[Terrapreta] modified TPI Kiln

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Gerrit,

This is a very interesting link you've sent.  This modified New Hampshire kiln (the Radtke Charocal Kiln) is very like the UN(FAO/TPI) kiln in its operational design, I think.  There is a clear description stated on that page, about using multiple kilns operated simultaneously in succeeding stages of operation.  This is how I want my kilns to operate, too.  It is very interesting how they use less expensive, lighter and smaller thickness materials, that require no welding, and the assembly looks very simple.  The catalytic converters are interesting, too.  I wonder how well they work when not heated (are they heated somehow?).  They will probably reduce the kiln emissions of combustibles somewhat at any fairly "hot" temperature.  But outside the kiln they may be quite a bit cooler.  Maybe the stacks could be insulated or inside with the heat (inside the insulted kiln walls)?

In my design, I want to use a sort of combined intake/exhaust manifold to control the gas flows through the kiln (air in/producer gas out).  I also want to make use of the energy content of the combustible fuel component gases in the "producer gas" and the "sensible heat" if I can.  Burning the exhaust in a catalytic converter might well "clean" the emissions some, but there is no capture, nor use of any of the that bio-energy (BTUs in the gases or the "sensible heat").  Insulating the kiln, controlling the flows of heat and gases, is what I want in my kilns/reactors.

There is this nagging problem in the back of my head, that making charcoal (and then putting it into the ground) is something that some people will think is kind of loony.  Many people who have ever made any amount of charcoal (colliers) are making it strictly as fuel.  Using any charcoal making device, they could sell charcoal as fuel and do far better making money with that byproduct as a commodity, than watching some idiot bury that valuable charcoal into the ground.  Do you see what I mean?

There is only a finite amount of charcoal and/or energy that is in the amount of biomass you can stuff into one of these kilns.  So, I figure that logically, these "charcoal kilns" are going to have to provide some energy (somehow) to replace the energy being left with the charcoal-in-soil.  Otherwise, no one will provide the labor to run them or they will never "waste" the charcoal fuel by putting it into the ground.  They needed the energy.  They won't do the work of running the kiln unless they can get it.

Now, the medium to low BTU "produce gas" and the "sensible heat" are the only other energy in the pyrolysis reaction that are left to tap into, if you are truly not going to burn up the charcoal byproduct as fuel (and release the energy it contains).  This gaseous fuel & heat energy can be up to ~40-60% of the original energy content of the feedstock batch, depending on the efficiency of the biomass-to-charcoal process.

Higher charcoal yield means less BTUs in the gas and/or less heat.  The ratio of the three: charcoal, fuel gases, and "sensible heat" is highly dependent on the design and operation of the kiln.  Inefficiencies in heat management, or fuel gas losses, improper air input, or improper monitoring and control of the reactor (kiln) temperatures can all effect this ratio of byproducts from the kilns operation.

If the overall objective is to make charcoal, do it cleanly and efficiently, and get some usable bio-energy out of the process, then the device has a chance of making charcoal for use in soil.  Without the supplemental conversion of biomass energy to usable power or heat, then these kilns will more than likely be used ONLY to make charcoal as fuel.

To be sure, 'tis better to burn charcoal-as-fuel, than coal, oil, gasoline, diesel, or any other carbonated fossil fuel.  But, in the race to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce atmospheric GHG levels, though, renewable biomass energy sources alone isn't up to that task.  Using these versus fossil fuels will only slow our demise.  Then, this charcoal-in-soil Terra Preta thing also just simply needs the charcoal.

We can't do both charcoal-as-fuel and charcoal-in-soil.  I pick the latter, with charcoal made in simple kilns, by lots and lots of people, simple people, who do it because they need energy.  They will see that they can use the kiln to provide the energy source and will leave the charcoal for the soil.  If it all works out right, this improves the soil around their homes (not degrades the air quality) and it will make growing and getting food easier for them, too.

Who can see this grand plan?


Regards,

SKB


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gerald Van Koeverden<mailto:vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> 
  To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
  Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 2:47 PM
  Subject: modified TPI Kiln


  Sean,


  I was curious about the modifications you envision to make the TPI Kiln.  (I have visited the website for it)


  I see that Radke is using "six-inch diameter disc-shaped catalytic converters...available from many heating supply dealers"


  http://iron.wlu.edu/reports/Radtke_Charcoal_Kiln.htm<http://iron.wlu.edu/reports/Radtke_Charcoal_Kiln.htm>


  "The next phase of the project will complete the design and build up of the transportable reactor, the “Clean Charcoal Kiln” (CCK).  It is a modification of a design from a United Nations, Food & Agriculture Organization / Tropical Products Institute (UN FAO/TPI) transportable metal kiln.  The kiln design is retrofitted with an external manifold, which is used to capture the energetic “producer gas” and prevent the release of the potent GHG, Methane-CH4."
  On 3-Feb-08, at 10:34 PM, Sean K. Barry wrote:


    Dear 'terrapreta' list members,

    Back in December 2007, Erich Knight cited to this list a funding opportunity with a US Government Grant Program, that is managed by the Wood Education and Resource Center, a division of the US Forest Service.  Applications for this grant opportunity are due tomorrow, Monday, February 4, 2008.  I have attached a copy of their "Request for Proposals" document and a copy of a near final draft of my application.

    Part of the grant application process asks applicants to show support for their project proposals from industry, academia, and other interested organizations.  I know this is very short notice (the application is due tomorrow!).  If any of you would review these materials I've attached and if you think you could write a "letter of support" for my project, sent to me, then I could attach some "letters of support" with my grant application submission tomorrow.  I would be very grateful for any help from the members here.  I would also enjoy fielding any comments from anyone about this.

    Always Best Regards,

    Sean K. Barry
    Principal Engineer/Owner
    Troposphere Energy, LLC
    11170 142nd St. N.
    Stillwater, MN 55082-4797
    (651)-285-0904 (Work/Cell)
    (651)-351-0711 (Home/Fax)
    sean.barry at juno.com<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>


    The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
    Appendix A - Technical Project Description.doc
    fy08_werc_pro_app.doc
    WERC App.doc

    Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
    <Appendix A - Technical Project Description.doc><fy08_werc_pro_app.doc><WERC App.doc>_______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
    http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080205/4c9c942a/attachment.html