Biomass, i.e. feedstock for biochar production plants, is not always 100% available. In this interview, biomass experts Torben Halfer and Hendrik Bauer from the Brüning Group discuss current challenges and trends in the biochar industry with regard to biomass availability.
The Brüning Group offers a comprehensive service for the supply and disposal of energy-supplying bulk materials. They trade in round wood and energy-containing residues from the biomass processing industry. Torben Halfer and Hendrik work in operational business support.
This is the continuation of the interview with Brüning, part 2 of 3.
Anne: What challenges is the biochar industry currently facing?
Torben: One problem is the security of supply of biomass. This is because most biomass is already being used or cannot be produced economically. At the same time, biocarbon production is creating additional demand for biomass without making more biomass available in Europe. If there is not enough available, prices will rise and the economic viability of plants will reach its limits.
Hendrik: There is competition for biomass in all directions – whether as a source of material or thermal energy. Biomass will not increase exponentially. It will be very scarce at times – we have experienced that in recent years. Based on this experience, we can also report that there are always bottlenecks and shortages that we don’t see coming.
How can sustainable forest conversion actually take place if a forest owner thinks in decades and an EU Commission wants to redefine or amend what is sustainable about biomass production or forest management every three to four years?
Anne : What changes do you see in biomass in Germany and worldwide?
Torben: Let’s stay in Germany. The standard wood type spruce will no longer exist to this extent in the next few years. There will be fewer large spruce forests due to storms and beetle infestation. Other species will have to fill this gap. There will be other woods that will become the standard for the sawmill industry.
This can be seen in the debate about replanting forests of tomorrow:
There will no longer be so many forestry monocultures. At the same time, the demand for biomass will increase and interest in short-rotation coppice will probably also grow. This fast-growing wood can also produce climate wood, which can be used specifically for CO2 capture
Hendrik: There are many experiments with fast-growing species. The question is whether the sawmill industry can do anything with them. This is definitely the core issue: how can sustainable forest conversion actually take place if a forest owner thinks in decades and an EU Commission wants to redefine or amend what is sustainable about biomass production or forest management every three to four years? The biggest challenge for the renewable biomass energy sector is that everything always starts in the forest and there are many unanswered questions in the forest.
It is advantageous to find a standardised name or terminology. If there is not, there will be confusion around definitions of terms.
Anne : What else concerns you in relation to Biochar?
Torben: It’s the choice of words: when do we use which wording?
I believe that most people differ on this because it is strongly linked to the application. I would most likely equate the German word ‘Pflanzenkohle’ with biochar, but this name seems to limit the applications. And in the end, isn’t biochar also charcoal if it is produced from wood chips (HS)? We have double meanings here.
In the industry, the term ‘Pflanzenkohle’ tends not to be used, but rather ‘Biocarbon’. One of the decisive factors is the carbon content in the material. The advantage of the term biocarbon is that it is independent of the feedstock. The only thing behind this term is the statement that the carbon is not fossil. In the future, we may be talking about
- Fossil carbon (0 % biogenic content)
- Biocarbon (x % biogenic share) Feedstock: biomass
- Recycled carbon (x % biogenic share) Feedstock: e.g. plastics/bioplastics
In a mandatory system such as the ETS, it will be important to define a biogenic share or to know the subsequent area of application. Otherwise, there will always be difficulties in agreeing on standard values and any standardised approaches.
Hendrik : Politically speaking, it is also not a good idea to use too many terms. The RED II & RED III Act of the EU also taught us that it is advantageous to find a standardised name or terminology. If there is not, there will be confusion around definitions of terms.
As it stands, ‘Pflanzenkohle’ is only anchored in the voluntary market for carbon credits. In a mandatory system such as the ETS, it will be important to define a biogenic share or to know the subsequent area of application. Otherwise, there will always be difficulties in agreeing on standard values and any standardised approaches.
Anne: Scientists like Kathrin Weber and Oisik Das categorise the terms like this: Biocarbon is carbon produced by thermo-chemical conversion of biomass from today’s flora, preferably from organic waste; all biochars and charcoals are biochars.
Biochar is biocarbon produced above a temperature range of 450-500°C for use in materials, energy and the environment. Biochar produced at low temperatures (approx. 350°C) is comparable to charcoal in its properties. Biochar treated above 900°C is technical biochar or E-biochar (term introduced by Oisik Das).
Charcoal = is a biocarbon produced below a temperature range of 450-500°C for use as a fuel
What would be your favourite term?
Hendrik: My impression is that the term ‘Pflanzenkohle’ is always derived in relation to the plant, because this generates a preconceived image in people who only deal with the subject in layman’s terms. That’s why I would always prefer biocarbon. ‘Pflanzenkohle’ is too misleading.
In mandatory emissions trading, it is precisely regulated in such a way that biogenic and fossil components in fuels are clearly mentioned. If biochar wants to move in this direction and find a place in a mandatory sink system, it must be made very clear that we are talking about biogenic and fossil components in the feedstock and therefore also in the biochar product.
Torben: At this point, you have to understand that there are differences in the biochar. This means that if I now use 100 % wood chips, there is a higher proportion of biogenic input materials than if I were to use waste wood A3, for example. The material chain must be clearly mapped and I don’t currently see this breakdown in biochar. It must be clear from which feedstock – waste wood or fresh wood – and with which biogenic proportion the biochar can be valued. These uses of terms must be clarified by all market participants and also politically.
This means that biocarbon is stated on a pro rata basis. It is stated: Biocarbon 100 % or biocarbon with a share of 80 %… 90 %. Because only then can I generate CO2 certificates for the biogenic share.
Anne: So that’s one way of defining quality?
Torben: Yes. Quality has to be divided into two parts:
- On the one hand, a clear statement on carbon content with binding quality is necessary so that we can guarantee the quality ofCO2 certificates.
- On the other hand, quality is assessed on the basis of certain parameters using property analyses. What are the properties of my biochar/biocarbon? And this can of course always be completely different depending on the application. In other words, the data sheets of the products are decisive here.
Often the prices budgeted for the biochar projects are not being realised. Our wish would be that as many of them as possible survive this dry spell over the next two or three years and keep going.
Anne: What would be your wish for the biochar industry?
Torben: At the moment, small biochar manufacturers in particular are having a hard time. On the one hand, biomass is relatively expensive, but the biochar market itself is not yet so established, which means that often the prices budgeted for the projects are not being realised. Our wish would be that as many of them as possible survive this dry spell over the next two or three years and keep going. After all, biochar/biocarbon will only be successful if the raw material arrives on an industrial scale.
Anne : Thank you both very much for the interview!
