[Stoves] Biochar makers that are low emission, fire safe, and "look like" a stove, oven or heater

Thu Jan 17 21:59:37 CST 2019

Crispin,    see below   (All should note that BOTH the Stoves and Biochar Listserv are receiving these messages.   Some people (double-dippers like me) will get two copies.   Those on only one Listserv will be sending replies to only that one List will send out.   So be prepared that some messages will not reach everyone on the first transmission.)  (I also send some of my messages to the ePosts section of my website www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com> so that they are in  some additional record.)

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website:   www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> On Behalf Of Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 9:12 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Paul Taylor <potaylor at bigpond.com>; biochar at yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Biochar makers that are low emission, fire safe, and "look like" a stove, oven or heater

Dear Paul A and Paul T

Questions.

  1.  Why has the scale to be as small as 200 L? Given the scale of the requirement (doing what the Finns do which is to rake the forest of material with a bulldozer-type unit to get it out of the way) it seems you need a much larger approach to make the system viable economically and to deal with the volumes.
PSA:  200 L is a convenient size for learning.   Making larger requires more money or uncommon "barrels."   But they do need to become larger, even MUCH larger.  What Paul T. described with forced air exists already in the shipping-container size for a lot of money.

  1.  Are we to assume that a batch loaded unit that could be loaded and left to burn out, self-extinguish and cool before unloading would be more acceptable to the EPA than something which is continuous, and which episodically expels red hot char?
PSA:  No.   The batch loaded is unlikely to be scalable to sufficient size.   And red hot char is extracted from the 4C kiln with appropriate safety measures.   4C is Covered, Controlled, CONTINUOUS Cavity kiln  (Cavity as in the Kon-Tiki, cone, trough, and trench kilns.   All have a cavity so that the "Flame Cap" combustion can be functional.

  1.  Is the char production efficiency an issue (at all)?
PSA:  No.   Where biomass quantity is a problem, efficiency is not an issue.   The want to be rid of the biomass.  Zero char but cleared away is better than having the biomass in  excess but created some char.  Best is to clear well AND have biochar.  I call it PBR  Pyrolytic Biomass Reduction (or Reducer, to refer to the device).

  1.  Is there a local market for char-containing fertilizers (which requires other inputs to make something viable)?  Char on its own is not a fertiliser.
PSA:  Valid question, but not part of this discussion.

Paul A.   (ended here)

It sounds like the Aussies are now behind the Californians when it comes to forest management. In the US the forestry service, as well as in California, tried hard to get you to "prevent forest fires" and as a result the buildup of truly dangerous amounts of forest litter has, combined with human foolishness and malfeasance (most forest fires are caused by people, not "temperatures") to create catastrophic fires. The recent deaths of hundreds of people in the Camp Fire started by defective electrical equipment in a forest where "green activists" banned: cleaning the forest floor, building needed fire access roads and controlled burns, has brought the foolishness of the decades long battle to "prevent fires" into sharp focus.  They are now talking openly about returning to the forest management practices of the First Nations people which is to wait for damp conditions and make a controlled burn to remove the clutter.

The Finnish alternative, which involves a lot more money, is to clear the forest debris mechanically and dispose of it in some manner.

I suggest that it will remain illegal to burn this material to char in the middle of the dry season. It is far more realistic to hear them say it should be stored until the forest is damp and then processed.  Perhaps Tom Miles can comment on the likelihood of being allowed to burn this material in anything during the dry season.

The traditional method of management causes the fires to burn slowly and create a good deal of char "naturally" in situ, at scale. If everyone has forgotten how to manage such controlled burns, they are going to have to do something to control the fires because the efficiency of biomass production is up 30% in the past century and will increase even more in the coming one.

Perhaps this is a great opportunity to create a really useful resource out of waste material.  If they don't know how to manage forests, then they can learn to manage the by-products, at least out-of-season.

Regards
Crispin

+++++++++

All,

Sorry for the premature sending a moment ago.

I am confirming that I intend to provide details about the latest of the 4C kiln.  I am not sure if I can complete it before I head to ETHOS next Thursday.

IMHO, it will be worth the wait, and I will welcome collaborators who take the development further.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website:   www.drtlud.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13b63bc3b21f47907d6708d67cef47d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636833764469933764&sdata=NV1I6HAqfi1IWQBW%2Ff6Cf4sY2HAAuQJ51zYNXvGlmQ0%3D&reserved=0>

From: Paul Taylor <potaylor at bigpond.com<mailto:potaylor at bigpond.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 6:14 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>; biochar at yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
Cc: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>>
Subject: Biochar makers that are low emission, fire safe, and "look like" a stove, oven or heater

Hi all: I am in Australia confronted with the problem of dealing with the issue of excess fuel load in forests in a hot and warming environment. Forest services have rejected in some areas any use ever of pre-burns because of high risk that they get away. People who would like to treat the fuel as a resource for making biochar on their own property are confronted with regulations that prevent any fire device except a stove (cooking or heating).

Ethos and Aprovecho have been about developing and perfecting stoves (that sometimes make biochar).  I would like to develop and refine devices that make biochar and sometimes perform functions of a stove or heater, and importantly look like, a stove or heater to the EPA when they come around.  An important scale level would be 55g drum size reaction vessel (or outer envelope), optimized to make biochar with low smoke and VERY low fire danger, but passing the test that they are stove, firebox, heater or oven.  The dominant fuel that the device should be receptive to is limb wood, such as arm sized.

The open flame-cap devices would clearly be perceived as a fire threat, and rightly so in high fire danger environments. Paul Anderson's 4C device could be modified and refined to be safer, and to pass muster as a fire place, stove or heater, but serve primarily to make good quantities of biochar.   Is anybody working in this direction or seen good designs?

Paul A,  what refinements would you like to have present in the 4C when it is questioned by the EPA.

Paul
--
Paul Taylor, PhD
Ed/Author: The Biochar Revolution
Transforming Agriculture and the Environment
http://www.thebiocharrevolution.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thebiocharrevolution.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13b63bc3b21f47907d6708d67cef47d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636833764469933764&sdata=EyB%2Fn5XAPi4vDMDIwB3RvGLwoclsOv04KiU7%2BwsmAJM%3D&reserved=0>
http://www.ithaka-institut.org/en<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ithaka-institut.org%2Fen&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13b63bc3b21f47907d6708d67cef47d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636833764469933764&sdata=IMGit5Q1HuCiS27W5c%2FYrRK4YSAsnirrOzqyAsFT464%3D&reserved=0>
http://www.biochar-journal.org/en<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biochar-journal.org%2Fen&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13b63bc3b21f47907d6708d67cef47d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636833764469933764&sdata=yU17sK4QFYFsxC35bVezp7cYdcVF7XBV0VS0zFTj4Q8%3D&reserved=0>
Phone, US: 1-415-233-7366
Skype: potaylor

On 12/22/18, 4:43 AM, "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=psanders%40ilstu.edu&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13b63bc3b21f47907d6708d67cef47d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636833764469933764&sdata=wsa2cPxWQ4A85ATHgdkNlgISOm2G3D191f15ps6rLuQ%3D&reserved=0>> wrote:
fficult for clean air agencies to regulate them for health reasons. More and more data says ultrafine particulate emissions are linked to an incredible array of human diseases and health consequences. With the need to sequester as much carbon into the soils as global warming suggests, it will be incredibly difficult to prevent mankind from endangering itself with a health consequences of particulate emissions.

With your experience on these quick and dirty flame cap kilns, what is your "sense of appreciation" for them.

Norm

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:07 PM Paul Taylor <potaylor at bigpond.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=potaylor%40bigpond.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13b63bc3b21f47907d6708d67cef47d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636833764469933764&sdata=6Ltjvz9T50ffQDlSOTuPbN0c8FI7Ikb9DlNZU12hXtM%3D&reserved=0>> wrote:
With a vortexing flame cap mode and incremental fuel feed at the completion of TLUD mode there is no need for other primary air entering from the bottom.  Unless some further oxidation is desired for enhanced functional groups on the char, open PA at the bottom presents the insecurity of losing some char.  If a portion of the flame cap exits the down-drafting vortexing mode, or the TLUD develops common internal convection loops (such as up the center and down the colder walls), easily enhanced by chaotic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190118/cace7e91/attachment.html>