mean EPA SCC estimate for 2015 is $36 t−1
increasing to $50 t−1 by 2030. They did not conduct a
sensitivity analysis on the carbon price, so it is difficult
to know how a higher price of carbon would impact
their results.
Nouni et al16 studied small‐scale (5 to 40 kW) biomass
gasification projects in rural India and found that the cost
of electricity ranged from $0.16 to $0.34 kWh−1 and that
biomass gasification becomes cost‐competitive with diesel
generators at diesel prices above $0.80 L−1. Commensu-
rate with a developing world system, Nouni et al used
modest feedstock prices and low labor costs ($0.3 h−1),
but did not consider a cost of carbon. Importantly, Nouni
et al's system was generally financially viable principally
because there was an existing demand for the product
(electricity), and the product sold in the region at a
relatively high price compared with Western markets.
Jaroenkhasemmeesuk and Tippayawong22 analyzed
the costs of bio‐oil production from an existing small‐
scale fast pyrolysis plant in Thailand. The plant produced
about 30 L of bio‐oil per day at a cost of approximately
$1 L−1 given a feedstock price of $24 t−1. Low feedstock
prices were due to the use of sawmill wastes. Again,
carbon prices were not incorporated. Like Costa Rica,
Thailand is a middle‐income country with limited
transport and market infrastructure, and as a result,
Jaroenkhasemmeesuk and Tippayawong found that even
at low bio‐oil prices, there was a limited market for
bio‐oil.
Ji et al28 also studied the use of waste biomass in a fast
pyrolysis plant in a middle‐income nation, China. They
modeled a large‐scale (4000 kg h−1) system and assumed
somewhat higher feedstock costs than in other
waste‐biomass systems of $58 t−1 (400 yuan) for rice
husk wastes. Production costs were about $252 t−1 (1748
yuan t−1) compared with a sales price of $303 t−1 (2100
yuan t−1), suggesting that the system could be profitable.
As in most other analyses, carbon prices were not
considered.
Interestingly, Gao et al29 modeled the economics of
rapeseed stalk pyrolysis in China at alternative pyrolysis
4 SNYDER
reaction temperatures. They used a fixed‐bed reactor to
estimate char, gas, and bio‐oil yields, and used data from
an existing moving bed pilot plant to estimate economic
parameters, with increasing capital costs associated with
higher reaction temperatures. Given their economic value
assumptions, Gao et al found that the highest returns
were associated with reactor conditions of about 650°C,
when liquid yield still predominated, but the yield of all
three products was relatively high; however, if carbon
prices were incorporated, the optimal reaction conditions
might shift towards lower temperatures with higher char
yields.
3 | STUDY SYSTEM
We model small to mid‐scale thermochemical systems in
a neotropical developing, middle‐income nation, Costa
Rica. In general, novel energy systems are first studied
and employed in the developed world and gradually
spread to the developing world, and most academic atten-
tion for the application of pyrolysis has also focused on
the developed world. However, the developing world
may provide greater opportunities for the use of some
alternative energy systems, especially bioenergy or
biomass‐based NET systems.30
In the developed world, the growth of energy use is
typically low as economies become less energy intensive
and production shifts from the manufacturing sector to
the service sector; in contrast, in the developing world,
energy demand growth can be extreme, and in some
cases, it may be difficult for a country to meet demand
with new generation. Costa Rica, along with much of
Latin America, expects to see rapid energy demand
growth in the coming decades. Unlike much of the devel-
oping world, most of the nations of Central America
have little or no domestic hydrocarbon reserves or pro-
duction, and as a result, hydrocarbons are frequently
more expensive in Central America than in oil‐producing
nations. As a result, developing world alternative energy
systems may be more attractive than developed world
systems.
Second, the neotropical developing world has high
rates of net primary productivity, even in the absence of
human‐provided energy subsidies. This may reduce the
costs of bioenergy systems relative to the temperate devel-
oped world. The potential absence of human‐provided
energy subsidies (irrigation and fertilizer) reduces con-
cerns about net energy losses and unintended negative
ecological consequences in bioenergy systems. For exam-
ple, the production of ethanol from corn in the United
States may or may not provide a positive net energy
return31,32 and contributes to fertilizer runoff and the
Gulf of Mexico dead zone.33 Thus, systems that can be
grown without fertilizer and/or irrigation may be more
sustainable. Similarly, Central America is dominated by
highly degraded soils, and these soils have shown the
largest and most consistent benefits from biochar applica-
tion.34-37 As a result, biochar may have more value in the
Central America than in other regions.
Third, the energetic, environmental, and economic
costs of bioenergy systems are a function of transporta-
tion distances of both feedstocks and products. While
many energy systems experience economies of scale in
both environmental and economic sustainability, some
bioenergy systems may be more efficient at small scale.
To date, this seems to be the case for household and
farm‐scale anaerobic digestion which have been relatively
successful in the developing world,38,39 and it reasonable
to think that a similar pattern may hold for biomass
pyrolysis.
4 | METHODS
We created net present value (NPV) models to estimate
the cash flows associated with three different types of
thermochemical conversion. We modeled three small‐
scale systems (5 t of biomass per day): a slow pyrolysis
system, a gasification system, and a fast pyrolysis system.
With the exception of gasification, none of these systems
are currently commercially available, and therefore,
important variables were obtained from manufacturer
estimates and published literature.
4.1 | Model structure
Net present value is the current value of a series of
annual cash flows and is equal to
Rt
NPV ¼ R0 þ ∑
ð1 þ i Þt
where R is the cash flow at time t and i is the discount
rate.40 The model was iterated over a 20‐year period. A
flowchart of the model system is shown in Figure 1; not
all sources of income shown in the figure apply to all
systems. Costs are composed of capital and operating
expenditures. Each of the models was parameterized
with optimistic, pessimistic, and expected assumptions.
A discount rate of 10% was used in all parameterizations.
In all models, capital costs consisted of the reactor,
generator, and biomass processing facilities. In the gasifi-
cation system, the hydrogen produced was assumed to be
combusted for electricity. In all scenarios, it was assumed
that the facility would be placed on land already owned
SNYDER
FIGURE 1 Visual representation of the
model. Red signifies capital costs; green
signifies operating costs; black signifies
sources of income [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
by the operator of the system, and the costs or opportu-
nity costs of land were not considered. All capital costs
were financed over a 5‐year period through a fixed princi-
pal, declining interest loan.
For all systems, the components of operating costs
were labor, maintenance, biomass, and insurance. The
reactor was operational for a variable number of hours
per day and days per year depending on the scenario
used. Labor needs, biomass tonnage, and maintenance
costs of the biomass processing system were a function
of the time the reactor was operational. Insurance costs
and maintenance cost of the pyrolysis system were a fixed
annual percent of capital costs.
Annual revenue was a function of the total biomass
input and the proportion of char, syngas, and bio‐oil pro-
duced, as well as the proportion of hydrogen in the syn-
gas. Hydrogen was assumed to be the only source of
energy in the syngas and was burned on‐site for electric-
ity. Bio‐oil and char were both sold to consumers at a
fixed price.
5
Carbon reductions were accounted for by separating
carbon‐negative and carbon‐neutral reduction. Carbon‐
neutral reductions are created when a CO2‐neutral form
of energy displaces a CO2‐positive form of energy, and
are so named because they do not reduce the net
atmospheric concentration of CO2. In contrast, carbon‐
negative reductions are those associated with the
long‐term storage of carbon that is captured from the
atmosphere; that is, a carbon‐negative reduction is
generated by a NET.3 Carbon‐neutral carbon reductions
were calculated as a function of the amount of energy
produced by the combustion of bio‐oil and/or syngas
compared with the baseline production method; carbon‐
negative reductions were a function of the weight of char
output. Carbon reductions could be created by the
reduction of fertilizer use from the addition of char to
the soil, but these were not considered.19 The same price
was used for both types of reductions, but the distinction
is important because carbon‐neutral and carbon‐negative
reductions reflect fundamentally different processes.
6 SNYDER
4.2 | Model assumptions
4.2.1 | Product values
Bio‐oil is functionally similar to diesel fuel, at least for the
purpose of running stationary generators,9 and we
assume that bio‐oil is sold to local consumers for use in
backup generators. Recent diesel costs in Costa Rica have
ranged from $1.2 to $1.4 L−1 ($1.4 to $1.7 kg−1; The
World Bank41). Diesel fuel has 2.3 times the energy con-
tent of bio‐oil, and we estimate the value of the bio‐oil
as 43% of the value of diesel fuel, or $0.5 kg−1 in the
expected scenario (excluding carbon credits). The costs
of diesel fuel vary widely over time, and it is not possible
to confidently predict the price of diesel over a 20‐year
period. However, we consider $0.5 kg−1 to be conserva-
tive. Importantly, bio‐oil differs from diesel in a number
of ways beyond its energy content; most notably, bio‐oil
has a higher water content, higher viscosity,42 and is
more corrosive to plastics than diesel.43 This suggests that
emulsification with diesel and/or an alteration of the
polymeric engine components would be required.43,44
The price of biochar is uncertain. A ton of biochar has
a similar energy content as a ton of coal45 and may be
used as a coal replacement in some applications46,47; this
would suggest a price of biochar roughly equivalent to
coal. However, coal is not widely used in Costa Rica or
much of Latin America, and thus, the utility of a coal sub-
stitute is questionable. Therefore, we model the costs of
biochar as a soil amendment. For agricultural uses,
authors have suggested prices of $120 to $180 t−1, but
these prices may be optimistic for farm‐scale use in the
developing world. Rondon et al found a 28% increase in
maize productivity using a 20 t ha−1 application of
biochar in eastern Colombian soils.48 Given the price of
maize in Costa Rica, this would yield an extra $681 ha−1
and would make the value of char for agricultural
purposes approximately $34 t−1. Biochar may be more
valuable if used to improve forage production for cattle.
We assume a range of $25 to $50 t−1 with an expected
value of $35 t−1. Biochar has additional value as a carbon
sequestration mechanism; this value can be captured in
the sale price of the biochar and passed to the end user,
or credits could be retained by the pyrolysis system
operator. This value is not included in the price of the
biochar and is separately incorporated in the form of
carbon‐negative credits.
The value of electricity input into a grid can be diffi-
cult to determine and depends on the predictability of
the generation and the time at which it is produced. Fur-
ther, the value of the electricity to a grid producer is less
than the retail price due to transmission costs. However,
in a small‐scale system in which the producer consumes
the electricity produced, the value of the electricity is
the retail price. This method for valuing electricity is the
relevant method for production and use by a farm, farm
cooperative, or village. In Costa Rica, retail electricity
prices have been increasing dramatically since 2013 and
vary with monthly usage and time of day. As of 2016,
retail electricity prices varied from ¢5 kWh−1 for nonpeak
use to ¢29 kWh−1 for peak use.49 Therefore, we used a
range of 10 to ¢17.5 kWh−1 with an expected value of ¢
12.5 kWh−1.
We assume a carbon price range of $15 to $45 t−1 with
an expected value of $30 t−1. This range is roughly similar
to the SCC employed by the US EPA ($11 to $56 t−1 with
a mid‐value of $36 t−1 in 2015, escalating to $12 to $62 t−1
with a mid‐value of $42 t−1 in 2020). However, the EPA's
SCC estimates are lower than most meta‐analytic esti-
mates which average about $400 t−150; thus, it is unlikely
that the “real” SCC is this low.
Carbon‐neutral and carbon‐negative reductions were
assumed to have the same value. We assume that 70%
of the carbon in the char is permanently stored and con-
tributes to climate mitigation.51,52 We assume that “per-
manent storage” implies a stable soil carbon reservoir
that exists for 200 to 400 years; as a result, our assump-
tion that 70% of carbon applied to the soil is permanently
stored reflects a biochar half‐life of 388 to 777 years.
There are a number of half‐life predictions for biochar
which range from a few decades to several millennia53;
our half‐life estimate is approximately in the middle of
this range. Each ton of soil‐stabilized char is assumed to
remove 3.66 t of atmospheric carbon (44/12). Further car-
bon reductions be created from reduced use of fertilizer;
however, in our model system, we do not assume that fer-
tilization rates necessarily decrease. Bio‐oil and gas are
assumed to displace diesel‐fired electricity in backup gen-
erators, and carbon reductions are created accordingly.
Each ton of bio‐oil sold offsets 1.4 t of CO2 emissions,
and each kilowatt hour of gas‐fired electricity offsets
0.8 kg of CO2 emissions.
4.2.2 | Costs
Biomass costs of $5, $10, and $20 t−1 were used for the
optimistic, expected, and pessimistic scenarios, respec-
tively. This is significantly lower than biomass costs used
in bioenergy models in the developed world and is
informed by Snyder54 who found that biomass can be
provisioned at a negative cost in some developing world
systems when the value of ecosystem services is consid-
ered. The costs of transportation of the biomass were
included in the costs of the biomass. After delivery to
the pyrolysis site, biomass is dried and ground to a
SNYDER
uniform size. A KDS Micronex S4 system or equivalent is
used to simultaneously grind and dry the biomass. The
system has a capital cost of $300 000, requires 150 kW
of power, and has a maximum output of 4 t h−1.55 The
KDS system is electrical and requires no external heat
source, can process biomass containing up to 70% water,
and can grind particles to under 2 mm. We assume that
labor used for the pyrolysis system is also used to operate
the biomass processing system and that maintenance
costs are $1 per operating hour. Operating costs are deter-
mined by the operating time multiplied by the power
demand and the price of electricity.
Costs for the pyrolysis system include capital and
operating expenditures. Assumed capital expenditures
and product yields are given in Table 3.56 Slow pyrolysis
systems are the least expensive, while gasification systems
are the most expensive. To facilitate comparisons, all sys-
tems are scaled to 5 t per day. For slow pyrolysis, a system
with parameters similar to the Pacific pyrolysis system is
modeled. For fast pyrolysis, a system with characteristics
similar to the Biogreen or Renewable Oil International
system is selected. For gasification, the Community
Power Corporation system is used as a model. Since the
pyrolysis process is endothermic, an energy penalty equal
to 10% of the input material is assumed to be used to
power the reaction. For gas products, the electrical effi-
ciency of the system is assumed to be 35%.57 Maintenance
costs are assumed to be 4% of the equipment purchase
price annually; a miscellaneous charge of $5000 is
included for administrative, marketing, and other costs.
The capital costs are spread over the first 6 years of the
project assuming a 20% downpayment and an interest
rate of 7%.
Labor requirements for a small‐scale system are
assumed to consist of one manager/operator and one gen-
eral laborer. Labor costs in Costa Rica are fixed by the
government and are based on a daily, rather than hourly
rate. Employees may work up to 12 hours per day at min-
imum daily rate, and there are a number of minimum
wages depending on the qualifications of the employee.
As of 2016, the minimum wage for semiskilled labor
was approximately $16 per day (plus a 26% premium paid
to the government for social benefits, plus workers'
TABLE 3 Cost and output assumptions used in the models
System Slow Fast Gasification
Capital costs ($1000) 400‐800 500‐1000 600‐1200
Char yield, % 35 30 0 for 15% to 20% of costs. Taxes and the discount rate have
Liquid yield, % 25 60 0 a significant effect on the financial viability of the project;
Gas yield, % 30 0 90
Energy penalty, % 10 10 10
7
compensation insurance premiums). We assume that
one semiskilled laborer is required whenever the reactor
is operating and assume a wage of $24 per shift with each
shift lasting 8 hours. In the optimistic scenario and
expected scenarios, we assume that the employee has
other duties not associated with the pyrolysis system that
allocates 50% and 25% of labor costs to these other duties,
respectively. In the pessimistic scenario, operation of the
system is assumed to account for all labor costs. Note that
while one semiskilled worker is employed per shift, mul-
tiple individuals would be needed to ensure that the sys-
tem is constantly monitored during operation.
Costa Rican businesses pay corporate income tax on
net profits, but the tax rate is based on a sliding scale
depending on the gross income of the company. Firms
with incomes less than approximately $85 000 are
charged a 10% tax; firms with income less than
$170 000 are charged a 20% tax, and firms with incomes
greater than $170 000 are charged a 30% tax, and the
model employs these tax values.
4.2.3 | Inflation and currency conversion
All model input are denominated in 2016 $. Due to time
delays and data availability, many data sources were not
available in 2016 $, and were inflated using the US pro-
ducer price index. For data that were denominated in
prior year Costa Rican colon, the data were converted to
US dollars using the exchange rate in the year of the price
estimate, then inflated using the US producer price index.
5 | R E SUL T S
5.1 | Slow pyrolysis
Under optimistic and expected assumption sets, the NPV
of the slow pyrolysis system is positive; under pessimistic
assumptions, the NPV of the slow pyrolysis system is neg-
ative. In the expected scenario, annual gross revenues are
approximately $235 000; 50% of revenue is due to bio‐oil
sales, 20% is associated with electricity production, 5% is
due to char sales, and 25% is due to carbon credit sales.
Char‐based credits account for 45% of carbon credit pro-
duction. Approximately 50% of annual costs are due to
maintenance of the pyrolysis and biomass preparation
systems; biomass purchases and labor costs each account
when the discount rate and tax rate are set to zero, the
NPV of the expected scenario increases from $378 000
to $2.3 million.
8 SNYDER
Figure 2 shows the combination of product prices at
which NPV is zero in the expected parameterization. On
the graph, areas above the lines are combinations of
parameters that yield positive NPV, while the areas below
the lines yield negative NPVs. Even at very low carbon
prices (below $2 t−1), the NPV of the model may be pos-
itive if the char price is above $40 t−1. At bio‐oil prices
below $250 t−1, NPV may still be positive if the char price
is over $55 t−1.
5.2 | Fast pyrolysis
Under expected and optimistic assumption sets, the NPV
of the fast pyrolysis model is positive; under the pessimis-
tic assumption set, the NPV is negative. In the expected
scenario, the gross annual revenue is approximately
$375 000, approximately 60% higher than in the slow
pyrolysis model. Approximately 77% of revenue is associ-
ated with bio‐oil sales, and approximately 20% is associ-
ated with the sale of carbon credits. Less than 3% of
revenue is due to direct char sales, but char does account
for nearly 30% of the carbon credits produced.
The NPV of the expected scenario is $1.1 million
which increases to $3.3 million under the optimistic
assumption set and $4.7 million when the discount rate
and tax rate are set to zero. Under pessimistic assump-
tions, the NPV is −$430 000.
5.3 | Gasification
The gasification model exhibits significantly more nega-
tive results than either the slow or fast pyrolysis model,
and the NPV is only positive under the optimistic
assumption set. Under the expected assumption set, the
NPV is −$760 000, and the NPV improves only slightly
FIGURE 2 Break‐even bio‐oil, char, and carbon prices in the
slow pyrolysis model, expected parameterization [Colour figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
when taxes and the discount rate are set to zero (to −
$646 000). Even under the optimistic assumption set,
the NPV is only slightly positive ($228 000).
6 | S E N S I TI V I T Y
6.1 | Slow pyrolysis
The model is relatively insensitive to changes in the price
of biomass. In the slow pyrolysis model, the break‐even
price of biomass was $67.5 t−1 in the expected parameter-
ization, relative to an expected value of $10 t−1. In the
optimistic scenario, the NPV was positive under all bio-
mass prices below $99.7 t−1, while in the pessimistic sce-
nario, the NPV was negative at all biomass prices greater
than −$174 t−1. Thus, very large changes in biomass
prices are required to change the NPV of the system.
Figure 3 shows the NPV of the expected, optimistic,
and pessimistic scenarios under varying carbon prices in
the slow pyrolysis model. The model results are mostly
linear, but some nonlinearity occurs because of Costa
Rica's progressive tax system. Regardless of the price of
carbon, the pessimistic scenario is never profitable. The
optimistic and expected scenarios are profitable at all car-
bon prices; however, the NPV of the expected scenario is
nearly zero when carbon prices are set to zero. The slope
of the relationship between NPV and carbon prices was
not equal in the three scenarios; the expected scenario
was the most sensitive to changes in carbon prices, and
every $1 increase in carbon prices increased the NPV by
$12 000. In the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, each
$1 increase in the price of carbon is associated with an
approximately $8000 increase in the NPV.
FIGURE 3 Relationship between the carbon price and net
present value in the slow pyrolysis model [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SNYDER
The relationship between NPV and bio‐oil prices is
shown in Figure 4 for the slow pyrolysis model. In the
optimistic scenario, the NPV is always positive, even if
bio‐oil is given no value; in the pessimistic scenario,
NPV is negative at bio‐oil prices under $1350 t−1. In the
expected scenario, the break‐even bio‐oil price is approx-
imately $275 t−1. Bio‐oil prices of $275 t−1 are equivalent
to diesel prices of $0.54 L−1 ($2.04 gal−1); even if bio‐oil
must be priced at a significant discount to be marketable,
the model suggests that if the expected conditions hold,
the pyrolysis system may be profitable.
In the default parameterizations, char was assumed to
be an inexpensive agricultural product for use at the farm
scale. Char could also be marketed to consumers as a gar-
den product, equivalent to a “green” fertilizer or as a coal
substitute; in these cases, the price of char may increase
significantly. The results of the model under varying char
prices are shown in Figure 5. The model is relatively
FIGURE 4 Relationship between the bio‐oil price and net
present value in the slow pyrolysis model [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 5 Relationship between the char price and net present
value in the slow pyrolysis model [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
9
insensitive to changes in char prices, and due to the
throughput rates, the model sensitivity is highest in the
optimistic scenario, followed by the expected scenario.
6.2 | Fast pyrolysis
Figure 6 shows the NPV of the three model parameteriza-
tions of the fast pyrolysis model with a varying carbon
price. At carbon prices above $60 t−1, the NPV is positive
for all three parameterizations. Figure 7 depicts the rela-
tionship between the bio‐oil price and the NPV. The pes-
simistic assumption set is never profitable at bio‐oil prices
below $500 t−1, but the break‐even point for the expected
parameterization is approximately $200 t−1. Results of the
optimistic assumption set are always positive, even when
bio‐oil is given no monetary value, and the optimistic
FIGURE 6 Relationship between the carbon price and net
present value in the fast pyrolysis model [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 7 Relationship between the bio‐oil price and net
present value in the fast pyrolysis model [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
10
assumption set is the most sensitive parameterization to
price changes.
6.3 | Gasification
Figure 8 depicts the relationship between the carbon
price and NPV in the gasification model. At all carbon
prices under $100, the NPV is never positive in the
expected or pessimistic assumption sets, and the price of
carbon must exceed $15 t−1 for gasification to be profit-
able under the optimistic assumption set.
Figure 9 depicts the sensitivity of the gasification
model to alternative electricity prices. Because of the
increase in throughput and electrical production in the
optimistic parameterization, the optimistic parameteriza-
tion is more sensitive to changes in product prices than
the expected or pessimistic parameterizations. The pessi-
FIGURE 8 Relationship between the carbon price and net
present value in the gasification model [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 9 Relationship between the electricity price and net
present value in the gasification model [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SNYDER
mistic parameterization does not exhibit a positive NPV
at any electricity price below $0.45 kWh−1 while the opti-
mistic parameterization yields a positive NPV at all elec-
tricity prices over $0.075 kWh−1. While gasification is
unlikely to make economic sense under the specified
assumptions, the model results in the Costa Rican context
are slightly more positive than the results from a similarly
scaled gasification system in the United States.58
7 | LIMITATIONS
For all three pyrolysis systems, the optimistic scenario
had a positive NPV while the pessimistic scenario had a
negative NPV; this implies that pyrolysis may or may
not be economically feasible depending on the assump-
tions used. In reality, no scenarios will exactly reflect
the experience of pyrolysis system operators in Costa
Rica. Instead, the scenarios are intended to represent
the range of possible alternatives, and the actual parame-
terization will reflect a combination of values from the
three alternatives presented.
A 10% energy loss was required for the slow, fast, and
gasification systems. The 10% loss may be appropriate for
the slow pyrolysis system because the dehydration reac-
tions typical of slow pyrolysis are exothermic, and rela-
tively little exogenous energy may be required to power
the reaction. However, gasification and fast pyrolysis
may require a larger energy input which would reduce
the profitability of the system. The financial effects of
the energy loss will depend on the specification of the sys-
tem and whether char, gasses, or another fuel are used to
power the reaction. Since biomass costs are low, the
effects of increased energy losses are likely to be minimal
as long as the capital costs of the system scale with prod-
uct outputs rather than inputs.
The analysis did not consider the life cycle impacts of
the bioenergy system, and it is likely that significant CO2
emissions occur in the supply chain. This would reduce
the net emission reductions and increase the average
price of carbon needed for profitability. The analysis also
used low biomass costs. This is consistent with costs in
the developing world if the positive value of ecosystem
services is incorporated54 or if a waste biomass source is
used.59 Given the large quantity of waste agricultural bio-
mass in Costa Rica,60 it is reasonable to assume that
small‐scale systems could be supplied at low cost.
Likewise, the analysis did not consider N2O emissions
from the soils treated with biochar. Depending on the
system, biochar application has been shown to
increase61-63 or, more commonly, decrease61,62,64-67 N2O
emissions from treated soils. In oxisols like those that
dominate the tropics, biochar application has been shown
SNYDER
to decrease N2O emissions.68 A decrease in N2O emis-
sions from biochar application could be monetized and
incorporated into the model; however, in order to accu-
rately predict how N2O emissions might change, we
would need information about the fertilization regimes
farmer's would employ under biochar application, and
such data are not available.
8 | CONCLUSIONS
Given the specified assumptions, fast and slow pyrolysis
models are cost‐effective means of mitigating CO2 at
nearly any SCC. Gasification, which does not produce sig-
nificant amounts of char, requires a much higher carbon
price, or a combination of high carbon and electricity
prices. While the results only apply to the small‐scale,
tropical developing world context presented here, imple-
mentation of these systems in this context could provide
a sustainably generated revenue stream for developing
world farmers. Nonetheless, there is significant uncer-
tainty in estimates.
ORCID
Brian F. Snyder https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9611-6061
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Gulab H, Hussain K, Malik S, Hussain Z, Shah Z. Catalytic
co‐pyrolysis of Eichhornia Crassipes biomaѕѕ and polyethylene
using waste Fe and CaCO3 catalysts. Int J Energy Res.
2016;40(7):940‐951.
2. Parthasarathy P, Sheeba K. Combined slow pyrolysis and
steam gasification of biomass for hydrogen generation—a
review. Int J Energy Res. 2015;39(2):147‐164.
3. Smith P. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative
emission technologies. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(3):1315‐1324.
4. Bridgewater AV. Biomass fast pyrolysis. Therm Sci. 2004;8(2):21‐50.
5. Laird DA, Brown RC, Amonette JE, Lehmann J. Review of the
pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio‐oil and biochar. Biofuel
Bioprod Bior. 2009;3(5):547‐562.
6. Tripathi M, Sahu JN, Ganesan P. Effect of process parameters on
production of biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;55:467‐481.
7. McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 2):
conversion technologies. Bioresour Technol. 2002;83(1):47‐54.
8. Farag I, LaClaire C, Barrett CJ. Technical, environmental and
economic feasibility of BioOil in New Hampshire's north country.
New Hampshire Industrial Research Center; 2002.
9. Bridgwater AV, Toft AJ, Brammer JG. A techno‐economic
comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with
gasification and combustion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2002;6(3):181‐246.
11
10. Peacocke GVC, Bridgwater AV, Brammer JG. Techno‐economic
assessment of power production from the Wellman and BTG
fast pyrolysis processes. Science in Thermal and Chemical
Biomass Conversion, Victoria, Canada Wissenschaftlicher
Bericht FZKA 7170; 2004.
11. Bilek EM, Skog K, Fried J, Christensen G. Fuel to burn:
economics of converting forest thinnings to energy using
BioMax in southern Oregon. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory; 2005.
12. Rhodes JS, Keith DW. Engineering economic analysis of
biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage. Biomass
Bioenergy. 2005;29(6):440‐450.
13. Caputo AC, Palumbo M, Pelagagge PM, Scacchia F. Economics
of biomass energy utilization in combustion and gasification
plants: effects of logistic variables. Biomass Bioenergy.
2005;28(1):35‐51.
14. Dowaki K, Mori S, Fukushima C, Asai N. A comprehensive
economic analysis of biomass gasification systems. Electrical
Engineering in Japan. 2005;153(3):52‐63.
15. Ringer M, Putsche V, Scahill J. Large‐Scale Pyrolysis Oil; 2006.
16. Nouni MR, Mullick SC, Kandpal TC. Biomass gasifier projects
for decentralized power supply in India: a financial evaluation.
Energy Policy. 2007;35(2):1373‐1385.
17. Ruan R, Chen P, Hemmingsen R, Morey V, Tiffany D. Size
matters: small distributed biomass energy production systems
for economic viability. Int J Agric & Biol Eng. 2008;1:64‐68.
18. McCarl BA, Peacocke C, Chrisman R, Kung CC, Sands RD.
Economics of biochar production, utilization and greenhouse
gas offsets. Biochar Env Manag: Sci Technol. 2009;341‐358.
19. Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR, Lehmann J. Life cycle
assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic,
economic and climate change. Potential Env Sci Technol.
2009;44:827‐833.
20. Sorenson CB. A comparative financial analysis of fast pyrolysis
plants in Southwest Oregon; 2010.
21. Brown TR, Wright MM, Brown RC. Estimating profitability of
two biochar production scenarios: slow pyrolysis vs fast
pyrolysis. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin. 2011;5(1):54‐68.
22. Jaroenkhasemmeesuk C, Tippayawong N. Technical and
economic analysis of a biomass pyrolysis plant. Energy Procedia.
2015;79:950‐955.
23. Li Q, Zhang Y, Hu G. Techno‐economic analysis of advanced
biofuel production based on bio‐oil gasification. Bioresour
Technol. 2015;191:88‐96.
24. Hu W, Dang Q, Rover M, Brown RC, Wright MM. Comparative
techno‐economic analysis of advanced biofuels, biochemicals,
and hydrocarbon chemicals via the fast pyrolysis platform.
Biofuels. 2016;7(1):57‐67.
25. Carrasco JL, Gunukula S, Boateng AA, Mullen CA, DeSisto WJ,
Wheeler MC. Pyrolysis of forest residues: an approach to
techno‐economics for bio‐fuel production. Fuel. 2017;193:
477‐484.
26. Pighinelli AL, Schaffer MA, Boateng AA. Utilization of
eucalyptus for electricity production in Brazil via fast pyrolysis:
a techno‐economic analysis. Renew Energy. 2018;119:590‐597.
12
27. Wang W‐C, Jan J‐J. From laboratory to pilot: design concept and
techno‐economic analyses of the fluidized bed fast pyrolysis of
biomass. Energy. 2018;155:139‐151.
28. Ji L‐Q, Zhang C, Fang J‐Q. Economic analysis of converting of
waste agricultural biomass into liquid fuel: a case study on a
biofuel plant in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;70:224‐229.
29. Gao Y, Wang X, Chen Y, Li P, Liu H, Chen H. Pyrolysis
of rapeseed stalk: influence of temperature on product
characteristics and economic costs. Energy. 2017;122:482‐491.
30. Jeguirim M, Bikai J, Elmay Y, Limousy L, Njeugna E. Thermal
characterization and pyrolysis kinetics of tropical biomass feedstocks
for energy recovery. Energy Sustain Dev. 2014;23:188‐193.
31. Cleveland CJ, Hall CAS, Herendeen RA. Energy returns on
ethanol production. Science. 2006;312(5781):1746‐1748.
32. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O'hare M, Kammen
DM. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals.
Science. 2006;311(5760):506‐508.
33. Donner SD, Kucharik CJ. Corn‐based ethanol production
compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi
River. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105(11):4513‐4518.
34. Kimetu JM, Lehmann J, Ngoze SO, et al. Reversibility of soil
productivity decline with organic matter of differing quality
along a degradation gradient. Ecosystems. 2008;11(5):726‐739.
35. Lehmann J, Pereira da Silva J, Steiner C, Nehls T, Zech W,
Glaser B. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological
Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin:
fertilizer. Manure and Charcoal Amendments Plant and Soil.
2003;249(2):343‐357.
36. Rondon MA, Lehmann J, Ramírez J, Hurtado M. Biological
nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
increases with bio‐char additions. Biol Fertil Soils.
2007;43(6):699‐708.
37. Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, et al. Long term effects of
manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production
and fertility on a highly weathered central Amazonian upland
soil. Plant and Soil. 2007;291(1‐2):275‐290.
38. Colón J, Forbis‐Stokes AA, Deshusses MA. Anaerobic digestion
of undiluted simulant human excreta for sanitation and energy
recovery in less‐developed countries. Energy Sustain Dev.
2015;29:57‐64.
39. Wobiwo FA, Alleluya VK, Emaga TH, et al. Recovery of fibers
and biomethane from banana peduncles biomass through
anaerobic digestion. Energy Sustain Dev. 2017;37:60‐65.
40. Hopkinson M. Net Present value and risk modelling for projects.
Routledge; 2017.
41. The World Bank. 2017. Pump price for diesel fuel. The World
Bank.
42. Yuan X, Ding X, Leng L, et al. Applications of bio‐oil‐based
emulsions in a DI diesel engine: the effects of bio‐oil compositions
on engine performance and emissions. Energy. 2018;154:110‐118.
43. Kass MD, Janke CJ, Connatser RM, Lewis SA Sr, Keiser JR,
Gaston K. Compatibility assessment of fuel system elastomers
with bio‐oil and diesel fuel. Energy Fuel. 2016;30(8):6486‐6494.
SNYDER
44. Lin B‐J, Chen W‐H, Budzianowski WM, Hsieh C‐T, Lin P‐H.
Emulsification analysis of bio‐oil and diesel under various
combinations of emulsifiers. Appl Energy. 2016;178:746‐757.
45. Abdullah H, Wu H. Biochar as a fuel: 1. properties and
grindability of biochars produced from the pyrolysis of mallee
wood under slow‐heating conditions. Energy Fuel. 2009;23(8):
4174‐4181.
46. Morello TF. Carbon neutral merchant pig iron in Brazil:
alternatives that allow decoupling from deforestation. Energy
Sustain Dev. 2015;27:93‐104.
47. Sarawan S, Wongwuttanasatian T. A feasibility study of using
carbon black as a substitute to coal in cement industry. Energy
Sustain Dev. 2013;17(3):257‐260.
48. Rondon, M. A., Molina, D, Hurtado, M. et al. Enhancing the
productivity of crops and grasses while reducing greenhouse
gas emissions through bio‐char amendments to unfertile tropical
soils. Pages 9–15 in 18th World Congress of Soil Science; 2006.
49. Lopez J. Does Costa Rica have the highest electricity rates in the
world. San Jose: The Costa Rica Star; 2016.
50. Tol RS. The economic impacts of climate change. Rev Env Econ
Policy. 2018;12(1):4‐25.
51. Crombie K, Mašek O, Sohi SP, Brownsort P, Cross A. The effect
of pyrolysis conditions on biochar stability as determined by
three methods. Gcb Bioenergy. 2013;5(2):122‐131.
52. Mašek O, Brownsort P, Cross A, Sohi S. Influence of production
conditions on the yield and environmental stability of biochar.
Fuel. 2013;103:151‐155.
53. Spokas KA. Review of the stability of biochar in soils:
predictability of O: C molar ratios. Carbon Management.
2010;1(2):289‐303.
54. Snyder BF. The inclusion of ecosystem service valuations in
bioenergy cost analysis: a case study of constructed wetlands
in the neotropics. Ecol Econ. 2019;156:196‐201.
55. Solomatnikova O, Douville G, Carriera N, et al. Profiles of forest
products: bioenergy technologies based on biomass forestry.in
M. d. R. n. e. d. l. Faune, editor., Quebec; 2011.
56. Vamvuka D. Bio‐oil, solid and gaseous biofuels from biomass
pyrolysis processes—an overview. Int J Energy Res.
2011;35(10):835‐862.
57. Hammond J, Shackley S, Sohi S, Brownsort P. Prospective life
cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the
UK. Energy Policy. 2011;39(5):2646‐2655.
58. Wei L, S. F. To, Pordesimo L, Batchelor W. Evaluation of
micro‐scale electricity generation cost using biomass‐derived
synthetic gas through modeling. Int J Energy Res. 2011;35(11):
989‐1003.
59. Treuer TL, Choi JJ, Janzen DH, et al. Low‐cost agricultural
waste accelerates tropical forest regeneration. Restoration Ecology.
2018;26(2):275‐283.
60. Villalobos CR. Informe De Capacidad De Energias Limpias
Disponibles En Costa Rica 2010.in P. D. E. L. D. Tec, editor.
Instituto Tecnologico de Costa Rica; 2012.
61. Edwards JD, Pittelkow CM, Kent AD, Yang WH. Dynamic
biochar effects on soil nitrous oxide emissions and underlying
SNYDER
microbial processes during the maize growing season. Soil Biol
Biochem. 2018;122:81‐90.
62. Feng Z, Zhu L. Impact of biochar on soil N2O emissions under
different biochar‐carbon/fertilizer‐nitrogen ratios at a constant
moisture condition on a silt loam soil. Sci Total Environ.
2017;584:776‐782.
63. Saarnio S, Heimonen K, Kettunen R. Biochar addition indirectly
affects N2O emissions via soil moisture and plant N uptake.
Soil Biol Biochem. 2013;58:99‐106.
64. Borchard N, Schirrmann M, Cayuela ML, et al. Biochar, soil and
land‐use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O
emissions: a meta‐analysis. Sci Total Environ. 2018.
65. Case SD, McNamara NP, Reay DS, Whitaker J. The effect of
biochar addition on N2O and CO2 emissions from a sandy
loam soil–the role of soil aeration. Soil Biol Biochem.
2012;51:125‐134.
13
66. Singh BP, Hatton BJ, Singh B, Cowie AL, Kathuria A. Influence
of biochars on nitrous oxide emission and nitrogen leaching
from two contrasting soils. J Environ Qual. 2010;39(4):1224‐1235.
67. Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, et al. Influence of biochars
on flux of N2O and CO2 from ferrosol. Soil Research.
2010;48(7):555‐568.
68. He L, Zhao X, Wang S, Xing G. The effects of rice‐straw biochar
addition on nitrification activity and nitrous oxide emissions in
two oxisols. Soil Tillage Res. 2016;164:52‐62.
How to cite this article: Snyder BF. Costs of
biomass pyrolysis as a negative emission
technology: A case study. Int J Energy Res.
2019;1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4361