[Stoves] Request for biochar results. Re: [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward

[Paul Anderson]

Philip,

1.  I changed the subject line to reflect the topic.

2.  Your request is not of much interest to the STOVES Listserv. so......

3.  I am sending this reply and your message to the BiOCHAR listserv.  
Any responses should be send directly to Philip Lloyd 
<plloyd at mweb.co.za>    as well as to Listservs because I believe that he 
is not subscribed (yet) to the biochar listserv.

4.  Do not expect to find your answers in a reference book from 2009.   
Even now in 2015 it will be difficult to find the "conclusive" type of 
proofs that you are seeking.   Part of the reason is that there is so 
little money into biochar field trials. And SOOOOOO many variables that 
even good results can be challenged. The status of "proof" about biochar 
benefits might be akin to the status of "proof" about climate change 30 
years ago, or 10 yrs ago., and there are still plenty of deniers about 
climate change today. Biochar research has a loooooooong way to go.   
Much work needs to be done.

5.  Personally, I am a "biochar believer" (within reason) and am 
increasingly active on biochar work.   But do not ask me to "prove" 
it.   I am going with my hunches, similar to how I got started with TLUD 
stoves 15 years ago, and only in recent years is there some noteworthy 
acceptance.   I hope that biochar can have faster results, but there can 
be only a few growing seasons per year even in greenhouses.

Let's take this discussion to the Biochar Listserv.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 11/26/2015 4:41 AM, Philip Lloyd wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> I am seeking solid scientific information on the benefits of adding 
> biochar to soil. I need, at very least, the results of controlled 
> experiments on significant sized plots of yields over several years 
> for at least one crop, with one plot untreated and the other treated, 
> and preferably with three crops and several soil types.  I was certain 
> some agronomist somewhere had done such tests, but I have been unable 
> to locate them – all I can find is uncontrolled tests on very small 
> areas, and of very short duration with uncharacterized soils.
>
> Help needed!
>
> Prof Philip Lloyd
>
> Energy Institute
>
> Cape Peninsula University of Technology
>
> PO Box 1906
>
> Bellville 7535
>
> Tel: 021 959 4323
>
> Fax: 086 778 0257
>
> Cell: 083 441 5247
>
> PA: Nadia 021 959 4330
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> *Sent:* 26 November 2015 01:31
> *To:* Stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of 
> chronological development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges 
> and way forward
>
> Dear Frank and Julien
>
>
>
> If you know the pyrolysis temperature is above, say, 550 C, is it true 
> that the remaining char is 'representative' of the fixed carbon 
> content of the fuel? How close is it? What temperature would you say 
> is close enough to give a meaningful fixed carbon number?
>
>
>
> Hirendra Chakbarti is punting a calculation method for ultimate 
> analysis that requires the fixed carbon number. From what I see it 
> requires drying it first because the moisture affects the final dry 
> carbon mass. Still, a mathematical fix might deal with that.
>
>
>
> My specific goal is the fixed carbon content of the original fuel 
> which has a known moisture content, but nothing else save the total mass.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> Dear Ron and Stovers,
>
> My interest is controlling the fuel. This done by 1) collecting fuel 
> like that being used in real World and 2) normalizing the energy value 
> going to the secondary by using pyrolyze gases + (CO -> CO2) values.
>
> I cannot determine any energy efficiency values because this is just 
> one side of the equation. And you do not supply me with the values of 
> this one side as I need them.
>
> The value I am proposing is only useful for energy traveling to 
> another location - secondary. Making char does not require energy, in 
> fact it waste energy. And (bio-)char does not have useful energy, in 
> fact the energy is locked up and cannot be used by soil microbes for 
> 1000 years. So what I propose is not applicatable to what you are 
> talking about and not intended to be so.
>
> Your (bio-)char (not charcoal used for cooking) is not ‘energy’ locked 
> up but should be referred to as carbon. Following the total carbon in 
> the feedstock; separating it into available carbon and non-available 
> carbon (TGA) for optimum then determining the amount actually made 
> from your char-maker is more to what you want. And that being your 
> efficiency values.
>
> But in a World that is connecting fuel energy producing non-available 
> carbon (biochar) and that biochar is made >90% carbon (DAF) I guess it 
> would be ok to assign non-available carbon with an energy value and 
> use in calculations. Lets see if we can do that:
>
> 1) we need total energy of the biomass fuel (dry weight)
>
> 2) using TGA we need energy of the total char (DAF)
>
> We assume the char (DAF) is 90+% carbon and assign that an energy value.
>
> 3) We determine energy of the pyrolysis gases (total - char)
>
>  4) So thats the total maximum amount of energy assigned to biochar 
> that should be produced in your devise.
>
> 5) You run YOUR device and produce biochar. Ash  a subsample to 
> determine the weight of biochar (DAF). Assign an energy value to it 
> based on biochar (DAF) being >90% carbon.
>
> Now you can calculate the efficiency of your device at producing biochar.
>
> Note: If you have wood (dry) and you use the pyrolysis gases for 
> something, you use the CO->CO2 gases for something and use the 
> (Bio-)char left over for something then 100% of the energy in the wood 
> is always used. You are left with efficiency determinations found 
> (compared to that determined by TGA) for making biochar. But if making 
> biochar is found less than expected so to be not very efficient then 
> the non-biochar gases (CO -> CO2) went to join the pyrolysis gases and 
> it still always = all adds up to 100%. You can’t go wrong!
>
> Where you can go wrong is if after making the biochar you test it to 
> see if it still has hydrogen and lots of oxygen left indicating not a 
> good biochar and it is then wasted. This is bad.
>
> But if still good for char cooking (due to some volatiles) you are now 
> back to 100% efficiency. You can’t go wrong!
>
> 100% efficiency every time!
>
> Love it!
>
> Frank
>
> This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner) www.yac.mx 
> <http://www.yac.mx?source=email>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151126/92dbeefa/attachment.html>