[Terrapreta] Biochar Packing Strategies

[Kevin Chisholm]

DEear Sean

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Dear 'terrapreta' list members,
>  
> Robert Klein has posted (again) his assertion that corn stalks were used 
> as the primary feedstock by the ancient Amazon people to make the 
> original Terra Preta soils.  This is entirely conjecture.  For anyone to 
> say "... as proven by pollen analysis" is just baloney.

Why do you feel his hypothesis is not viable? Can you suggest a better 
and more rational hypothesis?

> There was certainly lots of other potential biomass in the Amazon 
> rainforest.  The existence of corn pollen there *now* says nothing about 
> the feedstock used circa 2500 to 500 years ago.  Making a point out of 
> saying it was corn really doesn't even matter.
>  
> Robert then extrapolates this to claim to say that all we need to do is 
> just start piling up corn stalks in "packed" mounds on fields, light 
> them afire with hot coals dropped through the top of the pile, and start 
> making charcoal as fast as we can.  He has some idea that the root ball 
> and soil disks at the bottom of the stalks can just be yanked out of the 
> ground and piled up, dirt clods to the outside, enclosing the stalks 
> inside a dirt mound.
>  
> Open air burning in a dirt pile, with no flames is absolutely the worst 
> way to make charcoal from any biomass.  Without flame, the pile will 
> conservatively exhaust 3% of the carbon from the biomass as Methane-CH4 
> gas.  Robert does not listen to this.  I think, this is because he is 
> unwilling to acknowledge the chemistry of pyrolysis, and/or the problem 
> with Methane-CH4 as a potent green house gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
>  
> Releasing 3% Methane-CH4 during biochar production will definitely be 
> more of a detriment to the atmosphere, than the benefit if even all of 
> the rest of the biomass carbon was left in the charcoal.  That would 
> not occur, either, because a dirt wall kiln will still allow in enough 
> air that much of the biomass carbon will burn completely into CO2.  
> Smoldering, it will release copious amounts of toxic gases like Carbon 
> Monoxide - CO and Methane-CH4.  It could easily disable or even kill 
> anyone standing to close.

Most people can figure out that they should stand upwind of a fire, if 
their IQ is equal to, or grater than their age..
>  
> The worst part of Robert's postings is that he does not listen, read, or 
> try to learn anything.  He ignores what I an others have said about 
> Methane-CH4.

Goodness Gracious!! The gall!! :-)

   He'd rather spout off about how everyone agrees with his
> grand plan and his analysis and then go write on his blog that we here 
> on the 'terrapreta' list are ALL in agreement with him?  Well, I don't 
> agree!  Lots or people on this 'terrpreta' list don't agree with him, 
> either. 

This is conjecture on your part.

  He is still saying we do on his blog.  He says so again in his
> most recent posting ...
>  
>  >In my last post,
>  >
>  >http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2007/09/developing-biochar-protocols.html
>  >
>  >we arrived at the conclusion that the one key crop
>  >that can make biochar production feasible for
>  >agriculture is corn. It is also apparent that a
>  >naturally built stack without much work will produce
>  >some biochar, ...
>  
> This is total LIE!  AGAIN!  I wish he would quit doing that!

And I wish you would provide a better hypothesis, or show where he is 
wrong with fact and evidence, not just your own opinion.
>  
> Look here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane ... It says (and this 
> is not the only source which says this):
>  
> "Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a 
> global warming potential of 25 over a 100 year period. This means that a 
> 1 tonne methane emission will have 25 times the impact on temperature of 
> a 1 tonne carbon dioxide emission during the following 100 years."
>  
> What Robert proposes is a seriously bad idea.  I guarantee you, that if 
> this was ever tried, the the Environmental Pollution Control Agency 
> (EPA) would immediately show up and levy some heavy fines.

Under what section would they charge him?
   It is
> illegal in every state in the USA to knowingly release Methane-CH4 gas.  
> Lots of dirt-mound, root ball, walled in kilns will be a ecological 
> disaster, if enacted on any large scale.

Who said anything about large scale?

> He CANNOT do this.  He should stop promoting this idea.  It is senseless 
> and would be dangerously bad for the environment.

How many man-years of Amazonian Indians running around their corn fields 
making char would it take to equal the the CO2 equivalent of a standard 
600 MW coal fired power plant?
>  
> At 'terrepreta', I think we do want to develop *clean *ways to make 
> charcoal from the biomass of agricultural waste in agricultural fields.  
> I think this is a reasonable objective.  This plan of Robert's does not 
> accomplish that objective.  He needs to cease promoting this and he 
> should join us in developing some other viably workable methods.  At the 
> very least, Robert, you need to quit writing that we all agree with you 
> about this.

So, who else disagrees with his basic hypothesis?

Best wishes,

Kevin

PS: Are you any relation to that Bollinger Dude from Columbia?
>  
> SKB
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* code suidae <mailto:codesuidae at gmail.com>
>     *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:06 PM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Biochar Packing Strategies
> 
>     On 9/26/07, Robert Klein <arclein at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:arclein at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>      > But I think that we can all agree that a stalk of
>      > biomass with a brick attached is a great start. As
>      > good as a box of Leggo.
> 
>     Interesting idea. However, in all the harvested corn fields I've ever
>     seen the part of the stalk still attached to the roots is perhaps a
>     foot long and many are broken off near ground level. I suspect that in
>     order to get material suitable for this method you would have to
>     either harvest by hand or invent something gentler than a combine.
> 
>     Thinking out loud:
>     After harvesting you'd have to collect the stalks and carry them to
>     the burn location. For a 1/5th acre plot that's on the order of 6000
>     plants to move. With a couple of pounds of dirt attached to each one a
>     worker would be limited to moving perhaps 2 or 3 dozen plants at a
>     time for around 200 trips. Assuming reasonably quick workers you're
>     looking at 1 day per acre for a 5 man crew (4 gathering, 1 stacking).
> 
>     Presumably this would be one-time or very rare activity which could be
>     accomplished over many years. Each year you could set aside some
>     number of acres to be harvested by hand (or special machine) to allow
>     this sort of processing. It wouldn't even be necessary to wait until
>     after harvest, you could pull them, allow them to dry, then char the
>     whole plant.
> 
>      > I see two strategies. One in which a windrow is build
>      > with one side forming an earthen wall. [...] A second
>      > windrow can then be build against the first
>      > windrow on the non walled side.
>      > The second strategy is to lay out a 12X12 square [...]
> 
>     I wonder if it would be practical to do a dome? It seems like the sort
>     of thing you'd really have to be out in the field working on to see
>     how the stalks behave.
> 
>     Rather than packing dirt over the top of anything it seems like it
>     would be much more efficient, in terms of labor cost, to have large
>     reusable covers. You'd stack up the stalks then drop a lightweight
>     nonflammable plate on top. You could perhaps adjust vents in the cover
>     to control the burn rate.
> 
>     I'm picturing companies that hire seasonal labor to do the work and
>     that move from area to area contracting with land owners as they go. A
>     crew could be kept busy for most of the growing season.
> 
>      > Observe that we have minimized the labor input
>      > throughout.
> 
>     Well, I don't know about that, compared to any mechanized harvesting
>     it is a huge amount of labor, but amortized over the period when the
>     char is effective it is small.
> 
>      > From the perspective of sequestering carbon, we want
>      > this done twenty to fifty times. From the perspective
>      > of building a viable soil base, several times should
>      > be more than ample.
> 
>     I haven't the slightest idea how much char you could expect to get
>     from an acre of corn in a year. I'd suppose that you could do the same
>     acre at least twice and maybe three times a year (no need to wait for
>     mature ears, just give it 6 weeks or so to get big enough to provide
>     the most char per season).
> 
>     But 50 times? Surely at some point there is a concentration of char at
>     which agricultural performance begins to drop off or some other
>     undesirable effect comes into play? Beyond that point you'd have to
>     leave the char in a pit or disturb the topsoil to incorporate it
>     deeply.
> 
>     Dave K
>     -- 
>     "Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." -
>     M. King Hubbert
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Terrapreta mailing list
>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org