[Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
Sean K. Barry
sean.barry at juno.com
Sat Mar 10 16:02:11 CST 2007
Hi Michael,
Is there anything particular about the charcoal which Orchids grow in? Does it have a particular porousity? A particuler source?
What kind of volatile matter does it have?
SKB
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael J Antal<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu>
To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
Orchids like charcoal alone. Of course, orchids also grow best in the "wild" in trees where their roots are merely exposed to air. MJA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
Date: Friday, March 9, 2007 9:48 pm
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
To: "Michael J. Antal, Jr." <mantal at hawaii.edu<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu>>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Orchids grow best in charcoal alone? Or, in soil which has been
> amended with charcoal?
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael J. Antal, Jr.<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu>>
> To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Sean: of course I agree with you that heat is valuable, but
> not as valuable as carbon. I also agree about the need for real
> proof that terra preta is all that is advertised. But on the
> other hand, here in Hawaii our orchid growers KNOW that orchids
> grow best in charcoal. Our high value initial market for charcoal
> is with the orchid growers. They are our best customers.
> Regards, Michael.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:46 PM
> To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.
> Cc: terrapreta
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I believe the HEAT is valuable. Either the excess heat from
> the carbonization process itself or the afterburning of the off
> gas could be useful. How about heating steam to drive a turbine,
> maybe a Tesla turbine to generate electricity. I think the carbon
> sink idea behind sequestering charcoal in soil is a fine and
> laudable idea, ecologically, with global warming and all, etc.
> But, it needs a few things, I think, to really be a go;
>
> 1) There really needs to be an proven advantage in to putting
> it into agricultural soil. The ancient Brazilian natives may have
> been adherents and believers, but American farmers are a very
> conservative bunch, almost arrogant in their belief that they now
> how to produce more food off the land than any other culture in
> history (which is fairly well true) and they are going to be hard
> to convince to change their practices. You can do all the
> research you want in Brazil, Sumatra, Japan, and even Hawaii, but
> American farmers are going to want American soil scientists doing
> it on good old American mainland soil for a long time before they
> are going to be willing to change what they are doing. Just look
> at the problems of getting no-till or even low-till farming
> practices in place (which is also a great idea for carbon
> sequestration, i.e. reduce soil disturbance and increase soil
> organic carbon).
>
> 2) There should be an immediate economic incentive to making
> charcoal and putting it into the ground. You said it yourself, it
> is a valuable fuel, it has uses in barbeques, medicine,
> metallurgy, etc. How can selling charcoal to be put into the
> ground hope to compete against using it as a fuel in an energy
> addicted world? Only 60% of the energy from biomass remains in
> the charcoal with even the most energy efficient way of converting
> biomass to charcoal (Flash-carbonization). If even part of the
> other 40% could be captured and put to work directly, making
> electricity, or providing a raw material (synthesis/producer gas)
> to make liquid fuels, then charcoal manufacturing could make money
> on carbon neutral energy production right away, maybe even be
> profitable, and then also make great strides towards a working
> carbon negative technology.
>
> 3) This whole charcoal from biomass thing has got to be
> distributed. The source for the biomass is already distributed,
> out on the land, under the sunshine, growing. The target areas
> where the charcoal is to be distributed are back out over the
> land. Your device, which can make charcoal from nearly any
> biomass, with nearly any moisture content (<50%), is small enough
> to be almost portable and productive enough to keep up with as
> much waste biomass as maybe, a 1/2 section field could produce in
> a year. Trucking raw biomass to charcoal production factories and
> trucking the charcoal back to the same fields that the biomass
> came from just seems like a waste of energy to me. Transport
> energy, too, which nowadays is still mostly fossil fuel based. To
> be most effective as a valuable carbon sink, putting charcoal into
> the soil is going to have to put a lot of charcoal into a lot of
> soil, distributed over huge areas. It is also likely going to
> have to go on and on for years, before a dent can be made. We
> don't grow enough waste biomass over the entire area we grow crops
> in to produce enough charcoal to bury in a big enough area to
> solve the problem in a year. It's not going to be a one time, two
> way, shipping deal. Humankind puts 6 giga-tons of fossil fuel
> based carbon into the atmosphere every year, now. That number is
> growing fast. Charcoal production and sequestration needs to beat
> that number down with offsets. I believe it will be done much
> faster if we don't waste more fossil fuel doing it.
>
> Harvesting renewable energy and producing carbon offsets by
> charcoal sequestration in soil are by their very nature,
> DISTRIBUTED endeavors!
>
> ... and then, Sean stops his rant, steps of his soapbox, and
> bows slightly.
>
> 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<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com%3Cmailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael J. Antal, Jr.<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu>>
> To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Sean: your conclusion is correct; you can't have a high
> yield of carbon and a high yield of gas at the same time. In the
> long run people will realize that the carbon is much more valuable
> than the gas (or the tar). This is why we have emphasized carbon
> yield. On the other hand, our gas is not as bad as you seem to
> think. It burns well in the catalytic afterburner. We have
> generated temperatures in excess of 1500 C in the afterburner on
> some occasions. Heat at 1500 C has lots of uses. Thanks, Michael.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:54 PM
> To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> That was a tough paper. The composition of the exit gas
> from the high pressure Flash-carbonization reactor is
> disconcerting; "0%-2% hydrogen, 0%-14% oxygen, 60%-80% nitrogen,
> 0%-10% carbon monoxide, 0%-3% methane, and 2%-20% carbon dioxide".
> I'm sure producer gas like that is pretty low BTU gas. It also
> contains some trace amount (any idea about the tar ppm?) of
> unknown particulate matter;
>
> "... the chemical composition of this unknown compound is
> similar to that of a carbohydrate (e.g., levoglucosan or
> hydroxyacetaldehyde). Carbonaceous particulate matter is also a
> possible explanation for this unknown compound."
>
> Gas like that could never provide the fuel charge to run
> any kind of internal combustion engine generator and the
> particulate matter would clog everything. Has anybody in your
> group thought about any way to use the excess heat?
>
> You say this at the end of the paper,
>
> "Although the identification of this unknown is not easy
> in our system, we plan to initiate an evaluation of particulate
> matter emission from the FC reactor soon."
>
> It doesn't much matter, I think. That gas is almost
> useless as any kind of fuel. You're doing the best you can with
> the caalytic afterburner to clean it up a bit before you vent it
> to the atmosphere (eliminate CO, reduce CH4, etc.). Did anyone
> ever think about just using a catalytic converter from off the
> back of a vehicle to do that job?
>
> By my asking questions about the exit gas from the FC, I
> hope you don't think I am missing the point of your work. The
> charcoal and fixed carbon yield of that charcoal is an impressive
> result of the Flash-carbonization reactor design. That seems to
> have been your objective. I'm trying to see if charcoal
> production for agricultural use and its consequent carbon
> sequestering, which overall is a carbon negative process, can be
> made to work with using some of the biomass chemical energy as a
> carbon-neutral fuel at the same time.
>
> Biomass-to-charcoal/biomass-to-gas reactors which operate
> at atmospheric pressures may have lower charcoal yield, but they
> can be made to produce a gas which has a usable BTU content (~300
> BTU/Nm^3). And, it can be cleaner of tars (~2-15ppm). So, it can
> be a useful as a fuel for less expensive ICE powered generators.
>
> This all does make some sense; you can't have both high
> charcoal yield and high BTU gas coming from a
> carbonization/gasification reaction. One or the other,
> because there is only so much chemical energy in the biomass
> feedstock. When you raise the charcoal yield and the fixed carbon
> yield you leave more of the energy in the solid product. The
> evidence that your FC process approaches the thermo-chemical
> equilibrium limit is clearly born out in the low energy content of
> the gas product. <--Right?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael J. Antal, Jr.<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu>>
> To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Sean: pls see the attached paper. It should answer
> your questions. Regards, Michael.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:49 AM
> To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for taking time to review my questions and
> sending the papers along. I am still curious why you said you
> were unable to burn off the producer gas coming from the
> pressurized (1MPa) laboratory carbonizer/gasifier? Is the gas too
> high in CO2 and H2O, and too low in CO and H2? What is the BTUs
> for Nm^3 for the off gas?
>
> SKB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael J. Antal,
> Jr.<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu<mailto:mantal at hawaii.edu>>
> To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:51 PM
> Subject: RE: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Sean: the attached papers answer your questions
> about elevated pressure effects on charcoal yields, and results
> when lambda = 0. The big surprise of our Flash Carbonization
> research was the high yields of charcoal with increasing lambda
> (up to a point). Regards, Michael. P.S. Your question about
> posting the ASTM procedure on the website is well posed. My
> impression is that the UH/HNEI interpretation of copyright law is
> more stringent than most.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean K. Barry [mailto:sean.barry at juno.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:40 PM
> To: Michael J. Antal, Jr.
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I've finished reading the "Charcoal
> Review(PyNe).pdf" document. It doesn't add much to your
> "Flash_carbonization.pdf" paper, beyond maybe the historical
> information and the current practices. My question remains? Is
> it the low airflow (~25% of the stoichiometric) or the 1MPa
> pressure which imparts the higher fC and charcoal yields in the
> "Flash_carbonization.pdf" process? Clearly, the high pressure
> make for the fastest pyrolization method available. The other
> industrial processes were taking many hours and even days.
>
> Do you have papers on, or can you refer me to any
> experiments comparing high pressure vs atmospheric pressure, both
> at zero lambda? Do you have any experiments comparing different
> lambda (0, low, high) at high and/or atmospheric pressure?
>
> Now, I've scanned into the "Charcoal Review
> (iec03).pdf" paper, down to the Effects of the Gas Environment
> section. You nearly answer the question ONE WAY down in the first
> paragraph. "High pressures are not needed to secure a high yield
> of carbon from cellulose after equilibrium is established." <- Do
> you think so? Then, a little later in the Pressure. section you
> answer it THE OTHER WAY. Figure 6 clearly shows experimental data
> for improved charcoal yield with increasing pressure and the same
> low flow (hopefully, low flow equates closely with lambda near
> ~25%?). Is improved charcoal yield synonymous with improved fC
> yield? Can you get good AgChar out of a "flash carbonization"
> reactor?
> Well, now you've got me thinking on how to build a
> higher pressure (1MPa) "flash carbonization" reactor, for fast
> reaction times and high yield but for less than $100,000. I'd
> also like to figure out a way to use the producer gas coming out
> of the reactor.
>
> I paid $30.00 for the "Chemical Analysis of Wood
> Charcoal" ASTM 1762-84 last night, ordered the .pdf directly from
> ASTM. I saw you were sending a copy for Tom Miles to post online.
> Like your reasoning for not posting some other papers for not
> stepping on toes with the ACS group, maybe ASTM won't want you or
> Tom posting ASTM-1762-84. <-Do you think so?
>
> Thanks very much, Michael, or your interested
> replies to me.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> SKB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070310/c3e3cb95/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list