[Terrapreta] Clarification about "simple" charcoal devices
Biopact
biopact at biopact.com
Wed Apr 30 11:35:59 CDT 2008
Greg,
our goal is to develop a system that maximizes char and syngas production, and that minimizes tar production. It's rather similar to Best Energies' slow pyrolysis technology.
It's a challenge, but with a bit of tweaking, it must be possible to develop a system that converts 40% of a biomass feedstock into char, 35 to 40% syngas, and the remainder tar.
Lorenzo
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg and April
To: Laurens Rademakers ; terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Clarification about "simple" charcoal devices
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the primary use of the plant, is to produce char you are using a kiln or retort, OTOH, if you are trying to produce syngas, then what you want is a gasifier.
While a kiln / retort will produce syngas it does so inefficiently ( and at greater expense to the amount of fuel used ) and much the same can be said of a gasifier producing char - it does so at the expense of producing more syngas.
At what point do you draw the line?
Greg H.
----- Original Message -----
From: Laurens Rademakers
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:56
Subject: [Terrapreta] Clarification about "simple" charcoal devices
Günther, Kevin, Lou, Sean and the others,
It seems like there has been a misunderstanding about the short "warning" I made against simple charcoal kilns. I didn't intend to downplay anyone's efforts to produce charcoal this way.
I made the warning because to me biochar / terra preta is still tied to a very particular context: that of the tropics, close to forests and carbon-rich ecosystems, the destruction of which can be limited by biochar.
And it is in this context that care must be taken to make the system as efficient as possible. Because your initial biomass feedstock in this environment will often be wood from secondary regrown forest, it is important to make the most of it, else you do not alter the "slash-and-burn" cycle enough and thus your crucial added benefit - that of reducing deforestation - can get lost.
Efficient does not necessarily mean "large". One of the Biochar Fund's goals is precisely to develop a village-scale plant that uses the syngas for power production (capacity smaller than 20kW), and use it in this specific context.
Small kilns or retorts made for use by individuals in other (agroecological) contexts might be quite interesting, provided they don't emit too much methane. So I wasn't warning against this at all.
Apologies for any misunderstandings.
Regards,
Lorenzo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date: 29/04/2008 18:27
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080430/ed122202/attachment.html
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list