[Terrapreta] Strong warning against "simple" charcoal kilns

[geoff moxham]

Dear list members,
I agree we need to take care with advice on Pyrolysis.

For a large scale take-up of TP by a world with very rapidly
diminishing oil for transporting feedstock to a central
pyrolysis/grid-interactive biochar plant (like BEST's "small"
$A2,000,000 plant), a great majority of pyrolysis will have to be done
in situ.
Therefore...
What we need to stress here is not only the most efficient pyrolysis
units, but appropriate technology best practice units AS WELL as the
admirable very-high-technology end of the research that Edward's
units, and BEST's and others stardards exemplify.

In addition we need to stress the DRYING PHASE and the requisite
drying to equilibrium moisture content. Extant "simple technologies"
already exists to dry feedstock to lower tha EMC using
convection-forced solar tunnels on N-facing (S-hemisphere) slopes.
This pre-drying phase is 'free' if no or little transport is used and
the pyrolysis unit is small and feeds a localised grid. It is critical
to low GHG emissions. How is your feedstock dried Edward?

So, I think we need to take care in our labels. Pit and open drum
charring could be more accurately labelled Archaic Charring, and given
carefully calculated GHG emission ratings, accounting for the whole C
cycle, based on trials.

However, a 200 litre steel reactor, with Imbert hearth and 6 secondary
nozzles will burn wood feedstock + refluxed off-gasses, cleaner than
current gasoline technolgy. There are many people, some on this list
who can make one in a day in a good farm workshop. I'm going to look
at one next month, and give advice on retort vent sizes and gas flow
rates, and ways to generate clean process heat for crop drying.
 They really are quite simple, and approach best practice
pyrolysis...surely what we are talking about? And the whole process
need not be made inaccessible, mysterious or out of reach, as so much
of science and technology is. How absurd ... in fact impossible to
remove charcoal from everyday human life.

To this end in my demonstrations of charring I include common objects
like a mouse trap, a clothes peg, a pine cone or cotton webbing and
rope, all of which retain heir shape and nature as charcoal. This
allows conversation in a common language that has already inspired
many people to pyrolise safely in their existing wood space heaters,
and they have learned to run these heaters efficiently.
 Children have been impressed by what we call here paddle pop sticks,
ice-cream wooden sticks whick shink and curl nicely. I have a stinky
"Torrified Peg" to show what not do..."sniff this".... and a full 10
minute spiel on woodsmoke CH4, CO2 and exactly what we are talking
about.
I am in the process of making a miniature ( 200g fueload) pyrolisis
unit with flare-off burner, using micro computer fans for secondary
air assist. These can be driven by peltier modules and the fan assist
only stops after the feedstock stops and the hearth is cooled...all on
the desktop. Accessible, and understandable instantly to a generally
dumbed-down public.
Kindest regards to everyone for your continued inspiration
geoff moxham
BSC Industrial Arts (Technology0 UNSW 1977




> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:13:05 +0200 (Közép-európai nyári idõ)
> From: "Edward Someus" <edward at terrenum.net>
> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Strong warning against "simple" charcoal
> 	kilns
> To: <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>, "Biopact" <biopact at biopact.com>
> Message-ID: <4814A611.00000F.02628 at TERRA-16190F9E7>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Lorenzo,
>
> YES, I fully support  your notice and share your opinion.
>
> The "simple" or open or semi open charcoal kilns makes harm + damage for the
> TP policy and marketing strategy.
>
> An modern TP char production must be zero emission solution or at least near
> zero emission and meet the EU/USA advanced industrial standards and norms,
> including all Authority permit procedures from all the different Authorities
>  At least this is the technology concept  I work after for my 3R
> carbonization technology development.
>
>
>
> Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
> HOMEPAGE:  http://www.terrenum.net
> EMAIL 1:        edward at terrenum.net
> EMAIL 2:        edward.someus at gmail.com
> 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.vertustechnologies.com  http://www
> nvirocleantech.com
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Biopact
> Date: 2008.04.27. 16:28:59
> To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> Subject: [Terrapreta] Strong warning against "simple" charcoal kilns
>
> It has been repeated here a few times. We should be careful not to ruin the
> potential of Terra Preta by coupling it to inefficient, GHG emitting
> charcoal devices.
>
> Many of these simple devices are 10 to 20% efficient at best. Biochar's only
> way to make a difference is by using highly efficient pyrolyser units that
> maximally exploit the energy content in the biomass and that minimize GHG
> emissions. Syngas, heat, pyrolysis oil - all these he byproducts must be
> explicitly used to offset fossil fuels.
>
> So I urge all of us to limit references to "simple" charcoal kilns, and then
> only in the context of biochar trials that look at the effects of char in
> soils. For the rest, I think we should continuously stress that one of the
> most urgent needs is the development of highly efficient pyrolysis units.
>
> Else, we could be ruining the entire Terra Preta venture. Remember, there
> are many people reading these texts, and they may spread amongst journalists
>  If they get the impression that we are a bunch of people who just pyrolyse
> our way through this concept, then the initial potency of the very concept
> may get lost.
>
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo