Showing posts with label pyrolysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pyrolysis. Show all posts

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Maldives Commit to Biochar



For those who have followed the development of the biochar story, this is the first significant country leader to stand up and strongly support the biochar protocol.


A lot of the commercial focus continues to be on modified pyrolysis which adds an additional level of cost that may simply be even counter productive. I have pointed out from the beginning that the product can be produced as needed at a twenty percent yield using earthen kiln designs that need no special hardware. Hardware devices can improve yields to thirty percent which is likely as good as it can be.


For most of the global population who still rely on subsistence farming, the earthen kiln approach is completely satisfactory.


The limitation is actually having a source of feedstock. Large grasses and maize work well, while wood stocks are unsuitable because of large particle size.


Once supply can be established, application can be done via zai holes which provides a pot like structure for the grower in the field and helps conserve water and competition as fuel.


It is good to see that he has essentially got the story right. There will be many more stepping up on this. Regardless of what one may think of atmospheric CO2, everyone knows that soils them selves need to be improved and protected and biochar is doing both.



Wednesday, September 23, 2009


President of Maldives announces commitment to biochar to meet zero carbon goal


NEW YORK, September 22, 2009 – Mohamed Nasheed, President of Maldives, today affirmed his commitment to biochar as an important means of meeting the country’s goal to be “Zero Carbon” by 2020. Announced as part of Climate Week at the UN in New York, this commitment further solidifies the country’s position as a leader in combating climate change and highlights the potential of biochar as a solution to growing CO2 emissions. The Maldives have partnered with Carbon Gold, the world’s leading sustainable biochar project developer, to implement multiple biochar projects across the country.


“The Maldives is one of the most threatened place in the world and as such know first-hand the global benefits to achieving carbon neutrality. We see biochar as a critical means to achieving this goal,” said President Nasheed. “As a technology that could achieve gigaton-scale CO2 removal, with additional benefits in energy and food security, biochar simply must be part of the equation now as well as the larger deal at Copenhagen.”


Dan Morrell, Carbon Gold co-founder is attending the Climate Week event in New York and working with the Maldivian government to rally support for biochar. He comments:


“We are at critical juncture for the adoption of biochar as tool in the battle against climate change. Only with accreditation of biochar into the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism will we be able to realize the full potential of this nascent technology.


Biochar is the only technology that enables us to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and, by ploughing it into the ground, improve soil fertility. However it will only help to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide if it is sustainably produced. Projects must adhere to strict sustainability, biodiversity and environmental standards and improve the prosperity of the communities involved.”


Biochar, a charcoal produced through pyrolysis, is rich in carbon and can be mixed with organic material to act as a soil amendment. It contributes to three Millennium Development Goals: combating desertification; sequestering atmospheric CO2; and maintaining biodiversity hotspots. An extremely stable substance, biochar also has the potential to lock up its carbon content for thousands of years. When mixed with poor quality soils, it reduces nitrous oxide and methane emissions and helps improve soil structure. The Maldives has partnered with Carbon Gold, the world’s leading biochar project developer, to implement multiple biochar projects across the country’s agricultural islands.



And from the BBC


Back in March, The Maldives announced its plan to become carbon neutral by 2020 through a combination of renewable energy projects and carbon credits. Now, the island nation has added another component to their carbon-cutting goal: coconuts.


Yes, coconuts. The country plans to use the shells along with other biowaste to produce biochar, which will be used as fertilizer instead of the inorganic type the country currently imports. Biochar is made by “slow cooking” the plant waste until it becomes a carbon-rich char that is mixed with soil and buried underground.


The company that is aiding the country with this endeavor, Carbon Gold, claims that this process serves as a kind of carbon sequestration - keeping the carbon created by the plant waste in the soil instead of being released into the atmosphere as it would be if the waste were just left to rot. Whether or not that turns out to be an effective way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere, the use of the biochar will at the very least cut back on the country’s carbon emissions by eliminating the need to import fertilizer.


via BBC News


Friday, September 11, 2009

Biochar Chatter


It has been a while since I participated with these forums and the ongoing discussion has sorted a lot out. This is a bit of the information been discussed. Not too much has actually changed except we perhaps have more complete information.


What is noteworthy is that the amount of carbon waste is vast and must be handled in any event. Most such waste is actually fairly uniform.


The problem has been all attention is on trying to create an industrially scaled application protocol. This is delaying the actual use of the method.


There is merit in applying pyrolysis technologies inasmuch as it captures a significant fraction of the byproduct over that needed to sustain the reaction. However, all this generates a series of real costs that are poorly offset by the limited commercial value of the by product. The topper is that in order to achieve efficiency high temperatures are preferred creating their own problems.


I pointed out in the early going that the original method produced an excellent biochar produced at about 300 degrees while consuming the volatiles thorough an earthen kiln. This can be adopted by indigenous subsistence farmers today.


Replicating that on a farm could also be done with a simple two lung kiln in which the charge is roasted at 300 degrees for several hours and the volatiles used to fuel the second burner at 2000 degrees plus to cleanly burn those volatiles. Attempting to capture those same volatiles is non productive at this level and by completely consuming them and capturing all the heat, all the biochar is thoroughly roasted.


So we have two practical methods of application. One is the hand built earthen kiln similar to an earthen charcoal kiln and the other possibly fabricated from a retired shipping container with a special small high temperature burner (the expensive part) and some piping.


Stepping up from that immediately accepts a huge trucking cost as material is gathered and inventoried to feed the large kiln unless one is tied to a major source. Then you have to dispose of the fluids and ship out the char to customers. And no one has figured out how to sell biochar to anyone for cash.


The biochar market is a waste disposal market and needs to be at the point of application which everyone is forgetting. It is already been handled at the moment of disposal. That is when you deliver it to its final destination. That could even include trucking it far into the next state. It is best to truck it to a small farm kiln who wants the product for his soil.


IMHO


you need large scale pyrolysis ie corporate/local government players. Why?


because the technology has not been scaled down enough yet and a good sized pyrolysis plant will set you back $5-10mil ($5 before the yanks bought up all the technology $10 after the yanks have bought up all the technology.

secondly it is only pyrolysis that can harvest the energy (electricity generation or bio-oils). It worries me that so many enthusiasts are making char without harvesting the energy. A large pyrolis unit has the 'pollution" exhaust of one SUV.


Sources of waste/fuel.

Here i can speak only of my own area/county


Council green "waste" --Locally tonnes and tonnes of green waste and wood offcuts (pallets, off cuts,building waste, flooring etc etc) are collected by the local council(small- outer suburban) on a daily basis.

Storm waste-- A storm recently felled thousands of trees in my area. this ALL went to landfill. Much of my outer suburban area is being "developed" this usaually means taking most of the trees off the site.

Intensive farming waste We have thousands of tonnes of chicken litter produced daily. with the recent(?) drought farmers were not using this for fertiliser.- Again into land-fill. I haven't even looked at pigs or cattle.

Paper Mill waste- wile this is uneconomic as an energy producer, (as it is about 70% water) pyrolising it is preferable to methane producing land-fill --as happens now

Wood-chips-- we cut down thousands of acres of forest, chip them and freight them to Japan for them to make origami (or char?)

Sewerage waste.-- God knows what happens to this. Soon we will have to start harvesting all the water from it. Pyrolysis can do this with some tweaking. Heavy metals? Why? What industry is putting its waste in the sewer?

Plantations Char -After you have charred all the waste, then start growing trees for charcoal (something that has been done and is being done in UK--on a sustainable basis for thousands of years) or stop making wood-chips out of them. Charcoal is far more valuable to society. What ever happened to the "paperless office"?


I am sure if you talk to the people selling this technology that they would have identified many other char-sources (Ask Adriana Downie, from BEST Energies Australia).


If "pyrolysis machines" can sell char for around $200 a tonne, investment in infrstructure becomes economically viable. Give them a carbon credit (or the farmer-or gardiner?) and everone is popping champaign corks.


If char is added to soil--Apart from reducing methane there is the possibility of harvesting water from waste (soon to be essential here).


reducing farmers inputs of water (saving energy from pumping etc)


reducing farmers inputs of fertiliser (which we are running out of)


reducing farmers' pollution by agricultual chemical and fertiliser run-off -(What will shortly kill the largest living organism on Earth-The Great Barrier Reef -it may even be too late to save it).


IMHO replicating Terra preta soils is the only way out of the Looming Global Warming disaster. (If not "out" at least moving in the right direction) Other geo-engineering ideas are just too silly, expensive, fanciful, or unproven (as is C.C.S.). Terra preta seems to suffer from being too simple an idea to catch on. Yet it is, and if Govenments and Copenhagen don't give the lead people will start doing it themselves anyway-- with more emissions than pyrolosis.


In other words we have NO choice but to go with char. we should have started 5 years ago.


Michael Angel


Be the change you want to see in the world – Ghandi

2009/9/5 John Seed <
johnseed1@ozemail. com.au>

Friends, this email from my long-time friend and forest-defending colleague George Marshall nicely sums up my own concerns about where biochar may be headed.

Would anyone care to assuage these concerns?

Beautiful funeral ceremony for Geoff Moxham yesterday, hundreds of well-wishers, lots of biochar in the eulogies,

for the Earth

John

----- Original Message -----
From:
George Marshall
To:
John Seed
Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:14 PM
Subject: My concerns with biochar

Dear Seedy


Lets assume for now that all the wondrous things ascribed to Biochar about soils and carbon sequestration etc are true. In a way it doesn't matter because my concerns apply whether it is true or not- it will still go into large scale production if there is enough commercial pressure for it. After all plenty of biofuels are net carbon emitters but they still get used because industry has lobbied for it.


Anyway my concerns are all about the source of biochar. I had not really thought about biochar until talking with my friend Anna Jenkins, formerly of FSC who is advising the Carbon Gold project in Belize
http://www.carbon- gold.com She is cced

My first concern was that it is being set up by Dan Morell who is a carbon trading businessman. Although it is all very touchy feely local development stuff (and the project looks good to me) it is clear that Morell's objective (and, no doubt anyone commerically involved) is to get Biochar fully transferable in carbon trading. In truth I don;t see how it could be economically viable on any significant scale unless it had some substantial subsidy - and carbon credits seems most likely. Reading the biofuelwatch briefing
http://www.biofuelw atch.org. uk/docs/biocharb riefing.pdf it is clear that there are much bigger fish going after this.

When biofuels were kicking off there were lots of nice small community type projects esp waste oil recycling. In retrospect the question that should have been asked was this: when the big corporate players come on board and biofuel is an international commodity, what will be the lowest unit cost source that can provide significant supplies. I remember talking with George Monbiot some eight years ago and our answer took us straight to oil palm, This was assuming a competitive market- we shoud have imagined that existing pork barrel politics could easily extend to a ludicrous subsidy for other crops like corn (US) and sugar (EU)


So now we know this is the right question, let's ask it for biofuels: if this is tradeable it will presumably be a standardised commodity- a kilo of biochar is a kilo of biochar- so given the inevitable chase to the bottom on price, what will be the cheapest (or the most corrupt/subsidised) source ? To my mind here are these contenders:


Relatively benign (with major caveats)


agricultural waste- potentially a good source for all biofuels, but there must be some significant economic impediments of it would be more used.


other waste streams- the carbon part of domestic and commercial waste such as wooden building materials (pollution issues here)


forestry waste from plantation forestry - thinnings etc. I wonder if this produces enough for viability?forest floor waste- dreadful for ecology


Less benign


Plantations for biochar purposes- issues here of what land, where, who owns it, can it be used for food or something else, does it actually sequester net carbon, is land being cleared for it and all the usual plantation issues. Plenty of potential subsidies and tax breaks here.


Dreadful


Uncommercial species from logging in natural forests- aha- Rimbunan HIjau's wet dream- they can rip out the valuable timber species and pyrolise the rest and then, having cleared the whole thing out they can stick some other plantation on top. For forests that do not have many commercial species and otherwise would not be commercial to log, this could tip the balance. And, as we know, corruption is rife here.


I think the potentially deadly thing with biochar is that it is such a low grade commodity that it can use anything. So the nearest analogy is driftnetting the oceans to make fishmeal.So if you were some unscrupulous commodity trader, what would you put your money on? Or can you suggest something else?


I think these concerns should be front of mind for all biochar enthusiasts and promoters because it is clear to my mind that unless you demand and obtain some rigourous standards for what constitutes environmentally and socially acceptable sources that are in place at the very outset it will immediately go to environmental mining by default.


YoursGeorge

+

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Biofuel Buzz

There has been a persistent increase in the number of stories on the development of so called bio fuel derived as a byproduct of the pyrolysis of bio waste. I posted extensively on this subject in the early days of this blog. Regrettably, it is tracking the same way as the enthusiasm for corn based ethanol. Lots of folks are piling onto the apparent governmental gravy train rolling up to the station and this is a technology that everyone can jump onto. It is easy to present and the real thing that makes it all appear creditable is the simple fact that a fluid is produced that appears to look like crude oil. Except that it is not.

It is a brew of complex organics, principally acids with poor energy output characteristics.

The production process gives us two product streams. One is char, whether charcoal or biochar and the so called biofuel. The most energetic components, the volatiles are typically burned in the actual production process. Advanced processes can apply pressure and additional heat to improve the output by reforming the complex organics into better grade fuels like hopefully methane. All this consumes a lot of the available energy.
It all likely ends up as slightly superior to coal gasification but that is faint praise. It remains an option that is used because you have no choice and someone is prepared to subsidize it.

What it has going for it is that there is little patent protection possible, so you and I can waltz into a funding source and ask for gobs of money to build a plant. There will be a lot of such folks, just as in the ethanol boom, who will round up the necessary funds on this tale of joy and build away. They will all lose money, just as ethanol is doing today.

The point that I need to make is that even if it can be made to operate profitably, which is not totally unreasonable, the capital is unlikely to ever be recovered. Otherwise, there would already be thousands around the country long since paid of.

My real regret is that this is a diversion of capital from projects that deserve every penny of support.

I would far rather see a drive on creating cattail paddies that produce massive amounts of starch as ethanol feedstock. It would also employ thousands and not interfere with food production.

More importantly, the electric car is now imminent. We need a massive increase in base grid power on top of the rapidly expanding solar and wind sources.

We need to hugely expand geothermal energy production in the state of Nevada. Power plants can be built there readily and as often as necessary. What is most important, there is nothing to invent. Of course, we can expect some meathead to redo Icelandic history by using cheap steel inappropriately. The rest will not.

Very shortly someone will be asking why nothing was done for the past several years to prepare for the looming energy crunch.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Industrial Biochar fuels the farm

What is promising is that the knowledge of the agricultural utility of biochar is slowly creeping into major development programs such as those described below. Recognition that residual biochar has a better place as a soil building agent than as a fuel is changing researcher’s approach to the waste management problem.

This bodes well for the future. One can see that this is a welcome solution to the major problem facing industrial scale animal husbandry of the effective disposal of manures. These can no longer be simply spread on the surrounding soil because of damage to the environment. So running the material through a wet thermochemical process with a top temperature of 350C is very appealing now that we know that the solid portion is highly suitable as a soil additive.

We are seeing an industry shift over to a superior and truly unexpected economic model. We can soon expect the resultant biochar, and the reported temperature is producing reduced carbon, if not activated carbon, to be sold at the farm gate.

Once agribusiness itself begins to dispose of its waste streams as a 350 degree carbon product to other operators, the rest of the industry will quickly follow suit. Right now the hardware itself is been figured out.

I may be optimistic, but the acceptance of biochar protocols is inevitable and this work shows us that that is the emerging consensus. That five thousand year field test in Brazil has silenced all the usual naysayers who would surely slow the adoption. Recall that the vanadium battery is how twenty years old and it still attracts naysayers who lack any scientific support for their position.

Terra preta has only in the past year really begun to penetrate public consciousness. Prior to that, we had a few lonely articles by a few academic champions. Now field tests are springing up throughout the globe.

Within perhaps five years, every farmer will be clamoring for the stuff. And yes Virginia, there will be millions of new acres of agricultural land brought on stream because of this.


Fueling the FarmWaste for Energy and Independence

Imagine turning a noxious agricultural waste into a value-added bioenergy product for on-farm heating and power—or even into transportation fuels.

Agricultural engineer Keri Cantrell, environmental engineer Kyoung Ro, and research leader Patrick Hunt work at the
ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center in Florence, South Carolina. They have teamed up to explore how thermochemical conversion technologies could be used to generate bioenergy from manure—a resource that the United States, with its intensive livestock production, has in abundance.

“Our goal is to develop new waste-treatment methods and strategies that small farms and concentrated animal-production facilities could use to meet their energy needs,” Cantrell says.

One approach—wet gasification—converts wet manure slurry into energy-rich gases and relatively clean water. The catalytic version of this technology is under development at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This process is expected to destroy pathogens and has been found to destroy odor-generating volatile organic compounds at the processing conditions of 350˚C.

At this high temperature, wet gasification can destroy pharmaceutically active components like hormones. This process could theoretically convert the manure in as little as 15 minutes, far exceeding the days and months required by existing anaerobic and composting methods.

The Florence researchers developed a cost-benefit model of wet gasification to calculate estimated returns and concluded that liquid swine waste can have a net energy potential comparable to that of brown coal.

In addition, the ARS team is investigating pyrolysis technology, which uses heat and an atmosphere devoid of oxygen to convert the manure into a char, or “green coal.”

“Green coal can serve as an energy source for on-farm use, or it can be transported to coal power plants for feedstock,” Ro says. “It can also be transformed into activated charcoal. This charcoal can be applied to soil to improve soil quality, and it also reduces greenhouse gases by permanently sequestering carbon.”

The group is also working in collaboration with the Advanced Fuels Group at the DOE Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. They are evaluating different catalysts needed to facilitate conversion of “syngas”—the gas produced when animal wastes and other biomass are gasified—to liquid fuels.

“Computers used to take up the basement of the math building,” Hunt says. “We’d like to be able to shrink down a process to run the farm engine in the same way.” With this kind of system, farmers would be able to produce their own energy sources and eliminate the need to transport manure offsite. The trick is to make the system productive and affordable.

The Florence researchers know that the benefits of any biofuel must be weighed against its economic and environmental production costs. “The truly exciting reality is that numerous needs in energy, nutrient recycling, climate change, and biosecurity will foster synergistic development of technology for future agriculture,” Hunt says. “Our research is only one part of the answer as we look for new energy supplies.”—By
Ann Perry, Agricultural Research Service Information Staff.

This research is part of Manure and Byproduct Utilization, an ARS national program (#206) described on the World Wide Web at
www.nps.ars.usda.gov.

Keri B. Cantrell, Patrick G. Hunt, and Kyoung S. Ro are with the USDA-ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center, 2611 W. Lucas St., Florence, SC 29501-1242; phone (843) 669-5203, ext. 113 [Cantrell], ext. 101 [Hunt], ext. 107 [Ro], fax (843) 669-6970.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Biochar in the Garden

Phillip small is developing this FAQ on the application of biochar to the home garden. Although a work in progress, as it must be with the current state of knowledge, It covers enough to give a new user a running start.

The evidence to date supports spending a fair amount of effort to produce a finely powdered product. In fact I would get the appropriate screen and simply use only the fines in the garden. This of course will prove a little difficulty with commercial wood charcoal were the fines have already been cleaned out.

Everyone is discovering that crushing wood charcoal is not easy or convenient.

If one actually has an efficient retort working on a pyrolysis gas fuel system, then we have the option of using non wood plant material as a feed stock which immediately solves the problem. The pollen evidence and the additional likelihood that the original terra preta was cooked up in earthen kilns formed out of corn stalks and their root pads informs us that the original biochar protocol did exactly this.

In the meantime, crushing wood charcoal is the available option. Laying down a ground sheet to capture the charcoal powder on a concrete slab, then a layer of charcoal and then a plywood sheet, creates a crush zone. Driving your car back and forth over the sheet may do some good. Making use of a drop weight while standing on the panel is the next option we may want to try.

What you will learn is that as fineness goes up, so does energy expenditure at a much faster rate. Welcome to the world of mining and milling.

The reason this all works is because the surface of elemental carbon grabs and holds nutrients until a root cell arrives with its biological entourage and extracts the nutrient away from the carbon. The nutrient so bound can not escape into the mobile drainage system. Obviously a root will have difficulty penetrating a large chunk of charcoal.

As yet no one is marketing powdered charcoal as such, although that can not be far off. That will be followed very quickly with fertilizer blending. In the meantime it is pure do-it-yourself.

In terms of application, I would blend five pounds of powder in ten to twenty pounds of soil with fertilizer and use that to set seeds in mini hills of the blend. That way you are not treating the huge amount of area that lies in between the seed beds.

This should maximize immediate results for the home gardener.

I would particularly like to see this tested in this manner on the clearly poorer soils. Fine loamy soils barely need the assistance. Former desert soils most certainly do. And there are plenty of urban lots in which removed topsoil was never properly restored. At least with this protocol, the home owner has a method for soil restoration that compliments and supports any thing else he may try.

A really interesting experiment would be to plant alfalfa in a very thin top dressing that included fifteen percent biochar on a subsoil base. It is the nature of alfalfa to run a root system both deep and broad while also fixing nitrogen. This penetrates the sub soil with organic material on an ongoing basis. The top dressing holds the soluble nutrients also needed. The question that we are really asking here is whether this protocol is able to produce a viable top soil quickly. While this is going on, it may be possible to harvest the alfalfa and perhaps aerate the top three inches. Obviously any now barren non productive field could be used for this experiment and I expect the carbon to counter even salinity by sequestering the salts into the carbon.

The important point is that the initial top dressing does not need to be very thick, although more will be clearly better. But if you have an impossible soil, getting anything to set up and establish itself is a blessing. The established root material will then start the process of rehabilitating the soil. After that it is a matter of how much of a hurry you are in. An established alfalfa field providing a steady and improving supply of fodder is at least nicely carrying itself.

Welcome to a Gardening with Biochar FAQ!

... a work in progress...

When gardeners add biochar to garden soil, we are, in effect attempting to follow in the footsteps of the originators of Terra Preta. Because we don't know exactly how that process worked, nor how we can best adapt it outside its area of origin, we are left to discover much of this by experimenting with our own gardens and comparing observations within our own communities.

1.0 What is Biochar?

Biochar is charcoal formed by low temperature pyrolysis. Medium temperature pyrolysis produces a more traditional charcoal, high temperature pyrolysis produces activated charcoal. Ideally biochar is made in a way that achieves maximal woodgas condensate retention.

1.01 How does biochar relate to agrichar and to Terra Preta?

Agrichar is a synonym for biochar. This material was fundamental to the creation of Terra Preta de Indio, as it is to creating its modern equivalent, Terra Preta Nova. Terra Preta "Classic" was made by adding charcoal, broken pottery shards along with the organic fertilizer amendments. This, in conjunction with the microbial ecology occurring in these soils, resulted in an incredibly fertile soil, and a reputation for self-regeneration.

1.02 What is pyrolysis?

Pyrolysis is a chemical decomposition of organic materials by heating in the absence of oxygen. This releases heat energy and yields combustable gases (aka syngas, wood gas, and producer gas) and charcoal. The charcoal produced is a combination of black carbon, along with small amounts of woodgas condensate and ash.

1.03 What temperature range is considered "low temperature" in the context of biochar?

The theoretical low end of the range approaches 120 deg C, the lowest temperature at which wood will char, (Reference) thus the temperature at the pyrolysis front. A more practical low end is to use the piloted ignition temperature of wood, typically 350 deg C. (Reference) The theoretical high end, between biochar and more traditional charcoal, depends on the process and feedstock used, but is seldom indicated in excess of 600 deg C.

1.04 Can I substitute other forms of charcoal for biochar?

Yes, up to a point. The woodgas condensates in biochar give it considerable value, but that is not to imply that using simple charcoal, or charcoal made from other than plant materials, won't produce some, and even most, of the same benefits. It is normally adviseable to avoid charcoal briquetttes because the binders used during manufacture can add undesireable constituents.

1.05 Why are the condensates valuable?

We believe this to be the case because higher temperature charcoal does not produce as much of an observed beneficial effect.

1.06 Is biochar made from hardwood best?

Biochar made from hardwood is richer in condensates when compared to biochar made from softer wood, from bamboo and from less woody vegetation. The fact that hardwoods were readily available to the originators of Terra Preta de Indio has not escaped the attention of Terra Preta enthusiasts.

1.07 Where can I join in with this community of Terra Preta enthusiasts?

  1. Bioenergy lists: Terra Preta: the intentional use of charcoal in soils.
  2. Bioenergy lists: Terrapreta -- Discussion of terra preta, the intentional placement of charcoal in soil.
  3. Hypography Science Forums: Terra Preta

2.0 How do I Get Biochar?

You can purchase biochar, purchase a charcoal substitute, or you can make it yourself.

2.01 Where can I purchase biochar?

Currently manufactured biochar is in short supply and is needed for research projects. The alternative is to purchase charcoal and use it as a biochar substitute. Cowboy brand hardwood charcoal is available in the United States in 20 pound bags by the pallet, about 600 pounds, for less than US $ 0.7/lb. For larger amounts, as in a shipping container, consider coconut shell charcoal, available for less than US $ 300/mt. Worth repeating: It is normally advisable to avoid charcoal briquettes because the binders used during manufacture can add undesirable constituents.

2.02 How do I make biochar?

While colliers the world over normally use either a covered pit or a covered mound (earth kiln) to make charcoal, most gardeners will want to start with an easier method that works at a smaller scale. Home pyrolysis is pretty easy to accomplish and a bottom lit burn barrel is the common starting point. Make sure the openings at the base of the barrel are large enough. Light it off, give it an occasional shake to settle the fuel, and, when done, pop a cover on it or douse it with water. The burn in all of these approaches can produce a fair amount of smoke and partially combusted gases. Out of concern for air quality, many gardeners may prefer not to use these approaches.

2.03 What are some less smokey approaches to making biochar for the gardener?

Choose your feedstock wisely. No matter what technique you use to make charcoal, choosing uniformly sized, dry woody material produces the highest yields. Uniformity is one reason that colliers will routinely use coppiced hardwoods.

Inverted Downdraft Gassification. For a cleaner burning configuration, consider a Top Lit Updraft (TLUD) technique, also referred to as an inverted downdraft gassification. The technique looks simple but in reality it involves some fairly sophisticated physics (PDF). That doesn't prevent success using common materials and dead simple design. Take that same open barrel configuration, tweak the design per the afformentioned physics involved, and now light it from the top instead of the bottom. This takes a different skill set than lighting from the bottom but its also not that difficult to master. A little vaseline or ethanol on a cotton ball can work wonders for starting up. Once the fire gets going, the top layer of wood burns, creating charcoal, naturally. The heat from the charcoal layer burning heats the wood below it, and ignites it, but at a lower temperature sufficient for pyrolysis. The gases released by pyrolysis (carbon dioxide and water) flow through the charcoal layer. Glowingly hot charcoal has a wonderous ability to strip oxygen molecules from of anything that passes over it, so it converts the water into hydrogen, and the carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide. These two gases are flammable and they are ignited once mixed with air coming into the top of the open barrel above the charcoal layer. The result is a scrubbed gas-fed flame that is much more controlled, and which burns substantially cleaner and hotter than can be achieved with the bottom lit burn barrel. (Source). The lack of oxygen below the combustion zone is impedes loss of the charcoal despite the high temperature flame immediately above it. This alows biochar to build up faster than it is consumed, at least until the pyrolysis zone reaches the bottom of the fuel column.

A handy TLUD fired Retort. The retort process works by restricting the air supply to the target feed stock for the duration of the burn. An outside heat source pyrolizes the retort contents, small openings in the retort allow wood gas to escape, but restrict the flow of oxygen in. While capable of very high yield efficiency, the open flame used to fire the retort is not as clean as can be achieved with an inverted downdraft gassifier. A common further inefficiency with smaller retorts is that much of the wood gas generated from the retort can end up not being burned. Folk Gunther's hybrid TLUD/retort demonstrates a simple configuration that neatly addresses these concerns.

2.04 What are some higher volume but less smokey approaches to making biochar for the garden?

While TLUD's can get fairly large [Link needed], a large TLUD/Retort is less practical, than a large drum retort.

A Large Drum Retort. [Expand]

The Wood Vinegar Kiln. [Expand]

2.05 How much charcoal yield can I expect?

On a dry matter weight basis, as well as an energy basis, between 20 percent, for the top lit open barrel approach, and 60 percent, for a retort under ideal conditions. 50 percent is a reasonable goal. [Sources needed]

2.06 What can I burn to make biochar?

Any reasonably dry and clean burnable feedstock will work. Woody plant material is the primary candidate. Bones are also a traditional component in Terra Preta, but one we don't know as much about. Other materials can be used conditionally.

2.07 What do I need to consider in making biochar from other than woody plant materials?

The two considerations are, what additional contaminants are being carried off as pyrolysis gas during the burn, and what contaminants are present in the ash component of the charcoal produced.

2.08 What refractory materials can I use to make a kiln? a retort?

2.09 What gases does pyrolysis produce?

2.10 How much heat does pyrolysis produce?

2.11 Is biochar worth more as a fuel than as a soil amendment?

2.12 Is biochar worth more as a fuel than its value for offsetting greenhouse gases?

2.13 What do I do if I make more biochar than I can use?

Craigslist.

3.0 How do I prepare the biochar once I've made it?

You can use it as is, especially if it is a small amount. For larger amounts, the choices are to crush, screen, add liquids, add dry materials, and to compost it.

3.01 Why would I need to prepare the biochar, as opposed to applying it as is?

There are several reasons that might apply to your situation. [Expand, obviously]

3.02 What size should the biochar be?

3.03 What are some ways to crush and screen biochar?

[For crushing, I am leaning to a mortor and pestle approach: a 5 cm dia hardwood trunk 2 m long and a 20 liter bucket with a plywood insert in the bottom.

For screening, I think a sloped screen works better than a horizontal screen for higher volumes.]

3.04 What can I do to make the biochar easier to crush?

Wetting and drying it seems to help. Crushing it with a little moisture in it helps to control dust.

3.05 Besides water, what else can I soak the biochar in?

Yes. Compost tea, MiracleGro (TM), fish emulsion, urine, ....

3.06 Can I add biochar to compost?

Yes. This will help temper the biochar. For the added benefit of odor control, consider topping off each addition to the household kitchen scrap collector with a healthy layer of biochar.

3.07 Will biochar affect the compost process?

Casual observation indicates that adding fine, untempered biochar may accelerate the composting process.

3.05 Will biochar harm the worms in my compost?

Anecdotal accounts indicate that worms tolerate up to xx% charcoal, above which reduced worm activity can occur.

3.08 Can I use biochar in my composting toilet?

Yes. Again, the added benefit of odor control is compelling.

3.09

4.0 How do I apply Biochar?

4.01 What materials combine well with biochar for application?

4.02 How is biochar generally used

4.03 What is the normal application rate for biochar?

4.04 Are there benefits to deeper placement?

4.05 Are there benefits to using biochar as a mulch?

4.06

5.0 What happens after biochar is in the soil?

5.01 Does biochar affect soil pH?

5.02 Does biochar increase soil CEC and Base Saturation?

5.03 Does biochar improve soil moisture characteristics?

5.04 Can biochar have a harmfull effect on my soil or on my garden?

5.05 Does biochar affect soil ecology?

5.06 Does biochar improve plant growth?

5.07 How much improved plant growth can I expect?

5.08 How much carbon dioxide does sequestered biochar offset?

5.09 How much nitrous oxide formation does biochar prevent?

Soil scientist Lucas Van Zweiten has observed a 5 to 10 fold reduction in nitrous oxide emmissions with some of the biochars he is working with in an agricultural setting. Generally, soil with elevated soil nitrate levels in the presence of sufficient moisture and robust soil organic matter will have higher nitrous oxide production, and thus will be more likely to benefit at the levels observed by Van Zweiten.

5.10

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Erich Knight's Biochar list

As long time readers know, I have been promoting terra preta steadily since just after I started this blog. Erich Knight has constructed an inventory of pertinent sites and articles for this topic. Since I started posting, the volume of interest has expanded hugely. I recently posted on the terra preta forum and the response volume was overwhelming. I found myself with dozens of comments as follow up with a lot of good information and thinking.

Anyway this list he has constructed is a good snapshot of the best current sites. I suspect that next year, the number will be much larger.


The best Win Win Win solution is Biochar.

The current news and links on Terra Preta (TP) soils and closed-loop pyrolysis of Biomass, this integrated virtuous cycle could sequester 100s of Billions of tons of carbon to the soils.

This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 1/3 Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.

UN Climate Change Conference: Biochar present at the Bali Conference

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta Carbon Soil Technology.

The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;

S.1884 The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007

A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:

Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative for the 2007 Farm Bill

Bolstering Biomass and Biochar development: In the 2007 Farm Bill, Senator Salazar was able to include $500 million for biomass research and development and for competitive grants to develop the technologies and processes necessary for the commercial production of biofuels and bio-based products. Biomass is an organic material, usually referring to plant matter or animal waste. Using biomass for energy can reduce waste and air pollution. Biochar is a byproduct of producing energy from biomass. As a soil treatment, it enhances the ability of soil to capture and retain carbon dioxide.

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.htmlThere are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture and waste stream, all that farm & cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG should be returned to the Soil.

If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer.

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=nodeIt has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.

The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) conference held at Terrigal, NSW, Australia in 2007. The papers from this conference are posted at their home page;

http://www.biochar-international.org/home.html.Nature article, Aug 06: Putting the carbon back Black is the new green:

http://bestenergies.com/downloads/naturemag_200604.pdfHere's the Cornell page for an over view:

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=taxonomy/term/118This Earth Science Forum thread on these soils contains further links, and has been viewed by 19,000 self-selected folks. ( I post everything I find on Amazon Dark Soils, ADS here):

http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science/3451-terra-preta.htmlTerra Preta creates a terrestrial carbon reef at a microscopic level. These nanoscale structures provide safe haven to the microbes and fungus that facilitate fertile soil creation, while sequestering carbon for many hundred if not thousands of years. The combination of these two forms of sequestration would also increase the growth rate and natural sequestration effort of growing plants.

All the Biochar Companies and equipment manufactures I've found:

Carbon Diversion

http://www.carbondiversion.comEprida: Sustainable Solutions for Global Concerns

http://www.eprida.com/home/index.php4BEST Pyrolysis, Inc. Slow Pyrolysis - Biomass - Clean Energy - Renewable Energy

http://www.bestenergies.com/companies/bestpyrolysis.htmlDynamotive Energy Systems The Evolution of Energy

http://www.dynamotive.com/Ensyn - Environmentally Friendly Energy and Chemicals

http://www.ensyn.com/who/ensyn.htmAgri-Therm, developing bio oils from agricultural waste

http://www.agri-therm.com/Advanced BioRefinery Inc.

http://www.advbiorefineryinc.ca/Technology Review: Turning Slash into Cash

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17298/3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. (Edward Someus)

The company has Swedish origin and developing/designing medium and large scale carbonization units. The company is the licensor and technology provider to NviroClean Tech Ltd British American organization WEB: http://www.nvirocleantech.com and VERTUS Ltd.

http://www.vertustechnologies.comGenesis Industries, licensee of Eprida technology, provides carbon-negative EPRIDA energy machines at the same cost as going direct to Eprida. Our technical support staff also provide information to obtain the best use of biochar produced by the machine. Recent research has shown that EPRIDA charcoal (biochar) increases plant productivity as it sequesters carbon in soil, thus reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

http://www.egenindustries.com/If pre-Columbian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using "Slash & CHAR" verses "Slash & Burn", it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.

Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.We need this super community of wee beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.

Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Nasty nature of pyrolysis oil

As I posted a couple of days back, it is apparent that the exploitation of waste wood whose supply is maximized with better husbandry will supply feedstock that can then be converted through fast pyrolysis into something called Bio-oil. This conversion yields close to 70% by weight fluids, which is a pretty encouraging result.

The initial processing realistically includes harvesting in the form of wood chips, long term covered storage to permit a high level of air drying, and on time haulage to a processor. This is all within the capacity of the agriculturist. So far so good.

The second phase has two more preparation steps. The chips must be ground screened to the size of say coffee grounds and must also be heat dried to bring the moisture content to under 10%. This particularly true in the tropics were dry wood will absorb moisture from the atmosphere.

This material is then shoved through a reactor at a high speed and high temperature to produce the vaporized fluids and some char. It is then condensed to separate out the fluids and process gas.

I assume that we can scavenge the process gas and heat and use same to support the process.

The end result is a heavy cocktail of nasty fluids that is called bio oil, but chemically has little relationship to what we normally use. The good news though, is that this is a fluid that can now be compactly stored, handled, and transported. We also can have as much as we ever thought that we might need. It is actually practical, for a price, to produce a couple hundred millions of barrels per day of this stuff.

The actual energy content of this fluid is about forty percent of conventional fuel oil, which implies that we need at least twice as much to do the job. Extensive research over the past decades has found a way to burn this fluid in a static large engine. However, the nasty nature of this material has precluded anything more refined.

We have produced a fairly uniform and blendable feedstock. Can this feedstock be reformed into a hydrocarbon or alcohol product that we can actually use as a transportation fuel? Certainly there is a great deal of effort going toward that end. We are simply not there yet.

As I have posted, our salient unsolved problem today is the production of transportation fuel. Everything else is completely doable with the tools in hand. Been able to harvest waste wood and converting same into a liquid fuel would eliminate that problem in a carbon neutral way.

I do think that algae oil will present itself as a vastly superior fuel once its production is mastered. However, the benefits to the globe from active management of our woodlands are also compelling and should be economically sustainable if it is integrated into the fuel supply system. We very likely need to master both.

In the meanwhile, the price of oil and the Canadian dollar is on a tear as investors slowly wake up to the reality that the only place on Earth today that has any hope of making up some of the shortfall is in Alberta. And we are all now waiting for the other shoe to drop. That will be the first measured decline in oil deliveries and that information will already be months late.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Wood chips and fuel.

As my readers well know, over the next twenty years, humanity has to replace the majority of the current 83,000,000 barrels of daily oil production that we rely on to day. And it has to be in a form that allows it to be used for transportation energy. In spite of the naysayers, we really have no problem with any other part of the energy equation.


In other words, we are going to survive this horrific shift in our energy options. Personal transportation will find better ways to access other energy forms through hybrids as we are seeing now.

I have already described the one best option for the production of transportation fuels, which is the production of biodiesel from a high oil algae feedstock. It promises to be super efficient and to be integrative with cattle farming. The theoretical numbers cannot be achieved today, but I think that a viable pilot operation can be run that could easily bring the cattle industry on side producing the requisite infrastructure. The feed byproduct alone may carry the investment.

There is one additional option, that meshes with my original thesis. That is forest management. Our technology now allows labor efficient protocols for forest management. The owner can salvage wood waste every spring from his forest in the form of wood chips and sawn blocks. We want to rebuild and transform our woodlands globally into maximal ecologies. This key element of forest management is poorly capitalized, yet if it is capitalized we can establish a waste wood stream that will be uniform and transportable.

In fact the vigorous removal of wood waste will stimulate strong regeneration of forest growth and suppress the prospect of powerful forest fires limiting us to managed brush fires.

This massive stream of wood waste can be be treated in two ways. The first and least desirable is atmospheric combustion that uses the heat to support pyrolysis. A liquid fraction will be driven of that can be used as a fuel. The rest will be either burned or converted into charcoal that may or may not be used for agriculture, though I suspect that is the only useful application without burning again.

The point is, is that the output is rather small and the quality is problematic and complex. There is currently a lot of enthusiasm around it, but I must admit that I am not overly optimistic. I simply think that we can do a lot better.

A lot better, means running this same feedstock through a high pressure chamber at 600 atmospheres and 600 degrees which reprocesses all the constituents to their simplest form. This is the principle of depolymerization. This approach is very promising and the wood waste provides a uniform feedstock that can be implemented globally. The output will be hydrocarbons.

Of course, creating this wood chip gathering infrastructure also opens the door for the folks who believe that it will be possible someday to convert cellulose into the constituent sugars. The key to all these technologies is a steady supply of waste wood chips that can then be processed.

The point that I want to make, is that a wood chip recovery program can be created at the national level, inducing the woodlot owners to start systematically managing the waste output of their forests and to stockpile chips. These chip inventories are then available for processing in some form while the superior forest management and economic considerations mature.

I will develop some numbers tomorrow, but in fairness, I do not think that we can use it to offset the largest fuel burner of all. It will help though.

Friday, August 17, 2007

Tom Miles comments on Biochar production costs

This is from the Terra preta site.


Agreed. Production and use of the charcoal on the farm is
not trivial. It's at a different scale than commercial
charcoal production but it is done with a purpose. That
purpose is clearly defined in your case. It is not yet
clear in many cases.
The actual cost may exceed the current returns on the
investment of labor and capital but the value
(cost/benefit) may not be calculated in strictly current
economic terms. That's not uncommon when developing new
technologies or applications, so I jokingly say that it
must be amortized on its entertainment value. The point
is that there must be a purpose, a product and a value.
Serious farm production of biochar in our area will be
regulated in a similar manner as outdoor wood boilers:
systems will have to comply with air, soil and water
quality regulations. The amount of regulation will
depend on the scale of the charcoal production. Let's
look at scale.
In your plots you have used 30 gallons (4 ft3) or 60 lbs
(4 ft3 x 15 lb/ft3) of charcoal in 85 ft2 plots
(5 x 17ft= 4). 60 lb/85 ft2 = 0.7 lbs/ft2 equal to about
14 tons of charcoal per acre. If your planted area is
50% of the total area you would use 7 tons of charcoal
per acre.
If you used a kiln the size of Robert Flanagan's (1.5
tonnes [1.65 t] biomass per charge) you would produce
about 0.66 tons per day (at two charges/day) or 20 tons
of charcoal in 30 days
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/flanaganvinegar

So if you ran Flanagan's kiln for 30 days at two charges
per day you could treat about 3 acres per year (20
tons/7 tons per acre). In 15 years you'll cover the
whole 45 acre nursery. 1.65 tons/8 hours with wood
vinegar recovery would exhaust about 3 MMBtuh which is
large enough to be regulated in some states.
If you treat 5 acres per year that's 35 tons of
charcoal per year representing 175 tons of biomass (35
tons charcoal/20%) per year. If you make your own
charcoal at 5 tons of charcoal per day (175 tons/30
days = 5.8t/day) each kiln charge would be about 25
tons of biomass/24 hours or 1 ton per hour (2 big bales).

Your kiln will be rated at about 12 million Btuh(80%
biomass x 15 MM Btu/ton x 1 ton/hour) if no oil is
recovered, or 5 million Btuh if just the offgas is
burned to drive the process of making oil and char.

Either way you have an system is large enough that it
will be regulated for particulate, CO and NOx emissions.
A system of this size is likely to be operated as a
stationary production facility operating 250 days per
year (6250 tons biomass or 1250 tpy charcoal). Large
bale combustors of the 1980s (Agrifurnaces, IA) were
rarely moved. Most systems included debalers like the
farm scale straw burning gasifiers and boilers or today.
A farm scale charcoal system might include the same
amount of equipment as Vidir's Greenhouse Gas
Displacement system which gasifies straw to replace
natural gas for heating heat poultry houses.

http://www.vidir.biz/index-biomass.htm

Vidir's smallest system consumes 500lb/hr (3 Million
Btuh) of wheat straw. If built as a pyrolyzer it would
produce 100 lb charcoal and 1-2 million Btuh heat. The
system cost is $200,000. Annual operating cost with straw
at $10/bale is estimated at $16,000. Labor is figured at
3 hours per day $15/hr. Economics are based on 6 months
operating time (in Manitoba) or 375 tonnes (752 x 500
kg bales/year).

At 20% yield that would produce 82 tons (75 tonnes) of
charcoal which could treat about 12 acres (at 7 tons/
acre). In four years you would produce enough charcoal
for a 40 acre farm. At $200/ton the charcoal would be
worth about $16,400/year whch would just offset the
operating costs but not capital. If you had a use for
the heat (2 million btuh x 70% to hot water = 1.4
MMBtuh, 33.6 MMBtu/day) in 30 days you would recover
more than $12,800 additional revenue to help pay for
the plant. In six months you would recover $16,400 in
charcoal value and $76,800 in heat savings. So the
payback could be 4 years with heat recovery. To a see
a system like that in operation would be entertaining.
Regards,
 
Tom             
   

Monday, July 16, 2007

pyrolysis

I have read a lot of comment of the role of pyrolysis and how it produces gases and liquids while leaving char behind. Obviously the higher the temperature the more complete the process that could well include substantial reforming of complex molecules into simpler compounds. This is well worth the trouble if the fuel and the end markets for the liquids, gases, heat, and char are located in the same industrial setting.

As soon as we lose any of that closeness for any component, we lose efficiency in a hurry. I say this because even if one has a market for the lighter components, then you will need to shift unto other components of the fuel in order to support the process. The point I am making is that a lot of the fuel gets used to produce process heat.

Agricultural charcoal is in the position of been located at the source and application sites of the process protocol. Thus all the light fractions and as much of the process heat as possible needs to be used in the process itself.

This will also turn out to be the best protocol for an industrial sized plant as well. The secondary gases and liquids are potentially a red herring that can generate poor design when the only thing that matters is burn efficiency.

The interesting question for the shipping container design is what might the net efficiency be? I ask this because it will be possible to avoid any combustion in the main chamber as an operating option. The 2000 degree exhaust gas from the second burner can bring the core temperature of the shipping container up to the needed 400 t0 500 degree level.

Yields of obviously inefficient and messy systems run around 20 percent. It may be thus possible to exceed this by an additional twenty percent . The theoretical 80 percent yield may even be possible if it turns out that the volatiles produce enough fuel to complete the job.

This is a major potential payoff for both agricultural charcoal yields and the direct sequestering of carbon, and well worth the small additional capital investment in a charcoaling system.