|
John and list, cc Ken
Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.)
But I wanted to add two other topics:
a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr.
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Biocahr in field.
Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT
Good share for the biochar discussion list.
Best,
- John
GO Biochar! 801-870-2465 mobile
|
|
|
Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies.
add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a)
a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments
I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS.
b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work.
beginning of response below.
(With apologies for sending this in two parts.)
Ron
John and list, cc Ken
Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.)
But I wanted to add two other topics:
a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr.
b).
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Biocahr in field.
Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT
Good share for the biochar discussion list.
Best,
- John
GO Biochar! 801-870-2465 mobile
|
|
|
KK Sahoo is very interested in working with information from commercial operations to ground truth his models. He has used inputs from contractors. Thanks to the Forest Products Laboratory for their support. Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc. tmiles@... Sent from mobile.
On Sep 25, 2020, at 12:01 PM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies.
add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a)
a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments
I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS.
b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work.
beginning of response below.
(With apologies for sending this in two parts.)
Ron
John and list, cc Ken
Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.)
But I wanted to add two other topics:
a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr.
b).
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Biocahr in field.
Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT
Good share for the biochar discussion list.
Best,
- John
GO Biochar! 801-870-2465 mobile
|
|
|
We are working on funding for in-field biochar production in Park City, Utah, in 2021. Focus on agricultural waste streams and hazardous forest fuels removal. Park City is a mountain town with three ski resorts. They understand the importance of biochar in soil health and forest resilience.
Planning on slightly modified versions of Oregon and Ring of Fire kilns.
I look forward to Dr Sahoo's webinar being published.
- John
801-870-2465 mobile (best)
276-BIO-CHAR office Web: gobiochar.com
Twitter/Instagram/Facebook: @gobiochar
From: "Tom Miles" <tmiles@...>
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Cc: "john" <john@...>, biochar@groups.io, "ken carloni" <ken.carloni@...>, "kamalakanta sahoo" <kamalakanta.sahoo@...>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 1:58:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field.
KK Sahoo is very interested in working with information from commercial operations to ground truth his models. He has used inputs from contractors. Thanks to the Forest Products Laboratory for their support. Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc. tmiles@... Sent from mobile. On Sep 25, 2020, at 12:01 PM, Ron Larson <rongretlarson@...> wrote:
Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies.
add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a)
a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments
I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS.
b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work.
beginning of response below.
(With apologies for sending this in two parts.)
Ron
John and list, cc Ken
Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.)
But I wanted to add two other topics:
a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr.
b).
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Biocahr in field.
Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT
Good share for the biochar discussion list.
Best,
- John
GO Biochar! 801-870-2465 mobile
|
|
|
I love it that, in the Capitol Hill story, Ken Carloni is seen making a “Kelpie type kiln” from used solar collectors.
Given the high growth rate of the solar PV industry, disposing of used solar panels is already becoming a major problem. Used panels have virtually no commercial value or cost money to dispose of. If they could be recycled into biochar kilns that are able to be assembled on site, that would be very useful outcome. The following Grist article describes the disposal problem and one approach to addressing it.
On Sep 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, John Webster < john@...> wrote:
We are working on funding for in-field biochar production in Park City, Utah, in 2021. Focus on agricultural waste streams and hazardous forest fuels removal. Park City is a mountain town with three ski resorts. They understand the importance of biochar in soil health and forest resilience.
Planning on slightly modified versions of Oregon and Ring of Fire kilns.
I look forward to Dr Sahoo's webinar being published.
- John
801-870-2465 mobile (best)
276-BIO-CHAR office
From: "Tom Miles" < tmiles@...> To: main@biochar.groups.ioCc: "john" <john@...>, biochar@groups.io, "ken carloni" <ken.carloni@...>, "kamalakanta sahoo" <kamalakanta.sahoo@...> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 1:58:02 PM Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field.
KK Sahoo is very interested in working with information from commercial operations to ground truth his models. He has used inputs from contractors. Thanks to the Forest Products Laboratory for their support. Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc. Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies.
add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a)
a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments
I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS.
b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work.
beginning of response below.
(With apologies for sending this in two parts.)
Ron
John and list, cc Ken
Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.)
But I wanted to add two other topics:
a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr.
b).
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Biocahr in field.
Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT
Good share for the biochar discussion list.
Best,
- John
GO Biochar! 801-870-2465 mobile
|
|
|
Those were solar hot water panels, not PV. Just the metal frames as the plumbing was taken out.
-- Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
Hi All -- I tried to send the message below, but the listserv is configured so that only members (which I am now -- thank you Ron) can reply.
Nice to join you all.
-- KC
Hi Kim et al. -- I need to make a clarification about the recycled solar panels: these are first generation (late 1970s?) flat plate collectors for solar hot water to heat a building on the college campus from which I've recently retired (NOT PV panels). After they failed and were removed, I bought about 100 for a buck apiece several years ago thinking I could use the parts for other projects and recycle the rest. I removed the glass and the copper and aluminum transfer tubing leaving just the shallow 4" X 79" X 39" steel boxes (20 ga). I then simply used sheet metal screws to assemble 6 panels in the field to make an approx 6' X 13' bin. This worked well to accommodate our feedstock of mostly Doug fir and incense cedar limbs and tops from our 12 acre oak habitat restoration project. They've undergone 6 to 7 burns and are still in fairly good shape -- I'm guessing they could survive at least twice again as many burns. I sent Ron a copy of a case study I recently wrote (attached here as well) discussing among other things an evaluation of the 6 types of flame cap kilns we used. In another pilot study, we used a double walled version of this kiln insulated with rock wool to char >3 tons of green feedstock. Lab analysis showed that we had captured 30-40% of the feedstock C in the resulting char. I've attached a sidebar outlining the methods and preliminary data from this pilot that I created for an upcoming report from a team headed up by Jim Amonette that includes Tom and I assume many others on this list. I've also been designing and building 6 to 9 cu.yd. modular kilns that can be broken down for transport, easily moved by human power in rough terrain, and reassembled in the field in multiple configurations (see Fig. 9 of Yew Creek report).
Thanks -- KC
I love it that, in the Capitol Hill story, Ken Carloni is seen making a “Kelpie type kiln” from used solar collectors.
Given the high growth rate of the solar PV industry, disposing of used solar panels is already becoming a major problem. Used panels have virtually no commercial value or cost money to dispose of. If they could be recycled into biochar kilns that are able to be assembled on site, that would be very useful outcome. The following Grist article describes the disposal problem and one approach to addressing it.
Kim
On Sep 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, John Webster < john@...> wrote:
We are working on funding for in-field biochar production in Park City, Utah, in 2021. Focus on agricultural waste streams and hazardous forest fuels removal. Park City is a mountain town with three ski resorts. They understand the importance of biochar in soil health and forest resilience.
Planning on slightly modified versions of Oregon and Ring of Fire kilns.
I look forward to Dr Sahoo's webinar being published.
- John
801-870-2465 mobile (best)
276-BIO-CHAR office
KK Sahoo is very interested in working with information from commercial operations to ground truth his models. He has used inputs from contractors. Thanks to the Forest Products Laboratory for their support. Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc. Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies.
add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a)
a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments
I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS.
b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work.
beginning of response below.
(With apologies for sending this in two parts.)
Ron
John and list, cc Ken
Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.)
But I wanted to add two other topics:
a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr.
b).
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Biocahr in field.
Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT
Good share for the biochar discussion list.
Best,
- John
GO Biochar! 801-870-2465 mobile
-- Ken Carloni, Ph.D. Botanist/Forest Ecologist
Ecosystem Restoration and Biochar Consulting 1 (541) 672-1914
|
|
|
Ken Carloni and Darren McAvoy of Utah State are both working on Big Box biochar kiln designs. I am focussing more on the smaller hand-fed kilns - Oregon Kiln and my new Ring of Fire kiln. All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air).
All three of us have converged on some basic design principles that include:
1. The right shapes to minimize surface to volume ratio so you don't lose heat out the sides. You don't count the base that is insulated by the ground, or the top where the flame cap is. Cones and troughs are not the best for this. Cylinders and rectangles are better. Sloping sides are handy for stacking kilns (like Oregon kiln) but not needed for operation.
2. Not too tall so you have the option of hand loading. Machines can actually be slow and inefficient and may be best for delivering loads of feedstock to the hand crew.
3. A heat shield makes a big difference. Holds in more heat for faster processing. It also helps a lot to protect workers from radiant heat that causes fatigue and dehydration. And it provides pre-heated air through the gap that contributes to the counterflow fluid dynamics that keep smoke in the hot zone longer for cleaner combustion.
4.Quenching can be with water or with a snuffer lid. If using a snuffer lid, bigger kilns will take more than a day to cool down, so your kiln will be out of action for that period. If using water, you can either flood and stir, or dump, spread and spray. Unburned brands should be removed and set aside for the next burn, or left on the ground for the microbes to eat.
5. Feedstock considerations #1: Size. Most important is uniform size. Start with small brush and let it burn till it chars and falls to the bottom in a layer of glowing coals. Then start adding bigger material if you have it. The flame front will move up and the small brush char you made will be protected from air so it does not burn up. Bigger logs (4 to 6 inches diameter) evolve more gas and heat and can char all at the same time in a stack of uniform material. If you mix smaller stuff it will just burn up to ash before big stuff is charred.This is why the Air Burner demos have shown poor efficiency. An Air Burner is just a flame cap kiln with an active counterflow provided by a blower. It is meant for incineration and people are used to throwing giant logs, stumps and everything in there to burn to ash for waste disposal. This will not make char. The Air Burner needs to be operated like a flame cap kiln. You don't even really need the blower if you do it right. And don't try to char big stumps and giant logs. It won't work and you will get mostly ash.
6. Feedstock considerations #2: Moisture. Dry is best, but green is good. Ken and I are starting to char green brush. Green brush actually has more fuel value than dry brush because it still has volatiles. It also has water, so that takes more heat to evaporate, so it's a trade-off. If the green brush is small enough and you have dry material to get started, you can add green once you have a bed of hot coals and it chars just fine. This is important for labor saving so you don't have to do more than one entry to the site. You can cut, drag and char all on the same day. It is probably also making a somewhat lower temperature char, but there is no data yet.
7. It would be really great to get some funding to test emissions, char conversion efficiencies, char characteristics, and field operations and logistics of different designs. I am sure we can make more improvements if we have a little support beyond our own pocket books.
-Kelpie -- Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
Kelpie and listl:
I’m just starting to read the report by Dr. Sahoo (available from him) - behind this week's USFS/USBI. webinar. Any recommendations on what to look most closely at - for all 3 or just your Oregon kiln? Especially interested of course in ways to cut char costs.
On Sep 26, 2020, at 7:25 PM, Kelpie Wilson < kelpiew@...> wrote:
Ken Carloni and Darren McAvoy of Utah State are both working on Big Box biochar kiln designs. I am focussing more on the smaller hand-fed kilns - Oregon Kiln and my new Ring of Fire kiln. All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air).
All three of us have converged on some basic design principles that include:
1. The right shapes to minimize surface to volume ratio so you don't lose heat out the sides. You don't count the base that is insulated by the ground, or the top where the flame cap is. Cones and troughs are not the best for this. Cylinders and rectangles are better. Sloping sides are handy for stacking kilns (like Oregon kiln) but not needed for operation.
2. Not too tall so you have the option of hand loading. Machines can actually be slow and inefficient and may be best for delivering loads of feedstock to the hand crew.
3. A heat shield makes a big difference. Holds in more heat for faster processing. It also helps a lot to protect workers from radiant heat that causes fatigue and dehydration. And it provides pre-heated air through the gap that contributes to the counterflow fluid dynamics that keep smoke in the hot zone longer for cleaner combustion.
4.Quenching can be with water or with a snuffer lid. If using a snuffer lid, bigger kilns will take more than a day to cool down, so your kiln will be out of action for that period. If using water, you can either flood and stir, or dump, spread and spray. Unburned brands should be removed and set aside for the next burn, or left on the ground for the microbes to eat.
5. Feedstock considerations #1: Size. Most important is uniform size. Start with small brush and let it burn till it chars and falls to the bottom in a layer of glowing coals. Then start adding bigger material if you have it. The flame front will move up and the small brush char you made will be protected from air so it does not burn up. Bigger logs (4 to 6 inches diameter) evolve more gas and heat and can char all at the same time in a stack of uniform material. If you mix smaller stuff it will just burn up to ash before big stuff is charred.This is why the Air Burner demos have shown poor efficiency. An Air Burner is just a flame cap kiln with an active counterflow provided by a blower. It is meant for incineration and people are used to throwing giant logs, stumps and everything in there to burn to ash for waste disposal. This will not make char. The Air Burner needs to be operated like a flame cap kiln. You don't even really need the blower if you do it right. And don't try to char big stumps and giant logs. It won't work and you will get mostly ash.
6. Feedstock considerations #2: Moisture. Dry is best, but green is good. Ken and I are starting to char green brush. Green brush actually has more fuel value than dry brush because it still has volatiles. It also has water, so that takes more heat to evaporate, so it's a trade-off. If the green brush is small enough and you have dry material to get started, you can add green once you have a bed of hot coals and it chars just fine. This is important for labor saving so you don't have to do more than one entry to the site. You can cut, drag and char all on the same day. It is probably also making a somewhat lower temperature char, but there is no data yet.
7. It would be really great to get some funding to test emissions, char conversion efficiencies, char characteristics, and field operations and logistics of different designs. I am sure we can make more improvements if we have a little support beyond our own pocket books.
-Kelpie -- Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
Kelpie and all,
The statement is not correct: “All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air).”
Flame cap deserves recognition for being something useful with distinctive flows of air. I am a strong advocate for flame cap devices, which I refer to as cavity kilns, which can be with an open top or with a (mostly) covered top.
Flame cap technology is distinct from what are the established “gasifier” technologies. An updraft gasifier is defined as having air entering at the bottom. Let’s not put flame cap and gasifiers in the same category.
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
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See
www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at
www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Kelpie Wilson via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 8:26 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field.
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to
abuse@...]
Ken Carloni and Darren McAvoy of Utah State are both working on Big Box biochar kiln designs. I am focussing more on the smaller hand-fed kilns - Oregon Kiln and my new Ring of Fire kiln. All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they
work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air).
All three of us have converged on some basic design principles that include:
1. The right shapes to minimize surface to volume ratio so you don't lose heat out the sides. You don't count the base that is insulated by the ground, or the top where the flame cap is. Cones and troughs are not the best for this. Cylinders
and rectangles are better. Sloping sides are handy for stacking kilns (like Oregon kiln) but not needed for operation.
2. Not too tall so you have the option of hand loading. Machines can actually be slow and inefficient and may be best for delivering loads of feedstock to the hand crew.
3. A heat shield makes a big difference. Holds in more heat for faster processing. It also helps a lot to protect workers from radiant heat that causes fatigue and dehydration. And it provides pre-heated air through the gap that contributes
to the counterflow fluid dynamics that keep smoke in the hot zone longer for cleaner combustion.
4.Quenching can be with water or with a snuffer lid. If using a snuffer lid, bigger kilns will take more than a day to cool down, so your kiln will be out of action for that period. If using water, you can either flood and stir, or dump,
spread and spray. Unburned brands should be removed and set aside for the next burn, or left on the ground for the microbes to eat.
5. Feedstock considerations #1: Size. Most important is uniform size. Start with small brush and let it burn till it chars and falls to the bottom in a layer of glowing coals. Then start adding bigger material if you have it. The flame
front will move up and the small brush char you made will be protected from air so it does not burn up. Bigger logs (4 to 6 inches diameter) evolve more gas and heat and can char all at the same time in a stack of uniform material. If you mix smaller stuff
it will just burn up to ash before big stuff is charred.This is why the Air Burner demos have shown poor efficiency. An Air Burner is just a flame cap kiln with an active counterflow provided by a blower. It is meant for incineration and people are used to
throwing giant logs, stumps and everything in there to burn to ash for waste disposal. This will not make char. The Air Burner needs to be operated like a flame cap kiln. You don't even really need the blower if you do it right. And don't try to char big stumps
and giant logs. It won't work and you will get mostly ash.
6. Feedstock considerations #2: Moisture. Dry is best, but green is good. Ken and I are starting to char green brush. Green brush actually has more fuel value than dry brush because it still has volatiles. It also has water, so that takes
more heat to evaporate, so it's a trade-off. If the green brush is small enough and you have dry material to get started, you can add green once you have a bed of hot coals and it chars just fine. This is important for labor saving so you don't have to do
more than one entry to the site. You can cut, drag and char all on the same day. It is probably also making a somewhat lower temperature char, but there is no data yet.
7. It would be really great to get some funding to test emissions, char conversion efficiencies, char characteristics, and field operations and logistics of different designs. I am sure we can make more improvements if we have a little
support beyond our own pocket books.
--
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
Ron,
I attended Dr. Sahoo’s webinar and found it to be excellent. Some real comparative studies of 3 important char-making techniques. The value is in the comparisons. The webinar should be available soon at the
https://www.fs.fed.us/research/biochar-webinars/
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
Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See
www.woodgas.com
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at
www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Ron Larson via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 9:25 PM
To: main@biochar.groups.io; Kelpie Wilson <kelpiew@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field.
Kelpie and listl:
I’m just starting to read the report by Dr. Sahoo (available from him) - behind this week's USFS/USBI. webinar. Any recommendations on what to look most closely at - for all 3 or just your Oregon kiln? Especially interested of course
in ways to cut char costs.
Ron
On Sep 26, 2020, at 7:25 PM, Kelpie Wilson <kelpiew@...> wrote:
Ken Carloni and Darren McAvoy of Utah State are both working on Big Box biochar kiln designs. I am focussing more on the smaller hand-fed kilns - Oregon Kiln and my new Ring of Fire kiln. All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they
work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air).
All three of us have converged on some basic design principles that include:
1. The right shapes to minimize surface to volume ratio so you don't lose heat out the sides. You don't count the base that is insulated by the ground, or the top where the flame cap is. Cones and troughs are not the best for this. Cylinders
and rectangles are better. Sloping sides are handy for stacking kilns (like Oregon kiln) but not needed for operation.
2. Not too tall so you have the option of hand loading. Machines can actually be slow and inefficient and may be best for delivering loads of feedstock to the hand crew.
3. A heat shield makes a big difference. Holds in more heat for faster processing. It also helps a lot to protect workers from radiant heat that causes fatigue and dehydration. And it provides pre-heated air through the gap that contributes
to the counterflow fluid dynamics that keep smoke in the hot zone longer for cleaner combustion.
4.Quenching can be with water or with a snuffer lid. If using a snuffer lid, bigger kilns will take more than a day to cool down, so your kiln will be out of action for that period. If using water, you can either flood and stir, or dump,
spread and spray. Unburned brands should be removed and set aside for the next burn, or left on the ground for the microbes to eat.
5. Feedstock considerations #1: Size. Most important is uniform size. Start with small brush and let it burn till it chars and falls to the bottom in a layer of glowing coals. Then start adding bigger material if you have it. The flame
front will move up and the small brush char you made will be protected from air so it does not burn up. Bigger logs (4 to 6 inches diameter) evolve more gas and heat and can char all at the same time in a stack of uniform material. If you mix smaller stuff
it will just burn up to ash before big stuff is charred.This is why the Air Burner demos have shown poor efficiency. An Air Burner is just a flame cap kiln with an active counterflow provided by a blower. It is meant for incineration and people are used to
throwing giant logs, stumps and everything in there to burn to ash for waste disposal. This will not make char. The Air Burner needs to be operated like a flame cap kiln. You don't even really need the blower if you do it right. And don't try to char big stumps
and giant logs. It won't work and you will get mostly ash.
6. Feedstock considerations #2: Moisture. Dry is best, but green is good. Ken and I are starting to char green brush. Green brush actually has more fuel value than dry brush because it still has volatiles. It also has water, so that takes
more heat to evaporate, so it's a trade-off. If the green brush is small enough and you have dry material to get started, you can add green once you have a bed of hot coals and it chars just fine. This is important for labor saving so you don't have to do
more than one entry to the site. You can cut, drag and char all on the same day. It is probably also making a somewhat lower temperature char, but there is no data yet.
7. It would be really great to get some funding to test emissions, char conversion efficiencies, char characteristics, and field operations and logistics of different designs. I am sure we can make more improvements if we have a little
support beyond our own pocket books.
--
Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
Hi Paul,
I am using the term "gasifier" somewhat loosely. Gasification is really staged combustion that separates gases from solids and it occurs in a similar way in a lot of devices such as furnaces and boilers. I mainly want to distinguish between updraft and downdraft because downdraft gasifiers are quite a distinct technology where the gas passes through the hot char bed. The issue here is char characteristics. I can make biochar in a barrel TLUD, a flame cap kiln, or an open burn pile from the same feedstocks and it will have very similar characteristics. If I made it in a retort or a charcoal clamp, it would be different.
As always, temperature, pressure, particle size, residence time and feedstock determine the characteristics.
-Kelpie
|
|
|
Yes KK is doing important work. The data came from the Waste to Wisdom project and the original report was produced by Maureen Puettmann of Woodlife Consulting http://www.woodlifeconsulting.com/staffHere is the report, or you can download it from my website: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/55a2e356-17ba-48af-b8c3-a76d3f66be29/downloads/w2w-biochar-lca-final-report.pdf?ver=1600466012213I was a co-author and I provided data and helped to develop the models. I also wrote a literature review of biochar LCA as part of the introduction that has a lot of references if you are interested in biochar LCA. The data for the BSI machine was produced by Schatz Center at Humboldt State University and it was much more robust and complete than the data for the Oregon Kiln and the Air Burner. Those data were supplied by me, based on my experience working with the Umpqua Biochar Education Team on a 17 acre stewardship contract with the USFS (Oregon Kiln) and my observations of an Air Burner working on a USFS thinning project on the Rogue-Siskiyou NF. Jack LeRoy was the contractor who operated the Air Burner and he kindly provided me with his estimates of operating parameters and outputs.
For the Oregon Kiln we used emissions data from Cornelissen, G., Pandit, N. R., Taylor, P., Pandit, B. H., Sparrevik, M., & Schmidt, H. P. (2016). Emissions and Char Quality of Flame-Curtain" Kon Tiki" Kilns for Farmer-Scale Charcoal/Biochar Production. PloS one, 11(5), e0154617.
To my knowledge, this is still the only published emissions data for any form of flame cap kiln. We assumed that the Air Burner would have the same emissions profile. The lack of emissions data on these devices is a big problem.
What I love about KK's work is that he has added the economic side to our LCA. And he has created a model that we can use to evaluate such systems going forward.
|
|
|
Yes Kelpie,
… as well as the quench method and kind of liquids used. You can make char water repellent by snuffing it out for example with sand as I recently seen it in an example.
If we wish to have floating char for some reason . The post carbonisation process and blends will also determine the agronomic an d many other characteristics of the biochar material.
I allow the pig urine/ piggery slurry that I quench to soak for a night or so and then when the kilns get emptied the coarse material goes through a multi blade garden shredder and then cures / composts, drains and matures for about 6 weeks and then this fine, moist odorless substrate gets bagged and sold to many returning and happy customers of all walks of life at the local weekly Harvest Market, through direct sales from our Market Garden, in various regional Garden Centres and even delivered to pickup depots / outlets further away via on line payments. …
Works well in many ways as what goes around comes around!!
Anyone can check out the photos on FRANK’s CHAR Tasmania Facebook site as pictures tell the story!!
Cheers and happy gardening/ farming and managing your forests
Frank
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kelpie Wilson
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 2:20 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field. Hi Paul,
I am using the term "gasifier" somewhat loosely. Gasification is really staged combustion that separates gases from solids and it occurs in a similar way in a lot of devices such as furnaces and boilers. I mainly want to distinguish between updraft and downdraft because downdraft gasifiers are quite a distinct technology where the gas passes through the hot char bed. The issue here is char characteristics. I can make biochar in a barrel TLUD, a flame cap kiln, or an open burn pile from the same feedstocks and it will have very similar characteristics. If I made it in a retort or a charcoal clamp, it would be different.
As always, temperature, pressure, particle size, residence time and feedstock determine the characteristics.
-Kelpie
|
|
|
Yes that is true Paul Anderson. Flame curtain kilns, especially the kind of deep cone kilns we designed in Tassie with a few internal features missing by most other flame curtain kilns( small to very BIG ones) I am aware of.
We also have an optional extra on our KON-TIKI-TAS Standard and KTT Stretch Cone Kiln models that we trade and ship to customers around Tasmania and mainland Australia these days.
Even after 6 years we keep modifying and improving our kilns by observation and by actually operating these units with all sorts of woody materials from slashed Blackberry shrubs , Grape Vines, Hazelnut grove material, and fruit tree branches and Olive grove material…. The post carbonisation process is also interesting and the carbon cascade issues.
It helps to live on the land and to grow things ourselves so we have a vertically integrated business situation involving the whole family clan incl. livestock and poultry …
We make, use, plant, grow consume, eat and drink the things that emerge on the properties here in Tassie ourselves and we can sell what we have surplus in the process, ornamental things, veggies, fruits and plants, kilns and technologies and consultation and presentations, the process continues now in my 14th year of intensive work with Terra Preta Developments…
3 generations in our family clan live it!! Cheers
Frank
from an amazing spring in Tassie, the sun is shining after good rain on Friday
(and Tassie is by now without CORONA for about 120 days or so, no strikes or protests in our streets)
PS: Now I am going out to plant potatoes and harvest fresh , juicy and tender Asparagus spears for dinner tonight.
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Paul S Anderson
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:43 PM
To: main@Biochar.groups.io
Cc: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field. Kelpie and all, The statement is not correct: “All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air).” Flame cap deserves recognition for being something useful with distinctive flows of air. I am a strong advocate for flame cap devices, which I refer to as cavity kilns, which can be with an open top or with a (mostly) covered top. Flame cap technology is distinct from what are the established “gasifier” technologies. An updraft gasifier is defined as having air entering at the bottom. Let’s not put flame cap and gasifiers in the same category. 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 Inventor of RoCC kilns for biochar and energy: See www.woodgas.com Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org) with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves. [This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to abuse@...] Ken Carloni and Darren McAvoy of Utah State are both working on Big Box biochar kiln designs. I am focussing more on the smaller hand-fed kilns - Oregon Kiln and my new Ring of Fire kiln. All of these kilns are Flame Cap Kilns and they work essentially as continuously fed updraft gasifiers (no bottom air). All three of us have converged on some basic design principles that include: 1. The right shapes to minimize surface to volume ratio so you don't lose heat out the sides. You don't count the base that is insulated by the ground, or the top where the flame cap is. Cones and troughs are not the best for this. Cylinders and rectangles are better. Sloping sides are handy for stacking kilns (like Oregon kiln) but not needed for operation. 2. Not too tall so you have the option of hand loading. Machines can actually be slow and inefficient and may be best for delivering loads of feedstock to the hand crew. 3. A heat shield makes a big difference. Holds in more heat for faster processing. It also helps a lot to protect workers from radiant heat that causes fatigue and dehydration. And it provides pre-heated air through the gap that contributes to the counterflow fluid dynamics that keep smoke in the hot zone longer for cleaner combustion. 4.Quenching can be with water or with a snuffer lid. If using a snuffer lid, bigger kilns will take more than a day to cool down, so your kiln will be out of action for that period. If using water, you can either flood and stir, or dump, spread and spray. Unburned brands should be removed and set aside for the next burn, or left on the ground for the microbes to eat. 5. Feedstock considerations #1: Size. Most important is uniform size. Start with small brush and let it burn till it chars and falls to the bottom in a layer of glowing coals. Then start adding bigger material if you have it. The flame front will move up and the small brush char you made will be protected from air so it does not burn up. Bigger logs (4 to 6 inches diameter) evolve more gas and heat and can char all at the same time in a stack of uniform material. If you mix smaller stuff it will just burn up to ash before big stuff is charred.This is why the Air Burner demos have shown poor efficiency. An Air Burner is just a flame cap kiln with an active counterflow provided by a blower. It is meant for incineration and people are used to throwing giant logs, stumps and everything in there to burn to ash for waste disposal. This will not make char. The Air Burner needs to be operated like a flame cap kiln. You don't even really need the blower if you do it right. And don't try to char big stumps and giant logs. It won't work and you will get mostly ash. 6. Feedstock considerations #2: Moisture. Dry is best, but green is good. Ken and I are starting to char green brush. Green brush actually has more fuel value than dry brush because it still has volatiles. It also has water, so that takes more heat to evaporate, so it's a trade-off. If the green brush is small enough and you have dry material to get started, you can add green once you have a bed of hot coals and it chars just fine. This is important for labor saving so you don't have to do more than one entry to the site. You can cut, drag and char all on the same day. It is probably also making a somewhat lower temperature char, but there is no data yet. 7. It would be really great to get some funding to test emissions, char conversion efficiencies, char characteristics, and field operations and logistics of different designs. I am sure we can make more improvements if we have a little support beyond our own pocket books. -- Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
All, When you sign up to chiochar@... your first message has to be approved by a moderator. That is one way we try to control spam. Once your message is approved you can post and reply freely. Tom Miles Biochar List Owner
From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ken Carloni
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:55 PM
To: Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...>
Cc: main@biochar.groups.io; Miles Tom <tmiles@...>; biochar@groups.io; kamalakanta sahoo <kamalakanta.sahoo@...>; '@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field. Hi All -- I tried to send the message below, but the listserv is configured so that only members (which I am now -- thank you Ron) can reply. Hi Kim et al. -- I need to make a clarification about the recycled solar panels: these are first generation (late 1970s?) flat plate collectors for solar hot water to heat a building on the college campus from which I've recently retired (NOT PV panels). After they failed and were removed, I bought about 100 for a buck apiece several years ago thinking I could use the parts for other projects and recycle the rest. I removed the glass and the copper and aluminum transfer tubing leaving just the shallow 4" X 79" X 39" steel boxes (20 ga). I then simply used sheet metal screws to assemble 6 panels in the field to make an approx 6' X 13' bin. This worked well to accommodate our feedstock of mostly Doug fir and incense cedar limbs and tops from our 12 acre oak habitat restoration project. They've undergone 6 to 7 burns and are still in fairly good shape -- I'm guessing they could survive at least twice again as many burns. I sent Ron a copy of a case study I recently wrote (attached here as well) discussing among other things an evaluation of the 6 types of flame cap kilns we used. In another pilot study, we used a double walled version of this kiln insulated with rock wool to char >3 tons of green feedstock. Lab analysis showed that we had captured 30-40% of the feedstock C in the resulting char. I've attached a sidebar outlining the methods and preliminary data from this pilot that I created for an upcoming report from a team headed up by Jim Amonette that includes Tom and I assume many others on this list. I've also been designing and building 6 to 9 cu.yd. modular kilns that can be broken down for transport, easily moved by human power in rough terrain, and reassembled in the field in multiple configurations (see Fig. 9 of Yew Creek report). I love it that, in the Capitol Hill story, Ken Carloni is seen making a “Kelpie type kiln” from used solar collectors. Given the high growth rate of the solar PV industry, disposing of used solar panels is already becoming a major problem. Used panels have virtually no commercial value or cost money to dispose of. If they could be recycled into biochar kilns that are able to be assembled on site, that would be very useful outcome. The following Grist article describes the disposal problem and one approach to addressing it.
On Sep 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, John Webster <john@...> wrote: We are working on funding for in-field biochar production in Park City, Utah, in 2021. Focus on agricultural waste streams and hazardous forest fuels removal. Park City is a mountain town with three ski resorts. They understand the importance of biochar in soil health and forest resilience. Planning on slightly modified versions of Oregon and Ring of Fire kilns. I look forward to Dr Sahoo's webinar being published. - John
801-870-2465 mobile (best)
KK Sahoo is very interested in working with information from commercial operations to ground truth his models. He has used inputs from contractors. Thanks to the Forest Products Laboratory for their support. Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc. Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies. add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a) a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments http://www.forestrywebinars.net/previous-webinars I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS. b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work. beginning of response below. (With apologies for sending this in two parts.) Ron John and list, cc Ken Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.) But I wanted to add two other topics: a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr. Subject: Biocahr in field. Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT Good share for the biochar discussion list.
--
Botanist/Forest Ecologist Ecosystem Restoration and Biochar Consulting Attachments:
|
|
|
Hi Kelpie
Great work.
Regards Stephen
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 2:41 PM Kelpie Wilson < kelpiew@...> wrote: Yes KK is doing important work. The data came from the Waste to Wisdom project and the original report was produced by Maureen Puettmann of Woodlife Consulting http://www.woodlifeconsulting.com/staff
Here is the report, or you can download it from my website:
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/55a2e356-17ba-48af-b8c3-a76d3f66be29/downloads/w2w-biochar-lca-final-report.pdf?ver=1600466012213
I was a co-author and I provided data and helped to develop the models. I also wrote a literature review of biochar LCA as part of the introduction that has a lot of references if you are interested in biochar LCA.
The data for the BSI machine was produced by Schatz Center at Humboldt State University and it was much more robust and complete than the data for the Oregon Kiln and the Air Burner. Those data were supplied by me, based on my experience working with the Umpqua Biochar Education Team on a 17 acre stewardship contract with the USFS (Oregon Kiln) and my observations of an Air Burner working on a USFS thinning project on the Rogue-Siskiyou NF. Jack LeRoy was the contractor who operated the Air Burner and he kindly provided me with his estimates of operating parameters and outputs.
For the Oregon Kiln we used emissions data from Cornelissen, G., Pandit, N. R., Taylor, P., Pandit, B. H., Sparrevik, M., & Schmidt, H. P. (2016). Emissions and Char Quality of Flame-Curtain" Kon Tiki" Kilns for Farmer-Scale Charcoal/Biochar Production. PloS one, 11(5), e0154617.
To my knowledge, this is still the only published emissions data for any form of flame cap kiln. We assumed that the Air Burner would have the same emissions profile. The lack of emissions data on these devices is a big problem.
What I love about KK's work is that he has added the economic side to our LCA. And he has created a model that we can use to evaluate such systems going forward.
|
|
|
Hi All -- Sorry to be unaware of the procedure, and my apologies to those of you who might have already gotten the message below clarifying the type of solar panels I used. I wanted to make sure you all got the attachments (again, apologies if you've already gotten them).
Thanks -- KC
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 11:17 AM Tom Miles < tmiles@...> wrote: All, When you sign up to chiochar@... your first message has to be approved by a moderator. That is one way we try to control spam. Once your message is approved you can post and reply freely. Tom Miles Biochar List Owner From: main@Biochar.groups.io <main@Biochar.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ken Carloni
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:55 PM
To: Kim Chaffee <kim.chaffee2@...>
Cc: main@biochar.groups.io; Miles Tom <tmiles@...>; biochar@groups.io; kamalakanta sahoo <kamalakanta.sahoo@...>; '@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Biochar] Biocahr in field. Hi All -- I tried to send the message below, but the listserv is configured so that only members (which I am now -- thank you Ron) can reply. Hi Kim et al. -- I need to make a clarification about the recycled solar panels: these are first generation (late 1970s?) flat plate collectors for solar hot water to heat a building on the college campus from which I've recently retired (NOT PV panels). After they failed and were removed, I bought about 100 for a buck apiece several years ago thinking I could use the parts for other projects and recycle the rest. I removed the glass and the copper and aluminum transfer tubing leaving just the shallow 4" X 79" X 39" steel boxes (20 ga). I then simply used sheet metal screws to assemble 6 panels in the field to make an approx 6' X 13' bin. This worked well to accommodate our feedstock of mostly Doug fir and incense cedar limbs and tops from our 12 acre oak habitat restoration project. They've undergone 6 to 7 burns and are still in fairly good shape -- I'm guessing they could survive at least twice again as many burns. I sent Ron a copy of a case study I recently wrote (attached here as well) discussing among other things an evaluation of the 6 types of flame cap kilns we used. In another pilot study, we used a double walled version of this kiln insulated with rock wool to char >3 tons of green feedstock. Lab analysis showed that we had captured 30-40% of the feedstock C in the resulting char. I've attached a sidebar outlining the methods and preliminary data from this pilot that I created for an upcoming report from a team headed up by Jim Amonette that includes Tom and I assume many others on this list. I've also been designing and building 6 to 9 cu.yd. modular kilns that can be broken down for transport, easily moved by human power in rough terrain, and reassembled in the field in multiple configurations (see Fig. 9 of Yew Creek report). I love it that, in the Capitol Hill story, Ken Carloni is seen making a “Kelpie type kiln” from used solar collectors. Given the high growth rate of the solar PV industry, disposing of used solar panels is already becoming a major problem. Used panels have virtually no commercial value or cost money to dispose of. If they could be recycled into biochar kilns that are able to be assembled on site, that would be very useful outcome. The following Grist article describes the disposal problem and one approach to addressing it.
On Sep 25, 2020, at 4:24 PM, John Webster <john@...> wrote: We are working on funding for in-field biochar production in Park City, Utah, in 2021. Focus on agricultural waste streams and hazardous forest fuels removal. Park City is a mountain town with three ski resorts. They understand the importance of biochar in soil health and forest resilience. Planning on slightly modified versions of Oregon and Ring of Fire kilns. I look forward to Dr Sahoo's webinar being published. - John
801-870-2465 mobile (best)
KK Sahoo is very interested in working with information from commercial operations to ground truth his models. He has used inputs from contractors. Thanks to the Forest Products Laboratory for their support. Tom T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc. Oops - I don’t know why this note went out prematurely. Apologies. add Dr. Sahoo as a cc and the name to begin my part a) a continued). Reason for the glitch- I was locating this USDA/USFS site for Dr. Sahoo’s talk - Biochar: Technoeconomics and Life Cycle Assessments http://www.forestrywebinars.net/previous-webinars I hope Dr. Sahoo will add anything for this list that is pertinent. I asked about lessons from his 3-method comparison that might help to lower costs. The next item b) might be one. I also asked whether there was enough money now in wildfire prevention to cover the costs of char-making. Almost all federal money is going to wildfire extinguishment - NOT prevention. It is great to hear from this important Wisconsin part of the USFS. b). The Capital Hill story below (from John0 featured Ken using retired solar thermal collectors to make the equivalent of a (Kelpie) type “Oregon” kiln. I think this is a great (because very low cost) invention. I hope Dr. Carloni can add some more on that and the other work described in the (yesterday’s) paper that John has given below. Dr. Carloni and I talked briefly this AM. I am impressed with his work. beginning of response below. (With apologies for sending this in two parts.) Ron John and list, cc Ken Normally I would have just suggested that you forward your (very valuable) recommendation below. Thanks for sending it. (John is doing great job in Utah selling biochar with strong permaculture orientation. We. Know each other because of a connection with Park City.) But I wanted to add two other topics: a). Yesterday there was a USFS-USBI webinar that covered some of the same ground. A few list member names recognized (including Kewlpie Wilson - in both). Not yet up probably for replay - but I urge anyone interested in detailed costing to keep track at this site: I have received a copy of the presentation from Dr. Subject: Biocahr in field. Date: September 25, 2020 at 10:14:39 AM MDT Good share for the biochar discussion list.
--
Botanist/Forest Ecologist Ecosystem Restoration and Biochar Consulting Attachments:
-- Ken Carloni, Ph.D. Botanist/Forest Ecologist
Ecosystem Restoration and Biochar Consulting 1 (541) 672-1914
|
|
|
Stephen - thanks so much. Very nice to hear from you. Please tell us what you are working on these days, if you have a minute. -Kelpie
-- Time zone: Pacific Time, USA
Skype: kelpie.wilson
|
|
|
