CC BY
27
ТЕХНОЛОГИИ И ЭКОНОМИКА
Биосеквестрация как фактор развития предпринимательства в России
Нельсон Ариель Родригез Арсиниегас1'*
1 Дальневосточный федеральный университет, Владивосток, Россия
Информация о статье
Поступила в редакцию: 19.12.20 16 Принята к опубликованию: 17.03.20 17
УДК 635-157 ть д 56
Ключевые слова:
биосеквестрация, СО2, эко-предпринимательство, биомасса, глобальное потепление.
Keywords:
bio-sequestration, CO2, Eco-entrepreneurship, biomass, global warming.
Аннотация
Кратко обсуждаются возможности биологической секвестрации, представлен обзор технологий, в которых используются биосвязывающие организмы для создания продуктов, эффективно блокирующих СО2, чтобы он не возвращался в атмосферу в течение более длительного периода, чем в обычных условиях. Анализируются вопросы производства, использования и коммерциализации продуктов, полученных в результате биоиндексации, что рассматривается как средство расширения предпринимательских возможностей в России.
Bio-sequestration a business opportunity for the Russian Federation
Rodriguez Arciniegas N.A.
Аbstract
First, this paper briefly discusses the different bio-sequestration possibilities available and then presents a review of technologies that utilize bio-sequestering organisms to create products in which the CO2 is locked effectively preventing it from returning to the atmosphere for a much longer period than it would in normal conditions.
Finally, this paper discusses the production, use and commercialization ofproducts derived from bio-sequestration as means to generate entrepreneurial business opportunities in Russia.
Introduction
Carbon sequestration offers the opportunity not only to develop a new business stream in the Russian Federation but also to contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere according to the global goals set in the ''Kyoto Protocol'' and the ''Paris agreement''.
The absorption and storage of carbon in organic matter called Biotic sequestration (or "bio-sequestrattion")
Автор для связи: E-mail: profearci@outlook.com DOI: https:// dx.doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.818138
is part of the natural process called the carbon cycle, thus, key to reducing the level of carbon in the atmosphere resides in the ability to prevent the carbon dioxide trapped in biomass from returning to the cycle. Therefore, this paper will focus on those bio-sequestering technologies and applications aiming to keep the CO2 captured out of the cycle and not the ones that contemplate the use of such biomass for fuel or animal nutrition.
Theoretical framework
of the study
Carbon sequestration has been proposed as the immediate way to counter arrest the ongoing global warming phenomenon as the reduction in green gas emission would be carried out gradually due to the current worldwide dependence on fossil fuels. Until the switch in use of highly polluting fuels for green energy the problem of global warming requires mitigation actions, among the possibilities to do so, carbon sequestration represents a feasible alternative.
Although bio-sequestration occurs naturally every day, actions preventing the loss of carbon stocks and increasing the rate of bio-sequestration can also be intentional. Some bio-sequestration methods have a greater carbon impact than others depending on the rate of carbon absorption and storage. For example, fast-growing tree species can be used in afforestation and reach sequestration rates of 5 metric tons CO2 (tCO2) per acre per year, while planting prairie grass in place of an annual agricultural crop could sequester an additional 1.5 tCO2 per acre per year depending on local climate and weather variability [1].
Although carbon stocks in forests, agricultural lands, and wetlands have been reduced over time, and thus offer opportunities for carbon storage through restoration, they are not pools where unlimited amounts of CO2 can be stored. All biosequestration practices will reach a saturation point at which a new carbon equilibrium is reached. Thus a way to increase the carbon sink capacity is to use the biomass resulting from such places and turning them into products that will keep the CO2 out of the cycle and in turn allow new biomass to grow there.
Different alternatives to improve CO2 sequestration have been developed in the field of forestry such as: Afforestation which according to the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the planting of new forests on lands which, historically, have not contained forests; Reforestation is replanting trees in a forested area that is not adequately regenerating after the previous removal; avoided deforestation is the reduction of the conversion of forested land to an alternative use like housing or agriculture; and Changes in forest management such as increased forest stocking, pest control, and forest age optimization.
Changes in croplands and land use include: afforestation of croplands; afforestation of pasture land; cropland conversion to grassland; restoration of wetlands; riparian and conservation.
Changes in production and grazing practices include: reduced and conservation tillage; Improve rotations, cover crops, elimination of summer fallow; Improved fertilizer management; Improved irrigation management [1].
As formerly mention the other major carbon sequestering organisms are algae. In particular, microalgae's ability to transport bicarbonate into cells makes them well suited to capture carbon. Carbon dioxide-or bicarbonate-capturing efficiency as high as 90 % have been reported in open ponds. The scale of micro-algal production facilities necessary to capture carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary point
sources such as power stations and cement kilns is also manageable; thus, micro-algae can potentially be exploited for CO2 capture and sequestration [2].
All of the formerly mention methods can be used to improve the carbon sequestration levels and the resulting biomass can be used in different ways to ensure the carbon contained in it remains lock as long as possible.
Investigation methodology
This paper used the literature review approach as means of building up an exploratory study on the current methods of bio-sequestration, carbon storage in biomass, and the possible business applications of biomass in the Eco-entrepreneurship arena.
Author used data from various sources including official websites and reports from governmental and non-governmental institutions concerned with environmental protection in specific dealing with carbon sink and bio-sequestration technologies.
The scientific literature addressing various topics such as carbon sequestration, biomass use, carbon sink technologies, agricultural management, and business' use of green technologies was also reviewed.
The production numbers of different agricultural sectors in Russia are used to calculate the approximate amount of biomass resulting from them. Notice that for each different source of biomass a different calculation is applied so as to leave out the part of biomass that becomes the product of the agricultural activity, thus only the byproducts (waste) are considered to be the potential material to capture and store CO2 in any of the ways formerly mention.
Byproducts of the forestry industry such as sawdust, splinters and pellets are calculated in relation to the total production of timber.
Agricultural waste is calculated using the harvest index to quantify the yield of a crop species versus the total amount of biomass that has been produced.
Results and Discussion
This paper present the different bio-sequestration and storage methods resulting in added value products which would carry the branding of ecologically friendly and/ or carbon sequestering certified. In purchasing such products the consumer will address its original needs while contributing to counter-arrest the global warming phenomenon [3].
Considering plant's efficiency and suitability: All plants are able to capture and store CO2. However, some plants are better than others in terms of their capacity to absorb it and store it, their specific nutrients and climate requirements. Thus, the most efficient plants among local species are preferable to maximize CO2 capture and biomass production [4].
Forest management: Forestry sciences make it possible to sustainably manage forests and maximize bio-sequestration by using methods such as Afforestation; Reforestation; Avoided deforestation; increased forest stocking, pest-control, and forest age optimization [5].
Optimization of agricultural practices: such as reduced and conservation tillage; Improve rotations, cover crops, elimination of summer fallow; improved fertilizer management; improved irrigation management, and waste management also contribute to reduce carbon emissions, generate a provision of biomass in which CO2 can be kept [6].
Use of other plants: Not only trees and crops can be managed to lock carbon and provide the raw material for commercial uses, in consequence, weeds, fast growing grass and other plants species serve well for the purposes formerly mention [7].
Algae: several species of micro-algae are currently been cultivated as they are highly efficient at capturing CO2 and producing biomass. Algae cultivation is fairly simple, all it requires is sunlight, water (which is reusable) and a simple mechanic system to keep it in motion, the mechanism uses so little energy that free renewable energy sources as simple windmills and solar panels are enough. When fed with the fumes of industrial facilities algae are able to capture over 90 % of the CO2 emitted. Similarly to grass, algae can be dried up to be used as raw material for construction or charcoal production [8].
A well-known way to sequester carbon is by growing trees, nowadays, thanks the development of forestry management it is possible to optimize forest's CO2 intake by using methods such as afforestation, reforestation and others which combined with the proper assessment of the trees life allows to replace mature forest with vigorous new trees while the wood harvested can be used to build many of the things we need and at the same time to keep the carbon captured from returning to the cycle [9]. Therefore, the implementation of forestry management techniques makes it possible to sustainably use of wood for all possible construction purposes whether residential, commercial or industrial. Another major use is furniture although there is an almost endless number of products typically made with wood ranging from musical instruments, decoration to art. Properly treated wood plus regular maintenance can extend the useful life of wooden items for centuries [10].
Modern techniques in wood processing make sure nothing gets wasted in wood processing, thus, wood sub-products such as sawdust, splinters and pellets formerly considered waste can now be transformed and turned into commercially valuable materials or finished products [11]. Some of these applications are: thermal insulation, sound insulation, construction panels, flooring and roofing among others. The most common presentation is panels which thanks to modern technologies are bind together without the use of health threatening chemicals. In fact, they can be used to create most of the products typically made with non-agglomerated wood and offer the additional advantage of been much more malleable [12].
According to the US Forest Service only 43 percent by weight of the wood we cut, destroy in logging, or import appears in products other than fuel, 35% of the wood from tree cutting is not used at all and the remaining 22 percent is used for fuel-often very inefficiently.
Assuming similar production yields in Russia, wood byproducts account for at least 35 % and at most 57 % of the total wood production [13].
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2015 alone, Russia produced 127.6 million m3 of wood [14], which means that the wood that would end up as byproducts accounts for at least 44.66 million m3. According to FAO data, 15 million m3 are used as wood fuel, 7.5 million correspond to wood chips and particles, 0.1721 million m3 are turned into charcoal, that is 22.7 million m3 out of the total wood byproducts. Leaving roughly 22 million m3 to waste, using such resource by turning into useful material could be the initial task. Analyzing the current use of wood byproducts it is evident that too much wood is being destined to fuel, even the charcoal.
Thus, switching to cleaner energy sources would allow to use less wood as fuel and instead use it for other purposes while contributing to CO2 sequestration.
Another option for carbon sequestration is the use of smaller plants that grow faster than trees and required either smaller or no gaps among them which partially compensates for their level of C02 absorption when compared to trees [15]. Grass stores carbon both in its leaves in the roots which are typically a much larger part of the plant. Similarly to trees, the best way to utilize the maximum carbon sequestering potential of grass is to harvest it when mature and allow for the new grass to take over the task. Other plants which were formerly regarded as harmful especially for crops are now studied as viable alternatives for bio-sequestration and its resilience and fast growing rates are now considered very valuable. Other fast growing plants species such as bamboo have gained great attention not only because of their carbon sequestration properties but also because it is a very versatile material that requires little processing in comparison to wood [16].
Agricultural waste from virtually any crop can also be compressed and used as thermal and noise insulation, to make construction panels as well as mattresses among other products [17]. According to FAO data in 2014 Russia produced 59.7 million tonnes of wheat, 31.5 million tonnes of potato, 20.4 million tonnes of barley and 11.3 million tonnes of maize, although other vegetables are massively produced here only the ones producing more than 10 million tonnes are included [18].
Using the harvest index proposed by the textbook "Plants in Action" [19] the agricultural waste from such crops can be calculated. The harvest index for wheat is 0.55 which means that the plant remaining biomass is usually 0.45, thus the byproduct resulting from 59.7 million tonnes of wheat is 26.8 million tonnes; the harvest index of barley is 0.55 too, thus the byproduct resulting from 31.5 million tonnes of wheat is 9.19 million tonnes; the harvest index for potato is 0.82, thus the byproduct resulting from 31.5 million tonnes of potato is 5.67 million tonnes; the harvest index for maize is 0.52, thus the byproduct resulting from 11.3 million tonnes of maize is 5.4 million tonnes. These 4 crops alone produce 47.06 million tonnes of agricultural waste.
The amount byproducts from agriculture vary from crop to crop the maximum yield obtained until now is some plants is 80 % approximately which means all crops produce a substantial amount of biomass that in most cases end up as waste but could better be turned into materials and products.
Wood sub-products, agricultural waste as well as bush species and weeds, can be used after drying in mud bricks giving them insulation properties and helping the mud stick together [20].
There is also the possibility of using pyrolysis to reduce vegetal materials to ashes and incorporate them into bricks. Pyrolysis is preferred to avoid the carbon release caused by other methods such as open burning. Vegetal fibers can also be used to make packing. In fact, packing in the form of boxes or containers can be made out of virtually any crop residuals. Thus, there is the possibility to pack the harvested product in a packing made of the remaining parts of the plant. Virtually the waste of any crop can be used to make the packing for its transportation and shelf presentation. An example of that is coconut fiber which is used to create packing for different agricultural products as well as other items to the extent that it can replace plastic packing in many uses [21].
The products derived from natural carbon sequestration include items as varied as paper, furniture, or construction material. The variety of Bio-sequestering organisms offers the possibility of obtaining different raw materials which can then be turned into innovative products.
Materials and products made of biomass: Wood for construction, wood and its byproducts can all be used as construction materials, support material, furniture and finished products. The use of wood is recommended for construction of big structures and the materials resulting from wood agglomerated and compacted are very effective for sound and thermal insulation, as well as for wall panels, bedding, etc. [22] Moreover, new Eco-friendly technologies have been developed to ensure wood waste is put together without the use of dangerous chemicals. Applications (building structures, machinery structures, door, roof, windows, fixed furniture, etc) [23].
Wood for mobile furniture and finished products whether for home, office or industrial use. Wood furniture is a much more ecological alternative when compared to furniture containing artificial materials. In fact, the possibilities for creating new wood-based products are virtually unlimited [24].
Bamboo and other cane like plants can be used directly from construction all sort of architectural structures such as bridges, houses, domes, etc. It can be combined with other materials or alone into constructions that use bamboo even in the joints. Bamboo and the kind can be is as versatile as wood for the creation of all kinds of products while it offers several advantages such as higher flexibility, natural attractive texture, and can support heavy loads and it is much lighter which facilitates its transportation and management. These plants are also typically used for scaffolding, a practice that may as well be retaken to decrease construction costs and increase labour security [25].
Weeds and grasses: Similarly to trees and agricultural byproduct the weeds and grasses can be used for sound and thermal insulation [26], also when mix with other natural materials like clay or mud it can be used to augment the insulation and binding properties of construction blocks. Besides in dramatically reduces the cost of brick production serving as an alternative for economic housing [27].
Biochar: All the formerly mention material can be used to produce biochar. Charcoal made from biomass via pyrolysis (the biomass is burned in the absence of oxygen in an enclosed container thus avoiding the release of carbon or any other harmful fumes). Biochar is an amazing carbon sink material as the CO2 captured into its structure can be trapped there from hundreds to thousands of years. If not burnt charcoal can be used to amend soils, and due to its high porosity helps in increasing humidity retention in soils and give support to roots [28].
Conclusions
Given the great biological, geographical and climatic diversity of the Russian Federation it is very likely that one or more of the natural sequestration methods can be implemented by entrepreneurs from different regions of the country. Business opportunities are offered along the processes from the production, collection or re-purposing of biomass, to the creation of construction materials or finished products. Establishing a business that uses bio-sequestering materials represents an opportunity to generate added value products which would carry the branding of ecologically friendly and/ or carbon sequestering certified. In purchasing such products the consumer will not only address its original needs but contribute to counter arrest the global warming phenomenon. Moreover, such entrepreneurial initiatives may become a development factor for the people (i.e. job generation) and the region (i.e. tax reinvestment, alternative economies) in which each specific kind of business takes place.
Directions for future research
Further research is required to establishing which specific species would better serve for CO2 capture and biomass production according to conditions of each region within the Russian federation.
References
1. Center for climate and energy solutions. Bio-sequestration. Available at: http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/bio-sequestration. (accessed 10.09. 2016)
2. Sayre R. Microalgae: the potential for carbon capture. Bioscience, 2010, vol. 60, pp. 722-727.
3. Stern T., Schwarzbauer P. Wood Products Certification, Consumer Behavior and its Climate Policy Potential. First International Conference on Resource Efficiency in Interorganizational Networks-ResEff, 2013, p. 440.
4. Measbah H., Tayebi Khorrami M., Ansari M., Dyanattalab G., & Samanian R. Comparison on carbon sequestration of soil and dominant plant species in inside and outside of Bamboo national park. 2013.
5. Noormets A., Epron D., Domec J.C., McNulty S.G., Fox T., Sun G., & King J.S. Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: A review and hypothesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 2015, vol. 355, pp. 124140.
6. de Moraes Sá J.C., Lal R., Cerri C.C., Lorenz K., Hungria M. and de Faccio Carvalho P.C. Low-carbon agriculture in South America to mitigate global climate change and advance food security. Environment international, 2017, vol. 98, pp. 102-112.
7. Wells, Jon M., Susan E. Crow, Manyowa N. Meki, Carlos A. Sierra, Kimberly M. Carlson, Adel Youkhana, Daniel Richardson, and Lauren Deem. Maximizing Soil Carbon Sequestration: Assessing Procedural Barriers to Carbon Management in Cultivated Tropical Perennial Grass Systems. Recent Advances in Carbon Capture and Storage. InTech, 2017, pp.151-172.
8. Bird, Michael I., Christopher M. Wurster, Pedro H. de Paula Silva, Nicholas A. Paul, and Rocky De Nys. Algal biochar: effects and applications. Geo- Bioener-gy, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 61-69.
9. Montagnini F., & Nair P. K. R. Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry systems, 2004, vol. 61, pp. 281-295.
10. John P.A. Textbook of wood technology: structure, identification, properties, and uses of the commercial woods of the United States and Canada. McGraw-Hill series in forest resources (USA), 1980. 772 p.
11. Picard Edmond-Pierre. Wood Heat Treating Method, a Plant for Carrying Out Said Method and Heat Treated Wood. U.S. Patent Application, 2016, 11/910, 677.
12. Carbon Storage Utilising Timber Products. Available at: https://www.accoya. com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Carbon-Storage-using-Timber-Products.pdf. (accessed 15.09. 2015)
13. US Forest Service. Wood Waste. Available at: http://www.foresthistory. org/ASPNET/Publications/national_prosperity/sec9.htm (accessed 20.02.2017)
14. Food and Agriculture Organization. Forestry Production and Trade data base. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO. (accessed 20.02.2017)
15. Scurlock J.M.O., & Hall D.O. The global carbon sink: a grassland perspective. Global Change Biology, 1998, vol. 4, pp. 229-233.
16. Ben-Zhi, Zhou, et al. Ecological functions of bamboo forest: research and application. Journal of Forestry Research, 2005, vol. 16, pp. 143-147.
17. Madurwar M.V., Ralegaonkar R.V., & Mandavgane S.A.. Application of agro-waste for sustainable construction materials: A review. Construction and Building Materials, 2013, vol. 38, pp. 872-878.
18. Food and Agriculture Organization. "Crops" data base. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. (accessed 20.02.2017)
19. Atwell B.J., Kriedemann P.E., & Turnbull C.G. Plants in action: adaptation in nature, performance in cultivation. Macmillan Education AU. 1999. 382 p.
20. Raut S.P., Ralegaonkar R.V., & Mandavgane S.A. Development of sustainable construction material using industrial and agricultural solid waste: A review of waste-create bricks. Construction and building materials, 2011, 25, pp. 40374042.
21. Macedo J. D. S., Costa M. F., Tavares M. I., & Thiré R.M. Preparation and characterization of composites based on polyhydroxybutyrate and waste powder from coconut fibers processing. Polymer Engineering & Science, 2010, vol. 50, pp. 1466-1475.
22. Eriksson L.O., Gustavsson L., Hânninen R., Kallio M., Lyhykâinen H., Pingoud K... & Valsta L. Climate change mitigation through increased wood use in the European construction sector: towards an integrated modelling framework. European Journal of Forest Research, 2012, vol. 131, pp. 131-144.
23. Pizzi A., & Salvadó J. Lignin-based wood panel adhesives without formaldehyde. Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff, 2007, vol. 65, pp. 65-70.
24. Bergman R., Puettmann M., Taylor A., & Skog K.E.. The carbon impacts of wood products. Forest Products Journal, 2014, vol. 64, pp. 220-231.
25. Escamilla E.Z., & Habert G. Environmental impacts of bamboo-based construction materials representing global production diversity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2014, vol. 69, pp. 117-127.
26. Munasinghe K., Jayakody S., & Jayasinghe M.T. R. Straw bonded solid panels: the constructability, thermal performance and structural behaviour. 2013. vol. 1, pp. 124-131.
27. Madurwar M.V., Mandavgane S.A., & Ralegaonkar R.V. Development and feasibility analysis of bagasse ash bricks. Journal of Energy Engineering, 2014, vol. 141, pp. 1-9.
28. Lehmann J., & Joseph S. (Eds.). Biochar for environmental management: science, technology and implementation. Routledge, 2015, 898 p.
About author / Сведения об авторе
Родригез Арсиниегас Нельсон Ариель, старший преподаватель кафедры менеджмента, Школа экономики и менеджмента, Дальневосточный федеральный университет. 690920 Россия, г. Владивосток, о-в Русский, кампус ДВФУ, корпус G. E-mail: profearci@outlook.com
Rodriguez Arciniegas Nelson Ariel, Senior Lecturer, Far Eastern Federal University, School of Economics and Management, Department of Management Bldg. G Ajax Street, 690920, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: profearci@outlook.com
© Арсиниегас Родригез H.A. ©. Arciniegas Rodriguez N.A. Адрес сайта в сети интернет: http://jem.dvfu.ru
