I googled but am still kinda in the dark on this one, care to elaborate?? Thx
Paradise California / Camp FIre
- Thread starter candoarms
- Start date
- Replies 114
- Views 12K
I googled but am still kinda in the dark on this one, care to elaborate?? Thx
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
I would suspect he was referring to this, Cory.
I would suspect he was referring to this, Cory.
Not exactly. I'm pretty sure Paul Cox brought it up once before, but it's using charcoal to improve the soil. Most powerplants in the world are/ we're originally designed for coal. They are huge expensive pieces of infrastructure, and most are designed to burn coal by gasification in fluidized beds. What that means is the coal is pulverized, then goes into a reaction chamber where "air" is used to float the dust in space, which allows air to reach everything quite easily to ensure a complete burn. The coal is completely consumed, except for ash.
When something is burned, what actually happens is called pyrolysis. When you burn a match for example, the volatiles are vaporized, mix with air, and then are burned, so the flame never actually touches the match. The charred remains of the match are charcoal (or coke in coal gasification), and are usually consumed to utilize 100 percent of fuel. By adjusting the burn time and air flow, the same process can be altered to leave extra charcoal behind rather than burning it completely. This can then be spread over fields, sometimes even sprayed with microorganisms that help with soil fertility. The charcoal never really breaks down and releases the carbon, and the soil fertility is greatly increased.
These reactions are really fascinating, as the heated coke can actually be sprayed with steam, which liberates h2 and co. I guess it's the preferred industrial method for making hydrogen gas. The resulting char can also be used for blast furnaces and other foundry applications, so it would be very easily adopted in current powerhouses, and in Europe they have been adding biomass to their plants for years. Any hydrocarbon waste can be used as a feedstock, so corn stover, landscape waste, sugar cane residue, human and animal excrement, etc can literally fuel the process, which negates using land for fuel rather than food (like biodiesel or ethanol). It would greatly remove the need for fossil fuels, while simultaneously converting carbon to an easily shipped, stabilized, and useful waste.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
When something is burned, what actually happens is called pyrolysis. When you burn a match for example, the volatiles are vaporized, mix with air, and then are burned, so the flame never actually touches the match. The charred remains of the match are charcoal (or coke in coal gasification), and are usually consumed to utilize 100 percent of fuel. By adjusting the burn time and air flow, the same process can be altered to leave extra charcoal behind rather than burning it completely. This can then be spread over fields, sometimes even sprayed with microorganisms that help with soil fertility. The charcoal never really breaks down and releases the carbon, and the soil fertility is greatly increased.
These reactions are really fascinating, as the heated coke can actually be sprayed with steam, which liberates h2 and co. I guess it's the preferred industrial method for making hydrogen gas. The resulting char can also be used for blast furnaces and other foundry applications, so it would be very easily adopted in current powerhouses, and in Europe they have been adding biomass to their plants for years. Any hydrocarbon waste can be used as a feedstock, so corn stover, landscape waste, sugar cane residue, human and animal excrement, etc can literally fuel the process, which negates using land for fuel rather than food (like biodiesel or ethanol). It would greatly remove the need for fossil fuels, while simultaneously converting carbon to an easily shipped, stabilized, and useful waste.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Damn!
I was just fixing to post that!!!
I was just fixing to post that!!!
Lol it sounds worse than it is. The process is actually so simple you can build one in your back yard out of a 55 gallon drum that makes charcoal using a small amount of wood to start the reaction. The rest of the energy for the process is supplied by the volatiles burned off, resulting in 50 percent plus conversion to charcoal. You could build a smaller one too, so you would never have to buy charcoal for the grill ever again.
https://youtu.be/fBYaP5K0AkE
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_storage
https://youtu.be/fBYaP5K0AkE
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrogenic_carbon_capture_and_storage
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
I wanna be a towering font! 
Because it's more expensive than just burning coal at the moment. Coal is mined on a level that unless you've actually seen the amounts involved, you can't fathom the efficiency. The efficiency is due to the fact that it is a multi billion dollar industry dating back to the dawn of the industrial revolution, and economy of scale. Power generation is an incredibly important part of our society, and experimenting isn't really done because all that is aimed for is reliability, meeting standards, and profit. Have you ever been stuck waiting for a coal train to pass? That much coal is burned daily, in every single plant. The whole train load, if not more. Here they have a storage fields over acres, where d11 dozers are used to shove it into a ginormous conveyor (backup supply). Other plants dump while simply slowing down, directly into conveyors. The boiler itself is hundreds of feet tall, all lined with boiler tubes. The scale is literally mind boggling. Some have been converted to natural gas already, where they have their own high pressure pipelines just to feed it.
To implement this fully, smaller plants would be ideal because transporting biomass, which has dramatically lower btu than coal per pound and volume, is the choking point. Pipelines can be used to help with this, but that relies on using water, while it can be continuously recycled, leads to other issues in some locales. People still see anything burning as backwards, so the windmills and solar plants are pushed, and since they are much smaller require less money to finance, so even banks lean very heavily towards them as opposed to building large, basically coal burning plants. Europe has been working on this for years, and they actually have small plants that power a neighbourhood, and use the excess heat for district heating, further improving on efficiency. To date, I'm not aware of any that are geared towards producing extra charcoal for the purposes of carbon storage, or even as a revenue stream. I have done a ton of research on this, because i wanted to build one at my place, which would use wood waste to power and heat everything, and then expand into making fish meal from the Asian carp problem we have here, which utilizes some of the same technologies and equipment. If i find a moment where time and money line up like stars, i probably will at some point.
To implement this fully, smaller plants would be ideal because transporting biomass, which has dramatically lower btu than coal per pound and volume, is the choking point. Pipelines can be used to help with this, but that relies on using water, while it can be continuously recycled, leads to other issues in some locales. People still see anything burning as backwards, so the windmills and solar plants are pushed, and since they are much smaller require less money to finance, so even banks lean very heavily towards them as opposed to building large, basically coal burning plants. Europe has been working on this for years, and they actually have small plants that power a neighbourhood, and use the excess heat for district heating, further improving on efficiency. To date, I'm not aware of any that are geared towards producing extra charcoal for the purposes of carbon storage, or even as a revenue stream. I have done a ton of research on this, because i wanted to build one at my place, which would use wood waste to power and heat everything, and then expand into making fish meal from the Asian carp problem we have here, which utilizes some of the same technologies and equipment. If i find a moment where time and money line up like stars, i probably will at some point.
squisher
THE CALM ONE!!!!
The cogen plant at the armstrong mill I work at heats our plant, dries our veneer, and excess power is sold to the grid.
http://www.tolko.com/products/bioenergy
http://www.tolko.com/products/bioenergy
Yup, i forgot to mention mills that already utilize it, and have for years. But they all are geared for the most amount of electricity possible, which makes sense because we still have so much fossil fuel use. But by shifting them to carbon negative by increasing the amount of fuel in, they still will produce their max power but will be carbon negative. That's what i was trying to say i guess.
squisher
THE CALM ONE!!!!
I'm tired and off to bed here shortly but I'm not following that last statement entirely/correctly? Which doesn't surprise me!
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Well, to be perfectly honest, and in my humble opinion (of course!) without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without condemning ones views and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say.
I'm having a lot of trouble making the math work on this. The plan is to extract a carbon source, using energy to do so, transport it, using energy to do so, and then transport the waste byproduct to land areas and incorporate it, also using energy, but we can still somehow come out carbon negative?
Terra preta is a designation of a specific type of soil. It is black and has a high carbon content along with a whole bunch of other stuff. Adding charred by-product to soils of different types has not yet been proven to be across-the-board beneficial nor does it in anyway reduce atmospheric CO2.
Not to nicpic but your example of burning a match as being an example of pyrolysis is actually an example of combustion.
You are correct there, my bad. I was trying to explain how the volatiles are consumed first, which is true for all solid fuels, and that process is pyrolysis because the oxygen level on the surface of the fuel is too low. If I'm not mistaken, the part of the flame is actually called the zone of pyrolysis or the distillation zone. As far as fuel (which could be from biofuel or battery) being used in transporting materials that's exactly how we do it now. Sorting waste streams that are already handled is far easier and less energy intensive than say... coal mining. I don't farm or garden, all i know from my limited research on terra preta is that carbon isn't bad for soils, and scientists have recommended slash and char rather than slash and burn for land clearing in tropical regions. Really it doesn't matter if it is simply dumped in a giant hole, because producing charcoal that isn't later burned is removing solid carbon from the carbon cycle, which is very carbon negative. Dumping it on fields if it improves or doesn't harm them would be ideal i would think, because the fire risk is mitigated then.
In the example of a biomass cogen plant, the plant was designed and is operated to completely consume the fuel, continuing combustion to the point that ash is the only thing left. What i was suggesting that even more waste fuel be used, but only the volatiles are consumed, leaving behind biochar. Then the plant would be operating as carbon negative rather than carbon neutral, because solid unburned charcoal would be a byproduct. Co2 sequestration could further increase the carbon stored, but I'm not really familiar with how that works in the long term. I know they use amines to absorb it, then pump it underground, and it's been used quite successfully, but even from working in amines plants, I'm not familiar with the energy requirements.
In the example of a biomass cogen plant, the plant was designed and is operated to completely consume the fuel, continuing combustion to the point that ash is the only thing left. What i was suggesting that even more waste fuel be used, but only the volatiles are consumed, leaving behind biochar. Then the plant would be operating as carbon negative rather than carbon neutral, because solid unburned charcoal would be a byproduct. Co2 sequestration could further increase the carbon stored, but I'm not really familiar with how that works in the long term. I know they use amines to absorb it, then pump it underground, and it's been used quite successfully, but even from working in amines plants, I'm not familiar with the energy requirements.
flushcut
TreeHouser
Grow algae and pump it back into the ground where it will turn back into fossil fuel.
Growing it will pull co2 out of the atmosphere, pumping it back into the ground will store it, and reused at a later date. Renewable, as long as there is sun light, water, and a co2 supply , energy that is carbon neutral, at a glance.
Growing it will pull co2 out of the atmosphere, pumping it back into the ground will store it, and reused at a later date. Renewable, as long as there is sun light, water, and a co2 supply , energy that is carbon neutral, at a glance.
SeanKroll
Treehouser
Turn off the excess lights, put on a sweater, close the door, don't drive excessively, using water more wisely, less recycling---more reducing and reusing...Those are good ways to not need so much energy. Crazy.
If people had to directly work of their energy, they would use way less, and we would have more healthy people.
If people had to directly work of their energy, they would use way less, and we would have more healthy people.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
We are an eclectic group, to say the least!
candoarms
TreeHouser
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #96
Tree09,
My Brother, Kevin, works in the control room at the Jeffries Coal Fired Electrical Plant near Manhattan, Kansas. They have three boilers in that plant that produce a max of 795 MegaWatts per hour.
I asked him about the coal and about how much they go through each day.
Here is his reply....
"We burn 33,000 tons per day. A coal car holds 120 tons. That's 275 coal cars per day, or 11.5 coal cars per hour. We receive 10 trains per week, each with 120 cars of coal.
That's making some steam!
Joel
My Brother, Kevin, works in the control room at the Jeffries Coal Fired Electrical Plant near Manhattan, Kansas. They have three boilers in that plant that produce a max of 795 MegaWatts per hour.
I asked him about the coal and about how much they go through each day.
Here is his reply....
"We burn 33,000 tons per day. A coal car holds 120 tons. That's 275 coal cars per day, or 11.5 coal cars per hour. We receive 10 trains per week, each with 120 cars of coal.
That's making some steam!
Joel
candoarms
TreeHouser
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #97
For those of you who might be interested, here's a link to a site that contains aerial views and videos, taken by drones, of the entire Paradise California (Camp Fire) area.
https://buttecountyrecovers.org/drone-images/
Joel
https://buttecountyrecovers.org/drone-images/
Joel
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Sad...
candoarms
TreeHouser
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #99
Butch,
It is sad....no doubt...but there is so much to be learned from this event. I hope the people in charge out in California take the time to sit down and discuss what happened here. It doesn't have to turn out that way. There will always be fires. We can't stop that from happening.....but we can do something to help give these towns a fighting chance.
Joel
It is sad....no doubt...but there is so much to be learned from this event. I hope the people in charge out in California take the time to sit down and discuss what happened here. It doesn't have to turn out that way. There will always be fires. We can't stop that from happening.....but we can do something to help give these towns a fighting chance.
Joel
Over here we now have over 100,000ha burnt since Dec 23.
The scary part is that habitats that are NOT fire succession habitats, such as the alpine region that previously were resistant to fire because they were wet/damp have now become dry enough to burn.
Endemic pencil pine and native cushion plant alpine habitats and some of the wet temperate forests have burnt, the plants are toast.
Cumulative dry spells, insufficient snowfall, insufficient rain, those habitats that until 2000 were resistant to dry lightning strikes igniting fire are no longer resistant.
It will be interesting to see what happens next, what will grow back, or not. Some areas burnt a few years ago are now gravel beds...
The scary part is that habitats that are NOT fire succession habitats, such as the alpine region that previously were resistant to fire because they were wet/damp have now become dry enough to burn.
Endemic pencil pine and native cushion plant alpine habitats and some of the wet temperate forests have burnt, the plants are toast.
Cumulative dry spells, insufficient snowfall, insufficient rain, those habitats that until 2000 were resistant to dry lightning strikes igniting fire are no longer resistant.
It will be interesting to see what happens next, what will grow back, or not. Some areas burnt a few years ago are now gravel beds...
