Posts
Try not to hate it just because it says Democrat. Since we rely on coal for 98% of our power we must work to shape what is to come not pretend like it won't.
This blog hasn't been getting much attention becuase with the elections, waiting for the presidents to change, and recession cap and trade was stalled.
Now Cap and Trade is coming closer and we must prepare.
Here is a discussion on newsvine about the state of it today.
Also there is some past thoughts from this blog on various aspects.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Biochar: It’s elemental my dear Watson
An article I posted on newsvine.
It just occurred to me why I find Biochar so interesting.
First let’s review what Biochar is. Basically you burn something woody without air and you get charcoal. This isn’t the charcoal you buy in the store. It’s the charcoal you find at the bottom of a campfire. Basically if the hot coals don’t get air they cool off and become charcoal.
This thing about Biochar is, it is microporous (it has a bunch of cavities in it like a sponge, but not soft like a sponge). That allows it to store water, create a home for microbes safe from worms, and allow certain soil chemistry process work faster. It the right conditions it promotes growth like a fertilizer but it is not a fertilizer, it is a soil amendment. Most of the time it stays in the soil for long periods as evidenced by charcoal produced from ancient volcanoes, south American agriculture, and even northern American industrial revolution ironworks. It not part of the ecosystem it is a catalyst for it.
Besides that description why are people so drawn to it?
I hope I don’t offend anyone by saying I don’t believe in the mystical elemental forces of earth, wind, fire, and water. But to a certain extent we all have these very basic concepts in the back of our minds. The wind (air) part of our thoughts is attracted to removing the carbon from the air and returning it to the ground(earth). The fire in our mind’s eye gets to come out to play in the creation of Biochar. The water in our imaginations gets to stay in the earth a little longer. And the earth soil part of ideas is happy to make a home for water and fire to support the roots of life and draw more carbon from the air back into itself.
A bit mystical? Perhaps. But it’s on the same line as why to red cars sell better? Simply because most people like red. It doesn’t make them work better.
However Biochar does work under the right conditions. In addition to that it does multiple things at once. Even if you do not belive that CO2 in the air is causing an issue, Biochar also helps plants to simply grow better with less help. That help being water and fertilizer. Also there are ways to make Biochar that produce usable energy rather than use energy. That activates the love of multiuse items (swiss army knife) part of our brains.
Just like anything else that is practical it has limits. Certain soils are helped more and certain woody things make better Biochar. Also harvesting every last tree in the world isn’t an option. Old growth forests have much more value than the lumber they contain.
However Biochar is one of those things that can work off of non-prime material. In other words it doesn’t have to be the best wood in the world to have use as Biochar. Now not anything will work but there is far more scrap biomass that is not used today. Take for instance forests (and grasslands) that are prone to wildfires. Those random woody leftovers could be good for Biochar. Those weedy invasive plants growing in highway medians could be useful. Actually any invaisve is a candidate. Harvest the invasive plants and replace with native ones. Also yard waste is another candidate. We have to remember that leaving wood rot in a forest is part of the ecosystem as well and that compost and mulch have their uses. But there is room here to do something helpful.
Biochar can also provide work for many people. While there is a high-tech part to Biochar production, simple Biochar can be made the way it was made over a thousand years ago. The key to labor in this time where we find it difficult to keep all working is to provide way where work can do multiple things at once.
It just occurred to me why I find Biochar so interesting.
First let’s review what Biochar is. Basically you burn something woody without air and you get charcoal. This isn’t the charcoal you buy in the store. It’s the charcoal you find at the bottom of a campfire. Basically if the hot coals don’t get air they cool off and become charcoal.
This thing about Biochar is, it is microporous (it has a bunch of cavities in it like a sponge, but not soft like a sponge). That allows it to store water, create a home for microbes safe from worms, and allow certain soil chemistry process work faster. It the right conditions it promotes growth like a fertilizer but it is not a fertilizer, it is a soil amendment. Most of the time it stays in the soil for long periods as evidenced by charcoal produced from ancient volcanoes, south American agriculture, and even northern American industrial revolution ironworks. It not part of the ecosystem it is a catalyst for it.
Besides that description why are people so drawn to it?
I hope I don’t offend anyone by saying I don’t believe in the mystical elemental forces of earth, wind, fire, and water. But to a certain extent we all have these very basic concepts in the back of our minds. The wind (air) part of our thoughts is attracted to removing the carbon from the air and returning it to the ground(earth). The fire in our mind’s eye gets to come out to play in the creation of Biochar. The water in our imaginations gets to stay in the earth a little longer. And the earth soil part of ideas is happy to make a home for water and fire to support the roots of life and draw more carbon from the air back into itself.
A bit mystical? Perhaps. But it’s on the same line as why to red cars sell better? Simply because most people like red. It doesn’t make them work better.
However Biochar does work under the right conditions. In addition to that it does multiple things at once. Even if you do not belive that CO2 in the air is causing an issue, Biochar also helps plants to simply grow better with less help. That help being water and fertilizer. Also there are ways to make Biochar that produce usable energy rather than use energy. That activates the love of multiuse items (swiss army knife) part of our brains.
Just like anything else that is practical it has limits. Certain soils are helped more and certain woody things make better Biochar. Also harvesting every last tree in the world isn’t an option. Old growth forests have much more value than the lumber they contain.
However Biochar is one of those things that can work off of non-prime material. In other words it doesn’t have to be the best wood in the world to have use as Biochar. Now not anything will work but there is far more scrap biomass that is not used today. Take for instance forests (and grasslands) that are prone to wildfires. Those random woody leftovers could be good for Biochar. Those weedy invasive plants growing in highway medians could be useful. Actually any invaisve is a candidate. Harvest the invasive plants and replace with native ones. Also yard waste is another candidate. We have to remember that leaving wood rot in a forest is part of the ecosystem as well and that compost and mulch have their uses. But there is room here to do something helpful.
Biochar can also provide work for many people. While there is a high-tech part to Biochar production, simple Biochar can be made the way it was made over a thousand years ago. The key to labor in this time where we find it difficult to keep all working is to provide way where work can do multiple things at once.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
5th Grade Biochar
Above are some graphs from a 5th grade "biochar" project.
OK. It doesn't say biochar in the report and we used AMMO-CARB (a fish aquarium charcoal/zelolite mix). The detailed data is here.
It didn't "win" but is caught some attention.
No copyright (just don't plagerize).
This site is only monitored rarely (doesn't that happen to them all). I'll try to answer questions if I get back here.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Electric Vechicles? 2041?
Why 2041? Three places to look.
In a Newsweek article there was mention of batteries improving 8% per year.
In a wiki supercaptior article : "For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg and modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg. In automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg, which operates at 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency giving an effective energy density of 2,400 W·h/kg."
That means we need something about 20 times better than lithium-ion batteries.
At 8% it take about 40 years to get 20 times better.
Using the wiki lithium-ion article Litihium-ion was proposed in the 1970s and the first commercial version was made in 1991.
Adding 40 years to that gives you "miracle battery/capacitor" was proposed in 2010s and the first commercial version was made in 2041.
Things could happen quicker or slower but it represents the leap we have to take to get there. This is where hybrids and smaller vehicles fill the gap.
Also remember when someone is saying replace transport fuels with electric you have to consider what is being replaced. If you replace gasoline with a all electric vehicle run off coal, coal only has to provide 20% of the energy the gasoline did. Adding in electric transmission loss and electric engine loss use about 25%.
In the future where hybrids are the majority the comparison may be 40% tank-to-wheel efficiency which would make the coal need to provide 45% of gasoline. At that point you begin to get into the area where there is more CO2 generated by the coal. Then again cars will never have a on-board method of capturing CO2 where with coal it is possible.
In a Newsweek article there was mention of batteries improving 8% per year.
In a wiki supercaptior article : "For comparison, a conventional lead-acid battery is typically 30 to 40 W·h/kg and modern lithium-ion batteries are about 120 W·h/kg. In automobile applications gasoline has a net calorific value (NCV) of around 12,000 W·h/kg, which operates at 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency giving an effective energy density of 2,400 W·h/kg."
That means we need something about 20 times better than lithium-ion batteries.
At 8% it take about 40 years to get 20 times better.
Using the wiki lithium-ion article Litihium-ion was proposed in the 1970s and the first commercial version was made in 1991.
Adding 40 years to that gives you "miracle battery/capacitor" was proposed in 2010s and the first commercial version was made in 2041.
Things could happen quicker or slower but it represents the leap we have to take to get there. This is where hybrids and smaller vehicles fill the gap.
Also remember when someone is saying replace transport fuels with electric you have to consider what is being replaced. If you replace gasoline with a all electric vehicle run off coal, coal only has to provide 20% of the energy the gasoline did. Adding in electric transmission loss and electric engine loss use about 25%.
In the future where hybrids are the majority the comparison may be 40% tank-to-wheel efficiency which would make the coal need to provide 45% of gasoline. At that point you begin to get into the area where there is more CO2 generated by the coal. Then again cars will never have a on-board method of capturing CO2 where with coal it is possible.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Appalachian Coalfields Climate Change Forum
Accc dropped by. Great site to keep informed.
Using Accc was able to find:
Two articles (1, 2)on how Kentucky's coal exporting. The thing that one must be remember in the future that extra mining safety and environmental requirements will no longer be an argument of raising coal prices. Now foreign interests will be getting the benefits of putting Kentucky at risk while raising prices more than safety and environmentalism alone.
An article about our own Duke Energy. After reading this if cap and trade gives out carbon credits to "non-emitters" like nuclear plants Kentucky may want to consider a surtax on tonnes of coal going to any state advantaged by the regulation.
Also Sustainable Kentucky has much orginal material and good set of link. It's worth a visit and a RSS.
Using Accc was able to find:
Two articles (1, 2)on how Kentucky's coal exporting. The thing that one must be remember in the future that extra mining safety and environmental requirements will no longer be an argument of raising coal prices. Now foreign interests will be getting the benefits of putting Kentucky at risk while raising prices more than safety and environmentalism alone.
An article about our own Duke Energy. After reading this if cap and trade gives out carbon credits to "non-emitters" like nuclear plants Kentucky may want to consider a surtax on tonnes of coal going to any state advantaged by the regulation.
Also Sustainable Kentucky has much orginal material and good set of link. It's worth a visit and a RSS.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Coal-to-Gas in Kentucky
In Kentucky's energy plan there is a disconnect between Coal-to-Gas and Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC).
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
It seems that the plan calls for separate Coal-to-Gas facilities.
To be clear the residential price for natural gas is just now falling from it's peak of $20 per thousand cubic feet. However the general increase in the price of natural gas is not guaranteed. It is possible that national natural gas available will rise with the use of domestic Shale Gas and other "unconventional" sources.
We are caught in a situation were future natural gas prices will either dramatically increase or dramatically decrease.
In this regard would it not be better to move efforts into separate Coal-to-Gas facilities into IGCC power plants instead.
Here is the reasoning. Natural Gas is needed more in the winter when electricity demand is low. Electricity is needed more in the summer when natural gas demand is low. An IGCC and Coal-to-Gas both produce syngas. Wouldn't a plant that can switch between electric production and syngas production be a way to hedge the bet on where natural gas prices may go?
A more aggressive plan on replacing existing coal boilers with IGCC with full CCS capabilities would eliminate trying to fit CCS onto the older boilers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)