[Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
Gerald Van Koeverden
vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca
Mon Dec 10 10:02:22 EST 2007
Does anybody know if any of the chars produced by the various
pyrolytic processes of the companies we know - Dynamotive, Best,
Erprida, Ensyn, Flottvik, etc. - been tested for ecotoxics??
On 9-Dec-07, at 10:49 PM, Edward Someus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> CARBONIZATION TEMPERATURE: this is a tricky issue, depending on
> where/which point You measure in the process. It should be
> determined as material core temperature, however I met several
> carbonization plants who where stating 900C carbonization temp, but
> when it was really measured in the carbon bed and at cold corners,
> than I found out that it was not more than 350C. So no wonder if
> their carbon qty was low. If fact carbon is good thermal insulator
> and bad thermal conductor so the efficient heat transfer is one of
> the keys.
>
> VM% residuals and leachates: YES this is the standard practice the
> ecotox analytic measures, in total and component by component.
>
> NOTE: in one of the TP communication I have seen a note, that this
> VM residual issue is "easy" to manage by add KOH. I wish that it
> would be so "easy" just to add high alkaline caustic potash, but it
> is not, as this is resulting new problems. Most of the soil
> microbes are optimized for pH 5.5- pH7 and it is so easy to disturb
> this balance in micro scale. In my soil experience the drastic
> interactions into the soil life not use to go towards sustainable
> direction.
>
> The ancient Greeks have right ”For all the pests that out of earth
> arise the earth itself the antidote supplies” Lithica 400 BC. But
> it takes time, which we unfortunately do not have time nowdays.
>
>
> 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: Tom Miles
> Date: 2007.12.09. 20:09:26
> To: 'Edward Someus'; 'Nikolaus Foidl'; 'Gerald Van Koeverden';
> 'Sean K. Barry'
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------
> CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
>
> Edward,
>
> These are excellent points. We find that many gasifiers that are
> used in developing countries use water to clean the gas. The
> wastewater often contains compounds (tars) in concentrations that
> are toxic under our regulations. More companies are now becoming
> aware of these hazards and are working on other ways to clean up
> the gas and the water.
> You can find links to former charcoal making sites that are now
> hazardous sites on the EPA list. Various methods are used to
> cleanup these sites.
> One study in Africa looked at the production of crops on land
> formerly used for making charcoal. It is available on the net and
> like to the TP website.
> Instead of carbonization temperature is volatile matter (%VM) a
> better measure of the degree of carbonization and hence the level
> of toxic compounds?
> Tom
>
>
> From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org [mailto:terrapreta-
> bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Edward Someus
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:24 PM
> To: Nikolaus Foidl; Gerald Van Koeverden; Sean K. Barry
> Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------
> Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
>
> 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://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20071210/c19bc25a/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list