[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

[Jon C. Frank]

  Jon, so do you not believe that humans are not altering our environment
and that ‘creation will cope’ with anthropogenic emissions and therefore we
should all stop worrying about global warming? This is how your post reads.
If so why are you interested in this concept at all??


  [Jon C. Frank]

  Of course people are altering our environment.  I was responding to the
general discouragement of using primitive methods of making charcoal.  I do
not believe that the production of charcoal in primitive fashion is an
environmental concern.  Rather it is part of the solution and should be
encouraged along side the encouragement that is to be given to companies
like yours to make biochar available for soil restoration.



  "Worrying about global warming"

  I don't buy into the hysteria about global warming.  Even if it is
actually happening it is not the issue of concern.  The fear of global
warming and trying to respond in a direct fashion to it (such as by
discouraging primitive methods of making charcoal) is like trying to get 2
horses to push a cart down a busy street.  If you put the horses in front
they can pull the cart but it won't happen the other way around.  The main
issue is the global degradation of soil.  This is the issue where man has
altered the environment with such devastating affects.  Trying to correct
atmospheric issues without correcting the underlying causes is like a dog
chasing its' tail.



  My interest in Terrapreta stems from my interest in soil restoration.
Terrapreta can play an important role in restoring soil.  It is not the only
thing needed but it can be a key component.



  Most of the conversation on this list has come from the fear that unburnt
methane and all the rest of the ‘unnatural’ compounds we are emitting are
causing detrimental effects and the planet simply can’t cope, or rather cope
to a degree that ensures our continued quality of life.


  [Jon C. Frank]

  Fear?  I don't operate under fear.  I suggest faith instead.  Mankind has
been given the job of stewarding the earth.  In our greed (especially
corporate greed) we have done many abominable things.  Yet we also have the
knowledge to really be good stewards of the earth.  This is my goal--good
stewardship.  As far as methane goes I would hardly call it "unnatural" such
as DDT.  I suspect that even you are "naturally contributing" to the methane
buildup in Australia. :)



  You mentioned quality of life.  This is very important.  The biggest
impact on quality of life comes from eating foods with high nutrient
density.  This is a primary end goal for soil restoration.



  For more information on the nutrient density of foods see:



  Food Quality and Digestion

  http://www.highbrixgardens.com/highbrix/digestion.html



  The Quest For Nutrient Density

  http://www.highbrixgardens.com/foods/quest.html



  I certainly don’t find fault in pre-columbian practices; however a lot has
happened since then, the industrial revolution for example. What was good
for them is not necessarily good for us. It is irresponsible to continue to
knowingly emit unburnt CH4, unless you don’t think global warming is of
concern of course.



  No I don't think global warming is big concern.



  Adriana.



  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jon C. Frank [mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com]
  Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 7:47 AM
  To: Terrapreta
  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



  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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070830/ee61cec0/attachment.html