Date   

Re: Crushing Charcoal #sizing #crushing

Amy Hull
 

Hi, Eli and Everyone,


I'm a char newbie, so my batches are small - about 7 cu ft (0.2 m3).  What is working really well for me is bagging the char in used birdseed bags (the woven plastic kind, 40# bags.),sealing the bag with duct tape, and driving over it several times like Kelpie says.    If you've ever had one of these with the "zip thread" messed up, you know how maddeningly sturdy they are.  I haven't been able to completely pulverized a batch yet, but it gets a lot of it down to sand or dust size.  The crushed char is contained, and no recurring cost for tarps required. To reduce the carbon impact of this process, I guess I could line them up, and run over them each day, as I come and go.

Hope y'all are well, and all of your loved ones, too.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eli Fishpaw
Sent: Apr 1, 2020 10:15 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal

Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


Re: FW: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal #crushing #sizing

Gustavo Peña
 

Are the nano-tubes important to the efficiency, by crushing charcoal, nano-tubes are destroyed.
Don´t know much about it, is just a curios question

Best regards 

gustavo


.Gustavo Peña
Inversiones Falcon
El Salvador, Centro América
Tel: (503) 2451 9605



El mié., 1 de abr. de 2020 a la(s) 17:09, Kevin Chisholm (kchisholm@...) escribió:


Subject: RE: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal

 

Hi Eli

 

You build a very neat looking system!!

 

May I suggest….

 

After you flail a batch of charcoal, mostly below the upper size you desire, dump the entire contents onto a screen with mesh sized at your desired maximum size. Then examine the oversize, and discard the pieces that are not adequately charred. Then refill the “flail drum” with the “old char lumps” and new charcoal, and repeat flailing.

 

Be sure to use a well-fitted face mask, and always stand upwind of the screening operation, to eliminate the possibility of inhaling microscopic char particles.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] On Behalf Of Eli Fishpaw
Sent: April 1, 2020 12:15 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal

 

Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


FW: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal #crushing #sizing

Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm@...>
 


Subject: RE: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal

 

Hi Eli

 

You build a very neat looking system!!

 

May I suggest….

 

After you flail a batch of charcoal, mostly below the upper size you desire, dump the entire contents onto a screen with mesh sized at your desired maximum size. Then examine the oversize, and discard the pieces that are not adequately charred. Then refill the “flail drum” with the “old char lumps” and new charcoal, and repeat flailing.

 

Be sure to use a well-fitted face mask, and always stand upwind of the screening operation, to eliminate the possibility of inhaling microscopic char particles.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io [mailto:main@Biochar.groups.io] On Behalf Of Eli Fishpaw
Sent: April 1, 2020 12:15 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal

 

Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy, or both? - New paper #carbonsequestration

Andrew Chapeskie
 

Link: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/13/eaay6792/tab-pdf 
 
SCIENCE ADVANCES | RESEARCH ARTICLE
 
BIOENERGY

Forests: Carbon sequestration, biomass energy,
or both?

Alice Favero, Adam Daigneault, Brent Sohngen

There is a continuing debate over the role that woody bioenergy plays in climate mitigation. This paper clarifies this controversy and illustrates the impacts of woody biomass demand on forest harvests, prices, timber management investments and intensity, forest area, and the resulting carbon balance under different climate mitigation policies.  Increased bioenergy demand increases forest carbon stocks thanks to afforestation activities and more intensive management relative to a no-bioenergy case. Some natural forests, however, are converted to more intensive management, with potential biodiversity losses. Incentivizing both wood-based bioenergy and forest sequestration could increase carbon sequestration and conserve natural forests simultaneously. We conclude that the expanded
use of wood for bioenergy will result in net carbon benefits, but an efficient policy also needs to regulate forest carbon sequestration.

No mention of biochar that I found in a first quick look.


Re: Crushing Charcoal #sizing #crushing

Nando Breiter
 

Eli,

Compared to a single bacterium, a chuck of char about an inch long is as big as the earth is to you. Disregarding the issues with heat and pressure, how deep into the earth could you go before you needed to return to the surface for food (and water), if you could not take anything with you in a backpack?

Soil bacteria are between 0.5 and 1 microns in size. The papers I've read indicate bacteria can generally survive to a depth of about 70 or 80 microns in a char pore. That's about the width of a human hair, roughly 100 times deeper than their size. The reason is they need access to dissolved organic matter in the soil solution for nutrition, and while capalliary forces can draw water / soil solution into a char pore, soil solution is not continually flushed through the pores. So if bacteria wander too deeply, they die out from lack of nutrition. At least that's what the evidence suggests.

It might be said that char provides value through its capacity to sorb (minerals, metals, organic matter, etc). In lower temperature chars, particle surface adsorbtion tends to predominate, mainly through OH functional groups. This form of sorbtion facilitates cation exchange capacity. For CEC to function, the char surface needs to have free access to the soil solution, and the adsorbed mineral must be released again to the soil solution when required by the plant. Since bacteria demonstrate to some degree that surfaces within pores are available to the soil solution to a depth of about 80 microns, we might hypothesize that for the purposes of cation exchange capacity, roughly the same depth might be functional. Minerals adsorbed deeper in pores would generally tend to be trapped. 

It has also been observed that char particles form micro aggregates, but for this purpose they need to small, and aggregates will of course enhance soil fertility. 

At higher pyrolysis temps, more pores form, and the mechanism of adsorption is different, perhaps more suited to permanently retaining minerals and metals, either deep in a pore and/or adsorbed in such a way that the enzymes plant roots release to access minerals are ineffective at breaking the bond and releasing the mineral or metal. Pores also become clogged over time, which traps anything logded or adsorbed within it.

So putting all that together, if the goal is to enhance soil fertility, it seems we want to maximize particle outer surface area of low temp biochar by reducing particle size as much as possible, both to increase overall surface adsorption and CEC and also so the char particles participate in the formation of aggregates. Following on this line of thought, if you can see your char particle sitting alone in the soil, it's probably too big to optimally increase soil fertility. 

If the goal is to adsorb specific contaminates in the soil, then a higher temperature biochar would be better, more along the lines of an activated carbon, where the pore volume and pore size was optimized for the particular contaminate targeted.

There are mills, particularly hammer mills, that are used to consistently and accurately reduce char particle size at industrial scale. It is not surpising that a DIY solution for reducing particle size would be less consistent than ideal. 

One reference I keep in mind is that char particle size in terra preta soils is for the most part between 10 and 20 microns. These particles are embedded in aggregates, and terra preta is known for its high fertility.

Hope that helps.




On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:15 PM Eli Fishpaw <belifishpaw@...> wrote:

Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


--
Nando Breiter
http://biochar.info
CarbonZero Sagl
Astano, Switzerland


Re: Crushing Charcoal #sizing #crushing

Teel, Wayne
 

Eli and All,

 

I found that Kelpie Wilson’s advice on flame-cap kilns is highly relevant to your problem of incomplete charring; keep your sizes of woody material roughly the same size when you add them so that the char completely.  I try to add the larger material in the middle of the burn so the fire is full and there is more time for them to fully char.  I begin and finish with smaller sizes to keep the flames across the entire cap.  Doing this reduces the number of brands that Hugh mentions.  We use them, like he suggests, to start the next fire. 

 

I am attaching a piece I wrote for my classes after listening/watching Kelpie’s excellent webinar on flame-cap kiln use last month.  Criticism welcome.

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Hugh McLaughlin via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 11:45 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io; main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Crushing Charcoal

 

Eli and the list,

 

Pyrolyzed biomass that resist crushing is not sufficiently converted from the original biomass to effectively perform as biochar in the soil. If derived from wood, they are called "brands" and often used to start the next pyrolysis cycle. Anything that resist crushing should be recycled - they have selected themselves out of the mix and providing a means of identifying them and separating them for additional processing.

 

- Hugh

 

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020, 11:16:02 AM EDT, Eli Fishpaw <belifishpaw@...> wrote:

 

 

Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


Re: Crushing Charcoal #sizing #crushing

Hugh McLaughlin
 

Eli and the list,

Pyrolyzed biomass that resist crushing is not sufficiently converted from the original biomass to effectively perform as biochar in the soil. If derived from wood, they are called "brands" and often used to start the next pyrolysis cycle. Anything that resist crushing should be recycled - they have selected themselves out of the mix and providing a means of identifying them and separating them for additional processing.

- Hugh

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020, 11:16:02 AM EDT, Eli Fishpaw <belifishpaw@...> wrote:


Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


Crushing Charcoal #sizing #crushing

Eli Fishpaw
 

Crushing Charcoal

I want to acknowledge those contributing to a robust discussion of my earlier post on crushing charcoal to powder.  Almost all the messages influenced me.  I want to share my thoughts and attempts to apply the suggestions. 

The bigger question remains, “How important is it to reduce the size of the char particles?”. Since I do not have experience, I have to use my intuition.  The increased surface area of the particle is the obvious difference between a powder and a pebble.  So, I can identify with the comment that powder speeds up the benefit.  The pebbles would still contain the tiny carbon lattice that is so inviting to the microbes and capillary action would draw water into the pebble. Microbes would follow, swimming in the water.  Would fungal hyphae follow and then possibly plant roots?  I would like to believe as Norm says that size of charcoal is not critical.  If pebbles mixed with fines still provides the benefit, that would reduce the work.  If the larger lumps create a delay for the benefit, is the final benefit as much but slower?  If that is the case, I would compare it with a well-planned fruit orchard.  If a fruit tree takes 4 years to start producing from planting followed by ten years of productivity, the farmer would need to set up a continuing planting of trees to replace the non-producing ones.  Starting the orchard, one would plant a tenth of the design orchard size each year to result in replacing first nonproductive trees every year even though it takes 4 years to reach that point from planting.  By incrementally adding larger charcoal where there is a delay in the full benefit, still may make sense if it reduced the work to achieve the benefit.  I primarily use no dig techniques in the garden.  Therefore, no plowing and rototilling.  I am convinced that leaving the soil undisturbed gives bacteria, fungus, and macro organisms loosen the soil and enhance microorganisms. 

I have tried a few of the techniques suggested for crushing.  So far, I have only achieved a partial powder mixed with pebbles.  Primarily using the flame cap method, the char is wet, avoiding the issue of airborne particles.  However, not all the charcoal pyrolysis is equal.  Some is very crushable to the touch.  Some is woodier and more difficult to crush.  My smaller experimental batches generated in a retort chamber set in my wood heat stove, the charcoal was more uniform.  The blender I used really did achieve the powder.  However, to achieve that powder in the flame cap method, a grinder capable to grinding wood would be needed. 

I followed through on Kevin Chisholm’s suggestion for a chain flail biochar buster.  I adapted this idea using a repurposed 10-gallon pressure tank. See attached photos.  It works to pulverize much of the charcoal.  However, the less pyrolysized chunks are batted around like golf balls.  It does produce fines with the crushable charcoal and reduces the volume.   The powder portion drops to the bottom and is very dense. 

I also tried the drive a car on top of charcoal on a tarp method as suggested by Kelpie Wilson.  Some reservations I have about this method is the durability of the tarp that may need to be replaced and the carbon emissions needed to move this large vehicle eating into our perceived carbon benefit.  Again, as with the biochar buster described above, woody particles do not bust.  Not all the crushable were crushed.  My technique still may be the issue.  How thick, how many times driving over.  In my case, the car was fired up specifically to achieve the crushing.  Does anybody put charcoal in their driveway to make use of the incidental traffic to avoid additional emissions?  I considered this.  However, I did not because guest using the driveway might get confused about what to do.  I was concerned about making an embarrassing mess.  Also, a tarp on top of gravel might accelerate the damage to the tarp.

Step by step, I am ramping up my scale to develop my use of biochar in my gardening.  I appreciate the input from our list participants. 

Eli  

 


Antibiotics in Cattle Manure increases soil GHG emissions #feed #antibiotics

ROBERT W GILLETT
 

A paper from December's Ecology Letters found that,
"Manure from antibiotic‐treated cattle therefore affects terrestrial ecosystem function via the soil microbiome, causing decreased ecosystem carbon use efficiency, and altered nitrogen cycling."
Reducing the need for antibiotics is one reason biochar should be fed to cattle. It looks like the benefits would be more than just to food safety.

Robert


Re: biochar induced biota biomass #biota

Paul S Anderson
 

Tom,

 

Thanks for the 2 pages about “priming”.     See comments below about a reversal of wording:

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Thomas Casten via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:33 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

Look at Chapter 8 of an Ebook cited in attached excerpt dealing with biochar impact on changes in soil organic carbon

In summary, meta-studies found a mean 3.8% per year increase in SOC

 

[PSA>>]  Yes, expressed in the chapter as “a mean decrease of 3.8% in SOC mineralization” which is because mineralization is a decrease.   So a decrease of a decrease is an increase.

 

but values included 0 within 95% confidence range. Longer-term studies show a 15% SOC increase with BC,

 

[PSA>>] But in this case, the wording in the chapter is “a mean increase of 15% in SOC mineralization…”  Because mineralization is a decrease, an increase in a decrease is a decrease, not “a 15% SOC increase with BC.”

 

Negatives and double negatives, etc. can become tricky to get right.   I might have it wrong.   Please check.  

 

But I think the major message of that chapter is that the results are not yet conclusive.  Potentially important, but so are so many biochar topics, and there is so little time to get moving on carbon sequestration.

 

but the results depend on the BC characteristics and soil, so more research is needed.

 

>> snipped>>

 

Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095

 

,_._,_


Re: Biochar vs. methane RE: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass #biota #methane

Thomas Casten
 

The calculation of CO2 e is complex and best left to IPCC reports.  The IPCC 4th assessment provided CO2e for 10-year, 20-year, 100-yr, and 500-year.  The CH4 and N2O CO2 e values in IPCC 4 were:
 
Species CO2 CH4 N20
Yrs life 550 12 114
500 year CO2e 1 7.6 153
100 year CO2e 1 25 298
20-year CO2 e 1 73 289
10-year CO2 E 1                 91                    275

A big concern right now is the warming permafrost that could dump gigatons of methane and CO2.  We separately identify ways to cut world methane by 30% and this would reduce the next ten years of radiative forcing by the ten-year number.  Feed ruminants biochar to cut methane belching and to reduce the methane formation from their manure, add methane to other livestock manure, use new sensing technology flown on drones to find methane emissions from oil and gas and set heavy fines, and add biochar to soil to cut methane emissions.  Speed conversion of municipal sewage treatment plants from aerobic to anaerobic to make methane that then displaces fossil methane. Most of these actions save enough to pay for themselves.

The other big reduction of radiative forcing comes from adding biochar with high fixed carbon to farmland and forest, which cuts nitrogen valorization, avoiding N2O emissions and the emissions associated with making the nitrogen with natural gas.  The choice of CO2 E years does not have much impact on N2O impact.

Finally, the way I have seen atmospheric CO2 degradation described is a steady percentage drop over the first 30 years to 50% of initial CO2, then a steady percentage drop over the next 300 years to 20% of the original, and then a tail that lasts thousands of years.

We propose that policy decisions rely on a discounted present value of radiative forcing for each GHG species, using a heavy discount rate, say 15% per year or higher, reflecting the urgency of the climate catastrophe.  Anyone wishing to review this work please send me a request at tr9casten@... and I will send the present value of radiative forcing tool we are working on.


Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095



On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 6:31 PM Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
Hi Paul, good to see this point discussed, the only reference I found was in a  discussion in which one seeming expert claimed the minimum was 14 years, but 20 would be more common, - that discussion did not remain  - actually I thought it was on this list?

The possibility of 14 was why I chose 3 times the effect of the carbon dioxide in my press release on the Cow Biochar, ie 14 times 90, - 90 being the figure by given by several on how much more harmful a green house gas methane is than carbon dioxide, so that is my assumption that for 14 years the methane is having 90 times the effect of the carbon dioxide, but what does that figure of 1260 then mean? - the carbon dioxide will have the same effect at 1260 years?
That carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lasts more than 100 years is often asserted, but not 1260 years.
Certainly we need a lot more accurate figures, preferably backed up by proper research.

At the moment,  assuming the Coronavirus is contained well short of destroying our civilisation, (not guaranteed by some inept politicians) Methane emissions will continue increasing for many years, particularly from melting permafrost, although there are techniques being developed to halt that, but feeding cows charcoal and stopping fracking should reduce it severely, so 14 years after that the Warming effects from Methane should reduce dramatically, - all else being equal.

Of course stopping the fracking before much of the worlds aquifers are severely damaged is another issue, but probably can only happen when the build out  of Renewable energy is large enough to put fracking out of business, - as it has done with much coal fired electricity  generation.



On 29 Mar 2020, at 7:06 am, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Tom,   (I hope this gets interest and comments from numerous readers interested in biochar and methane.)
 
I follow your presentation.   I would dissect it a little:
 
1.  Seek to obtain better statements of the damage of methane at several time levels:
                A.  100 years  (because that seems to be documented.   What is the 100-year CO2 equivalence of methane?)
                B.  20 years (also understood.  What is the 20-year CO2 equivalence of methane?  And also  what methods cut it’s impact off at 20 yrs instead of just running on to 100 years)?
                C.  5 years (what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)
                D.  1 year (Same two questions: what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)
                E.  2 months  (Same first question:    what amount of damage / impact;   But the second question (what could do the job of stopping methane at 2 months) becomes a research topic about the impact of biochar into manure or other methane sources.  )  
                F.  Zero months:   (What WOULD have been the damage IF the methane had been released?    And the second question is how much methane reduction  can occur from proper feeding of biochar to cattle?)
 
2.  Concerning the quick capture (such as 2 months) or the avoidance of production (zero months) of methane, do we have quality data about how much methane can be “intercepted” at the different time levels?   And what is the ultimate outcome regarding the methane:  such as delayed release, or “the bacteria ate it”  or something else?     
 
3.  Combine 1 and 2 and make some clear statements (or clear research hypotheses).   Main question is:   What is the quantitative value of biochar (in CO2e units) when it is targeting methane in different scenarios of usage?
 
4.  I suggest that there be no references to NOx because it leads to overload and sidetracking of the discussion.   If necessary, let NOx have its own discussion regarding biochar.
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP 
     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects
     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits
     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Thomas Casten via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:33 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Look at Chapter 8 of an Ebook cited in attached excerpt dealing with biochar impact on changes in soil organic carbon
In summary, meta-studies found a mean 3.8% per year increase in SOC but values included 0 within 95% confidence range. Longer-term studies show a 15% SOC increase with BC, but the results depend on the BC characteristics and soil, so more research is needed.
Everyone should be aware that the portion of this chapter dealing with the impact on climate change notes the impact of biochar on reducing CH4 and N20 emissions, but uses the 100-year CO2 equivalence, which seriously understates the reduction of near-term radiative forcing. Studies show BC addition to compost and to manure reduces CH4 emissions, but use of 100-year CO2 equivalence of 25 understates the impact of reduced CH4 by 70% versus 10-year CO2 e. This is because CH4 has a life of 12 years while CO2 takes 330 years to drop to 20% of emissions and thousands of years to completely disappear. The 100-year CO2 e of methane is 25, while the IPCC 10-year equivalence is 91.  N20, which lives 150 years, is roughly the same with a 100-yr e of 298 and 10-year e of 275.  Bottom line: correctly made biochar added to compost or manure has a major impact on radiative forcing.   
  

Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095

 
 
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:15 AM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:
did anyone attempt at "weighing" the bacteria and fungi that can grow on biochar ? 
 
for any kg / pound of biochar added to the soil how much organic matter in the form of bacteria and fungi can we expect ?
 
can anyone guesstimate % of biomass weight that we can add to biochar by biocharging it with compost tea or similar approaches ?
 
did some google scholar searching but I guess I did not use the right keywords
 
thanks 
 
Tomaso
 

-- 
Thomas R Casten
tr9casten@...
630-915-9215 



--
Thomas R Casten
tr9casten@...
630-915-9215


Re: Biochar vs. methane RE: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass #biota #methane

Trevor Richards
 

Screenshot 2020-03-29 10.52.08.png
Paul, Jeoff,
The image above is from a presentation from Harry Clark, leader of the NZ Greenhouse Gas Research Centre.

He discusses the issue on Methane / CO2 comparison from Min.44:30 in the 1st video session linked here:

Do you think he has done a reasonable job explaining the issue. Also note his reasoning for 100yr selection.



On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 07:32, Geoff Thomas <wind@...> wrote:
Hi Paul, good to see this point discussed, the only reference I found was in a  discussion in which one seeming expert claimed the minimum was 14 years, but 20 would be more common, - that discussion did not remain  - actually I thought it was on this list?

The possibility of 14 was why I chose 3 times the effect of the carbon dioxide in my press release on the Cow Biochar, ie 14 times 90, - 90 being the figure by given by several on how much more harmful a green house gas methane is than carbon dioxide, so that is my assumption that for 14 years the methane is having 90 times the effect of the carbon dioxide, but what does that figure of 1260 then mean? - the carbon dioxide will have the same effect at 1260 years?
That carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lasts more than 100 years is often asserted, but not 1260 years.
Certainly we need a lot more accurate figures, preferably backed up by proper research.

At the moment,  assuming the Coronavirus is contained well short of destroying our civilisation, (not guaranteed by some inept politicians) Methane emissions will continue increasing for many years, particularly from melting permafrost, although there are techniques being developed to halt that, but feeding cows charcoal and stopping fracking should reduce it severely, so 14 years after that the Warming effects from Methane should reduce dramatically, - all else being equal.

Of course stopping the fracking before much of the worlds aquifers are severely damaged is another issue, but probably can only happen when the build out  of Renewable energy is large enough to put fracking out of business, - as it has done with much coal fired electricity  generation.



On 29 Mar 2020, at 7:06 am, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Tom,   (I hope this gets interest and comments from numerous readers interested in biochar and methane.)
 
I follow your presentation.   I would dissect it a little:
 
1.  Seek to obtain better statements of the damage of methane at several time levels:
                A.  100 years  (because that seems to be documented.   What is the 100-year CO2 equivalence of methane?)
                B.  20 years (also understood.  What is the 20-year CO2 equivalence of methane?  And also  what methods cut it’s impact off at 20 yrs instead of just running on to 100 years)?
                C.  5 years (what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)
                D.  1 year (Same two questions: what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)
                E.  2 months  (Same first question:    what amount of damage / impact;   But the second question (what could do the job of stopping methane at 2 months) becomes a research topic about the impact of biochar into manure or other methane sources.  )  
                F.  Zero months:   (What WOULD have been the damage IF the methane had been released?    And the second question is how much methane reduction  can occur from proper feeding of biochar to cattle?)
 
2.  Concerning the quick capture (such as 2 months) or the avoidance of production (zero months) of methane, do we have quality data about how much methane can be “intercepted” at the different time levels?   And what is the ultimate outcome regarding the methane:  such as delayed release, or “the bacteria ate it”  or something else?     
 
3.  Combine 1 and 2 and make some clear statements (or clear research hypotheses).   Main question is:   What is the quantitative value of biochar (in CO2e units) when it is targeting methane in different scenarios of usage?
 
4.  I suggest that there be no references to NOx because it leads to overload and sidetracking of the discussion.   If necessary, let NOx have its own discussion regarding biochar.
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP 
     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects
     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits
     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Thomas Casten via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:33 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Look at Chapter 8 of an Ebook cited in attached excerpt dealing with biochar impact on changes in soil organic carbon
In summary, meta-studies found a mean 3.8% per year increase in SOC but values included 0 within 95% confidence range. Longer-term studies show a 15% SOC increase with BC, but the results depend on the BC characteristics and soil, so more research is needed.
Everyone should be aware that the portion of this chapter dealing with the impact on climate change notes the impact of biochar on reducing CH4 and N20 emissions, but uses the 100-year CO2 equivalence, which seriously understates the reduction of near-term radiative forcing. Studies show BC addition to compost and to manure reduces CH4 emissions, but use of 100-year CO2 equivalence of 25 understates the impact of reduced CH4 by 70% versus 10-year CO2 e. This is because CH4 has a life of 12 years while CO2 takes 330 years to drop to 20% of emissions and thousands of years to completely disappear. The 100-year CO2 e of methane is 25, while the IPCC 10-year equivalence is 91.  N20, which lives 150 years, is roughly the same with a 100-yr e of 298 and 10-year e of 275.  Bottom line: correctly made biochar added to compost or manure has a major impact on radiative forcing.   
  

Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095

 
 
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:15 AM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:
did anyone attempt at "weighing" the bacteria and fungi that can grow on biochar ? 
 
for any kg / pound of biochar added to the soil how much organic matter in the form of bacteria and fungi can we expect ?
 
can anyone guesstimate % of biomass weight that we can add to biochar by biocharging it with compost tea or similar approaches ?
 
did some google scholar searching but I guess I did not use the right keywords
 
thanks 
 
Tomaso
 

-- 
Thomas R Casten
tr9casten@...
630-915-9215 



Re: Biochar vs. methane RE: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass #biota #methane

Geoff Thomas
 

Hi Paul, good to see this point discussed, the only reference I found was in a  discussion in which one seeming expert claimed the minimum was 14 years, but 20 would be more common, - that discussion did not remain  - actually I thought it was on this list?

The possibility of 14 was why I chose 3 times the effect of the carbon dioxide in my press release on the Cow Biochar, ie 14 times 90, - 90 being the figure by given by several on how much more harmful a green house gas methane is than carbon dioxide, so that is my assumption that for 14 years the methane is having 90 times the effect of the carbon dioxide, but what does that figure of 1260 then mean? - the carbon dioxide will have the same effect at 1260 years?
That carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lasts more than 100 years is often asserted, but not 1260 years.
Certainly we need a lot more accurate figures, preferably backed up by proper research.

At the moment,  assuming the Coronavirus is contained well short of destroying our civilisation, (not guaranteed by some inept politicians) Methane emissions will continue increasing for many years, particularly from melting permafrost, although there are techniques being developed to halt that, but feeding cows charcoal and stopping fracking should reduce it severely, so 14 years after that the Warming effects from Methane should reduce dramatically, - all else being equal.

Of course stopping the fracking before much of the worlds aquifers are severely damaged is another issue, but probably can only happen when the build out  of Renewable energy is large enough to put fracking out of business, - as it has done with much coal fired electricity  generation.



On 29 Mar 2020, at 7:06 am, Paul S Anderson <psanders@...> wrote:

Tom,   (I hope this gets interest and comments from numerous readers interested in biochar and methane.)
 
I follow your presentation.   I would dissect it a little:
 
1.  Seek to obtain better statements of the damage of methane at several time levels:
                A.  100 years  (because that seems to be documented.   What is the 100-year CO2 equivalence of methane?)
                B.  20 years (also understood.  What is the 20-year CO2 equivalence of methane?  And also  what methods cut it’s impact off at 20 yrs instead of just running on to 100 years)?
                C.  5 years (what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)
                D.  1 year (Same two questions: what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)
                E.  2 months  (Same first question:    what amount of damage / impact;   But the second question (what could do the job of stopping methane at 2 months) becomes a research topic about the impact of biochar into manure or other methane sources.  )  
                F.  Zero months:   (What WOULD have been the damage IF the methane had been released?    And the second question is how much methane reduction  can occur from proper feeding of biochar to cattle?)
 
2.  Concerning the quick capture (such as 2 months) or the avoidance of production (zero months) of methane, do we have quality data about how much methane can be “intercepted” at the different time levels?   And what is the ultimate outcome regarding the methane:  such as delayed release, or “the bacteria ate it”  or something else?     
 
3.  Combine 1 and 2 and make some clear statements (or clear research hypotheses).   Main question is:   What is the quantitative value of biochar (in CO2e units) when it is targeting methane in different scenarios of usage?
 
4.  I suggest that there be no references to NOx because it leads to overload and sidetracking of the discussion.   If necessary, let NOx have its own discussion regarding biochar.
 
Paul
 
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com
     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud
     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP 
     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects
     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits
     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
 
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Thomas Casten via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:33 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass
 
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] 
Look at Chapter 8 of an Ebook cited in attached excerpt dealing with biochar impact on changes in soil organic carbon
In summary, meta-studies found a mean 3.8% per year increase in SOC but values included 0 within 95% confidence range. Longer-term studies show a 15% SOC increase with BC, but the results depend on the BC characteristics and soil, so more research is needed.
Everyone should be aware that the portion of this chapter dealing with the impact on climate change notes the impact of biochar on reducing CH4 and N20 emissions, but uses the 100-year CO2 equivalence, which seriously understates the reduction of near-term radiative forcing. Studies show BC addition to compost and to manure reduces CH4 emissions, but use of 100-year CO2 equivalence of 25 understates the impact of reduced CH4 by 70% versus 10-year CO2 e. This is because CH4 has a life of 12 years while CO2 takes 330 years to drop to 20% of emissions and thousands of years to completely disappear. The 100-year CO2 e of methane is 25, while the IPCC 10-year equivalence is 91.  N20, which lives 150 years, is roughly the same with a 100-yr e of 298 and 10-year e of 275.  Bottom line: correctly made biochar added to compost or manure has a major impact on radiative forcing.   
  

Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095

 
 
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:15 AM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:
did anyone attempt at "weighing" the bacteria and fungi that can grow on biochar ? 
 
for any kg / pound of biochar added to the soil how much organic matter in the form of bacteria and fungi can we expect ?
 
can anyone guesstimate % of biomass weight that we can add to biochar by biocharging it with compost tea or similar approaches ?
 
did some google scholar searching but I guess I did not use the right keywords
 
thanks 
 
Tomaso
 

-- 
Thomas R Casten
tr9casten@...
630-915-9215 



Biochar vs. methane RE: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass #biota #methane

Paul S Anderson
 

Tom,   (I hope this gets interest and comments from numerous readers interested in biochar and methane.)

 

I follow your presentation.   I would dissect it a little:

 

1.  Seek to obtain better statements of the damage of methane at several time levels:

                A.  100 years  (because that seems to be documented.   What is the 100-year CO2 equivalence of methane?)

                B.  20 years (also understood.  What is the 20-year CO2 equivalence of methane?  And also  what methods cut it’s impact off at 20 yrs instead of just running on to 100 years)?

                C.  5 years (what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)

                D.  1 year (Same two questions: what amount of damage / impact?   and what could cut it off at 5 years – prevent from going to 20 or 100 years?)

                E.  2 months  (Same first question:    what amount of damage / impact;   But the second question (what could do the job of stopping methane at 2 months) becomes a research topic about the impact of biochar into manure or other methane sources.  ) 

                F.  Zero months:   (What WOULD have been the damage IF the methane had been released?    And the second question is how much methane reduction  can occur from proper feeding of biochar to cattle?)

 

2.  Concerning the quick capture (such as 2 months) or the avoidance of production (zero months) of methane, do we have quality data about how much methane can be “intercepted” at the different time levels?   And what is the ultimate outcome regarding the methane:  such as delayed release, or “the bacteria ate it”  or something else?     

 

3.  Combine 1 and 2 and make some clear statements (or clear research hypotheses).   Main question is:   What is the quantitative value of biochar (in CO2e units) when it is targeting methane in different scenarios of usage?

 

4.  I suggest that there be no references to NOx because it leads to overload and sidetracking of the discussion.   If necessary, let NOx have its own discussion regarding biochar.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Thomas Casten via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:33 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] biochar induced biota biomass

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

Look at Chapter 8 of an Ebook cited in attached excerpt dealing with biochar impact on changes in soil organic carbon

In summary, meta-studies found a mean 3.8% per year increase in SOC but values included 0 within 95% confidence range. Longer-term studies show a 15% SOC increase with BC, but the results depend on the BC characteristics and soil, so more research is needed.

Everyone should be aware that the portion of this chapter dealing with the impact on climate change notes the impact of biochar on reducing CH4 and N20 emissions, but uses the 100-year CO2 equivalence, which seriously understates the reduction of near-term radiative forcing. Studies show BC addition to compost and to manure reduces CH4 emissions, but use of 100-year CO2 equivalence of 25 understates the impact of reduced CH4 by 70% versus 10-year CO2 e. This is because CH4 has a life of 12 years while CO2 takes 330 years to drop to 20% of emissions and thousands of years to completely disappear. The 100-year CO2 e of methane is 25, while the IPCC 10-year equivalence is 91.  N20, which lives 150 years, is roughly the same with a 100-yr e of 298 and 10-year e of 275.  Bottom line: correctly made biochar added to compost or manure has a major impact on radiative forcing.   

  

Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095

 

 

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:15 AM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:

did anyone attempt at "weighing" the bacteria and fungi that can grow on biochar ? 

 

for any kg / pound of biochar added to the soil how much organic matter in the form of bacteria and fungi can we expect ?

 

can anyone guesstimate % of biomass weight that we can add to biochar by biocharging it with compost tea or similar approaches ?

 

did some google scholar searching but I guess I did not use the right keywords

 

thanks 

 

Tomaso

 


--
Thomas R Casten
tr9casten@...
630-915-9215


Re: Impacting the seasonal Keeling curve RE: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #blockchai

Mark Ludlow
 

Very useful links! Thank you!
Mark

 


From: main@biochar.groups.io on behalf of Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 9:00 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io; carbondioxideremoval@...
Subject: Re: Impacting the seasonal Keeling curve RE: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #CDR #blockchai
 

I have worked out this slide to visualize the annual cycle of CO2

 

I think it’s important because it gives us the scale of the “vegetation” factor through seasons

 

The base chart and the underlaying data comes from

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

 

T

 

Da: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Per conto di Paul S Anderson
Inviato: venerdì 27 marzo 2020 14:32
A: main@Biochar.groups.io; carbondioxideremoval@...
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Oggetto: Impacting the seasonal Keeling curve RE: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #CDR #blockchai

 

Roger,     (I am sending this message also to the CDR listserv where there might be further discussion – see prior messages below mine.)

Sorry, I changed the Subject line to express the direction of the topic.

 

Please include me in your “study group” (or whatever name might apply).   I have a few contributions regarding biochar production from seasonal crop residue.

 

Regarding Robert’s statement:   

“capturing and pyrolizing residual biomass to drive the downward leg of the jigsaw further downward.”

 

I think a more clear wording would be:

capturing and pyrolyzing seasonal residual biomass to reduce the rise of the upward leg so that the next year’s downward leg (which would be the same annual amount of CO2 removal by photosynthesis) will extend slightly lower than the previous year (except that the current annual net positive rise from fossil fuels overwhelms the impact of the biochar production from the seasonal residual biomass). 

 

If successful (and if other climate-friendly CO2 reductions and  removals can do their part), the “sawtooth” line would eventually become a horizontal sawtooth and would eventually “curve” downward when net world CO2 drawdown occurs.

 

For visually communicating our message of CDR and biochar as sequestration, perhaps a HIGHLY magnified segment of three sawtooths could be graphically displayed with the “contributing factors” labeled.  Factors would include “total annual seasonal biomass refuse” and the target of “seasonal biomass refuse reasonably eligible to become biochar”.    And within that latter amount, something like “crop residues currently burned in fields, producing polluting smoke and health hazards, such as in India and in northern Thailand”.  

 

[Unfortunately, anyone older than 40 might never see the downward curve on the world-wide Keeling curve.] 

 

Stay safe and healthy!!!

 

Paul

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Roger Faulkner via Groups.Io
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 5:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #CDR #blockchai

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

Yes, you do understand my idea. I would like to do some calculations about how much of that biomass that rots in the winter is from crop residues? Is there enough crop residues 2 stop the rise of carbon dioxide?

 

 It is clear from the curve itself that if we can capture all of that carbon and sequester 50% of it that we could stop the rise. But a lot of that is in places like savannas of Earth añd forest and I know I don't want to see those places turned into biochar farms. On the other hand existing firms could readily convert the crop residue to biochar if the price for carbon sequestration was high enough.

 

 

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 6:27 AM, ROBERT W GILLETT

Roger, 

My understanding of the jigsaw rise and fall of atmospheric CO2 is that the increase in vegetation growth in summer draws down the CO2 levels due to increased photosynthesis in the northern hemisphere where most of the vegetated and cultivated landmass exists. Your idea for a paper seems to focus on capturing and pyrolizing residual biomass to drive the downward leg of the jigsaw further downward. Would you like to elaborate on your approach?

Robert 


Re: biochar induced biota biomass #biota

Thomas Casten
 

Look at Chapter 8 of an Ebook cited in attached excerpt dealing with biochar impact on changes in soil organic carbon
In summary, meta-studies found a mean 3.8% per year increase in SOC but values included 0 within 95% confidence range. Longer-term studies show a 15% SOC increase with BC, but the results depend on the BC characteristics and soil, so more research is needed.
Everyone should be aware that the portion of this chapter dealing with the impact on climate change notes the impact of biochar on reducing CH4 and N20 emissions, but uses the 100-year CO2 equivalence, which seriously understates the reduction of near-term radiative forcing. Studies show BC addition to compost and to manure reduces CH4 emissions, but use of 100-year CO2 equivalence of 25 understates the impact of reduced CH4 by 70% versus 10-year CO2 e. This is because CH4 has a life of 12 years while CO2 takes 330 years to drop to 20% of emissions and thousands of years to completely disappear. The 100-year CO2 e of methane is 25, while the IPCC 10-year equivalence is 91.  N20, which lives 150 years, is roughly the same with a 100-yr e of 298 and 10-year e of 275.  Bottom line: correctly made biochar added to compost or manure has a major impact on radiative forcing.   
  
Thomas R Casten
Cell: 630-915-9215
Work: 630-321-1095



On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:15 AM Tomaso Bertoli - CISV <tomaso.bertoli@...> wrote:
did anyone attempt at "weighing" the bacteria and fungi that can grow on biochar ? 

for any kg / pound of biochar added to the soil how much organic matter in the form of bacteria and fungi can we expect ?

can anyone guesstimate % of biomass weight that we can add to biochar by biocharging it with compost tea or similar approaches ?

did some google scholar searching but I guess I did not use the right keywords

thanks 

Tomaso


--
Thomas R Casten
tr9casten@...
630-915-9215


Re: Impacting the seasonal Keeling curve RE: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #blockchai

Tomaso Bertoli - CISV
 

I have worked out this slide to visualize the annual cycle of CO2

 

I think it’s important because it gives us the scale of the “vegetation” factor through seasons

 

The base chart and the underlaying data comes from

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

 

T

 

Da: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> Per conto di Paul S Anderson
Inviato: venerdì 27 marzo 2020 14:32
A: main@Biochar.groups.io; carbondioxideremoval@...
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Oggetto: Impacting the seasonal Keeling curve RE: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #CDR #blockchai

 

Roger,     (I am sending this message also to the CDR listserv where there might be further discussion – see prior messages below mine.)

Sorry, I changed the Subject line to express the direction of the topic.

 

Please include me in your “study group” (or whatever name might apply).   I have a few contributions regarding biochar production from seasonal crop residue.

 

Regarding Robert’s statement:   

“capturing and pyrolizing residual biomass to drive the downward leg of the jigsaw further downward.”

 

I think a more clear wording would be:

capturing and pyrolyzing seasonal residual biomass to reduce the rise of the upward leg so that the next year’s downward leg (which would be the same annual amount of CO2 removal by photosynthesis) will extend slightly lower than the previous year (except that the current annual net positive rise from fossil fuels overwhelms the impact of the biochar production from the seasonal residual biomass). 

 

If successful (and if other climate-friendly CO2 reductions and  removals can do their part), the “sawtooth” line would eventually become a horizontal sawtooth and would eventually “curve” downward when net world CO2 drawdown occurs.

 

For visually communicating our message of CDR and biochar as sequestration, perhaps a HIGHLY magnified segment of three sawtooths could be graphically displayed with the “contributing factors” labeled.  Factors would include “total annual seasonal biomass refuse” and the target of “seasonal biomass refuse reasonably eligible to become biochar”.    And within that latter amount, something like “crop residues currently burned in fields, producing polluting smoke and health hazards, such as in India and in northern Thailand”.  

 

[Unfortunately, anyone older than 40 might never see the downward curve on the world-wide Keeling curve.] 

 

Stay safe and healthy!!!

 

Paul

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website:   www.drtlud.com

     Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

     Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

     Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org  to support woodgas (TLUD) projects

     incl. purchase of Woodgas Emission Reduction (WER) carbon credits

     and please tell you friends about these distinctive service efforts.

Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)

     with pages 88 – 94 about  solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Roger Faulkner via Groups.Io
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 5:55 AM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] #carbonsequestration #CDR #ccs #CDR #blockchai

 

[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...]

Yes, you do understand my idea. I would like to do some calculations about how much of that biomass that rots in the winter is from crop residues? Is there enough crop residues 2 stop the rise of carbon dioxide?

 

 It is clear from the curve itself that if we can capture all of that carbon and sequester 50% of it that we could stop the rise. But a lot of that is in places like savannas of Earth añd forest and I know I don't want to see those places turned into biochar farms. On the other hand existing firms could readily convert the crop residue to biochar if the price for carbon sequestration was high enough.

 

 

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 6:27 AM, ROBERT W GILLETT

Roger, 

My understanding of the jigsaw rise and fall of atmospheric CO2 is that the increase in vegetation growth in summer draws down the CO2 levels due to increased photosynthesis in the northern hemisphere where most of the vegetated and cultivated landmass exists. Your idea for a paper seems to focus on capturing and pyrolizing residual biomass to drive the downward leg of the jigsaw further downward. Would you like to elaborate on your approach?

Robert 


Re: [New post] The Healthy Soils Program benefits organic producers! #organic

Kwame Frimpong
 

Wayne
Clearly your post  could not have come at a better time and particularly, for those of us living and working in Africa. For most parts of sub Saharan Africa the soils are highly weathered and mostly deficient in soil nutrients. Consequently, our already low yields are fast declining. In the face of burgeoning African population and the urgent need to adopt sustainable agricultural intensification, soil fertility management and soil conservation as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation are of very critical concern. In our countries, also, waste disposal is a huge challenge but given that our countries are less industrialized our domestic wastes, which contain in excess of 60% of organic components,  are important sources of plant nutrients if they are recycled.  However, these are often indiscriminately  disposed of resulting in soil, air and water pollution. Now that Covid-19 has shown that there is only ONE world, it is about time that we saw our biochar and compost research from a global perspective. The Africa Soil Initiative being championed by Tom Miles and colleagues from IBI is struggling to secure research funding support to initiate biochar-focused research activities in Africa. I hope we can now see the urgent need to support this worthy cause.
Kwame
Prof. Kwame Agyei Frimpong
(Associate professor in Soil Science & Soil Fertility)
Department of Soil Science, 
School of Agriculture,
School of Agriculture and Natural Sciences
University of Cape Coast
Ghana
+233268690780



On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 9:51 AM Teel, Wayne <teelws@...> wrote:

Rick,

 

Yes, nature is telling us something.  It’s been telling us a long time, but the economy has dominated the conversation so much it is hard to hear the message.  Now we can see the message clearly (pun intended) but can we keep it that way?  And when the EPA decides to relax pollution regulations to help companies survive the economic issues of the virus, will the air come back even worse?

 

I don’t know if you saw Kelpie Wilson’s webinar on Tuesday.  It was well worth the time and what she is talking about is highly scalable.  I have looked at our waste disposal site and they are getting lots of organic material from around the city and county all the time and it is just rotting into the air without doing much good for anyone.  I don’t have a number on tons or kg per day, but it is likely enough to support a biochar operation, and a lot of food waste comes there too.  I think it is time to do an investigation about implementing your type of system locally, whether a large batch operation or a continuous feed system.  I will use your graphics and see if I get any nibbles from the local waste management people.

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:22 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [New post] The Healthy Soils Program benefits organic producers!

 

Wayne of course you can use these files.  I don’t need any credit. 

 

I agree that tipping fees can pay for producing biochar. This is my game plan. 

But any scale is a good scale, small, local, over time, perhaps is better. 

 

Could be this virus changes the way we think about our role in the environment, and how we impact it.  

You would not believe how clear the air is, and how blue the ocean is right now in Southern California. Astonishing. 

Nature is telling is something. 

 

Rick

 



On Mar 27, 2020, at 3:00 AM, Teel, Wayne <teelws@...> wrote:

 

Rick and all,

 

I like your images.  As a professor/teacher I love to use things like this in classes, so consider this my asking permission to do so.  I won’t use them this year.  Classes are only on line now and we are not even allowed to meet with students because of Covid-19.  Even though $50 is not that much, when you add in the tipping fees saved from both the woody biomass and kitchen/grocery waste (just coffee grounds alone in a city) the dollars add up even before you sell the product.  I have a student working at a local farm associated with a retirement community, and that community sends all their organic waste to the farm.  We are charring the woody biomass using a flame-cap device like the ones Kelpie Wilson describes and then they compost it.  This season it will be the source of nutrient for the farm, whose produce all goes back to the kitchens of the retirement community.  Same kind of cycle you are describing, just that the scale is much smaller and the product is not for sale at the end.  Unfortunately the student is not able to complete the study because of the virus.

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:50 PM
To: 
main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [New post] The Healthy Soils Program benefits organic producers!

 

Hi Ron,
California moves at its own pace.  But once it's in, it goes all in. 

Currently you can get paid $50 per DRY ton for co-composted biochar with the CDFA grants. 
A gasifier char, which is dry, will have a density of #10 per cubic foot, which is 270# per cubic yard. 
So one ton (2000#) of biochar is 7.4 cubic yards. 7.4 cubic yards/ton x $50 = $370 per cubic yard, that's a lot of money for biochar!

My understanding is that the CDFA is coming the the conclusion that biochar stabilizes organic matter.
I am told there is a Lawrence Livermore study but I have not seen it.   And there are others of course. 

I can tell you that biochar is making it into the research programs of the largest compost operators in the state. 
(And they are calling me to help them)

Please see the attached drawings, which is how I am telling them the story of biochar and compost, and where the waste companies fit in. 
These are copyright protected, but I am happy to grant access as long as I know where they are being used (not to compete against me, but with me).

Rick 

 


The Three Most Important Graphs in Climate Change #climate

Kim Chaffee
 

All,
I hadn’t seen climate change explained as clearly before I read this article.  Foley, of Project Drawdown, is a big believer in natural climate solutions.
Kim




Re: [New post] The Healthy Soils Program benefits organic producers! #organic

Teel, Wayne
 

Rick,

 

Yes, nature is telling us something.  It’s been telling us a long time, but the economy has dominated the conversation so much it is hard to hear the message.  Now we can see the message clearly (pun intended) but can we keep it that way?  And when the EPA decides to relax pollution regulations to help companies survive the economic issues of the virus, will the air come back even worse?

 

I don’t know if you saw Kelpie Wilson’s webinar on Tuesday.  It was well worth the time and what she is talking about is highly scalable.  I have looked at our waste disposal site and they are getting lots of organic material from around the city and county all the time and it is just rotting into the air without doing much good for anyone.  I don’t have a number on tons or kg per day, but it is likely enough to support a biochar operation, and a lot of food waste comes there too.  I think it is time to do an investigation about implementing your type of system locally, whether a large batch operation or a continuous feed system.  I will use your graphics and see if I get any nibbles from the local waste management people.

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via Groups.Io
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2020 12:22 AM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [New post] The Healthy Soils Program benefits organic producers!

 

Wayne of course you can use these files.  I don’t need any credit. 

 

I agree that tipping fees can pay for producing biochar. This is my game plan. 

But any scale is a good scale, small, local, over time, perhaps is better. 

 

Could be this virus changes the way we think about our role in the environment, and how we impact it.  

You would not believe how clear the air is, and how blue the ocean is right now in Southern California. Astonishing. 

Nature is telling is something. 

 

Rick

 



On Mar 27, 2020, at 3:00 AM, Teel, Wayne <teelws@...> wrote:

 

Rick and all,

 

I like your images.  As a professor/teacher I love to use things like this in classes, so consider this my asking permission to do so.  I won’t use them this year.  Classes are only on line now and we are not even allowed to meet with students because of Covid-19.  Even though $50 is not that much, when you add in the tipping fees saved from both the woody biomass and kitchen/grocery waste (just coffee grounds alone in a city) the dollars add up even before you sell the product.  I have a student working at a local farm associated with a retirement community, and that community sends all their organic waste to the farm.  We are charring the woody biomass using a flame-cap device like the ones Kelpie Wilson describes and then they compost it.  This season it will be the source of nutrient for the farm, whose produce all goes back to the kitchens of the retirement community.  Same kind of cycle you are describing, just that the scale is much smaller and the product is not for sale at the end.  Unfortunately the student is not able to complete the study because of the virus.

 

Wayne

 

From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Rick Wilson via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:50 PM
To: 
main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] [New post] The Healthy Soils Program benefits organic producers!

 

Hi Ron,
California moves at its own pace.  But once it's in, it goes all in. 

Currently you can get paid $50 per DRY ton for co-composted biochar with the CDFA grants. 
A gasifier char, which is dry, will have a density of #10 per cubic foot, which is 270# per cubic yard. 
So one ton (2000#) of biochar is 7.4 cubic yards. 7.4 cubic yards/ton x $50 = $370 per cubic yard, that's a lot of money for biochar!

My understanding is that the CDFA is coming the the conclusion that biochar stabilizes organic matter.
I am told there is a Lawrence Livermore study but I have not seen it.   And there are others of course. 

I can tell you that biochar is making it into the research programs of the largest compost operators in the state. 
(And they are calling me to help them)

Please see the attached drawings, which is how I am telling them the story of biochar and compost, and where the waste companies fit in. 
These are copyright protected, but I am happy to grant access as long as I know where they are being used (not to compete against me, but with me).

Rick 

 

3901 - 3920 of 30803