Jim and list - with 3 ccs:
The following 3 e-mails all came in today to the “geo” list. Could you
add a little more on where you are with char production at All Power Lab (APL)?
I see a nice char-oriented write-up at the IBI site
(http://www.biochar-international.org/AllPowerLabs/BEK
<http://www.biochar-international.org/AllPowerLabs/BEK>), but that is probably
out-dated and your material at http://www.allpowerlabs.com/products/biochar
<http://www.allpowerlabs.com/products/biochar> says that there is nothing
char-oriented now available.
Your news letter says you were at COP21
http://www.allpowerlabs.com/news/copandcarbon.html
<http://www.allpowerlabs.com/news/copandcarbon.html> and
http://www.allpowerlabs.com/news/report-from-cop21.html
<http://www.allpowerlabs.com/news/report-from-cop21.html>, but I haven’t seen a
wrap-up from you that would lend particular encouragement to this “geo” list
about APL and CDR.
Also, Greg below talks of 5% char, but at
http://www.allpowerlabs.com/carbon <http://www.allpowerlabs.com/carbon>,
footnote 2 says 15%. Yhat are your present best estimates on how you would
design in this same 20 KW package - say if there was a $30/tonne CO2 credit
($100/tonne biochar)?
Peter Flynn below offers some thoughts on N, P, K issues for biochar.
Anything to report from APL on these topics?
To others -
I first met Jim in Boulder in 2009 at the first US biochar conference -
and we’ve visited at several other biochar conferences since. I have been
several times to his assembly facility in Berkeley - and am impressed on the
steady growth of this small firm (that can be seen at many different other
parts of the APL site).
APL has competitors.
Ron
> On Jan 17, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Peter Flynn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nutrient balance is an important and interesting question, but not simple.
>
> Imagine collecting straw or corn stover for power generation, vs. letting it
> rot on the field. If left, then of the three major nutrients, K, P and N:
> phosphorus can be expected to stay in place. However, many soils have an
> excess of phosphate, enough in some areas to pose a health issue if it
> impacts drinking water supply. Potassium may return to the soil, but might be
> transported in runoff, depending on local precipitation patterns and very
> local topography. Nitrates are subject to runoff, and can be reduced back to
> nitrogen by bacterial action on surface biomass, notably in the spring (which
> is why in some agricultural areas grass seed is aerially sprayed in the fall,
> to move the nitrate in the grass, above the soil level, until spring plowing
> buries the grass). Hence the loss of nutrients from biomass collection is
> subject to local analysis.
>
> Biomass processing moves the nutrients away from the field. Ash can be
> recycled, at a cost, although not if char is buried (assuming the ash remains
> in the char). Nitrogen would have to be made up. If a dollar value is placed
> on carbon emission avoidance or negative carbon, it will overwhelm the cost
> of the incremental nitrogen requirement, since for agricultural crops there
> is already a fertilizer application, only the dosage is increased: the sole
> cost is the nitrogen itself.
>
> Peter Flynn
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> cell: 928 451 4455
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> [mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:11 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; geoengineering
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Carbon negative energy
>
> More specifically, from the website:
> "While today’s APL Power Pallets produce a relatively small amount of biochar
> byproduct (around 5% of input mass), it is still enough for modest carbon
> negativity in the fuel cycle. The round rule of thumb numbers are as follows:
> 1 tonne of dry biomass in produces about 1Mw/hr of electricity and 50kg of
> carbon byproduct.
>
> 50kg of raw carbon once recombined with O2 is the equivalent of 185kg of CO2
> in the atmosphere. (mass C x 3.67 = mass CO2)
>
> 1 tonne of biomass input to the gasifier can soil-sequester the equivalent of
> 0.185 CO2 tonnes in the atmosphere.
>
> Avoided CO2 emissions from not burning fossil fuel in the process are added
> to the wins above."
>
> Question: How much of the nutrients in the biomass are returned to the soil
> and how much are sequestered/volatilized/lost, i.e is this sustainable?
>
> Greg
>
>
>> From: Brian Cady <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> To: geoengineering <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 4:34 AM
>> Subject: [geo] Re: Carbon negative energy
>>
>> An example of carbon-negative energy sources becoming available:
>> http://www.allpowerlabs.com/products/20kw-power-pallets
>> <http://www.allpowerlabs.com/products/20kw-power-pallets>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
