[Terrapreta] Charcoal properties

[Michael J Antal]

Hi Sean: nothing particular that anyone knows of.  Michael.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com>
Date: Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Charcoal properties
To: Michael J Antal <mantal at hawaii.edu>
Cc: terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>

> 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
> 
>