[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
Larry Williams
lwilliams at nas.com
Tue Aug 28 12:02:38 EDT 2007
Adriana, Terra Preta list members and my local Soil, Plant and Water
list-------Earlier this year Rich and I posted pictures of our
attempt to make charcoal. At that time I did not appreciate the
significant increase of the greenhouse gases over the capture of
carbon in producing charcoal. When I look at common practices in
managing vegetation in the Pacific NW (the area that I am most
familiar with) the scope of societal change to reduce the release of
CO2 or CH4 boggles my mind. Know that I have had open fires my entire
life the same as the society around me.
If the experiment to produce charcoal, that Rich and I accomplished,
released more carbon to the atmosphere than it captured, at least, we
captured some of the carbon. I admit that we could do better and will
capture more of the carbon as we learn how to do that. Do pay as
close attention to other sources releasing CO2 and CH4 also. If we
need to get on our soapboxes to voice objections to societal releases
of greenhouse gases, I am there on that box.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources is about to burn
debris from clearcut logging practices. In our locale, they would be
a good place to begin the change of societal habits towards more
responsible management of carbon. In the process of using charcoal as
a soil amendment for growing more food and the sequestering of
atmospheric carbon we cannot expect the largest producers of
greenhouse gas to alone make a difference. Non-point pollution or
rather very small point sources of pollution cannot be overlooked
either, i.e. individual management of carbon.
If a Douglas fir tree grows to maturity and the stump rot in place,
it has the potential to be alive for close to seven hundred years and
decompose over the next five to six hundred years. It has the
potential to grow to a height of 200 feet. The accumulation of carbon
grows and then is gradually released. If that same tree is used for
lumber then the capture of carbon is released at a much faster rate.
There are very few remaining homes that have any old growth lumber in
them in the one hundred and thirty years of local logging. A good
portion of that carbon has been released.
Small Doug fir trees, as they are called, that don't make it to the
saw mill are currently chipped in tub grinders (a hammer knife
process) which will release carbon (rot) within ten years. Even old
growth Doug fir stumps, trees cut one hundred years ago which are as
solid as rock (so to speak) with pitch with hundreds of years of
carbon storage remaining, when placed in a tub grinder will last as
splinters for only ten years. Then if you consider Doug fir, any aged
tree, cut for firewood then the release of carbon is immediate.
Burning wood in open fires is what this culture is made of. I dare
say that it is an addiction so the resistance to change will be hard
to overcome. It is easy to see the different rates of carbon release.
These releases are management decision. Most people and government do
not appreciate the need for change.
Carbon management is the focal point if we are not going to "crisp
up" the only blue-green globe that we have found in the universe. I
note that my personal universe has change from my hometown as a child
to this blue-green globe in my life. I am a plant person as a
landscaper and manage plant growth.
The concept of Terra Preta has fascinated me for several years now
and have witnessed some very significant changes, I believe, in plant
growth in my garden and some very interesting, isolated, black soil
associated with buried old growth Doug fir roots. These experiences
have led to my acceptance of Terra Preta de Indio and to the
possibility that black earth can occur as a result in other
conditions also.
This is off the topic of managing carbon but then again there may be
other conditions that increased soil fertility in a process similar
to Terra Preta.
As serious as open burning and making mound-fired charcoal are for
the creation of greenhouse gases, the pyrolysing of wood needs, in my
opinion, to be common event for the fields and the gardens. The
process needs to be simple and effective at capturing carbon if used
by the majority of the population to reduce greenhouse gases. An
industrial process for making charcoal will not work for people who
have little money. This likely includes many farmers in the western
culture and what of farmers around the world?-------Larry
P.S. The small retort that I am using captures carbon in the form of
charcoal and wood condensates. With a little more work the remaining
smoke will be burnt. At what point is more carbon captured than
released?
-------------------------------------------
On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Adriana Downie wrote:
> Rich,
>
>
>
> Please go back and read Seans post. You are better to burn to CO2
> than pyrolysis and release syngas. I think that promoting small
> scale pyrolysis is going backward and gives fuel to the sceptics.
>
>
>
> Adriana.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Haard [mailto:richrd at nas.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2007 3:21 PM
> To: Adriana Downie
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
>
>
>
> Adriana
>
>
>
> Yes but ---- When neighbors on both sides are burning debris and
> logging operations on ridge 3500 feet above us are burning slash
> what is the big deal with making some charcoal for your own
> curiosity on the effects of charcoal in your garden and to make a
> convert who in the long term may help to educate others about the
> benefits of sequestering carbon on a larger scale if and when such
> charcoal and charcoal making equipment becomes available on the
> market.
>
>
>
> Rich H
>
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Adriana Downie wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Sean,
>
>
>
> This is a very important point that really needs to be well
> understood. Those who are making char in a 44 gallon drum in the
> back yard and putting it on the vege garden are not doing the
> planet any favours. What is more, they are not doing themselves any
> favours either because not only do traditional methods have
> Greenhouse effects which far out weigh the benefits of sequestering
> char in soil they also have severe human health impacts which far
> out weigh any social benefit from improved agricultural yields.
> Particulate emissions are often the overwhelming detrimental effect
> when environmental LCAs are done, it is essential to manage these
> if this technology is to be of any benefit. No good saving the
> planet from global warming if in turn we give everyone respiratory
> diseases.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Adriana Downie
>
> BEST Energies Australia
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2007 2:46 PM
> To: Robert Klein
> Cc: terrapreta
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
>
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
>
> I don't know where you get the information for your postings. It
> seems sheer speculation. Is it? Isn't it?
>
>
>
> Making charcoal in earthen mounds will NOT reduce the global
> warming effect of green house gases (GHG). This happens because
> all of the charcoal (~93-95% carbon) that could be sequestered into
> soil, rather than being released as CO2 (a complete combustion
> product and a GHG), still CANNOT reduce away the effect of
> releasing the even 2-3% methane (CH4), during the charcoal making
> process. Open air charcoal kilns will release more GHG and
> exacerbate the global warming problem. This will happen even with
> all the benefits that could be derived from burying the charcoal.
> You will get reduced atmospheric CO2, but also increased
> atmospheric methane (CH4), by making charcoal this way.
>
>
>
> This is a critically important fact. Ask any bio-chemist? It will
> not be disputed. Charcoal for "Neo Terra Preta" must be made in
> sealed reactor and the producer gas should not be released to the
> atmosphere like exhaust, or smoke.
>
>
>
> The producer gas from a pyrolysis of biomass reaction contains 1)
> complete combustion product gases; CO2, H2O, 2) combustible fuel
> gases; H2, CO, CH4, 3) inert + trace gases; N2, O2, Argon, etc.,
> and 4) some suspended, vaporized, tars (longer chain hydrocarbons
> and carbohydrates, like ethane gas, methanol, and acetic acid.
> All together the "producer gas" can have an energy content of
> ~200-300 BTU/Nm^3). The higher BTU density gases come come from
> low temperature pyrolysis (with very limited oxygen and lots of
> added heat). These gases are rich in methane (CH4) and longer
> chain hydrocarbons.
>
>
>
> One molecule of methane (CH4) has a GHG equivalent effect the same
> as 62 molecules of CO2! This is a startling fact.
>
>
>
> If open air pyrolysis retains as much as 25% of the original carbon
> in the biomass, then 75% of all of the carbon from the biomass is
> expelled from the reactor into the producer gas, as part of both
> carbon monoxide (CO - ~20% of producer gas) and carbon dioxide (CO2
> - ~10-15% of producer gas) gases. Burnt or simply released, it is
> still 75% of the carbon from the biomass goes into the atmosphere.
> Because of the potency of methane (CH4) as a GHG, it is far worse
> to release methane (CH4), than it is to burn it;
>
>
>
> CH4 + 2(O2) => CO2 + 2(H20)
>
>
>
> Rich BTU producer gas contains ~3% methane (CH4), so the producer
> gas contains only ~10-11 times as many carbon containing molecules
> as methane molecules (CH4), (~0.30-0.35/0.03) = ~10-11. The
> charcoal contains 1/3 the amount of carbon (25%/75%) as the gas; so
> the number carbon atoms in the charcoal compared to the number of
> methane (CH4) molecules is ONLY (((~0.30-0.35+0.03)/3)/0.03) = ~4:1.
>
>
>
> RELEASING THE METHANE contained in the producer gas (unburned),
> then has the same effect on the atmosphere as releasing 15 TIMES AS
> MUCH CARBON AS THERE IS IN ALL OF THE CHARCOAL YOU COULD POSSIBLY
> BURY (62/4 = ~15)!
>
>
>
> The point is then, that open air charcoal kilns CANNOT make
> charcoal fast enough without making the atmospheric GHG conditions
> worse even faster. It is absolutely imperative the charcoal making
> devices should be "sealed" and the producer gas should at minimum
> be "flared" off, or the fuels it contains completely combusted and
> the resultant energy used.
>
>
>
> Any simpler just make charcoal out in earthen kilns plan will
> poison the atmosphere even faster than doing nothing, so we might
> cook the planet well before we could realize any of the
> agricultural benefits of putting charcoal into the ground.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> SKB
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Robert Klein
>
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 3:15 PM
>
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
>
>
>
> I cannot help but think that the methods used to
> produce the black soils must be self sustaining and
> indigenous to the farm itself. I also see the use of
> fairly large pieces of charcoal that will be difficult
> to pulverize properly. Remember that grinding has a
> natural sizing limit, past which a great deal of
> effort is needed.
>
> Without question the use of corn stover to build
> natural earthen kilns is a great solution when we are
> relying on hand labor alone.
>
> See:http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2007/07/carbonizing-
> corn-in-field.html
>
> We also can conclude that corn stover is the best
> available source of large volume biochar. It needs to
> be central to any program simply to ensure 100%
> coverage of the fields with sufficient biochar.
>
> Is there a way to do this in the field with equipment?
>
> Let us return first to best hand practice. From there
> we can speculate on how this can be made easier with
> power equipment.
>
> We do not know how the Indians in the Amazon did this
> but we certainly know how they grew corn everywhere
> else.
>
> In North America, they used a trinary system.
>
> That meant that they cleared a seed hill, likely two
> plus feet across, perhaps slightly raised, in which
> they planted several corn seeds and also several
> beans. These hills would have been at least two feet
> apart. this means that twenty five percent of the
> land was been cropped in this way. They also planted
> every few hills a few pumpkins. This provided ground
> cover for the seventy five percent of the land not
> been directly cropped.
>
> An interesting experiment would be to now grow alfalfa
> in between the hills in order to fix nitrogen and
> provide a late fall crop. It unfortunately would
> likely take too much water.
>
> This Indian system is ideal for hand work and for the
> production of terra preta by hand.
>
> In September,after the corn,beans, and pumpkins are
> picked, it is time to remove the drying corn stover
> and bean waste. The pumpkin waste will be trampled
> into the ground fairly easily by now.
>
> Hand pulling the stalks from one seed hill gives you a
> nice bundle to carry off the field to where a earthen
> beehive is built for the production of Terra preta.
>
> How do we accomplish the same result with the use
> equipment is a difficult question. Using a stone boat
> or wagon is obvious. A hydraulic grabber of some sort
> to pull the bunch associated with a hill would be very
> helpful. Tying the bundles would also be helpful.
>
> This would allow two workers to clear a larger field
> quite handily.
>
> After the earthen field stack is set up, the rest is
> fairly simple. A wagon full of biochar is taken to
> the field and each hill is replenished with biochar
> before planting. Still a lot of labor but much easier
> than the most basic system.
>
> To do this with row agriculture will mean the creation
> of some fairly complex lifting and baling machinery.
> At least we are on the right track.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's
> updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
> http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Terrapreta mailing list
>
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070828/d4bdc87a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list