[Terrapreta] medium-size charcoal making - the tools?
Gerald Van Koeverden
vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca
Sat Dec 22 15:45:07 CST 2007
The idea of charring forest wastes is great...but how could this be
done on a farm or a community level? How can we direct interested
communities to the best technology available??
Barrel-sized charcoal makers are great for house and garden level
stuff, and Antal's flash carbonizer or the various pyrolysis sytems
are great on a commercial level. Is there any open-source do-it-
yourself technology that is ready to be made and used locally by
communities on the medium level scale?
The only DIY mediium scale ones I can find are:
1.the British "ring-kiln" seems the most economical. However there
is no re-cycling of exhaust gases and thus would be rather polluting.
http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handbooks/content/section/3768
2. the Adam-retort seems the most efficient, but it is very labour
intensive to make and there's a lot of potential cracking in the
double-wall masonary wall; besides there are no drawings for it.
http://www.biocoal.org/3.html
3. Adam's continuous carbonization kiln also looks interesting, but
it has never been made so is only experimental; also no drawings
available to even price it out.
http://www.biocoal.org/4.html
4. the Thomas or Cornell retort look interesting, but I don't know
if a DIY could find enough information on how to make them, and I
doubt that anybody makes them anymore.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/00950e/00950e07.htm
5. the T.P.I. kiln can be homemade, but it would be too polluting.
can it be modified?
http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5328e/x5328e09.htm
6. Here's a Polish one, but it doesn't look like a retort style,
though it is labelled as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charcoal_retorts_cm01.jpg
Gerrit
On 11-Dec-07, at 10:43 AM, Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> Oh, oops you are right, Sodium (Na+) cation bonds with a single
> Chlorine (Cl-) anion to make NaCl, salt! I think I carried over
> the two pluses from the Calcium (Ca++) label. Yes, 10 milli-mole
> (10 x 0.001) equals one centi-mole (0.01). I was getting sloppy
> with my memory on this stuff.
>
> Your ideas about charring forest arisings is just great! I agree
> that it could be a tremendous boon for carbon sequestration, soil
> enhancement, and fire safety.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: teelws at jmu.edu
> To: Sean K. Barry ; Tom Miles ; 'Terrapreta'
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CEC
>
> Sean, Tom and all,
>
> Just a couple corrections to Sean's otherwise correct notions of
> CEC. Na (sodium) has a single charge, not a double charge. The
> measure meq/100ml and cmol/kg are equivalent (not cmol/100mg). It
> is easy to get these units confused. It gets even worse when
> switching between English and metric, the latter being far easier,
> if awkward for Americans.
>
> Organic matter buried in soil does have a variable but very high
> CEC. Generally it varies between 100 and 450 meq/100mg. In low
> CEC situations you would get a bigger kick by adding compost to the
> char, though for long term carbon storage the char is essential.
> Organic matter stability in the soil is dependent upon water. It
> you have a saturated subsoil the orgnanic material in it remains
> stable for centuries or longer. Some organic soils on Boreo are 70
> feet thick, a wonderful carbon storage. However, take away the
> water the carbon will slowly be consumed, respirated to CO2. Even
> worse, if the saturation is intermittent you get methane. Char,
> whether agrichar or forest char, is likely far more stable in both
> wet and dry conditions.
>
> One final comment. Though I don't like the idea of charring trees,
> forests commonly produce a lot of woody material that outside the
> wet tropics will remain as forest floor debris for a long time.
> Anti-fire advocates would love to see that cleaned up to prevent
> the huge fires we have seen in the west in the past two decades.
> Why not char that? You could reduce fire risk and improve soil at
> the same time. To increase the soil organic matter you could
> compost the leaves and twigs, just charring the slightly bigger
> material.
>
> Wayne
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:43:21 -0600
> >From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CEC
> >To: "'Richard Haard'" <richrd at nas.com>, "'Kevin Chisholm'"
> <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>, "Tom Miles" <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> >Cc: "'Nikolaus Foidl'" <nfoidl at desa.com.bo>, "'Terrapreta'"
> <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, "'Todd Jones'" <tjones at nas.com>
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I think it is fair to infer that CEC is a measure of
> > the health of the microbial community, but somewhat
> > indirectly. The primary factor for determining CEC
> > in soil is the clay and/or organic matter content of
> > the soil. In general, higher quantities of clay and
> > organic matter means higher CEC. But, different
> > types of clays have different exchange capacities.
> > The issues of soil pH and the concentration of base
> > cations, like Potassium (K+), Calcium (Ca++),
> > Magnesium (Mg++), and Sodium (Na++), so called base
> > saturation, play a role too, along with CEC, in the
> > actual fertility of soil.
> >
> > But, organic matter alone has a CEC like ~150
> > mEq/100g, so a healthy population of soil
> > microorganisms; bacteria and fungus, etc., plus
> > things like glomalin - all organic matter, do
> > increase the CEC of the soil. If the pH is in an
> > acceptable range for these microbes to persist and
> > live and the base saturation of things like plant
> > useless Sodium (Na++) ions and Aluminum ions are low
> > enough, too, then the organic matter CEC can provide
> > a significant nutrient holding and nutrient
> > delivering capacity to the roots of plants growing
> > in the soil.
> >
> > I'm not a soil scientist, Tom (but I could play one
> > on TV? hehe...), so I might not have this all
> > entirely correct. I've just learned about CEC in
> > this past year from reading and I only think I
> > understand mostly about how it works. But I've
> > never been tested? So, consider the source and get
> > some other opinions, maybe?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SKB
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Miles
> > To: 'Sean K. Barry' ; 'Richard Haard' ; 'Kevin
> > Chisholm'
> > Cc: 'Jim Joyner' ; 'Nikolaus Foidl' ; 'Terrapreta'
> > ; 'Todd Jones'
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:20 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Charcoal costs
> >
> > Can it be inferred from previous posts that the
> > CEC increases with charcoal as microorganisms
> > inhabiting the charcoal provide more binding sites
> > compared with soil? Is CEC a measure of the
> > "health" of the microbial community?
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 6:57 PM
> > To: Richard Haard; Kevin Chisholm
> > Cc: Tom Miles; Jim Joyner; Nikolaus Foidl;
> > Terrapreta; Todd Jones
> > Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal costs
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Kevin, et. al.,
> >
> >
> >
> > Described qualitatively, the Cation Exchange
> > Capacity (CEC) of soil, is the ability of soil to
> > attract positively charged ions (cations) to
> > negatively charged sites on molecules or atoms of
> > the substances in the soil. Quantitatively, CEC
> > is a measure (or an estimate) of the number of
> > negative charges per unit weight of the soil. The
> > dimensions of this measurement are conventionally
> > in milli-Equivalents per 100 grams (mEq/100g).
> > This means one thousandth (milli = 0.001 = 10E-3)
> > of an "Equivalent" per 100 grams of the sample.
> >
> >
> >
> > An "Equivalent" is the term usually given as a
> > measure of positively charged ions, because it
> > means how many grams of a substance that will
> > react with one mole (6.02 E 23) of electrons.
> > This also applies for negatively charged atomic
> > ions, considering the number of negative charges
> > of magnitude -1 (or again, e-) contained in the
> > ions. It brings together the concepts of both the
> > atomic weight of the ion and its charge or
> > valence.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, when speaking of CEC in soil, the # of
> > negative charges does not pay regard to the atomic
> > weight of the molecules or atoms which hold those
> > negative charges. So, 1 mEq is equivalent to 1
> > mole of negative charges (e-), period.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, a CEC measurement of ...
> >
> >
> >
> > "1 mEq/100g" is the same as "10 mmole/kg" (10
> > milli-mole per kilogram) or "1 cmole/100g" (1
> > centi-mole per 100 grams of sample)
> >
> >
> >
> > The "mEq/100g" value represents the number of
> > cation binding "sites" in a 100 gram sample of the
> > soil, to which that same number value of
> > monovalent cations (ions with a valence charge of
> > +1, e.g. H+) could attach. For divalent and
> > trivalent cations (+2 and +3), the number of
> > "sites" is reduced to 1/2 and 1/3 of the
> > "mEq/100g" value, respectively.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope this helps everyone understand the units of
> > measurement used for CEC measurements?
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > SKB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Kevin Chisholm
> >
> > To: Richard Haard
> >
> > Cc: Tom Miles ; Sean K. Barry ; Jim Joyner ;
> > Nikolaus Foidl ; Terrapreta ; Todd Jones
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:34 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal costs
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Richard
> >
> > Richard Haard wrote:
> > > S,K,J,N and Tom
> > >
> > > Jim and I have been discussing CEC and soil
> > nutrition and charcoal for
> > > a few rounds offline and the apparent anomaly
> > of my data not showing a
> > > boost in CEC with charcoal addition.
> > Could it be that with low temperature char,
> > still containing volatiles
> > and/or products of incomplete charring, the
> > future CEC sites are
> > presently blocked, but that with some
> > combination of microbial action
> > and weathering over several years, the tars and
> > volatiles still on the
> > char will be decomposed or removed to yield an
> > "active" char?
> > > Rereading Steiner etal tonight I have
> > concluded my first year data is
> > > consistent with first year results obtained by
> > Steiner in Brazil.
> > >
> > > It seems that charcoal addition to soil does
> > not make terra preta and
> > > that terra preta itself is the product of a
> > long term biological,
> > > chemical and physical process. The process we
> > used to make our
> > > charcoal 2 was identical to the local
> > production method where Steiner
> > > obtained his charcoal.
> > >
> > > Jim or anyone do you have a citation that
> > supports your statement in
> > > an earlier posting
> > >
> > > Jim Joyner wrote:
> > >> The CEC increases with compost and charcoal
> > (in Brazil) . . . well,
> > >> of course it does.
> > I don't have any specific references to support
> > this on its own, but
> > washed char tests by Cheng Lehmann and Thies
> > http://www.georgiaitp.org/carbon/PDF%20Files/Posters/
> ChengPoster.pdf
> > shows that char will increase the CEC.
> > They used char which was much smaller than the
> > lump and stick charcoal
> > you used. Two differences between your protocol
> > and theirs were washing
> > and finer size.
> >
> > This is a big reach, but is it possible that
> > there was sampling bias?
> > Specifically, is it possible that when taking
> > samples, the large lumps
> > of char were removed inadvertently in the field,
> > or perhaps by screening
> > at the Lab?
> >
> > Note also that your units for CEC seem to be
> > cmole/kg while Cheng et al
> > use mmole/kg. How does one convert between teh
> > different units.?
> >
> > How did you measure crop yields? Did you see
> > much difference between the
> > various plots?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here are some quotes from Steiner et al (2007)
> > and my comments that
> > > might be interesting for this topic of CEC and
> > charcoal in soil.
> > >
> > > Paper cited: Long term effects of manure,
> > charcoal and mineral
> > > fertilization on crop production and fertility
> > on a highly weathered
> > > central Amazon upland soil
> > >
> > > abstract here<
> > >
> > >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > from Steiner et al et al p 2
> > >
> > > Terra Preta research has shown that oxidation
> > on the edges of the
> > > aromatic backbone and adsorbtion of other OM
> > to charcoal is
> > > responsible for the increased CEC, although
> > the proportion of these
> > > two processed is unclear (Liang et al 2006)
> > >
> > > cited Liang B et al Black Carbon increases
> > cation exchange capacity
> > > in soils Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1719-1730
> > >
> > > and from page 12 - ' the period of this study
> > might have not been
> > > sufficient for oxidation'
> > >
> > > 'and SOM was only effective at increasing CEC
> > levels above pH 5.5
> > > which is consistent with the blockage of
> > exchange sites by either Al
> > > or Fe at lower values ---- In our study only
> > plots fertilized with CM
> > > had pH values higher than 5.5 and increased
> > CEC. '
> > >
> > > His charcoal was derived from a secondary
> > producer and manually
> > > crushed ( not special charcoal and made with a
> > technique identical to
> > > our charcoal 2 = heap burn)
> > >
> > > Definitions of his treatment blocks
> > >
> > > C control
> > > L leaf litter
> > > LB simulated slash and burn (burned litter)
> > > F inorganic fertilizer
> > > CM chicken manure
> > > 2CO compost
> > > 2CC charcoal
> > > 2CO+F compost +F
> > > 2CC+F charcoal + F
> > > CC+CO Charcoal + Compost
> > > 2CC+CO Charcoal + Compost
> > > 2CC+CO+F Charcoal + Compost + Fertilizer
> > > 2CCp charcoal pieces
> > >
> > > From Table 2 page 11 of Steiner et al soil
> > Chemical Properties after
> > > first harvest (CEC only)
> > >
> > > (cmole+kg-1)
> > >
> > > Steiner et al after first harvest values
> > first - then my own after
> > > first harvest (charcoal 1 then charcoal 2)
> > > C 1.61 9.85
> > > L 1.52
> > > LB 1.73
> > > F 2.16 12.05
> > > CM 12.55
> > > 2CO 1.94 11.9
> > > 2CC 1.80 10.4,11.9
> > > 2CO+F 2.45 12.3
> > > 2CC+F 1.94 10.1, 11.25
> > > 2CC+CO 1.8 10.95, 12.3
> > > 2CC+CO+F 2.11 12.7, 12
> > > 2CCp 1.65
> > >
> > > Interesting pattern here. Charcoal 1 showed
> > the best indication of
> > > enhanced growth above ground and roots. I
> > might speculate the lower
> > > CEC values represent greater nutrient
> > utilization. Additionally, CEC
> > > may be incidental to the role of charcoal in
> > soil. We should include
> > > also biological factors in our considerations.
> > >
> > > In terms of biological contribution to
> > beneficial effects of charcoal
> > > additions Steiner et al concluded
> > >
> > > The conditions of ADE (Amazon Dark Earth) are
> > ideal for maximum
> > > biological N2 fixtation. About 77% of the ADE
> > sampled showed positive
> > > incidence of /Aspospirillum sp./ compared to
> > only 10 % of the
> > > Ferralsols. Charcoal provides a good habitat
> > for the propagation of
> > > useful microorganisms such as free living
> > nitrogen fixing bacteria and
> > > mycorrhizal fungi. Ogawa holds the charcoals
> > weak alkalinity, porosity
> > > and ability to retain water and air
> > responsible for stimulation of
> > > microbes (citations excluded).
> > >
> > > Steiner et al did conclude that
> > >
> > > 'Charcoal proved to sustain fertility if an
> > additional nutrient source
> > > was given. Even though significantly more
> > nutrients were exported from
> > > the charcoal plots (with higher yields) the
> > available nutrient
> > > contents of the soil did not decrease in
> > comparison to just mineral
> > > fertilized plots'
> > >
> > > In addition he demonstrated highest mineral
> > losses in plots treated
> > > with Chicken Manure, followed by compost, then
> > litter and control.
> > >
> > > Rich H
> > >
> >________________
> >_______________________________________________
> >Terrapreta mailing list
> >Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> >http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> >http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> >http://info.bioenergylists.org
> Wayne S. Teel
> MSC 4102 ISAT
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> Tel: 540-568-2798
> Fax: 540-568-2761
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: /attachments/20071222/e9113a5b/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list