Dear Stovers/Biocharers; Crispin asked:
My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed up > access to ash? Wood may last 10 years on the forest floor. Charcoal will last 100,000 years! So, charring is a good idea. TOM REED On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, <[email protected]>wrote: > Send Stoves mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17 > (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott) > 2. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17 > (Anand Karve) > 3. Tests online (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott) > 4. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17 > (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott) > 5. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17 > (Frank Shields) > 6. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17 > (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott) > 7. Re: [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17 > (Tom Miles) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:49:07 -0400 > From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, > Issue 17 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Dr AD > > My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed > up > access to ash? > > Shall I re-phrase it? > > Thanks > Crispin > > +++++++ > > Dear Crispin and stovers, > biomass added to the soil serves the soil micro-organisms as a source of > organic carbon. By feeding on it, they multiply their numbers. The > microbial > population density in the soil is positively correlated with soil > fertility, > because when they die, the minerals sequestered in their cells become > available to the green plants. > Yours > A.D.Karve > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Frank > > Is there any good reason to suppose that putting the whole mass, the > > whole biomass, into the soil, perhaps chipped or ground up? Why would > > charring it first do anything except speed up access to ash? > > Regards > > > > Crispin > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:01:58 +0800 > From: Anand Karve <[email protected]> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, > Issue 17 > Message-ID: > <cacpy7scgpbidtl+hw5ppcl9ofigskvu202sigbjwbc__8a3...@mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dear Crispin, > you are quite right. Char can affect soil characteristics like soil > texture, water holding capacity, density, degree of compaction, etc. > Good quality charcoal, which does not have any volatiles and > pyrolignious acid in it, is not expected to serve the soil > micro-organisms as a source of nutrition. If one wants to extract some > energy out of biomass before putting it into soil, one should convert > biomass into biogas and apply the effluent to the soil. > Yours > A.D.Karve > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Dr AD > > > > My question remains: Why would charring it first do anything except speed > up > > access to ash? > > > > Shall I re-phrase it? > > > > Thanks > > Crispin > > > > +++++++ > > > > Dear Crispin and stovers, > > biomass added to the soil serves the soil micro-organisms as a source of > > organic carbon. By feeding on it, they multiply their numbers. The > microbial > > population density in the soil is positively correlated with soil > fertility, > > because when they die, the minerals sequestered in their cells become > > available to the green plants. > > Yours > > A.D.Karve > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Frank > >> Is there any good reason to suppose that putting the whole mass, the > >> whole biomass, into the soil, perhaps chipped or ground up? Why would > >> charring it first do anything except speed up access to ash? > >> Regards > >> > >> Crispin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stoves mailing list > > > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > > [email protected] > > > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, ?News and Information see our web site: > > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > > > > > > -- > *** > Dr. A.D. Karve > Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:12:37 -0400 > From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]> > To: "Stoves" <[email protected]> > Subject: [Stoves] Tests online > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Friends > > > > I have created a link in the Library at New Dawn Engineering's website to > some of the more interesting/relevant stoves tests. The Library link on the > main page now takes you to a couple of sub-menus, one for Stoves and > another > for Tests. > > > > There is no fancy background - it is just a list of files. A single click > will download any file, one at a time. > > > > The direct link is > http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Tests/ > > > > If you need a particular stove test result that you are sure was performed > I > can upload it. > > > > These are all processed using the Heterogeneous Test Protocol, usually with > no cooking involved. The tests involve an initial fuel load plus a > refuelling, with `end` being declared when 90% of the total fuel mass has > been burned. If 90% is not reached (as sometimes happens) it is noted. > > > > These are all space heating stoves with some cooking ability. > > > > Regards > > Crispin > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/e5ddbe30/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:31:23 -0400 > From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, > Issue 17 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear AD > > > > >Char can affect soil characteristics like soil texture, water holding > capacity, density, degree of compaction, etc. > > > > And > > > > >If one wants to extract some energy out of biomass before putting it into > soil, one should convert biomass into biogas and apply the effluent to the > soil. > > > > So it seems we need to check what the comparative advantages of biogas > slurry and biochar are. Perhaps both would help. I have not heard of a > negative result from adding slurry. > > > > Regards > > Crispin > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/09b1e4f7/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:45:46 -0700 > From: "Frank Shields" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, > Issue 17 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Tom, > > > > My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total > weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will > need to get over that. > > > > The IBI has some good test methods that I am now using. Measure pH, salts, > etc on diluted samples are a few I have changed to. Methods for metal are > acid digest and is what I have been doing along with most others. The CEC I > would like to change to an AOAC procedure for peat. And the butane activity > is left out. Going to iodine. I have been doing 450 deg for calcining temp > but now raised it to their 600 deg as that is where I have found the butane > activity is highest (600 to 650 deg C) for most biochar when plotting > curves. But the loss in weight seems to stabilize at ~450 deg C. I was > thinking if activity was not that important the lower temperature is all > that is required. > > > > They use a C/H ratio to determine if the biomass is sufficiently charred > where I was measuring loss in weight after re-charring at 450 deg C. My > procedure has some real problems and was looking for other ideas. I think > theirs may be better but still we need to keep looking as I am not sure it > will weed out tars that would be removed in my procedure and different > feedstocks may end up with different C/H ratios even when fully charred. So > on it goes. > > > > I was looking into a TGA to do the testing but after sending in samples to > Leco I was not real happy with the results. This can determine moisture > then > switch over to nitrogen atm and char at predetermined temperature then add > air and ash at predetermined temperature all in one unite and cycle. This > should work well. I had them char in nitrogen a sample at different > temperatures thinking I would get a value that leveled off at 450 deg C as > what I have found in my pipe system. But my pipe system seems to work > better. Not sure if air was in their system when they ran it after drying > or > if biomass does change in weight more than I found over temperature > differences with my pipes. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Shields > > Control Laboratories, Inc. > > 42 Hangar Way > > Watsonville, CA 95076 > > (831) 724-5422 tel > > (831) 724-3188 fax > > [email protected] > > www.compostlab.com > > > > > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Miles > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:29 PM > To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue > 17 > > > > Frank, > > > > Test methods. Many oof the ASTM methods for biomass are coal methods that > have been adjusted for biomass. Usually the calcining temperature of a > sample for biomass has been reduced by ASTM fro the 900C used for coal to > 550C or 600 C for biomass. > > > > Tom > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frank > Shields > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:06 PM > To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue > 17 > > > > Dear Paul, > > > > The way I look at it; > > Biochar is not needed by the plant anymore than peat moss, perlite, sand, > lime, gypsum etc. These are all materials used to change the texture of the > soil. Better drainage, hold more water, make water more available, adjust > pH > that changes availability of nutrients, added porosity, add microbes that > regulate the nutrients etc. If the biochar product adjusts one of these > components to make the required constituents (water, nutrients, temperature > etc) more optimum for the plant you will see a benefit. A lot of silica (as > in rice hulls) may very well be the component that makes the change and the > carbon fraction has nothing to do with it. Or it could all be from the > carbon fraction or mixture of both. IMO it is important to determine the > condition change that has created the increase in plant response. And the > constituent of the biochar that has done it. Then we can determine the > biochar quality that should be used on that specific site. > > > > But I think we can agree that it's the carbon component we regard as > important when talking biochar. If it's the silica in rice hulls making the > difference we could just add something like sand. Being carbon as the > important fraction biochar quality should be rated based on the carbon > component. Not only carbon concentration but also the carbon structure (or > we could just as well add organic matter). Carbon comes in a range of > biological activity. Very reactive like green grass, sugars, oils, > vegetative materials. Semi-reactive materials like wood chips, stabilized > compost, biosolids and organics from aeration ponds, finished septic > systems > etc and very stabilized like plastic, biochar. Available carbon increases > microbes. That in turn uses a lot of oxygen making soils anaerobic creating > lots of problems. The reason we compost and have septic systems before > letting high reactive organics into the environment. Because biochar claim > to have a very stabilized carbon (non-available to microbes and oxidation) > we need to measure to the degree the carbon is stabilized in addition to > the > concentration to rate and compare biochar products. Rice biochar has low > carbon (not good) but likely high stability (good). And a unique structure, > that in the right locations and soil type, could make all the difference. > > > > It's the test methods that work best to determine the carbon concentration > and properties that we need to sort out. Not an easy task thanks to people > wanting to use coal testing methods for biochar. We need our own methods > manual. > > > > > > Regards > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Shields > > Control Laboratories, Inc. > > 42 Hangar Way > > Watsonville, CA 95076 > > (831) 724-5422 tel > > (831) 724-3188 fax > > [email protected] > > www.compostlab.com > > > > > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Crispin > Pemberton-Pigott > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:56 AM > To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14,Issue > 17 > > > > Dear Paul > > > > Do you know if the char has been characterised well, or is it from the > smoky > stacks you described earlier? > > > > Thanks > > Crispin > > > > ++++++ > > > > Frank, > > Rice hulls biochar makes as excellent soil amendment, as numerous test have > shown. > Yields on rice, water spinach and other plants have increased roughly > 3-fold > in the trials that were done in Vietnam and Cambodia. > If it is not the best biochar, I would be truly exciting to find something > better. > > Paul Olivier > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/27399bab/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:08:59 -0400 > From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, > Issue 17 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Dear Frank > > > > My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total > weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will > need to get over that. > > > > I assure you that Fixed Carbon does not have a clear and scientific > meaning. > I have given up hope with analyses that use the term. That means, it is > 'helpful' but not an exact measure of anything. > > > > It really is taken to mean the carbon that happens not to disappear when > the > sample is treated in a certain way. Treat it in another way and the 'fixed' > portion changes so it is an inherent property of the protocol times the > fuel, not a property of the fuel alone. > > > > The coal industry is so large that they feel they can get away with > internal > definitions and that makes huge problems for stovers because we never > really > know what we are being handed to burn. With biomass that has historically > been the 'chemistry' of the fuel contents. But the principal users of > 'fixed > carbon' are the coal consumers like power stations. To give the DAF value > of > anything is misleading because we need to know what % it is of the fuel, > not > of part of the fuel. > > > > There are many tricks played by people promoting processed fuels that > involve switching the fuel energy content numbers during the conversation. > For example, people will report the 'as received' heat content as the > fuel's > heating value (which is true) and then point out that their 'Processing' > increases this to a much higher 'DAF value' showing a '60% increase in > energy per kg' even though it takes energy to remove the water and > calculate > out the ash. Plain fraud. Whenever someone reports the energy content you > have to not only ask on what basis the figure was derived, but also > investigate the protocol to see if it really is what it claims to be. Many > people believe that there is free energy to be harvested in this manner. > > > > Regards > > Crispin > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/17b76850/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:50:13 -0500 > From: "Tom Miles" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, > Issue 17 > Message-ID: <008f01cc95a2$7009e900$501dbb00$@com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Crispin, Frank, > > > > Apart from fraud, it is nice to have a general indication of how much of > the > fuel will convert to a gas before burning and how much would, in theory, > remain as char. IN practice you oxidize part of he "fixed" carbon as well. > > > > In carbonization the volatile carbon is a useful indicator of the extent of > carbonization. We look for volatile carbon to be less than 20% for most > applications. That does not mean that all biochar needs to be less than 20% > volatile carbon. Other measures of labile carbon would be helpful. > > > > For biochar applications it would be useful to know how much of the carbon > is likely to be consumed by organisms and will thereby have a demand on > nitrogen or other nutrients. I have assumes that is the volatile fraction. > How much char C do you include in calculating a C:N ration for composting, > for example? If you intend to deliver a char to a uses that will supply > it's own N how much to you have to add? How much char from stoves can you > estimate will have a demand on plant nutrients if used as biochar? > > > > Tom > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Crispin > Pemberton-Pigott > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 1:09 PM > To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' > Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue > 17 > > > > Dear Frank > > > > My main disagreement is the term Fixed Carbon and that it means the total > weigh DAF where it should be a measure of carbon in that fraction. I will > need to get over that. > > > > I assure you that Fixed Carbon does not have a clear and scientific > meaning. > I have given up hope with analyses that use the term. That means, it is > 'helpful' but not an exact measure of anything. > > > > It really is taken to mean the carbon that happens not to disappear when > the > sample is treated in a certain way. Treat it in another way and the 'fixed' > portion changes so it is an inherent property of the protocol times the > fuel, not a property of the fuel alone. > > > > The coal industry is so large that they feel they can get away with > internal > definitions and that makes huge problems for stovers because we never > really > know what we are being handed to burn. With biomass that has historically > been the 'chemistry' of the fuel contents. But the principal users of > 'fixed > carbon' are the coal consumers like power stations. To give the DAF value > of > anything is misleading because we need to know what % it is of the fuel, > not > of part of the fuel. > > > > There are many tricks played by people promoting processed fuels that > involve switching the fuel energy content numbers during the conversation. > For example, people will report the 'as received' heat content as the > fuel's > heating value (which is true) and then point out that their 'Processing' > increases this to a much higher 'DAF value' showing a '60% increase in > energy per kg' even though it takes energy to remove the water and > calculate > out the ash. Plain fraud. Whenever someone reports the energy content you > have to not only ask on what basis the figure was derived, but also > investigate the protocol to see if it really is what it claims to be. Many > people believe that there is free energy to be harvested in this manner. > > > > Regards > > Crispin > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111028/379444d6/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Stoves mailing list > > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address > [email protected] > > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page > > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org > > > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: > http://www.bioenergylists.org/ > > > End of Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 52 > ************************************** > -- NOTE: PLEASE CHANGE MY ADDRESS TO [email protected] Dr. Thomas B. Reed The Biomass Energy Foundation BEF, BEC, BER
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
