Australia
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sun, 2008-07-27 16:40.
Floating char
Max Henderson, Australia, July 27, 2008
 Floating Char
 8 Weeks Floating Char
Couple of photos 6 weeks apart. Bucket is 20 litres. Added
to the water has been some pee, cow poo and a tablespoon of molasses.
First photo was 2 weeks after adding the char, second is 6
weeks later.
Approx 80% of the char has now sunk. The rest looks like sinking in another fortnight.
The sunken char is much easier to break (in one hand) than the material still in dry storage.
This char was produced at high temp – probably in excess of 800C.
Also of interest is the harvest today of some potatoes 11 weeks after planting in a bed mixture of cocopeat, worm castings, cow poo and char lumps (up to 50mm pieces). There has been significant breakup of the char,
with no mechanical processes involved.
I’m coming to the conclusion that if there is a reasonable mix of moisture, temp, critter activity, humus and nutrients, it matters little in the medium term what size the char particles are.
Max H
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sat, 2008-07-19 05:51.
Chaotech Pty Ltd.
Rex Manderson [rexm@chaotech.com.au], Australia, July 2008
 BiogasWorks Pilot
This site www.biogasworks.com is the portal for the carbon cycle activities of Chaotech Pty Ltd.
Our slow carbonization pilot plant is now rated 40 to 60kg charcoal per hour for lightweight feed such as sawdust. The specification particle size limit is 8mm largest dimension. Process simulations have produced a yield of ~40% char on a dry mass basis with ~80% total carbon content in the char.
See: Biogas works
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sat, 2008-06-21 21:35.
Australian Biochars
Jerome Matthews, June 21, 2008
 Australian Biochars
Hi There,
We are commercial suppliers of biochars and just thought that you may be interested as we don't think that anyone else is yet producing to our levels. We're happy to receive queries.
You may find us at http://www.biochars.com
Best regards.
Jerome Matthews
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sun, 2008-06-15 14:36.
Puzzle
Max Henderson, June 15, 2008
 Floating Char
Submitted by Tom Miles on Tue, 2008-05-13 03:28.
More Trials
Max Henderson,May 12, 2008
If you can bear with me here is some info from last weekend’s
trials. Various conclusions are probably of little scientific merit and may well be blindingly obvious but I’ll include for those who maybe don’t have one of these exciting toys.
- The original second–hand house brick kiln had 15cm/6” (when will the US
join the rest of the world?) gaps between the drum and the bricks on both
sides, and a relatively shallow space under the drum for the initial fire.
The idea was that it would be easier to add fuelwood on the sides, but in
fact this reduced the effectiveness of the insulation.
- I re-laid the bricks to give a greater fire space under the drum for the
initial fire, and moved the side walls inwards so that the only gap was
between the ridges of the drum and the bricks. The basic concept was to
apply the heat from underneath, and to insulate as best possible (under
the primitive circumstances) against any unnecessary heat losses
- The drum was loaded with around 100kg of old dry dense hardwood, plus 2 x 75mm
thick telephone books and some tyre scraps I had collected from beside the
highway.
- Scrap dry wood was loaded under the drum and fired at 17:00. Once that achieved
a significant burn I added bricks to the open front to further improve
insulation
- I’ve learnt that a slow initial burn is best as opposed to a blast. The
assumption here is that the mass of material in the drum (despite MC of
maybe less than 12%), needs gradual heat (given the substantial insulating
properties of dry dense wood) well before the stage when pyrolisis can
begin and be sustained. I’ve done the opposite –high initial heat, quick
gasification, and then no continuation. There is a lot to discuss here,
including the use of ‘waste’ heat to raise the temp and reduce MC, in the
following batch.
- By 18:00 the first gas burn had started and by 18:15 the 8 x 8mm holes in the
base of the drum were all roaring
- This was about the 10th trial, and with each the seal on the drum
lid has become less effective. This photo shows the burn of the escaping
gases through these leaks. In a totally un-scientific guess I’d suggest
that at least a litre of gas/second was burning happily through the gaps.
None of this energy was in any way contributing to the char process. These
waste gases burnt for 2 hours.
- With all the jets alight I then added bricks to the top of the drum, giving
better insulation.
- By 19:00 the drum was glowing red hot when seen through the gaps in the top
bricks, except for a small strip down the centre of the top. I dropped
some glass from a broken bottle in a couple of the gaps, and within
minutes the glass became malleable.
- Around 21:00 the gas burn started to slow down, and by 22:00 the last flame was
gone.
- The front bricks were removed at dawn, and by midday the drum was cool enough
to be opened without a risk of the char catching alight.
- The
charring was complete, including the tyre rubber, the 2 phone books, and
dense hardwood as large as 20cm/8” in diameter.
- Volume
loss was in the region of 20% at a guess.
It is the energy output that continues to stun me. The
volume of gas that escaped through the poor lid seal was very substantial and
burnt for over 2 hours. In addition, the gas burning under the drum was
obviously far in excess of the volume required to maintain the char process,
just using the red heat of the drum as an indicator. And on top of that was the
vast heat energy given off to the atmosphere despite the attempts to provide
insulation.
I’ll continue making batches using this crude system
every weekend, but there’s not a lot more to prove and I now really need to
take the lessons learnt and build a decent drum and kiln. In particular the
effectiveness of the insulation will be a considerable determinant in the efficiency
of the process. I will aim for a castable refractory kiln in a similar shape to
the current brick one, with relatively narrow gaps between the drum and the
refractory except for the “firebox” underneath. It will have two hinged doors
at the front – the upper one allowing the drum to be slid out above the lower
firebox door. A similar upper door also for the rear, and this will also have
an adjustable vent to allow heat to escape rearwards. This would lead into a
second chamber where another drum loaded with wood is waiting its turn in the
queue, being pre-heated at the same time. When one drum has completed the char
process, it will be slid out to cool, the drum in the heat chamber at the rear
is slid in to take its place, the refractory is at high temp already, the gas
jets are lit, doors closed, the third drum is loaded and slid into the warming
chamber….
The drums to be fabricated from boiler plate, and
maybe with domed lids and toggle screws to clamp down. Then I need to work out
how to plug in a pipe or hose to vent off excess gas, plus a compressor and a
pressure vessel to store. And that pre-supposes a capacity to record
temperatures inside the drum so that this info can be fed to a controller that
will make decisions when and if to pipe off some gas for storage. Plus a
serious gas burner system under the drum, because I believe we can eliminate
the need for wood fuel and just use some of the stored excess gas. And then
some boiler tube at an upper level through which water can be piped and fed into
a large storage tank as a heat bank, and then into the house and/or a
greenhouse in winter through sub-floor piping, radiators, or a concrete storage
tank under the slab. I don’t have a house at the farm yet or even a greenhouse
much less an electricity supply but that just adds some more interesting
challenges. Its down to time and dollar availability.
In the meantime I’m continuing with the garden trials,
and certainly there is visible evidence of improved growth and vigour in the
plots which had the char added. The best is the one that also had some cocopeat
organic matter added, as well as some worm castings. Digging down a few inches
and grabbing a handful gives this sweet-smelling crumbly mix, laden with
organic matter and just seeming to be bursting with goodness. Hardly a
scientific analysis but I’ve been handling and smelling soil for a long time
and this lot is just about good enough to eat.
Max H
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sat, 2008-04-19 23:56.
On the Practical Side
Max Henderson, SE Queensland, Australia, April 19, 2008
(Select photo to enlarge)
Dear All,
For those on the list who haven’t had the opportunity to experiment, here are some photos of my first trials. Apologies to those who are well ahead of this stage.
Photo 1 shows the very basic kiln, constructed of un-bonded second-hand bricks and sized to take a 200 litre drum (55 gallon in he US). This particular drum has a removable lid held in place with an over-centre clamp.
Photo 2 shows the drum in place and loaded with seasoned offcuts of local hardwoods such as Ironbark (Euc piniculata), which is hard and dense. The drum is raised off the brick floor the height of 2 bricks to allow firewood to be placed under. The base of the drum (on its side) is drilled with 8 x 8mm holes in a line evenly spaced. These permit the generated gases to exit and burn.
3 shows the flames after the load has started to gassify. Depending in the intensity of the external fire and the sizes, moisture content and density of the timber load, the beginning of the gasification phase can take from 30 minutes upwards.
4 and 5 show the char output.
Photo 6 gives an idea of the vast amount of energy released. At this trial the front of the kiln was also bricked up once the fire had started, to further concentrate the heat. For pure spectacle this is best done at night, preferably lubricated with copious cold beers. This is indeed hot and thirsty work. What you can’t hear is the whistling of the gas as it exits the holes in the drum, and the roar of the fire. Obviously there is huge opportunity to capture surplus gas and compress to store.
7 shows the first experimental vegetable bed prior to planting, approx 4m x 1.2m. The char was broken up before adding but this could have been done much better. Around 10cm thickness was added to the bed. Also added was 5 cm of compost and 1 kg of NPK fertiliser (13:13:15 + 2Mg). The bed was then forked a number of times to a 20cm depth. For comparison purposes an adjacent bed was prepared in the same manner including the compost and the NPK, but no added char.
Corni, broad beans and basil were planted in both. Definitely germination was better in the char bed and definitely initial growth was also more vigorous. Unfortunately the wallabies broke the fence ending that trial, but the fence has been reinforced and the beds planted again. This time I’ve added a third bed the same as the first with the char, compost and NPK, but added 5 cm of worm castings from my composting worm experimental pile. (I believe composting worms have equivalent miracle capacity as does char).
The test site is just above the creek flats on land that was a dairy farm for maybe 100 years before being abandoned some 20 years ago and allowed to return to natural forest, mainly eucalypts. Around 5 acres have been cleared. Soil texture is loamy, with recent tests indicating deficiencies across the full range of nutrients. Annual rainfall is in the 1500mm range. Being a fairly civilised part of the world we don’t have any of that snow stuff but winter daytime temps can plunge horrifically to 10 deg C (50F), with occasional night time frosts. Terrifying. Right now we’re at the beginning of Autumn.
I’ll update in a couple of weeks.
Max H
mfh01@bigpond.net.au
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sun, 2008-04-13 00:16.
Improving wheat production with deep banded Oil Malleei Charcoal in Western Australia
Paul Blackwell1, Syd Shea2, Paul Storer3, Zakaria Solaiman4, Mike Kerkmans5, and Ian Stanley6
Agchar Initiative Conference Terrigal New South Wales. April 29 - May 2, 2007
SUMMARY
• There can be benefits to wheat income from deep banded oil mallee charcoal in the low rainfall areas of WA; the trials on acid sandy clay loam and acid sand in 2005 showed up to $96/ha additional gross income at wheat prices of $150/ha; especially when applied with mineral fertilisers and inoculated soil microbes. Much of the yield improvement can be explained by better grain survival, associated with reduced drought stress.
• There were encouraging effects of charcoal on arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) colonisation. Banded oil mallee charcoal improved AM colonisation of wheat roots by 3 fold, when used with mineral fertilisers and AM is inoculated with the seed in the acid sandy clay loam with a low population of indigenous AM. Early phosphorus uptake was not improved by AM colonisation; P supply from the soil and applied fertiliser was already adequate.
• AM colonisation in spring was related to effects of charcoal application on grain survival in inoculated mineral fertiliser treatments. This infers AM hyphae may have improved water supply to reduce drought stress and loss of grains in these treatments.
• The true economic value of oil mallee charcoal will be clearer when the cost of charcoal production and application is better known and long term effects of charcoal, especially with inoculated AMs and mineral fertilisers is better understood. The potential to achieve a commercial return from the sequestration of charcoal as an offset for carbon
dioxide emissions in broadscale agriculture will also help calculate true economic value.
• More research is worthwhile on the long term effects of incorporated charcoal in a range of soil conditions and seasons, from various sources and how low the banded charcoal rate needs to be to encourage better yields from mineral fertiliser with inoculated AM.
INTRODUCTION
Oil Mallees are the first native woody perennial species to be promoted as a commercial crop in the lower rainfall areas of the southwest land division of Western Australia, primarily stimulated by the need to ameliorate salinity caused by the clearing of native vegetation for agriculture (Bartle and Shea, 2002). Mallees are hardy plants that are well suited as a perennial crop through their ability to re-sprout from the large lignotuber after the above
ground mass has been lost through fire or harvesting. In 2000 a group of Oil Mallee growers from Kalannie (300 km NE of Perth, Western Australia) began producing eucalyptus oil for the Australian market (see the Oil Mallee Association www.oilmallee.com.au ). Integrated processing of mallee biomass to produce electricity, activated carbon and eucalyptus oil in a central processing facility has been the main emphasis of industry development since the late 1990’s. Western Power, Enecon and the Oil Mallee Company have successfully developed a ‘test of concept’ Integrated Wood Processing (IWP) plant at Narrogin. Bell and Bennett (2002) estimated that the NPV of the net benefit to landowners of planting mallees in a local catchment area to supply a 5MW IWP would be about $6.2 million over 20 years. Charcoal is a valuable by-product of such IWPs and a possible by-product of farm based distillation of eucalyptus oil.
It has become well recognised in Japan and some other parts of Asia that charcoal from forestry products and rice hull can stimulate indigenous soil microbial activity (Ogawa, 1994; Nishio, 1996). Charcoal has especially encouraged arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) which can help supply phosphorus symbiotically to many agricultural crops (Ogawa et al., 1983) and rhizobia, which can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere to supply leguminous plants (Nishio and Okano, 1991). Field experiments in Indonesia (Yamato et al. 2006) showed charcoal made from tree bark applied at 10 L/ha could increase the yield of maize by about 50%, to 15 t/ha, when added to 500 kg/ha of NPK (15:15:15) fertiliser on an acid highly weathered infertile tropical soil; associated with increased AM fungal colonisation. Lehmann and Rondon (2006)
also identify numerous benefits of bio char to plant nutrition and microbial activity in the humid tropics. Benefits of charcoal to soil microbial activity have also been recognised in temperate forest environments (Zakrisson et al. 1996; Pietikainen et al. 2000).
Charcoal seems to assist microbial activity by having a porosity that provides a favourable microhabitat, weak alkalinity and by being a substrate unfavourable for saprophytes (Saito and Marumoto, 2002). AM fungi easily extend their extraradical hyphae into charcoal buried in the soil and sporulate in the particles (Ogawa, 1987). Postma et al. (1990) show evidence that rhizobia in pores <50 _m are protected from predation by protozoan predators; this
could be an important microhabitat property provided by charcoal in soils with low clay content.
Encouragement and establishment of AM fungi in Western Australian soils has encountered many challenges. “The objective of identifying procedure for managing mycorrhizal fungi is more appropriately restated as managing conditions to suit the growth and activity of beneficial populations of mycorrhizal fungi” (Abbot and Gazey, 1994). Introduced AM fungi can suffer competition with indigenous AM fungi and be ineffective for crop phosphorus supply due to high levels of background soluble P (Gazey et al. 2004). Australian native grass species can also be much more efficient at accessing insoluble forms of phosphate than introduced wheat varieties; whose rhizosphere colonies can be very different (Marschner et al. 2006). This may be an adaptation to the low clay content environment of many Australian topsoils; low clay content reduces the amount of small pore space to help some microorganisms prosper. Charcoal in suitable amount and form may provide the missing microhabitat in WA topsoils to help introduced AM fungi and other microbes survive and colonise introduced agricultural crops.
One commercial fertiliser company (Western Mineral Fertilisers; Tenterden WA) has developed products which minimise the abundance of readily soluble phosphorus to encourage symbiotic and other processes of inoculated soil microbes. Zeolite was initially included and intended to provide enhanced ion exchange capacity, and also a micro habitat
within the zeolite pores; however the pore volume may not be sufficient. It was a reasonable hypothesis that charcoal addition may improve the microhabitat further than the use of zeolite.
The opportunity to test hypotheses about charcoal effects on soil and use of soil microbes to improve crop nutrient supply came about in 2005. There was an intensive research effort to examine the efficacy of very wide rows of wheat on shallow soils in the low rainfall areas east of Geraldton (Blackwell et al. 2006; Blackwell 2007). With some support and encouragement from the Oil Mallee Company and Western Mineral fertilisers we developed the following experiments using no-till methods for crop establishment and very wide rows to minimise drought stress. Attempts to follow the long-term effects at Pindar failed due to a very dry winter season in 2006.
See complete paper attached and at:http://www.oilmallee.com.au/pdf/Improving_wheat_prod.pdf
See oral presentation at:
http://www.iaiconference.org/images/Blackwell_-_Improving_Wheat_Production_with_Mallee_Charcoal.pdf
1Department of Agriculture and Food, Geraldton WA, 2 Oil Mallee Company of Australia, 3Western Mineral
Fertilisers, 4University of Western Australia, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, 5Oil Mallee
Association of WA, 6 "Bungadale", Kalannie , WA
Submitted by Tom Miles on Sun, 2008-02-24 00:56.
Restoring soil carbon can reverse global warming
Erich J. Knight, February 21, 2008
Here is a strait forward conversion of the impact of building soil organic material (SOM) on ppm of GHGs using just marginal land.
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0221-soil_carbon_lovell_interview.html
Tony Lovell of Soil Carbon P/L in Australia estimates that by actively supporting regrowth of vegetation in damaged ecosystems, billions of tons of carbon dioxide can be sequestered from the atmosphere.
"Determining how much carbon dioxide (CO2) can physically be consumed from the atmosphere?
As the planet has 7.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in circulation for each 1 ppm of atmospheric CO2, and there are 5 billion hectares of inappropriately managed or unmanaged, desertifying savannahs on the Earth (which on empirical evidence we contend to be the case), the question that should sensibly be asked is: How much carbon dioxide would be absorbed if policies were put in place (in Australia and elsewhere) that caused the focus of on-ground management to be deliberately directed towards the widespread consumption of cyclical GHGs within the currently under-utilised savannah lands?
Consumption of CO2 per hectare
• One hectare is 10,000 sq. metres. If a hectare of soil 33.5 cm deep, with a bulk density of 1.4 tonnes per cubic metre is considered, there is a soil mass per hectare of about 4,700 tonnes.
• If appropriate management practices were adopted and these practices achieved and sustained a 1% increase in soil organic matter (SOM)6, then 47 tonnes of SOM per hectare will be added to organic matter stocks held below the soil surface
• This 47 tonnes of SOM will contain approximately 27 tonnes of Soil Carbon (ie 47 tonnes at 58% Carbon) per hectare
• In the absence of other inputs this Carbon may only be derived from the atmosphere via the natural function known as the photo-synthetic process. To place approximately 27 tonnes of Soil Carbon per hectare into the soil, approximately 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide must be consumed out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis
• A 1% change in soil organic matter across 5 billion hectares will sequester 500 billion tonnes of physical CO2
Converting global Soil Carbon capacity to ppm of atmospheric GHGs
1. Every 1% increase in retained SOM within the topmost 33.5 cm of the soil must capture and hold approximately 100 tonnes per hectare of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the variability in the equation being due only to the soil bulk density). We submit that under determined, appropriate management, that this is readily achievable within a very few years
2. For each 1% increase in SOM achieved on the 5 billion hectares there will be removed 64 ppm of carbon dioxide from atmospheric circulation (500,000,000,000 tonnes CO2 / 7,800,000,000 tonnes per ppm = 64 ppm).
3. Soil Organic Matter is the plant material released into the soil during the natural phases of plant growth. It includes root material sloughed off below the soil surface and plant litter carried into the soil by microbes, insects and rainfall
4. Soil Carbon is the elemental carbon contained within Soil Organic Matter (SOM).
5. One tonne of CO2 contains 12/44 units of carbon (ie 0.27 tonnes of carbon per tonne of CO2.). Therefore 27 tonnes of carbon sequesters 27/0.27 = 100 tonnes CO2 (rounded). NB Carbon atomic weight 12, oxygen atomic weight 16 ie CO2 = 12+(16+16) = 44
The global opportunity and numbers
It appears that the pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280ppm, and that globally we are now at 455ppm, and heading towards 550ppm. To get from 550ppm back to 280ppm, 270ppm must be removed. Globally, a 4.2% increase in SOM would potentially reverse the expected situation. In any case, any form of determined management will substantially reduce the now crippling legacy loadings in the atmosphere.
Erich J. Knight
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
540-289-9750
shengar@aol.com
Submitted by Tom Miles on Wed, 2008-01-02 05:17.
Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment
K. Y. Chan, L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie,and S. Joseph
Australian Journal of Soil Research 45(8) 629–634, December 2007
Abstract
A pot trial was carried out to investigate the effect of biochar produced from greenwaste by pyrolysis on the yield of radish (Raphanus sativus var. Long Scarlet) and the soil quality of an Alfisol. Three rates of biochar (10, 50 and 100 t/ha) with and without additional nitrogen application (100 kg N/ha) were investigated. The soil used in the pot trial was a hardsetting Alfisol (Chromosol) (0–0.1 m) with a long history of cropping. In the absence of N fertiliser, application of biochar to the soil did not increase radish yield even at the highest rate of 100 t/ha. However, a significant biochar × nitrogen fertiliser interaction was observed, in that higher yield increases were observed with increasing rates of biochar application in the presence of N fertiliser, highlighting the role of biochar in improving N fertiliser use efficiency of the plant. For example, additional increase in DM of radish in the presence of N fertiliser varied from 95% in the nil biochar control to 266% in the 100 t/ha biochar-amended soils. A slight but significant reduction in dry matter production of radish was observed when biochar was applied at 10 t/ha but the cause is unclear and requires further investigation.
Significant changes in soil quality including increases in pH, organic carbon, and exchangeable cations as well as reduction in tensile strength were observed at higher rates of biochar application (>50 t/ha). Particularly interesting are the improvements in soil physical properties of this hardsetting soil in terms of reduction in tensile strength and increases in field capacity.
Keywords: charcoal, char, agrichar, soil strength, soil carbon sequestration, hardsetting soil, slow pyrolysis.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 45(8) 629–634
Submitted: 27 July 2007 Accepted: 2 November 2007 Published: 7 December 2007
Full text DOI: 10.1071/SR07109
See also:Assessing agronomic values of chars to an Australian hardsetting soil presentation to the International Agrichar Initiative conference, Australia, 2007.
|
