1 / 32

Reclamation of Degraded Land with Biosolids

Reclamation of Degraded Land with Biosolids. Impacts of final land use, Impacts of reclamation method. GHG Consequences of Reclamation. F inal land use post-reclamation Reclamation improvements with biosolids Land- and biosolids use interact. Reclamation to forest.

elana
Télécharger la présentation

Reclamation of Degraded Land with Biosolids

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reclamation of Degraded Land with Biosolids Impacts of final land use, Impacts of reclamation method

  2. GHG Consequences of Reclamation • Final land use post-reclamation • Reclamation improvements with biosolids • Land- and biosolids use interact

  3. Reclamation to forest • High gains to Soil and Biomass C • Conventional and residuals reclamation

  4. Partial Reclamation + Development • Some soil/biomass C • But large GHG costs for construction and use over life cycle

  5. Field study – Soil C in Reclamation • Soil C benefits of biosolids reclamation • Compare similar conventional and biosolids sites up to 30 year post-reclamation

  6. Results: Soil C sequestration

  7. Results: Soil C sequestration • Soil C increases with biosolids • +15 Mg ha-1 (Centralia) • +38 Mg ha-1 (Highland Valley) • 0.11–1.14 Mg CO2e per Mg biosolids

  8. Results: Soil C sequestration • Increases and efficiency depend upon reclamation conditions and method Centralia, 0.11 Mg CO2e per tonne: Old sites, 1 m topsoil, very high biosolids rate Pennsylvania, 0.55 Mg CO2e per tonne: Old sites, relatively good topsoil, moderate biosolids addition Highland Valley, 1.03 Mg CO2e per tonne: No topsoil, very poor conventional recl., low biosolids rate Sechelt 1.14 Mg CO2e per tonne: Good response, poor topsoil moderate biosolids addition

  9. Study conclusions • 55–139 Mg CO2e ha-1 Soil C increase for using residuals • Increase was present even after 30 years • Specific changes related to site conditions and reclamation history • What about other GHG shifts with reclamation?

  10. Land use • House or forest? • Soil C • Biomass C • Construction/use/maintenance • Operations: transport, soil N2O, fertilizer credit, etc. • Competing biosolids uses

  11. Life cycle assessment of reclamation • What is LCA? • Track all inputs/outputs/activities required • Assign environmental impact • Assess (relative) environmental consequences

  12. Life cycle assessment of reclamation • Alternate post-reclamation land uses • Houses vs. forest • Reflects land-use pressures in Puget Sound

  13. Life cycle assessment of reclamation • 1 ha of degraded land • Urban margin of Puget Sound region, WA • 30 year timeline • Houses or forest

  14. Life cycle assessment of reclamation • “Choose your own adventure” • Natural cover (forest) • Biosolids reclamation • Conventional reclamation • Development

  15. Reclamation – Soil Carbon • Conventional Reclamation: 110 Mg CO2e • Biosolids reclamation: 220 Mg CO2e • Based on C accumulation rate and Mg CO2e per tonne of biosolids

  16. Reclamation – Biomass Carbon • PNW forests respond to biosolids (soil low in N) • Conventional: 183 Mg CO2e • Biosolids: 275 Mg CO2e

  17. Conventional Reclamation • Reclamation to Doug Fir forest • 110 Mg CO2e soil C • 183 Mg CO2e biomass C • 393 Mg CO2e per ha total

  18. Biosolids reclamation • Reclamation to D. Fir • 220 Mg CO2e soil C • 275 Mg CO2e biomass C • 18 Mg CO2e N applied as N2O • 477 Mg CO2e per ha total

  19. Biosolids reclamation  GHG emissions? • Need to consider emissions from biosolids management • Also alternate biosolids end-uses

  20. Biosolids to Agriculture • -220 Mg CO2e soil C • -275 Mg CO2e biomass C • +18 Mg CO2e N2O • +2 Mg CO2e transport (50 km) • Net: -475 Mg CO2e vs. • -140 Mg CO2e soil C • -28 Mg CO2e fertilizer credit • +11 Mg CO2e transport (300 km) • Net: -157 Mg CO2e

  21. Biosolids to Landfill • -220 Mg CO2e soil C • -275 Mg CO2e biomass C • +18 Mg CO2e N2O • +2 Mg CO2e transport (50 km) • Net: -475 Mg CO2e vs. • -29 Mg CO2e soil C • 346 Mg CO2e fugitive GHG • +14 Mg CO2e transport (350 km) • Net: +331 Mg CO2e

  22. Net GHG balance of restoring vegetation • Biosolids reclamation • -475 Mg CO2e (30 years, 1 ha, 100 dt biosolids) • Conventional reclamation • -293 Mg CO2e • What if development is chosen instead?

  23. Suburb development • Single-family houses • Asphalt roads • Built cover % according to USGS • Reclaim remaining land

  24. Suburb development: Housing • US Census population density • 3.9 houses/ha @ 243 m2 (~2,500 sq. ft) • LC GHG estimates: • Construction (incl. materials): 283 Mg CO2e • Maintenance/occupation: 989 Mg CO2e

  25. Suburb development: Roads • USGS % impervious cover • 0.44 ha ha-1 suburb • LC GHG estimates: • Construction (incl. materials): 93 Mg CO2e • Maintenance: 42 Mg CO2e

  26. Net GHG balance of Suburb Development • +1,272 Mg CO2e houses • +135 Mg CO2e roads • -52 Mg CO2e soil C • -86 Mg CO2e biomass C • Net: +1,269 Mg CO2e • Extra commuter traffic GHG? • Excluded from LCA but... • ca. +1,653 Mg CO2e over 30 yr

  27. Development or Reclamation? • Net: -293 to -475 Mg CO2e vs. • Net: +1,269 Mg CO2e • Modify and recombine scenarios to look for best and worst cases.

  28. Worst Case • Low density suburb, and... • Send biosolids to landfill, and... • Conventional reclamation of partial land • +1,600 Mg CO2e – largest emissions, lowest offsets +

  29. Optimized Case • Housing construction in urban core, and... • Biosolids for full reclamation • -5 to +141 Mg CO2e – minimized emissions, maximized offsets +

  30. Other ecosystem services • Improved with reclamation over development: • Water filtration; Biodiversity; Tourism value + + +

  31. Conclusions • Land-use after reclamation has the biggest impact • Biosolids end-use is also has an impact • and is determined in part by land-use choices • Biosolids in Puget Sound may have best end-use in reclamation • but first need to not develop (degraded) land

More Related