Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Charcoal

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net>
  • To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] Charcoal
  • Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:00:04 -0000

Hi all,

I seem to have caused a flood of mails about charcoal.

Let me first explain why I don't like the name "bio-char". Charcoal has been
made by mankind for thousands of years for very specific reasons one
important one being that it does not decay and will stay in it's original
form for an extreme long time. That can only be because it is dead and most
definitely not alive as the name "bio"= old Greek for life suggests.
The bio part is only there to make it a good sales argument imo.

The most economically important reason for making charcoal was/is that as a
fuel it is very superior to the wood it was made from. Before coal mining
came to be it was essential to have charcoal for smelting metals and to work
blacksmith forges. It burns much hotter than wood.
Another reason for making charcoal was that it makes it much easier to bring
fuel from the woods down to human population centers. A freshly felled tree
might take extreme hard work for several horses to move while a child could
lift and carry the charcoal that was made from that tree.
Another reason was that charcoal does not soak up rain water as wood does.
You can leave it out in the open under the worst of weather and it will
remain the same.

The internet is full of recipes to make charcoal at home and all of these use
a large amount of energy to convert wood to charcoal. Which is OK if you use
the waste heat for cooking and heating but not if you think to do well for
the planet and to sequester carbon because for every kilo of charcoal you
make you are going to immediately release, there and then, 20-50 kilos of
carbon dioxide into the air. Much more if the timber you are starting from
has a high moisture content and admittedly less if you use an electric system
that is fed by nuclear or alternative energy.
If you use the energy of burning timber to make charcoal you should weigh all
the timber used in the process beforehand and then weigh what is left over as
charcoal to give you an idea of the truth of this. The missing kilos have
gone up as carbon dioxide mostly.

OK you have made charcoal which means that for the most part only the
original cell walls of the timber are now left over and they consist of
crystalline carbon.
If you look closer you will even find Bucky ball and grapheme structures in
there. Is that all?
No there are also still aromatic hydrophobic substances there and for those
without much chemistry, aromatic means benzene like hexagonal ring structures
and many of these are known carcinogens to man and beast.

It can take a year to multiple years for these aromatics to leach out under
average weather or soil conditions. And even if the remains of those plant
cells look like nice apartments for microbes and fungi to some, just like
flats in a high rise they are a toxic habitat without food for micro
organisms. If anybody can see with the naked eye colonies of bacteria and
fungi in there they have better eyes than almost anybody alive. It is thought
today that almost ten % of our body weight consists of such organisms and
they are completely unnoticed by most until they cause a problem.

Is there any way to get rid of these aromatic compounds fast? Thankfully yes.
The process is called activating charcoal and it is simply done by setting
the charcoal back on fire under high oxygen conditions (bellows from below is
a good way) and then quenching with clean water.

This activated charcoal is what is used in gas masks and water filters and it
has extremely beneficial medicinal uses. This sort of charcoal will bind
extremely willingly with all kinds of man made toxins everywhere. As David
Muhl says, it will be chockfull of glyphosate in most American soils before
long. I am thinking that this is the main reason that some people see good
effects from adding charcoal to soil.

Christopher Nesbitt mixes his charcoal into the compost and sees extreme
beneficial effects from this mix. I wonder what compost on it's own would do?
Just maybe, charcoal in the mix could slow down decomposition of his compost
under tropical conditions and have a beneficial effect that way. As a side
note, according to the late Dr. Bargeela Ratever, a fore runner of scientific
organic farming, rice hulls were the best thing to break impossibly heavy
clay soils into more workable and plant friendly soil. She advocated
harrowing in the raw hulls into the top 2 inches of clay. I do think that the
charcoaled hulls would still have a residual beneficial effect because they
would still contain silicon for instance.
Heisenhauer seems to drench his charcoal with urine and sees good effects
from that. Unfortunately urea is not readily adsorbed by charcoal. So I don't
know why he should see immediate colonization of the charcoal.

One other important point is to quantify the sequestration of carbon. Even if
we burned the complete biomass on the planet to make charcoal it would still
be a ridiculously minor bucketful compared to the sea of CO2 pollution caused
by the oil and coal industries and our burning of their products and there is
no doubt in my mind that it would make us all extinct if we attempted it.

All the best to all,
John







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page