Carbon Sequestration and Life Cycle Analysis - CLU-IN
Download
Report
Transcript Carbon Sequestration and Life Cycle Analysis - CLU-IN
The Truth about Ecological Revitalization - Case Studies
and Tools to Improve your Cleanups
Carbon Sequestration and Life Cycle
Analysis
Sally Brown, University of Washington
Carbon Sequestration and Life Cycle Analysis
Andrew Trlica and Sally Brown
University of Washington
1
Restoration Sites
No soil or highly contaminated soil
Disruption of process of carbon
accumulation/cycling
2
How you restore
Use of organic amendments
Will accelerate process
But are changes in soil carbon persistent?
3
Soil Carbon: Restoration
Andrew Trlica
Funded by Environmental Credit Corp, Jim Ellis, King County
4
Coal Mine, Washington
Restored in the 1980s
5
Centralia, Washington
Coal Mine Restoration
52 Mg of C per hectare above
conventional
0.25 Mg C per Mg biosolids
6
Highland Valley Copper, British Columbia
6 – 8 years old
7
Highland Valley Copper, British Columbia
Coal Mine Restoration
40 Mg of C per hectare
0.3 Mg C per Mg amendment
8
Pennsylvania Coal Mines – Control
NPK applied, 20 years ago
9
Pennsylvania Coal Mines – Biosolids
128 Mg ha applied, 27 years ago
10
Pennsylvania – Historic Site
11
That means…
190 Mg of CO2 per hectare
0.9 Mg CO2 per Mg biosolids
12
RMI Topsoils, New Hampshire
Gravel pit restoration - 5 years old
87 Mg of C per hectare
0.15 Mg C per Mg amendment
13
Three separate sites
Data consistent across sites
14
Biosolids- carbon credits for more than
just soil C accumulation
15
CCX Draft protocol CH4 avoidance to
compost facilities
Default Projected Yields of Waste Streams Diverted
from Landfilling
BECH4SWDSy
(C02e/wet ton waste diverted)
Waste type
Food waste
Yard waste
Biosolids
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total
0.28
0.23
0.19
0.7
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.3
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.12
Total = 1.12 Mg CO2
16
Nutrient Value- 318 kg CO2 per dry Mg
S. Plant
kg per Mg
CO2
conversion
factor
N
70.1
3.96
278
P
22.5
1.76
40
K
0.22
1.2
0
kg CO2 per Mg
17
GHG balance for a biosolids program
18
GHG balance for a hectare of land?
19
LCA for 1 ha in Pacific Northwest
Compared
Conventional restoration
Restoration with organics (biosolids)
Low density development
Used data on soil carbon from our
sampling
Biosolids sent to dryland wheat as
alternative
20
Housing
1,000 people per km2
Structure size 2,521 ft2
3.86 homes per ha
Road 0.43 ha/ha
Open space 0.47 ha
21
LCA Results
Home and road
construction
and
maintenance
emissions
dwarf biosolids
tranpsort
emissions
22
Transport
Under our baseline modeling
assumptions the haul distance would
need to be greater than 30 times the
baseline assumption to eliminate the
net sink effect in the whole
conventional reclamation scenario
23
Sequestration
Sequestration
potential is
greatest with
biosolids
restoration
Due to increased
SOM
Tree biomass
24
Final Results
25
Additional Considerations
Rain and runoff
1 ha over 30 year period 646 ML of water
53% impervious cover
30% of rainfall = surface discharge
194 ML of water will require treatment
26
Additional Considerations
Recreation
2009 tourism =$14.2 billion
37% camped, hiked or backpacked
Assume 1% of tourism $$ result of access to outdoor activities
354 k ha forested land in King County
Over 30 year period, each ha =$31,000
27
Conclusions
Using broader perspective further
confirms benefits of restoration
Organics in restoration makes
benefits one better
28
Sally Brown
University of Washington
Phone: (206) 616-1299
Email: [email protected]