[Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

Greg and April gregandapril at earthlink.net
Tue Dec 11 12:37:59 EST 2007

Previous message: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
Next message: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Edward,

I'm not sure about what you mean " the Governments strictly controlling all actives. Same in the USA "

For all practical purposes as long as a farmer here in the US delivers a good product, and follows general guidelines on chemical use, he is still pretty much left alone in deciding how to farm his land.

Granted there are those in Washington that feel like they have to control the day to day actives, they are fought tooth and nail every time they try.

As to a farmer having to study and then get a license, that is totally and completely messed up. I'm glad it's not like that here in the US.

Greg H.

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Someus
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org ; Greg and April
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 9:17
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

< SNIPED >

This is not the way. I am living in the EU where the EU and the Governments strictly controlling all activities. Same is in the USA and in all modern societies. The key of extensive TP application is that all TP components must be legally accepted and recognized by the legislation and permit Authorities as well. In Denmark a farmer must study and practice more than a doctor, before he gets his farmer license to work on his own soil which soil has been owned by his family since 100 years.

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: Greg and April
Date: 2007.12.09. 16:18:52
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

1) Why not? No one is saying that it has to be done all at once, so I don't see why it isn't something that isn't worked in gradually.

2) There is no reason why with the proper microbial population that it can't break down as fast or almost as fast. If fungi can bioremediation something like petroleum contaminated soil / wood, then there is no reason why it's can't take care of pryolitic tars.

3) This is the very reason that the fertilizer industry has most people convinced that they can't do with out petroleum based fertilizers, and the very reason that the soil has degraded to the point is has on most farms.

4) What makes you think it is more complex now, than when they didn't have the ability to transport food clear around the world. In many ways it was more complex when farms had to rely on the power of humans and animals to grow a crop and get it a market. True, more people have to rely on fewer farmers to raise more food, but, the human population to food ratio is about the same as it was a few hundred years ago - if it wasn't we would be seeing global famine rather than regional.

5) That's is both true and false. A farmer trying a new crop growing procedure, on a few fields, is not required to tell the government anything - unless he is applying for organic status. OTOH, a farmer that has an accident ( or on purpose ) that causes a known toxin to be released into the environment, should report it, but quite often it will be just a slap on the wrist.

Consider that Big Agriculture knowingly releases toxins in the form of herbicides, insecticides, and in some ways fertilizers, into the environment, all the time, with the blessings of the various governments. Sure there are a few restrictions as to how much and when and to what type is used, but, as long as the governments ** believe ** certain **general** guidelines are followed and members of the general population doesn't become sick from what is done they really don't care - if they did, no farmer would be able to apply any chemical as the farmer would be required to rely on some sort of government agency to apply it for him / her.

Greg H.

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Someus
Cc: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 0:24
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters

There is a big difference between original and modern TP, among others:
1.. The original TP was a mix of inputs while this can not be followed similarly today for most food crop cultivation.
2.. 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.
3.. 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.
4.. Our environment is far more complex now than 2500 years ago, more and complex impacts and high dense population.
5.. 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.

-------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.

-------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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071211/8b0a3f55/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1458 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /attachments/20071211/8b0a3f55/attachment-0001.jpe

Previous message: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization ---------CharHydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
Next message: [Terrapreta] torrefaction vs. Carbonization --------- Char Hydrophobic / Hydrophilic characters
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list