[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

[Jon C. Frank]

The big fear over unburnt methane is overdone.  If it was so bad then the
creation of all the original terra preta soil in Latin America would have
doomed the earth to destruction.  Obviously that didn't happen--nature coped
and we are all here today.  Nature makes unburnt methane all the time (so do
you and I). So what.  Believe me creation was designed in such a way to
cope.  This is one of those "The sky is falling" fears.

The creators of terra preta did not have all our advanced chemical industry
to utilize the gases the way we can now.  If we can utilize these gases for
energy great--lets use the industrial model and make charcoal available for
soil improvement.

On the other hand many people, especially in developing countries, do not
have access to expensive pyrolysis units but still wish to improve their
soil by making charcoal without capturing the gases.  This is also great.
Lets also encourage the primitive model to improve the soil.  After all
that's what the natives did in Latin America with great success.

In whatever way people can, we should be increasing the carbon content of
soil.  The other aspect that needs to be done at the same time is soil
remineralization with rock powders.  The concept is more fully explained at:

http://www.highbrixgardens.com/restore/remineralization.html

and

http://www.remineralize.org/about/context.html

When the soil is carbonized with charcoal/biochar and remineralized with
rock powders the soil biology greatly increases and the amount of carbons
retained in the soil dramatically increases.  In other words carbon
sequestration significantly enhanced.

The main goal with making charcoal by either process (industrial or
primitive) is soil restoration on a large scale.  When that happens the soil
and plants will automatically clean up the air.  The best response will come
from people getting much more nutrition in their foods and the increase in
health that results from this.

Jon  C. Frank
www.aglabs.com

  -----Original Message-----
  From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org]On Behalf Of Sean K. Barry
  Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:58 PM
  To: Adriana Downie; Larry Williams
  Cc: Miles Tom
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar


  Hi Larry,

  Conversion of biomass to charcoal in an "open air" retort, depending on
conditions of moisture content, pyrolysis temp, and air flow, can retain as
much as ~63% of the original carbon in the feedstock (giving ~25% charcoal
on a weight of charcoal/weight of of dry feedstock basis).  Usually under
best practices, more carbon can be retained in the charcoal, than is
released in the exhaust gases.

  The critical problem with the "open air" mound or retort is the release of
UNBURNED methane (CH4), which can be a relatively small part of the producer
gas output and contain a relatively small part of the original biomass
carbon.  It not the amount of carbon that is the problem, though.  It is the
methane (CH4) molecules that are the problem.  The reaction of burning
methane is just

      CH4 + 2(O2) => CO2 + 2(H2O)

  One methane molecule is oxidized (burned) with two oxygen molecules
producing one carbon dioxide molecule, two water molecules, and heat.  So,
when "burned" (or "flared" as it is called), the methane (CH4) puts one GHG
molecule (the CO2) into the atmosphere.
  This CO2 molecule has no more effect on the atmosphere than any of the
other CO2 molecules that would have been released as part of the producer
gas "exhaust" output from the pyrolysis reactor.

  Left UNBURNED though, that one methane molecule, has a much more potent
GHG effect than any single CO2 molecule.  Its GHG effect ranges from over
100 times more potent in the first 20 years to 30 some times more potent 100
years later, on average 62 times the potent than a CO2 molecule.

  So, its 62 times more important to NOT release the carbon as methane
(CH4), than it is to prevent the release of carbon as CO2 molecules.  If you
retain 60% of the carbon in the charcoal and the rest goes into the air as
CO2, then you will have taken more CO2 out of the atmosphere than would be
released.  The exhaust gas CO2 would contain only 40% of the original carbon

  Producer gas is roughly 20%-H2, 20%-CO, 10-15%-CO2, 40%-N2, 2-3%-CH4, plus
some <<1% trace gases.  The 40% of the biomass carbon which is released in
the producer gas, goes into 3 molecules CO, CO2, and CH4, in the ratio
#CO:#CO2:#CH4 of 20:15:3.
  So the methane can contain ~3-4% of the original biomass carbon, 40% x
(3/(20+15+3)) = 40 x (3/38) = ~3-4%

  3% x 62 = 186%!,   4% x 62 = 248%

  So, this shows that the detrimental effect of releasing unburned
methane(CH4) is 3 to 4 times (186%/60% to 248%/60%) the beneficial effect of
storing all of the charcoal that could possibly be produced into the soil.
And, it would only reduce to being only this bad of a thing to do after
50-75 years!

  The lesson for anyone making a "simple" charcoal retort is to BURN the or
"Flare Off" the producer gas any way possible.


  Regards,

  SKB

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Larry Williams
    To: Adriana Downie
    Cc: Miles Tom
    Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:02 AM
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar


    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-fi
eld.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://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
        http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
        http://info.bioenergylists.org

      _______________________________________________

      Terrapreta mailing list

      Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org


http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/

      http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org

      http://info.bioenergylists.org



      _______________________________________________
      Terrapreta mailing list
      Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
      http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
      http://info.bioenergylists.org


    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
    http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070829/049b9160/attachment.html