Biobased carbon hubs in regional centres would fast track abatement technologies, achieve abatement at the mega-tonne scale and create jobs in the tens of thousands, writes Matthew Warnken.

Energy, water and waste are three pillars of our modern civilisation and are also three of the main sustainability challenges that must be addressed in the transition to a low carbon economy. Part of the solution is bundling the provision of these utilities together to maximise the opportunities for synergy with other businesses. Another is moving to biobased platforms for the delivery of energy services, rather than our current reliance on fossil fuels.

A transition to biobased forms of energy must, by necessity, involve investment in rural and regional Australia. After all, this is where the bulk of biomass is grown. So what would comprise a sustainable source of biomass? There are four main types of biomass: fats and oils; soluble carbohydrates in the form of proteins; sugars and starches (also soluble carbohydrates); and lignocellulose, or ‘woody’ insoluble carbohydrates.

Broadly speaking, it is the woody biomass that makes up approximately 80 per cent of terrestrial biomass, and it is also the woody materials that humans don’t eat (avoiding the fuel versus food debate). Any form of biobased power must therefore focus on resources such as purpose grown woody crops, agricultural residues, some forestry thinnings and suitable domestic and industrial urban residues. These are also resources that do not require any clear felling of native forests – in other words, sustainable biobased energy does not equal woodchipping native forests.

Base load power could be supplied to regional centres in the form of distributed 30MW power stations that use renewable biomass resources. This would provide enough power for about 15,000 households and a decent sized industrial and commercial sector. To do this sustainably will need the mass cultivation of millions of tonnes of woody crops.

The planting of mallee in the Western Australian wheat belt is an example of how biomass crops can be grown as a parallel crop while generating additional micro-climate benefits and also creating an additional carbon sink from the increase in biomass standing stock.

Developing supply chains for millions of tonnes of sustainably sourced biomass is also a necessary precursor to taking advantage of emerging abatement technologies, such as the production of biochar through pyrolysis.

Biochar is a very stable form of carbon that is made by pyrolysing biomass, which means heating it in the absence of oxygen. When the material is applied to land, the result is a form of carbon biosequestration, with additional benefits such as improved water and nutrient retention (among others).

Pyrolysis technologies also have the scope to produce gas for electricity generation and ‘biocrude’ with the potential to be upgraded into a diesel replacement.

Biochar: a political football
The use of biochar in combating climate change has been promoted by luminaries such as Tim Flannery, James Hansen, NASA’s director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and Professor James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia Theory.

It also attracted media attention recently with announcements from Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull and his shadow environment minister, Greg Hunt (WME 02/09). Turnbull said: “We have an enormous opportunity here in Australia to absorb millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, store it safely as carbon, and put it back into the soil and increase the productivity and the health of our own landscape. A win-win. A win for jobs, a win for the environment, a win for agriculture.”

Comments from the Federal Government have not been as encouraging, with Senator Wong labelling biochar “an unproven technology”. The real danger here is that biochar is turned into a political football and an opportunity for innovative carbon abatement at a mega-tonne scale is lost, even though large emitters like Alumina are supporting and funding biochar projects.

Alumina CEO John Bevan is on board, noting “initial analysis indicates that biochar has the potential to substantially reduce Australia’s net carbon emissions and create a major new and economically sustainable rural industry”. Furthermore a lack of political support could undermine the opportunity to reinvigorate rural and regional Australia.

Rural and regional hubs
My company, Crucible Carbon, recently undertook a study that identified 36 regional centres as suitable for becoming biobased carbon hubs that would abate greenhouse emissions and provide future energy security in a decarbonising economy.

Factors considered included: prevailing climate; local geography and current land use (with consideration to the availability of agricultural residues and suitability for biomass); local and regional demographics/population; land care issues including erosion, irrigation, soil salinity; local economy and industry; and power, water and waste supply/demand.

Innovative local governments, such as the City of Geraldton-Greenough in Western Australia, have already flagged their willingness to investigate the feasibility of the region hosting a carbon hub and accelerating the deployment of emerging greenhouse gas abatement technologies.

Investing in bundled infrastructure for greenhouse gas abatement across 36 sites would require in the order of $4 billion of capital investment, with at least 2,000 new jobs created during construction and another 2,000 permanent jobs for continuous operations (including the harvesting of woody crops).

However, the real nation building opportunity is the expansion of these facilities with emerging technologies such as biochar. This translates to a $40 billion investment story with 20,000 new jobs, generation of 20 per cent of Australian electricity requirements, renewable production of half the nation’s diesel requirements and 200 million tonnes per annum of greenhouse gas abatement.

Given we have already spent that amount of money as a short term economic heart starter; the obvious question is why not invest a similar amount in green infrastructure that will provide ongoing economic and environmental returns?

Matthew Warnken is MD of Crucible Carbon, a carbon innovation consultancy and technology development company. matthew.warnken@cruciblecarbon.com