<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I actually agree with Tom on this one.<br>
<br>
There are industries in Ontario who will likely balk at the "50%
rule".<br>
In very acidic soils the high ash (and thus liming effect) of High
Ash Biochar [produced from, for example from "inefficient biomass
boilers"] could be used to very good effect.<br>
<br>
Remediation of acidic mine tailings/ Acid mine drainage (AMD) also
comes to mind.<br>
For instance:<br>
<a
href="http://www.miningwatch.ca/sites/miningwatch.ca/files/amd.pdf">http://www.miningwatch.ca/sites/miningwatch.ca/files/amd.pdf</a><br>
<br>
It's a Global problem and is a "watershed issue of importance to
the full range of public stakeholders".<br>
(I know of a <b>MASSIVE Gold Mine</b> in Quebec, for instance, that
could probably use this type of "high ash" Biochar...)<br>
<a
href="http://mining.about.com/od/SiteProfiles/a/Malartic-To-Become-The-Largest-Gold-Mine-In-Canada.htm">http://mining.about.com/od/SiteProfiles/a/Malartic-To-Become-The-Largest-Gold-Mine-In-Canada.htm</a><br>
<a href="http://www.osisko.com/en/">http://www.osisko.com/en/</a><br>
(This mine will be using "Conventional cyanidation" to extract the
gold from the ore by processing ~<i><b>152,000 tons of ore per day</b></i>.)<br>
<br>
Damage that results from AMD include a variety of Heavy Metals,
cyanide, sulphuric acid... that can cause both chronic nutritional
and water-quality problems, along with chronic illness from
gastrointestinal (and respiratory) diseases.<br>
(Note: The incidence of these pollution-related illnesses is much
higher within Aboriginal populations in Canada, especially those who
live around mines.)<br>
<br>
In fact, pollution has been cited as one of the major causes of
water scarcity and mining, in particular, has come under fire due to
the problem of acid mine water drainage. Coal mining and gold
mining are two of the worst offenders.<br>
<br>
In Canada, there is even an organization called the "Mining
Innovation, Rehabilitation and Applied Research Corporation
(MIRARCO) that some members of the Canadian Biochar Initiative have
been attempting to bring into the "Biochar" conversation"
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.mirarco.org">www.mirarco.org</a><br>
<br>
If the recalcitrant Biochar fraction remains in the soil after
application, even if it is only 1% of the amendment, it should still
be counted.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"> Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.biochar-consulting.ca">www.biochar-consulting.ca</a>
603-48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
905-707-8754
Skype: lloyd.helferty
Steering Committee member, Canadian Biochar Initiative
President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
Advisory Committee Member, IBI
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717">http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario">http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/">http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://grassrootsintelligence.blogspot.com">http://grassrootsintelligence.blogspot.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.biochar.ca">www.biochar.ca</a>
Biochar Offsets Group: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475">http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475</a>
"Necessity may be the mother of invention, but innovators need to address problems before they become absolute necessities..."</pre>
<br>
On 2011-10-27 3:40 PM, Tom Miles wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:009301cc94e0$476a5d80$d63f1880$@com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Ron,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
I apply ash from gasification or combustion of biomass to
soils for its liming effect why shouldn’t I get credit for
the “biochar” fraction of recalcitrant carbon that it may
contain even if it is a low percentage? It may not function
agronomically like high carbon char but at the it is still
recalcitrant carbon. I should only get credit for what I put
in the ground. It shouldn’t it matter if it is mostly ash or
mostly carbon. I would only get credit for the carbon. In
this respect biomass boilers have been sequestering carbon
in the form of biochar for a very long time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
IBI wants to tag different qualities of biochar by as having
50% ash, 25% ash, etc. then it should do so. The “biochar”
in ash may be low but it is still biochar. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Tom
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves;
biochar-policy; Tom Miles".<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re:
Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Tom
and (now) 2 lists (adding biochar-policy):<br>
<br>
This may be the first time I have ever disagreed with
you - so I look forward to further dialog, and apologize
in advance should I be wrong here below.<br>
<br>
I think that there should be a lower limit cut-off -
and 50% seems justifiable - based on the way we handle
majority voting in a democracy. My main rationale is
that, without such a limit, there could be a validity
claim for a lot of material coming out of gasifiers that
is <b><u>mostly</u></b> ash. This refuse will be
attempted to be sold as biochar in order to get the
maximum price for a product that might otherwise need to
pay a tipping fee to get rid of. From a sequestration
promotion perspective, I would rather see the gasifiers
move towards pyrolysis.<br>
<br>
Your last point below on a sliding scale is (I think)
going to be mandatory anyway. It will surely be (or at
least should be) required to receive a carbon credit. If
I am paying for carbon sequestration, I certainly don't
want to pay for ash and dirt. In all likelihood that
payment will even be low-balled to ensure that the labile
component also does not get much/any reward.<br>
<br>
I can't think of any biomass input besides rice husks
apt to have a problem satisfying a 50% minimum rule. To
achieve 50% carbon should be pretty easy - even for rice
husks - by merging different chars (if needed). I believe
Paul Olivier has already reported that he had a superior
flame when mixing rice and coffee husks as the input. <br>
<br>
Ron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">
<hr id="zwchr" align="center" size="3" width="100%"></span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">From:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">"Tom
Miles" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com"><tmiles@trmiles.com></a><br>
<b>To: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, October 26, 2011 8:43:11 PM<br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re:
Stoves Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17<br>
<br>
Where is the evidence that a Minimum should be established
at 50% ash?<br>
<br>
IBI guidelines for specification need to recognize that
there are different<br>
qualities of biochar for different purposes. The draft
guidelines do specify<br>
a method for analyzing carbon, determining H:C ration, and
determining C in<br>
carbonates. I do not agree that a threshold should be
established for<br>
calling a residue a biochar. When does wood ash become
biochar? According to<br>
the draft guidelines it would not become IBI certified
"biochar" until it<br>
had less than 50% ash regardless of the amount of stable
carbon it would be<br>
contributing to the soil for sequestration purposes at
more than 50% ash. <br>
<br>
I don’t think we need to draw a line to call it biochar. A
sloped line might<br>
be drawn for the carbon sequestration benefit that you
would get for<br>
decreasing amounts of stable carbon. <br>
<br>
Tom <br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] On Behalf
Of Frank Shields<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 3:55 PM<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>; 'Discussion of biomass
cooking stoves'<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves
Digest, Vol 14, Issue<br>
17<br>
<br>
Dear Crispin, Tom,<br>
<br>
I think we need to define a minimum *carbon* content for a
material to be<br>
called *biochar*. We can't call something a biochar if it
has less than 1%<br>
carbon for example. So where do we draw the line? We need
to include all<br>
natural biomass made into biochar like rice hulls. The
material needs to<br>
have enough carbon to be useful. So I say 50% carbon a
minimum to be<br>
'excellent' biochar knowing that most all natural, clean
biomass will<br>
produce a biochar with greater than 70% carbon. But open
to other values to<br>
make a scale. This makes it a product with enough value
for a grower to<br>
purchase and spread. <br>
<br>
I think the product should have the carbon content defined
for quality (not<br>
DAF). We should not include the oxygen and hydrogen and
ash. We should<br>
calculate the percent carbon content on the biochar sample
dry weight (200<br>
deg C). If we base quality on percent fixed matter (C-H-O)
after subtracting<br>
the ash I think there is a mistake. Because we 'make' more
ash when we<br>
change the cations into carbonates (increasing weight)
during the process.<br>
More cations from vegetative matter the more the problem.
And this quantity<br>
of ash is not what we are spreading on the field. Also the
carbon trapped in<br>
the ash (as CO3) is not included in the fixed carbon
fraction - it should be<br>
because it comes from the organic carbon in the raw
sample. These are just<br>
details and perhaps not that important. To do what I think
is needed we must<br>
determine the carbon using a Leco CHN analyzer. More work
with expensive<br>
equipment. But if we want to get carbon credits in the
future we need to<br>
start off accurately measuring the potential CO2 we are
fixing. When money<br>
is involved these details need to be addressed. Now is the
time or we will<br>
be back here again at a later time. <br>
<br>
Just because the carbon content is 0.1% and the ash is
99.9% doesn't mean<br>
the product is not beneficial for an ag field. But I don't
think we should<br>
call it biochar even if someone did add a spoonful into a
soil mix. This<br>
rating has nothing to do with benefit to a field. That is
site specific. It<br>
has something to do with label on the bag (or may in the
future). <br>
<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Vegatative plant material is 10 to 20 percent. We test a
lot for nutrients.<br>
It is very hard to get the customer to bring us a clean
sample as it takes<br>
so very little dust and dirt to bring the ash
concentration up. I think<br>
harvesting biomass for biofuel and one will not be careful
to harvest clean<br>
samples. <br>
<br>
If you have 15% ash in a dry organic material. Loose 60%
of the organic<br>
fraction during pyrolysis you have something like 20+
percent ash. And, as<br>
you point out, there can be biomass with much greater than
20% ash. <br>
<br>
I suggested the 50% thinking this would be high enough to
include most all<br>
biomass that is made into biochar. Thinking we need some
limit that if there<br>
is less than 50% carbon <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank Shields<br>
Control Laboratories, Inc.<br>
42 Hangar Way<br>
Watsonville, CA 95076<br>
(831) 724-5422 tel<br>
(831) 724-3188 fax<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:frank@compostlab.com">frank@compostlab.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.compostlab.com">www.compostlab.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] On Behalf
Of Crispin<br>
Pemberton-Pigott<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:42 PM<br>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<br>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar-production] Re: Stoves
Digest, Vol 14,Issue<br>
17<br>
<br>
Dear Frank<br>
<br>
Apart from the special case of rice hull, how could you
get a 50% ash level<br>
in char? Trees are about 0.5% ash. There is not much left
of the fuel if<br>
the char is 1% of the initial mass. <br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Crispin<br>
<br>
Frank,<br>
<br>
I see the ash/carbon content as a sliding scale with
relative changing<br>
benefits rather than a threshold level. If biochar has
less carbon than ash<br>
is there still an agronomic benefit?<br>
<br>
It is not clear how the IBI guidelines will be used. The
guidelines should<br>
list those components that should be measured. The
recommended levels of<br>
those components for different purposes could be separate
recommendations<br>
from IBI to a certification agency.<br>
<br>
If the purpose is stability and carbon sequestration why
limit counting<br>
recalcitrant carbon even if it is 0.1% carbon or, 99.9%
ash?<br>
<br>
Tom<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web
page<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists</a><br>
.org<br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web
page<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists</a><br>
.org<br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web
page<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bioenergylists.org/">http://www.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>