[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

Sean K. Barry sean.barry at juno.com
Thu Aug 30 01:24:08 EDT 2007

Previous message: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
Next message: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Jon,

The issue is not overdone or blown out of proportion. It has been said that the area of land which has been found in the Amazon and is covered by Terra Preta soils is the "size of France". France covers 551,695 square kilometres<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_kilometre> (213,010 sq mi<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_mile>). It is believed to have taken centuries, even millennia to build that TP, which has been found. The carbon content in the discovered TP soils is only 1% (w/w) and is still much higher than surrounding soils. Some have estimated that this amounts to 5-10 tons of charcoal per acre, total. Now,

213,010 sq mi (size of France) x 640 acres/sq mi x 5 tons/acre = ~680 million tons of charcoal in all of the TP ever found.

If we make charcoal and bury it in TP soils to sequester it and offset the emissions of 6 BILLION tons carbon (23 billion tons of CO2)into the atmosphere every year, then we need to make 6 BILLION TONS of charcoal EVERY YEAR! And more, when we burn more fossil fuels. Every year, we will need to cover France with charcoal, 5 tons/acre deep, 8 or 9 times over. Every year until we stop using fossil fuels! If the Amazon Indians made all of the Terra Preta in just 1000 years, then we would still have to make it 9000 times faster than they did. If they took 3 or 4 millennia, then we need to make it 27-36,000 times faster than they did.

Clearly, the natural system cannot keep up with a 4 decimal magnitude "uptick" (order of 10,000 times bigger) in GHG production.
This doesn't even account for the change in type of emissions; from more CO2 and less methane to more CO2 and more methane.

The quagmire we are in with GHG is because HUMANS can indeed "beat back" Mother Nature and cause a climate change that the natural system cannot deal with. At least, it cannot deal with it while we are so populated and survive to wreck it again.

Developing countries may not have wealthy treasuries, but they cannot improve their soils and agricultural production, if they poison the atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and believe that if they simply just make enough charcoal, fast and dirty like, that they can save themselves. Nor, can we believe that them doing that can help us clean up our "developed world" pollution problem.
Even if we did it the clean way (no GHG emissions), we could not keep up with the damages they would be inflicting.

We would have to make 60 times more charcoal than they ever dreamed about making just to keep up with them. It won't work, Jon.

I agree with all you've said about enhanced soil organic carbon in soils amended with charcoal. I think you are probably right about re-mineralization, too, when it comes to agricultural productivity in soils. But, you said it yourself, "... soil restoration on a large scale." That means charcoal production on a large scale, too. But, the agricultural benefits might not come if we damage the atmosphere in a "large scale" way at the same time.

The Earth's atmosphere is a much less resilient part of our climate and ecology. It very thin and changes to it makeup spread more quickly and to more parts of it, than with any things else. Humans can and have changed our Earthen atmosphere in more profound ways than we have changed the land, the sea, the plant, the animal, or any of the kingdoms of living things.

We have to be very careful with our atmosphere. More careful than we are with anything else in Nature and far more carefully than we have been so far.

Regards,

SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com>
To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

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

and

http://www.remineralize.org/about/context.html<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<http://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<mailto:lwilliams at nas.com>
To: Adriana Downie<mailto:adriana at bestenergies.com.au>
Cc: Miles Tom<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
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<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<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<mailto:arclein at yahoo.com>

To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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<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<http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow>

_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

_______________________________________________

Terrapreta mailing list

Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>

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

http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>

http://info.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/20070830/4cf2ac80/attachment.html

Previous message: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
Next message: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list