[Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

[lou gold]

Larry,

You say, "Terra Preta via ground fires produced results with biologically
active charcoal."

Can you post a reference on this? I have been wondering about the
relationship with ground fires.

thx,

lou

On 8/31/07, Larry Williams <lwilliams at nas.com> wrote:
>
> Sean--------Thanks for this reply. it helped be understand the numbers
> better. The fall construction crunch, before rain arrives, is on us and it
> is hard to spend the time reading and digesting all the posts. After rain
> arrive, I will have more time for the terra preta list.
> May I suggest, that the situation that we are facing with GHG requires an
> radical explosion of activities. I use the term "nova" as with an explosive
> stellar event, in reference to burial of black carbon, Terra Preta, in the
> soil, rather than "Neo-" or renewed use. There is a sense of urgency
> conveyed  with "nova" that I don't feel with "Neo-". Our success, I feel,
> will depend on how many people who have a sense of urgency act on that
> sense. The adjective that describes the renewed use of Terra Preta will
> carry our feelings to others.
>
> Consider the marketing impacts on advertising that Edward Bernay had. For
> example, getting woman to smoke. His techniques are used on us daily so it
> seems that it is an effective tool, especially if your unaware that it is
> being used on you. For a view of his influence see:  The Century Of The Self
> - Part 1 of 4 - By Adam Curtis @
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151 .
>
> Jim Mason's Mechabolic: Cyborg Speculations in Machine Metabolism (August
> 6, 2007 4:42:00 PM PDT) offers an opportunity to leverage our concerns to a
> specific group which is wild and inventive. Motivate this group and watch
> out.
> Check out pictures of his shop @ www.mechabolic.org . A fun activity.
>
> The recent posts to this list convey extreme concern about our future. Do
> we have enough social understanding to move our concern to a much larger
> audience. Do we have the tools/techniques for large scale production of
> "fertilized " charcoal, without CO2 and CH4 emissions, to be successful at
> reducing greenhouse gases? Terra Preta via ground fires produced results
> with biologically active charcoal. Can we say that pyrolyzed charcoal is
> biologically active? Are we ready to go public? Your thought?-------Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 28, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:
>
> 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 <lwilliams at nas.com>
> *To:* Adriana Downie <adriana at bestenergies.com.au>
> *Cc:* Miles Tom <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 <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 <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 <arclein at yahoo.com>
>
> *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://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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070831/2fd4afd0/attachment.html