[Terrapreta] "New Black Gold"

Sean K. Barry sean.barry at juno.com
Fri Aug 31 15:32:12 EDT 2007

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

New Black Gold: the Earth's Living Biochar"
... It has Life and Health in it, and promotes Life and Health around it

Hi Crystal,

Welcome to the 'terrapreta' list. There is widespread thought that industrial fertilizers and pesticides degrade the agricultural land that they are put on. Many farmers who use industrial fertilizers will attest to using larger applications of fertilizer, to achieve the same yields on their land. As well, they would readily and economically admit, that they could not possibly grow crops as well on the land now, without the use of industrial fertilizers.

The degradation of American farmland is particularly pronounced. Our current ability to grow food like we can is well suspended on fossil fuel made industrial fertilizers. Without them we could easily not make enough food to feed ourselves. We are soon going to need to make these fertilizers out of coal. They will.

The problem with industrial fertilizer is its overuse and it's form. It both provides the nutrients needed by plants (crops) growing in the soil and it is lethal to soil organisms growing in the soil. Killing soil microorganisms removes soil organic matter (SOM) and soil organic carbon (SOC). This is where the fertility of the original American soils lay, in our land, with the living and dying soil microorganisms that were originally in it.

When Modern American farming began the soils had more carbon than they do now. Carbon is the key to soils ability to hold onto other nutrients. Specifically, the kind of nutrients that plants need to grow and survive.

The amounts of the nutrients in the soils have also declined. These are the nutrients that we provide, now, with industrially made fertilizers. Compounding the destruction of soils, is humankinds degradation of the atmosphere and global climate

Terra Preta may have the phenomenal ability to change all of this. This is part of what we are researching. the condition of soils

Regards,

SKB

----- Original Message -----
From: Crystal Heshmat<mailto:cheshmat at yahoo.com>
To: David Yarrow<mailto:dyarrow at nycap.rr.com> ; Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com> ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

Can't remember where I saw it or heard it, but I caught some news recently that said all the fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides were actually REDUCING farm yields by about 25%. If I have time next week, I'll see if I can find it again.

~ Crystal

David Yarrow <dyarrow at nycap.rr.com<mailto:dyarrow at nycap.rr.com>> wrote:
thanks, jon, for bringing up the primacy of soil in these discussions about greenhouse gases, global warming and climate change. most of all charcoal is about nurturing the microbes in soil. this key fact of geobiological reality consistently is overlooked, ignored, discounted, underrated, and left out of calculations and schemes.

since the beginning of evolution on earth, it is most of all the least of all living things -- the micro-organism in the the thin skin of sea and soil -- that have created, regulated and sustained the composition of the earth's atmosphere. more recently in evolution, the plants -- especially trees as forests -- have supplemented the effort of microbes to stabilize the earth's atmosphere.

if we want to restore the earth and stabilize climate, we most of all need to not just sequester carbon, but regenerate the living biomass in soil. when i teach soil fertility, i emphasize it is about feeding the soil, not the plants. if we create living soil, the micro-organisms that feed the larger, more complex life forms. the real secret of terra preta isn't the carbon or charcoal, it's the microbes. carbon is a critical food for microbes, and charcoal is a storehouse for nutrients and housing for their complex communities.

and today, all soils are damaged. far too much of the once living soil has been abused and reduced to inert dirt. in debates and discussions about climate change and what to do, i read all this fanatical fixation on emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes -- and forest fires -- which are obvious. but hardly anyone recognizes and assesses the fumes rising off deforested land, off of a plowed field -- especially after it is drenched in toxic, soluble chemicals. and every year, millions of acres of farmland are dumping grounds for soluble chemicals, beginning most of all with volatile nitrogen -- all which outgas, mostly as assorted oxides -- all potent greenhouse gases. but those fumes are invisible, ignored by the average observer, discounted by most scientists, and thus uncounted.

worse than the fumes, the soil life -- the living biomass -- is killed, mutated and decimated. the land cannot live, breathe, absorb, store nutrients, and feed the plants and all else.

and even worse for our economy, buying and spreading all those chemicals puts farmers into perpetual debt.

but if anyone like jeff who doesn't believe man has affected and is destabilizing the earth's climate takes time to study aerial and satelllite photos, it quickly is obvious that in the last few centuries, vast areas of land -- a tremendous percentage of earth's surface -- has been stripped of ancient, complex forest community ecosystems, and left bare and exposed to sun, wind, rainwater, weather, and other degrading processes. even land that looks forested is covered by second and third growth trees that are weak, scraggly and struggling.

and all those photos show is the loss of tree cover. they don't make plain the degradation, destruction and eventual sterilization of soil -- the conversion of living biomass into inert dirt.

here in the finger lakes, the best soil is now on the bottom of the lakes. early settlers clearcut the trees, plowed up and down the slopes, and rain wased the rich forest soils down ravines into the lakes. seneca and cayuga lakes that were once over 1200 feet deep and 35+ miles long are now charted as only 700-900 feet deep. the difference is all the rich fertile forest silt now sitting as mud on the lake bottoms.

in parallel processes, estuaries and subsea alluvial outwashes of watersheds -- such as the bottom of the gulf of mexico beyond the mouth of the mississippi -- have become huge dead zones because of these toxic industrial farm chemicals and destructured soils. and the waters are polluted with red tides, algae blooms and other biological chaos, which -- when they die and decay en masse -- outgas more greenhouse gases such as methyl sulfoxide. perhaps half of the sulfur in the earth's atmosphere is a consequence of the methyl sulfoxide emitted by decaying algae and organisms in coastal waterways.

so, again, the most critical consequence of the terra preta strategy of adding charcoal (and other currently uncertain ingredients) to soil is to restart and stimulate an explosion of microbial life. not some chaotic eruption -- but the establishment of stable, complex, fully functional communities of all the wee beasties needed to put in place the soil food web that is the foundation of all else the springs from the soil.

thanks again, jon, for refocusing the discussion. hopefully soon we will respect just how much we depend on the least of all life forms for our increasingly precarious existence.

David Yarrow
"If yer not forest, yer against us."
Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary
44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
dyarrow at nycap.rr.com<mailto:dyarrow at nycap.rr.com>
www.championtrees.org<http://www.championtrees.org/>
www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org<http://www.onondagalakepeacefestival.org/>
www.citizenre.com/dyarrow/<http://www.citizenre.com/dyarrow/>
www.farmandfood.org<http://www.farmandfood.org/>
www.SeaAgri.com<http://www.seaagri.com/>

"Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times,
if one only remembers to turn on the light."
-Albus Dumbledore
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon C. Frank<mailto:jon.frank at aglabs.com>
To: Terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Sustained Biochar

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.

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.

Hi Jon,

From your E-MAIL address and what you've said, I gather you seem to know something about agriculture. I, wonder, Jon, if you would like to discuss an agricultural land use topic;

Nitrous oxide N2O emissions (and other GHG emissions?) from the widespread use, on "agricultural" land, of
industrially made fertilizers and pesticides?

One of the interesting aspects of Terra Preta, which I think you also alluded too (posted below), is the increased biomass growth, as a result of plants having more fertile soil surroundings. This relates directly to our current discussion on control over GHG emissions, whenever transforming the soil on large tracts of land ("agricultural land") into more fertile soil via TP building.

As, I understand current use of industrial fertilizers in agriculture;

- Industrially fertilizer is now used more than any other fertilizer, worldwide (I don't know if I believe this?).
- It is mostly made using fossil fuels; ammonia production from H2 (made from methane-CH4) + air (Haber-Bausch?), and/or ammonia salts (NH3HC03)
- It kills soil microorganisms when its applied (and especially with NH4-liquid ammonia, the most commonly used in the USA).
- Much of it washes or leaches away, or gases off ... (as N2O-nitrous oxide emissions!!), and never gets used by the crops.
- The use of it degrades the land it gets used on.
- Every time its used again, it requires more to be used on the same land, to achieve the same productivity.
- It increases the productivity of animal husbandry, which increases N2O and CH4 emissions, also, and immensely, if the animal wastes are not handled correctly.
- It's paid for by subsidies, that are paid based on increasing or same productivity, and are reduced otherwise.

It all kind of seems like some sort drug addiction scheme for the planet, the plants, the animals, and the people, with mega-billions invested in keeping it going? Is it just a government assisted (agri-business run) "methodone clinic" for farmers? Are we all to suffer in our GHG defecations (N2O, CH4, CO2) until agri-business runs out of what they are selling us or until the "hook" subsidy runs out?

I want to tie some things together from our views here;

TP soil can give increased plant productivity (presumably to crops, too, sans weeds?).
Emissions of fossil fuel carbon (primarily CO2) from the production of industrial fertilizer and pesticides are enormous and growing.
N2O is a notoriously potent contributor (296 x CO2 equivalent!) to the GHG effect, like methane-CH4 is a 62 x CO2 equivalent GHG, it's a heavy hitter.
N2O is the primary waste byproduct coming directly and indirectly from the over-use of the industrial ag-chemical businesses' primary product.
Increased crop productivity on TP soils will REDUCE (or even ELIMINATE) the need, the use (and the purchase) of industrial fertilizers, in order to farm that land.

My question to you is, "How do you think the use of Terra Preta soils on "agricultural" land will effect N2O, CH4, and CO2 emissions?"

There is a way that Agri-business can get on the right side of this discussion; improving the use of their fertilizer products for their customers and reducing the farmers costs.
They could do this for a time by manufacturing charcoal for TP cleanly and inexpensively and incorporating TP enhancement into their soil fertility management programs for their customers. Eventually, though, they will, by acting and selling this way, reduce their overall sales of fertilizer products. Fossil fuels are getting costlier all the time, too, so industrial ammonia borne fertilizers are getting more expensive to make. The fertilizer business will soon be going sideways? If agriculture begins to use TP in earnest, industrial fertilizer products might become obsolete?! So, that branch of agri-business is going to have to "stretch".

Here is an interesting NOTE in the above discussion; nitrous oxide-N2O emissions are on the other side of the table, as regards GHG emissions, from methane-CH4.
This is interesting because TP use => reduction in industrial fertilizer use => reduced N2O and CO2 emissions. It's like a new business model for the Agri-chemical industry.
Promote the use of TP enhancement on soils, the reduction of industrial chemical use, and then change the product of the Agri-chemical industry into an atmospheric mining
and cleanup service.

The agri-chemical business is absolutely the best place to do the bio-chemistry of charcoal manufacturing for use in agriculture soil, don't you think? Make it right and there will be NO CH4 emissions. Then, get it applied along with the current fertilizer regimen, until the clients' land begins to retain more of its fertility. Doing this will help that farmer participate in a reduction of emissions of GHG, which will be 300+ times more effective, volume for volume, than any CO2 reductions that anyone else could do!

If industrial agri-chemical business would get involved in charcoal production and TP forming, control GHG emissions from a macro-ecologic perspective, instead of a running the business from a microeconomic perspective, then they could become and even larger industry in "global pollution management", than they are in "fertilizers and pesticides". The world needs to put its greatest industrial might into the cleanup operation, now! Reducing any volume of N2O emissions and/or CH4 emissions by promoting the use of TP, even making TP, would be the greatest thing industrial agri-business could ever do for itself and the world.

Anyway, as long as you brought it up (sort of?), that was my diatribe about TP, plant growth, and industrial fertilizers.

Let me know what you think. Is there anything you would discuss in what I said?

Regards,

SKB

Sean K. Barry
Principal Engineer/Owner
Troposphere Energy, LLC
11170 142nd St. N.
Stillwater, MN 55082
(651) 351-0711 (Home/Fax)
(651) 285-0904 (Cell)
sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
----- 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/20070831/0864a1bd/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