Comments on: Johannes Lehmann: Leftover crops, manure, yard waste

By: Michael Grazebrook

Michael Grazebrook — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:49:23 +0000

I’ve just been reading “Bio-Char Soil Management on Highly Weathered Soils in the Humid Tropics” with interest.

I imagined producing boichar using solar furnaces (suitably sized for a small farm). Small solar furnaces are already used in Africa for cooking to avoid the use of charcoal.

It seemed to me that there should be a potential for marketable distillation products which may be at least as valuable as the biocharr itself. Isn’t this more or less how cedar oil is made? And methylated sprits are also known as wood alcohol.

Thus a farmer might generate multiple benefits from investing in biocharr:
- Carbon credit trading (e.g. through the London market)
- Improved soil fertility
- Marketable distillation products
- The carbon itself as a cash crop

If coal trades at say $100/tonne, could one make a tonne of biocharr using a solar furnace for less? And to what degree would the failure to return the crop wastes to the soil degrade the soil?

What if one wants to produce biocharr on an industrial scale. Perhaps the sugar cane industry could help? Bagass is cane after extracting the liquid. It is normally burned for energy, providing roughly the full energy needs for the process. But if the distillation step were done with solar energy, perhaps the bagass could be used instead for biocharr production?

I have no formal background of relevance, being an electronics engineer. But I’d be curious if my musings are plausible.

By: greenpower

greenpower — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:38:23 +0000

“The Biochar Revolution” with “The Biochar Solution”
I want to call this book: “All about Biochar” because “The Biochar Revolution” collects the results and best practical advice that these entrepreneurs have to offer to the biochar community.

By: J.C. Beat

J.C. Beat — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:41:40 +0000

BIOCHAR in general makes no sense. Its better for the environment, soil and its inhabitants to bury organic material or compost it. Perhaps under some circumstances i.e toxic matarial, inability to bury/compost it may be a feasible alternative solution to other more detrimental methods of disposal.

Seems like Biochar is turning into yet another cottage industry/gimmick.

By: Benjamin Napier

Benjamin Napier — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 02:36:40 +0000

Nicole, taxing is never a good option. It costs a pile of money that will be wasted by the taxing authority. The entire global warming hoax consists of those lobbying government to get carbon trading passed. That is all it is about. Power and money. The environment is fine.

By: Nicole Thompsen

Nicole Thompsen — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 22:36:11 +0000

By taxing carbon emission with $20 per ton CO2, banning new powerplants that emit co2 then this problem would sovle itself – if – and only if – the politicians werent being lobbyied.

By: Kunuthur Srinivasa Reddy

Kunuthur Srinivasa Reddy — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:23:06 +0000

Burning of organic materials of plant and/or animal origin deprives the microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, the food they love to consume. Instead, plant and animal wastes can be subjected to microbial degradation the process by which microbes satisfy their hunger and multiply in number enormously thus facilitating bioconversion of plant and animal biomass. Dr. Chohan Kue’s technology of natural farming developed in South Korea serves to drive out hunger of microorganisms providing excellent food for their growth and survival.

By: TBasket

TBasket — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:30:43 +0000

The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service has estimated that if the United States were to pyrolyze 1.3 billion tons of various forms of biomass annually, it could replace 1.9 billion barrels of imported oil with bio-oil. That would represent about 25 percent of the annual oil consumption in this country. In addition, USDA estimates the country could sequester 153 million tons of carbon annually by adding biochar to soils.

Although widespread research on biochar began less than a decade ago, debate already is brewing on whether its prevailing commercial use will be for fuel or for soil and carbon sequestration.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:26:36 +0000

With all due respect, that is a very uneducated response. The over-simplification is so great that a response could take hours.
I suggest reading Dr. Lehmann’s book and some scientific articles to understand how char can be made and used. I have learned a lot, and will not profess to be an expert any time soon.

By: Benjamin Napier

Benjamin Napier — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:06:04 +0000

Josiah, I will read on it. I must say it looks like a waste of energy. I have two college careers to base my thoughts on beyond my experience. My first major was Animal Science at Texas A&M University. We studied soils and botany as well as general biology and dendrology and forage crops. I graduated with a BS in Environmental Management with a concentration in Sopid Waste Management. That from the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, NY. I taught part of the senior level class on land application of waste. I have built, run and closed MSW and hazardous waste landfills and cleaned up tens of thousands of tons of hazardous waste. I have built Petroleum Contaminated Soils compost piles and fed and stirred them until the petroleum was \”eaten\” by the bacteria. So, I am speaking from some experience and knowledge. I have also worked on construction and shutdowns at fossil and nuclear power plants. Entropy is a bear. It takes a lot of energy to char any material.

It is my experience that trying to establish growth on an area that has a lot of charcoal in and on the soil. It takes HUGE amounts of added nitrogen to cause the charcoal to become biologocally active.

Anyhow, appreciate the conversation. I will look this up and see what I learn.

Ben

By: Josiah Hunt

Josiah Hunt — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:15:47 +0000

Benjamin,

I am glad you that you have the sense to think that way, you are very correct. I was just reading the comments on the USA today article covering the same subject and there was quite a bit of nonsense. A wet material high in nitrogen would be best suited for mixing with organic material high in carbon. However, that same material dry seems to make a suitable Biochar feedstock according to those who have studied it. There are many other organic material waste streams that fit the bill such as; forestry waste, lumber mill waste, corn stover, rice hulls, coconut husks, invasive plant species, and some municipal green wastes.

Biochar itself is an organic material high in carbon and could be used to mix with high moisture, high nitrogen material. In fact using biochar in composting situations seems to be synergistically beneficial to the compost and to the biochar. I speak from experience not just theory, I produce biochar and I have experimented with and analyzed biochar in compost systems. The hot, moist, nutrient rich environment of a thermophillic compost pile can improve the quality of the biochar so as to help achieve immediate positive plant growth responses, in effect the biochar becomes mature, charged and ready for action. In turn, during composting the extremely high adsorptive properties of biochar help to reduce nutrient loss (especially N) and the equally high surface area aids in microbial activity.

When applied to soil, the results can be outstanding. Strictly from an agricultural standpoint this is very exciting and worth the money. I strongly suggest that you look on the internet for articles and pictures showing results. It can cut fertilizer costs, improve yield, and last for decades (if not centuries).