[Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

[Edward Someus]

We make toxicity lab tests and analysis as of ISO standard for large scale
industrial application only .  



Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http://www.terrenum.net 
3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY: http://www.nvirocleantech.com 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Gerald Van Koeverden
Date: 2007.12.09. 14:13:49
To: Terrapreta preta
Cc: Edward Someus
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char
Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
 
Edward,


You say some chars are toxic to plant life; it seems the main reason is
because of tar residuals.  Is this a potential problem with charcoal as
well?  If so, how can we diy charcoal makers ensure that we aren't poisoning
our soil without going through a lot of testing?  And if we're buying char
from a pyrolysis plant, how can we home-test it for toxic tars?


Gerrit








On 9-Dec-07, at 2:24 AM, Edward Someus wrote:


There is a big difference between original and modern TP, among others:
The original TP was a mix of inputs while this can not be followed similarly
today for most food crop cultivation.
The original TP was in tropical climate, while I work in Europe continental
part. That means that any organic residuals are breaking down far rapidly in
tropics and in colder climate.  
The time frame was different. I work in the horticultural industry, which
means that I do not have years or decades time to wait, as I have to get
result promptly, during food crop production cycle within months. This
requires different formulation than original TP.
Our environment is far more complex now than 2500 years ago, more and
complex impacts and high dense population.
There are strict legal regulations in the EU/US, with precise analytical
measurement options, what you can put into the soil and what not. 2500 years
ago it was the good/bad experience only centuries after centuries. NOW you
have to report all environmental issues to Authority promptly.
RE YOUR QUESTION: Are you absolutely sure that the residual tars left on
conventional low temperature charcoal are toxic? 
 
YES, absolutely, in my ongoing EU project (for and on behalf on the EU Food
Safety Commission) I have spent €500,000 during the past 3 years for 
carbon-to-soil" exotox analysis, mostly done by German and Dutch institutes,
while we are making parallel tests in Italy, UK, Israel, Hungary. The EU
product permitting for char to soil is confirming the same. High tar
residuals will not pass permit Authority test in the EU. Tars / bio-oils
have biocid effects and toxic for life and if these are exposed to nature it
takes time for recover again, which many years might be short form nature
point of view, -- but long from human and economical point of view.
 
As mentioned before, my and my groups scientific publications (not the
confidential parts for product formulation and manufacturing) will be
published 2008.
 

Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http://www.terrenum.net 
3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY: http://www.nvirocleantech.com
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Sean K. Barry
Date: 2007.12.09. 7:19:41
To: Edward Someus;  Nikolaus Foidl;  Gerald Van Koeverden
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char
Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
 
Hi Edward,
 
I've read what you said here and it brings me to ask a question.  The
original makers of Terra Preta soil in the Amazon did not have the kind of
tools that you have to make charcoal.  Clearly, they (all of them) could not
have come up with the same "innovative carbonization thermal process" that
you have developed.  So, the question I have for you is ... "How could they
have may charcoal suitable for TP and what process did they use?"  They are
the only ones who actually did succeed (provably so) in making Terra Preta
soils work.  And another question I have for you ... Are you absolutely sure
that the residual tars left on conventional low temperature charcoal are
toxic to all living things; toxic to all animals, plants, and/or all soil
microorganisms? 
 
Regards,
 
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Someus
To: Nikolaus Foidl ; Gerald Van Koeverden ; Sean K. Barry
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char
Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters


TECHNICAL NOTICE ===== Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters 
 
It is depending on process conditions. Usually the low efficient thermal
processes are leaving high % organic residuals (hydrophobic tars) behind, 
which makes them unsuitable for TP. Most chars are for energy (where tar
residuals are positively utilized) , not only because it is higher priced,
but these hydrophobic chars are not suitable for soil application, not to
talk about the tar residuals high toxicity for soil life.
 
My char I am producing is hydrophilic as my innovative carbonization thermal
process has been specifically developed for soil adaptation application. 
 
 

Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
Terra Humana Clean Tech Ltd. (ISO 9001/ISO 14001)
3R Environmental Technologies Ltd. 
ADDRESS: H-1222 Budapest, Szechenyi 59, Hungary
TEL handy:  +(36-20) 201 7557
TEL / FAX:   +(36-1) 424 0224
TEL SKYPE phone via computer:  Edward Someus
3R TERRACARBON:   http://www.terrenum.net 
3R CLEANCOAL ENERGY: http://www.nvirocleantech.com
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Sean K. Barry
Date: 2007.12.09. 6:22:14
To: Nikolaus Foidl;  Gerald Van Koeverden
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. carbonization
 
Hi Gerrit,
 
Charcoal is hydorphobic.  Charcoal is inert and does not alone absorb
nutrients.
 
Regards,
 
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Van Koeverden
To: Nikolaus Foidl
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. carbonization


Nick,


I had to look up what torrefaction was:


"Torrefaction is mild pre-treatment of any biomass (including bamboo) at a
temperature between
200 and 250° C. During torrefaction the properties of bamboo undergo changes
 wherein the end
product has much better fuel quality compared to biomass for combustion
application. The
decomposition reactions during this process results in bamboo becoming
completely dry and
loose its tenacious structure, also the hygroscopic nature of the biomass is
changed to
hydrophobic material. Besides this, the process increases the calorific
value of the end product.
The actual weight loss in this period would be about 20 to 25 % whereas 90 %
of the energy of
the parent dry material is preserved in the torrefied matter. The combustion
process of this matter
has less problematic volatiles and hence the process is closer to that of
charcoal. It can therefore
be used as an alternate to charcoal in many applications. It also makes the
material immune to
attack by fungi. Hence long term storage without degradation is possible."


Based on 15 minutes of research, it doesn't look promising.  It would seem
that this super-drying of wood makes it hydrophobic...and if it stays that
dry in the soil, it would be difficult for nutrients to move through a soil
solution into it.  Moreover, it doesn't sound like it is conducive for a 
fungal' bridge between itself as a microhabit for microrganisms with the
soil;  in char mixed with composting material, the char actually becomes a
microhabit for fungus...
However, this is only speculation.


How closely have you examined the torrefied wood you have found in the soil?
 Does it 'house' microrganisms?  Has it absorbed soil nutrients?  Or is it
merely an inert material taking up space?


gerrit






On 8-Dec-07, at 2:21 PM, Nikolaus Foidl wrote:


Dear all!


My charcoal costs at a charring efficiency of 42 % is around 35 US$ per ton
Charcoal. Now after analyzing 15 year old soil where huge amounts of forest
where simply burned and charred. Now excavating I find huge amounts of only
torrefied wood pieces which as well did not degrade, like the charcoal
chunks.
Now looking at this and if torrefied wood would do the same as is charcoal,
why not save a huge amount of additional CO2 and just torrefy the stuff and
mill it and then burry it? Cost per ton would drop to half, CO2 taken out of
the atmosphere rise by 50 to 70 %.
Just an idea but maybe worth to be discussed.
Best regards Nikolaus






_______________________________________________
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/20071209/1ab38227/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071209/1ab38227/attachment.jpe