Reversing Climate Change: Biochar in Ten Minutes

[@RawScience]

Bryan Elliott: Frank Shu responds: Bryan Elliott is really sharp to connect supertorrefaction (what we call our process of converting biomass to charcoal by immersion under molten salt) to molten salt reactors (MSRs). This is exactly what our group has as a meta-goal. Depending on the kind of salt used in supertorrefaction and the immersion time, it is possible to produce three different grade levels of charcoal. The lowest grade, ecocoal, is used as a carbon-neutral coal replacement. Ecocoal can have a heating value ranging from 23 MJ/kg and up, i.e., comparable to bituminous coal, but without any of its toxic contaminants. The middle grade, biochar, is a carbon-negative, water-saving, soil amendment. Biochar can remove industrial toxins, like cadmium, from contaminated soils. We do not measure the heating value of biochar (but it can approach that of anthracite coal) because it is too valuable to burn. The highest grade, activated carbon, requires pretreatment of the biomass with a base or an acid, and is used for filtration of liquids or gases. For example, flooding often contaminates the drinking supply with microorganisms. Filtration of such contaminated water can make it potable again because the pores of the activated carbon can pass water molecules but are too small to pass microorganisms. Energy in the form of high-grade heat is needed to perform the transformation of biomass into these three kinds of charcoals (plus liquid and gaseous byproducts that themselves have value as sources of bioenergy). The cheapest form of heat comes from nuclear reactors, especially two-fluid thorium MSRs of the kind that our group favors. Thus, performing a heat exchange of the blanket salt with the (non-radioactive) supertorrefaction salt can effectively augment the energy that is already in biomass into the higher grade energy source that is ecocoal. In such an exchange, we effectively store some of the nuclear energy of thorium as the chemical energy of ecocoal, which can then be used in a safe, distributed, and dispatchable way by communities that choose not to use nuclear power.

[@RawScience]

Dr. Frank Shu's response to Samiam Smith: The main distinctions between supertorrefaction, using molten salts as the heat-transfer agent to char biomass, and traditional torrefaction, using flue gas, are energy efficiency and equipment design. Samlam Smith may have been misled by one of the previous commenters to think that the salt needs to be re-melted for each new batch of biomass. In fact, the salt needs to be melted only once at the beginning of operations (i.e., upon commissioning the facility). Once the salt is molten, it needs to be supplied with heat at a rate that keeps its temperature at a target level (between 300 to 550 Celsius for supertorrefaction). The required supply of heat is defined by the biomass, and not by the heat-transfer medium, namely, whatever is needed to drive out the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to produce char of a given quantity and quality for a given input biomass. In practice, we have better efficiency in transferring the required heat than the conventional process because of our equipment design. Once the biomass has becomes hot, the VOCs bubble out of the salt as gases, with the condensable VOC fraction converted to liquid synfuels, and the incondensable VOC fraction burned to generate baseload electricity for the facility and the local rural community. Because of the inherent advantages of the design, supertorrefaction, using molten salt to do the heat transfer, will always be more energy efficient that traditional torrefaction, using flue gas, for four basic reasons. First, for a given throughput (tons of biomass processed per hour), the equipment is much more compact, so there is less heat lost through imperfectly insulated surfaces than with traditional torrefaction. Second, the compact size means that equipment weighing tens of tons in total can be transported on trucks to the harvest site at most once per season to process hundreds of tons of biomass per day. For a traditional torrefaction effort to be economically viable, one has to truck hundreds of tons of biomass per day of biomass to a large fixed facility. Third, all methods for the thermo-chemical processing of biomass produce charcoal fines and tars that can potentially gum up the moving parts in the system. With supertorrefaction, we are able to burn the charcoal fines and tars inside the salt, thereby turning what is normally a waste and a nuisance into a resource that makes unnecessary any external input of heat via the burning of fossil fuels once the facility is operating continuously. Burning charcaol fines and tars inside the salt has the further advantage of producing no fly ash and being 100% efficient in transferring the heat of reaction to the salt. Fourth, steam constitutes the major fraction of the VOCs expelled from biomass during the supertorrefaction process. This steam bubbles out of the molten salt and is condensed to become the distilled water with which we sequentially wash the salt off the surfaces and inside the pores of the charcoal pieces. The saltiest water is then piped into the melter/heater where the salt is recovered by driving out the water as condensable steam. The salt-recovery step is the only one where supertorrefaction has an energy requirement beyond that required for traditional torrefaction. It is a simple calculation to show, for our wash procedure, that the extra energy penalty is typically only a few percent of the total energy contained in the separated products, which is easily offset by the other advantages of the design.

[@RawScience]

Dr. Frank Shu's response to Bart Van Riet: These are very good questions. My answers follow. If you use these answers in any future work, please cite this Raw Science video. Q1. What salt is used? A1. Many are possible. The main criterion is that they should be recoverable with little loss in a complete cycle that includes washing of the salty charcoal. Q2. How do you prevent the salt from reacting with the biomass? A2. We don’t prevent the reaction if it is desirable. For example, besides water, the main volatile released by most biomass during our process named supertorrefaction is acetic acid. Thus, we choose a salt that reacts with the acetic acid, with the product salt converted back into the original salt by thermal decomposition at the temperature of operation. The net result is the conversion of acetic acid to acetone (and water plus carbon dioxide). By well-known synthesis steps, it is then possible to remove the oxygen from acetone while dimerizing it to produce isopentane, or while trimerizing it to produce mesitylene. Since isopentane is a highly volatile hydrocarbon and mesitylene is a relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbon, different mixtures of the two can fuel, in principle, any form of internal combustion or jet engine. Q3a. Is it pyrolysis or torrefaction? A3a. It can be either. In practice, we operate at temperatures intermediate between traditional torrefaction and pyrolysis. Besides being faster and more compact than either, the intermediate operating temperature (that we can fine-tune to within a degree Celsius) explains the name supertorrefaction. In this manner, we produce a superior char than traditional torrefaction, while avoiding the pyrolysis breakdown of the volatile organic compounds into many small molecules that makes their re-synthesis into useful products difficult and costly. Q3b. Is a gasification medium used? Q3b. By adding an oxidizing agent that is soluble in the molten salt, we can gasify the charcoal fines (that get through the porous basket) without gasifying the charcoal pieces (retained by the basket). The same process essentially burns any tars released by the heated biomass, thereby avoiding gumming up moving parts that are the ruin of many traditional torrefaction or pyrolysis projects. The oxidation occurs without the emission of soot or small particulates, as would happen with incineration.

[@RovingPunster]

+Raw Science Hi, not a chemist here, just a science dielittante. A2: I suppose the decision of whether to sell the isopentane/mesiylene byproducts or to reroute it into an onsite fuel cell to generate heat and electricity that in turn could improve the efficiency of the overall process is purely fiscal. Assuming someone has run the numbers on that, are you willing/able to comment ?

[@fshu1708]

+Roving Punster Isopentane is a hydrocarbon consisting of 5 carbons and 12 hydrogens with all linkages being single bonds. Rather than all 5 carbons being on a linear chain, isopentane is one of the branched isomers that is barely a liquid at room temperature and pressure, and therefore highly volatile and easy to ignite. Mesitylene is a hydrocarbon consisting of 9 carbons and 12 hydrogens with each carbon linked to another carbon in a three-dimensional fashion so that there are only 12 bonds left available for hydrogen atoms. Such a structure is highly non-volatile and remains a liquid even at low pressures (e.g., in an airplane flying in the stratosphere). A liquid like mesitylene is easy to store and transport, but difficult to ignite in air. Liquid mixtures of hydrocarbons that are both easy to carry in a storage tank and possible to ignite are much more valuable than their gaseous counterparts. This is the reason why gasoline, which is typically a mixture of hundreds of hydrocarbons with 4 to 12 carbons, costs much more for the same energy content than natural gas, which is typically 90% methane CH4. Thus, blends of isopentane and mesitylene, made by the company Swift fuels, located in Lafayette, Indiana, can theoretically fuel any form of internal combustion engine used on Earth. Our supertorrefaction process does not produce isopentane nor mesitylene directly. Instead, by using a proper mixture of molten salts, we are able to convert the organic acids that would normally dominate the volatile organic compounds released by heated biomass (like acetic acid) into acetone. Acetone contains only 3 carbons and 6 hydrogens, but because it also has an oxygen, it is a liquid at room temperature and pressure. This property makes it relatively easy to store and ship, although one has to choose the container carefully because acetone is volatile and an excellent solvent of many substances. Its capability for dissolving gaskets is why acetone is not used as a fuel in internal combustion engines. Dimerization and trimerization of acetone can remove the oxygen atoms and result in isopentane and mesitylene. At the present low worldwide prices of diesel oil, gasoline, and jet fuel, without a tax on net carbon emissions, it will be difficult for blends of isopentane and mesitylene derived from renewable biomass to compete against transportation fuels derived from petroleum. Our goal is to lower the cost of acetone so that the renewable path becomes the preferred economic choice.

[@jenylestremos7980]

how did they make molten salt? use of electricity from coal?

[@nekomancer9157]

~1:30 Leucaena is a leguminous tree capable, if being used correctly, of releasing natural nitrogen into the soil and speeding up land reforestation or afforestation. all parts are either edible by livestock and humans or useful in making mulch or the charcoal you are using now. in land restoration there is no pest when managed correctly

[@935AscensionGroup]

Hi, i am a chemistry student in Belgium and have a few questions about this process: First of all : What salt is used? Second: This is a type of fluidized bed reactor where the bed is the salt. How do you prevent the salt from reacting with the biomass? Third: Is this a carbonization process like pyrolisis or is it torrefaction? Is a gassification medium used? Thanks in advance!

[@RawScience]

+Bart Van Riet , here is Dr. Shu's response: These are very good questions. My answers follow. If you use these answers in any future work, please cite this Raw Science video. Q1. What salt is used? A1. Many are possible. The main criterion is that they should be recoverable with little loss in a complete cycle that includes washing of the salty charcoal. Q2. How do you prevent the salt from reacting with the biomass? A2. We don’t prevent the reaction if it is desirable. For example, besides water, the main volatile released by most biomass during our process named supertorrefaction is acetic acid. Thus, we choose a salt that reacts with the acetic acid, with the product salt converted back into the original salt by thermal decomposition at the temperature of operation. The net result is the conversion of acetic acid to acetone (and water plus carbon dioxide). By well-known synthesis steps, it is then possible to remove the oxygen from acetone while dimerizing it to produce isopentane, or while trimerizing it to produce mesitylene. Since isopentane is a highly volatile hydrocarbon and mesitylene is a relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbon, different mixtures of the two can fuel, in principle, any form of internal combustion or jet engine. Q3a. Is it pyrolysis or torrefaction? A3a. It can be either. In practice, we operate at temperatures intermediate between traditional torrefaction and pyrolysis. Besides being faster and more compact than either, the intermediate operating temperature (that we can fine-tune to within a degree Celsius) explains the name supertorrefaction. In this manner, we produce a superior char than traditional torrefaction, while avoiding the pyrolysis breakdown of the volatile organic compounds into many small molecules that makes their re-synthesis into useful products difficult and costly. Q3b. Is a gasification medium used? Q3b. By adding an oxidizing agent that is soluble in the molten salt, we can gasify the charcoal fines (that get through the porous basket) without gasifying the charcoal pieces (retained by the basket). The same process essentially burns any tars released by the heated biomass, thereby avoiding gumming up moving parts that are the ruin of many traditional torrefaction or pyrolysis projects. The oxidation occurs without the emission of soot or small particulates, as would happen with incineration.

[@935AscensionGroup]

+Raw Science Thank you very much! Looking forward to future video's

[@RawScience]

+Bart Van Riet LIkewise, thanks! More will come in the new year.

[@RawScience]

Dr. Frank Shu's response to Samiam Smith: Ian Mansell is correct that one of the benefits of using biochar as a soil amendment is the improvement in the quantity of bacteria and other micro-organisms vital for soil health. Using a scanning electron microscope to examine the product biochar, we find that supertorrefaction maintains the cellular framework of the original plant feedstock, with the cell walls and nutrient channels leading to them having been largely carbonized. The preservation of the cell walls and associated channels means that water and dissolved nutrients have a path to get from outside the biochar into the carbonized pores inside the biochar. The naturally porous biochar can also host micro-organisms that increase the amount of organic carbon that the soil can stably hold for hundreds to thousands of years. Adding biochar to depleted soils can thus be carbon negative in multiple ways: (1) in the feedstock biomass that would have released carbon dioxide and methane had it been left to rot and decay, being converted instead to inert biochar, (2) in the additional growth below ground of micro-organisms that extract carbon dioxide out of the environment if other essential nutrients are added as fertilizers, (3) in the additional vegetative growth above ground on previously fallow land. But as indicated in our response to RazorX1, biochar is not the only grade of charcoal made by supertorrefaction that can contribute negative-carbon emissions. Charcoal tuned as a displacement for coal, can also be carbon-negative when burned as a coal substitute, if that coal-fired power plant has carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) capability. The technology is termed BECCS (with BE = “bio-energy”), and is recognized by the United Nations and the International Panel on Climate Change as a carbon-negative activity. Finally, another grade of charcoal, called activated carbon, can be produced by supertorrefaction from renewable biomass. If this activated carbon is used as a substrate to make durable goods that are not burned, for example, textiles for high-end sportswear, or lightweight parts for airplanes or cars, or electrodes for batteries, or end plates for supercapacitors, then those activities can also be carbon negative, and contribute to the overall mitigation of climate change.

[@xyooj96]

how much does this biochar making machine cost in Melbourne Australia? Like to see if we can get one for our projects

[@nathanielshutt4357]

There is a company based in Melbourne called Earth Systems that can make machines (continuous or batch) cheaper than anywhere else. Worth an enquire

[@xyooj96]

@@nathanielshutt4357 how much is the Earth Systems cost?

[@nathanielshutt4357]

@@xyooj96 I don't know exactly you will have to contact them

[@xyooj96]

@@nathanielshutt4357 someone told me was more than $250k for their basic model and company doesn't tell you until it gets a contract to build to your specs.

[@bryanelliott2107]

Anyone know the energy balance on this? i..e, the kWh/kg char produced using this method? Is there waste heat? Can we, for example, build an MSR that both runs this type of reactor _and_ produces energy?

[@RawScience]

For all that inquired, this is Dr. Frank Shu's response to Bryan Elliott's question: Frank Shu responds: Bryan Elliott is really sharp to connect supertorrefaction (what we call our process of converting biomass to charcoal by immersion under molten salt) to molten salt reactors (MSRs). This is exactly what our group has as a meta-goal. Depending on the kind of salt used in supertorrefaction and the immersion time, it is possible to produce three different grade levels of charcoal. The lowest grade, ecocoal, is used as a carbon-neutral coal replacement. Ecocoal can have a heating value ranging from 23 MJ/kg and up, i.e., comparable to bituminous coal, but without any of its toxic contaminants. The middle grade, biochar, is a carbon-negative, water-saving, soil amendment. Biochar can remove industrial toxins, like cadmium, from contaminated soils. We do not measure the heating value of biochar (but it can approach that of anthracite coal) because it is too valuable to burn. The highest grade, activated carbon, requires pretreatment of the biomass with a base or an acid, and is used for filtration of liquids or gases. For example, flooding often contaminates the drinking supply with microorganisms. Filtration of such contaminated water can make it potable again because the pores of the activated carbon can pass water molecules but are too small to pass microorganisms. Energy in the form of high-grade heat is needed to perform the transformation of biomass into these three kinds of charcoals (plus liquid and gaseous byproducts that themselves have value as sources of bioenergy). The cheapest form of heat comes from nuclear reactors, especially two-fluid thorium MSRs of the kind that our group favors. Thus, performing a heat exchange of the blanket salt with the (non-radioactive) supertorrefaction salt can effectively augment the energy that is already in biomass into the higher grade energy source that is ecocoal. In such an exchange, we effectively store some of the nuclear energy of thorium as the chemical energ

[@johnwisniewski5065]

Can this tech be applied to tire recycling?

[@corpsiecorpsie_the_original]

Pyrolysis is used for tire recycling

[@kimlibera663]

THIS COULD HELP RESTORE LANDSCAPED THAT HAVE BEEN DEGRADED INTO BIOLOGICAL ONES WHICH WILL CAPTURE CO2 BY PHOSYN & THEN SUCH SUBSTANCE CAN USED TO TREAT SOILS IN PLACES LIKE RAINFOREST REGIONS WHICH TYPICALLY DO NOT HAVE NUTRITIOUS SOILS FOR HUMAN CROPS.

[@Yutani_Crayven]

What's the energy cost of this process? Is it really carbon neutral, or do the costs make it unfeasible?

[@RawScience]

Great question playgrrrr. The ratio of energy out to energy in is approximately 5:1 or 10:1 depending on the moisture content of the input biofeedstock. So the process produces net energy even if fossil fuels were used as the energy input. However, their goal is to use a fraction of the produced charcoal as the energy input, in which case there would be no question of the whole cycle being carbon negative if the biochar were buried rather than burned (carbon sequestration below ground), with the bonus that the land becomes more productive with new growth (carbon sequestration above ground).

[@RawScience]

Also, see the response to Bryan Elliott above.

[@nolanyoung8786]

“Just successfully turned plant matter into biochar for the first time” when in reality different peoples have been doing this for centuries

[@Squigglydodah]

Seems like it would take far more energy to create the molten salt (energy that comes from burning hydrocarbons) than to do it without salt. you could make up for the lack of speed in a more conventional system by making far larger burn chambers and automating the feed and exhaust systems. this more conventional design would have a net gain of energy for the community using it and still be producing bio-char to enhance their soils and sequester carbon long term. I cant see this system sequestering more carbon than it would produce in heating the salt. windmills and solar panels aren't gonna get you the kind of energy this reactor is consuming.

[@corpsiecorpsie_the_original]

Concentrated solar is capable of making salt molten.

[@neerajjaju6557]

Is the technology transfer module available?

[@fshu1708]

Neeraj, I have formed a company Astron Solutions Corporation that is building an automated prototype machine that goes to higher molten-salt temperature and can produce biochar in one minute rather than ten. The machine is compact enough to be transportable by truck to the sources of the available renewable biomass. When we have demonstrated technical and economic viability (within the coming year), we will discuss technology transfer and/or partnerships with interested groups.

[@neerajjaju6557]

@@fshu1708 Hello Dr. FShu Profusely thankyou for the prompt reply. I am from Pune, India. I would love to have development inputs from you. my mail Id is [e-mail] Would like to remain in touch with you. Best Regards

[@mehulsinghtomar2049]

@@fshu1708 Please keep us updated, I watch this video every now and then. We truly believe in you Dr. Shu, what you have created is revolutionary. And together we all can contribute to reversing climate change and making earth a better place. Hope to hear from you soon as many people are ready to invest in this technology.

[@CarbonConscious]

Isn't there any shrinkage of the input material? In my TLUD's the material reduces in volume by about half yet in the video I see them open up a vessel that's pretty much full to the brim with char.

[@fshu1708]

That's a good question. In our process, SEM (scanning electron microscope) pictures show that the cell walls get carbonized, with the interiors of the cells gasified and leaving as VOCs (volatile organic compounds). The carbonized cell walls still have some mechanical strength, particularly if the feedstock had a lot of lignin (for example, woody biomass or hard nut shells). Thus, without grinding, the carbonized plant walls do not collapse, and the biochar more or less preserves its original mass. When washed and dried, however, the biochar weighs less than its original biomass feedstock, by a factor of 1/3 to 1/4, indicating that the majority of the original mass has been driven off as VOCs (and steam), leaving behind a very porous solid residue, which is the biochar. In the TLUD process, you burn part of the biomass to supply the heat that chars the remaining biomass. (Our heat comes from the molten salt. For biomass with little moisture content, the torrefaction process is roughly energy-neutral, with the decomposition of the biomass adding as much energy as it takes to carbonize it.) Thus, you have turned some of the biomass into ash; how much ash depends on the efficiency of the TLUD kiln. As a result you lose both mass and volume in the conversion of biomass into biochar.

[@CarbonConscious]

@@fshu1708 "Thus, without grinding, the carbonized plant walls do not collapse, and the biochar more or less preserves its original mass." I'm guessing that should say volume instead of mass? What you describe as a TLUD is actually a retort with a TLUD mantle around it which is different than the proces I'm using which is a true TLUD (Top Lit Up Draft) cylinder and without any material being burned down to ashes. All the heat comes from the fire started at the top of the cylinder using a tiny bit of alcohol to get things started. To end up with biochar instead of ashes the embers are snuffed or water quenched once the pyrolysis front has made it's way to the bottom. Even the match used to light the alcohol can be retrieved as biochar. A video of it can be seen here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ-Yi5KolNyUbbM I have to say that your proces with the molten salt is quite amazing and the material barely shrinking means it comes out with a much lower density (same weight but larger volume) than it would in my stove. When you say your proces is roughly energy neutral does that mean you cannot extract any heat from it for use elsewhere? I guess my stove has a major advantage on that front considering the energy that is released is used for cooking and space heating and thus reducing the fossil fuel needs for domestic heating.

[@CarbonConscious]

The speed of your system is very impressive though and the use of liquid salt circumvents the issue of getting heat deeper into a large volume of chipped material that would be an issue in retort systems where the char created on the outside edges of the retort starts to become an insulative layer which slows down the heat penetration to the middle of the retort.

[@michaeltichael]

Molten salt instead of direct incineration with an open flame. Genius. I hope they collect the wood vinegar from this process.

[@hproposiseshope9153]

I‘m a student of pyrolysis, Is this video published relevant articles? I want to read it. Thanks

[@gyekyeappiahkubi8681]

Do you have the machine in small and medium size for industry? If yes, please what is the price tag? There are tons of wood chip and coconut husk which is creating an environmental problem in my country. This technology can help mitigate the problem and also provide energy. The biomass can be processed into coal for cooking, therefore helping in the reduction of deforestation. Please let me know. You can provide me with contact information so that I can contact you directly Thanks.

[@neerajjaju6557]

Please do contact me [e-mail]

[@igaytanski]

What kind of salt is that?

[@danhelios7557]

Are you keeping the design, or giving it freely to benefit mankind? :)

[@fshu1708]

Dan Helios It is an interesting phenomenon that no organization will invest in applied research unless they can expect to reap economic benefits from the applications. Similarly, all serious modern inventors patent the results of their inventions to attract the interest of investors, or companies, or governments, willing to take the financial risk that novel technologies will give them a competitive advantage. Without such investments, no invention, no matter how noble or powerful, can make a difference in the real world. It is therefore our goal to use our patented technology to build equipment for supertorrefaction that everyone will want to use. Their motivations may be different: to turn waste biomass into a clean, reliable, and sustainable source of electricity, or into biocarbon-based materials useful in agriculture, forestry, municipal waste management, physical/chemical filtration, transportation fuel, energy storage, fabric industry, high-end fabrication/construction, etc. But the metric for success is the same: whether the capital cost and throughput of the equipment can make the approach of thermochemical processing of biomass economically competitive with the extraction of fossil fuels for the same end purposes when everyone follows universal rules regarding air quality and emissions. ("We all breathe the same air.") In the final analysis, independent of political ideology, the bottom line of cost in dollar and cents is the common denominator that everyone understands.

[@griffedwards9159]

@@fshu1708 May I ask you some questions, do you have an email address?

[@nekomancer9157]

~2:15 maling charcoal does not take days. only hours

[@RazorX1]

How will this reverse climate change? From what I gather it's just another creative way to make charcoal which would ultimately end up being burned for energy which would release more CO2 into the air. This would only end up making global warming worse not reversing it.

[@RawScience]

RazorX1 and Keith - Dr Shu is very dedicated to educating people about these things and provides a detailed response to each person's inquiry. Here is the reply to your question: There are three ways in which the use of charcoal made from waste biomass can be carbon negative: (a) as biochar, which is not burned, but buried as a soil amendment; (b) as ecocoal, which is used as a coal replacement in power plants to spare the use of natural coal. For plants that have carbon capture and sequestration capability, CO2 is not released into the air but is stored geologically. (c) as activated carbon or carbon fibers, which are also not burned, but are converted into durable goods currently manufactured with petrochemicals. In these cases, because the end product does not degrade biologically, the carbon is prevented from going back into the atmosphere. Alternative disposal methods, which also use the CO2 captured by growing vegetation, either allows the biomass to rot and decay, thereby releasing CO2, or in the case of anaerobic digestion, releases methane, which is worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. The principle of burying char to lock up CO2 is the same as that for fossil fuels, permafrost, and long-lived trees which locked up the CO2 that was in the atmosphere 300 million years ago at 4000 ppm (not 400 ppm as today) in deep geological formations, or beneath the surface of the land, or as durable constructs of nature. Carbon is a wonderful resource, infinitely transformable in its characteristics if one does not wantonly burn it. Indeed, biocarbon used either as energy or as the feedstock for novel kinds of materials, is the only way that we know how to reverse climate change in a natural and safe manner.

[@RawScience]

+IAN MANSELL, This is Dr. Shu's response: Ian Mansell is correct that one of the benefits of using biochar as a soil amendment is the improvement in the quantity of bacteria and other micro-organisms vital for soil health. Using a scanning electron microscope to examine the product biochar, we find that supertorrefaction maintains the cellular framework of the original plant feedstock, with the cell walls and nutrient channels leading to them having been largely carbonized. The preservation of the cell walls and associated channels means that water and dissolved nutrients have a path to get from outside the biochar into the carbonized pores inside the biochar. The naturally porous biochar can also host micro-organisms that increase the amount of organic carbon that the soil can stably hold for hundreds to thousands of years. Adding biochar to depleted soils can thus be carbon negative in multiple ways: (1) in the feedstock biomass that would have released carbon dioxide and methane had it been left to rot and decay, being converted instead to inert biochar, (2) in the additional growth below ground of micro-organisms that extract carbon dioxide out of the environment if other essential nutrients are added as fertilizers, (3) in the additional vegetative growth above ground on previously fallow land. But as indicated in our response to RazorX1, biochar is not the only grade of charcoal made by supertorrefaction that can contribute negative-carbon emissions. Charcoal tuned as a displacement for coal, can also be carbon-negative when burned as a coal substitute, if that coal-fired power plant has carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) capability. The technology is termed BECCS (with BE = “bio-energy”), and is recognized by the United Nations and the International Panel on Climate Change as a carbon-negative activity. Finally, another grade of charcoal, called activated carbon, can be produced by supertorrefaction from renewable biomass. If this activated carbon is used as a substrate to make durable goods that are not burned, for example, textiles for high-end sportswear, or lightweight parts for airplanes or cars, or electrodes for batteries, or end plates for supercapacitors, then those activities can also be carbon negative, and contribute to the overall mitigation of climate change.

[@stebarg]

Was he assassinated by big oil, or where is he now? What happened with the project?

[@macoppy6571]

Molten Salts used to pyrolize the biomass 🤯

[@MylesNicholas]

Wonder where the methane wood gas goes?

[@corpsiecorpsie_the_original]

It's burned off to either heat the system or create steam or lots of other uses

[@KoenVanLookenThailand]

I prefer to use this Carbon as fuel substitute for other fossil fuel. Its even possible to use this carbon fuel, to convert, CO2 produced, back into Carbon monoxide and into Methanol. quite easy actually... Why sequester if you can substitute imported fuel ? I have my car running on charcoal, my motorbike, my cooking, my generators, waterpumps and i am making liquid fuel as by product...

[@fshu1708]

Koen Van Looken, our plan is to produce the equipment that allows the rapid conversion of biomass into char (10 min if done at 300 Celsius, 1 min if done at 450 Celsius). How buyers choose to use the equipment is their choice. It may well be more economically advantageous to use the char to produce chemical fuels, as you suggest, or to generate electricity, as will be one of the options, than to use it as a soil amendment (biochar). However, biochar may be the only practical method in the short to middle term for getting negative carbon emissions, while improving soil productivity, advantages that could outweigh all other considerations in the coming decades.

[@harrymama77]

FShu how can I purchase a plant like this ?

[@johncoope5971]

Is this bloke for real?

[@Morbius1963]

REVERSE climate change with biochar? Ha! I laugh!

[@OneEyegroup]

Lol global warming. ...riight

[@QuiChiYang2]

What is wrong with this American interviewer? Doesn't he realize what biochar is? What its for? What's 🤦🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️he asking about electricity? 👋🤨"Hello Micfly"! Anyone in there⁉️

[@subilomukupo3131]

I laughed 😂

[@millanferende6723]

Isn't that the whole point of an "interview"?

[@redbull5037]

Climate Change???????