My Journey With Biochar
As the core founder of the biochar company, Glanris, you would think that I would be all in, head over heels extolling the virtues of Biochar, especially as that company is actively engaged in fund raising for a new plant out west. Make no mistake, I am always a cheerleader for my creations, my children if you will, and without exception I want this one to flourish. I worked very hard to launch Glanris.
Along with Doctor L. Yu. Lin, Professor emeritus at Christian Brothers University, and his son Joshua, the inventors of Glanris now famous 901X, I worked to refine the performance on our biochar, and to develop a process for regeneration that allowed the media to be used multiple times in the process of heavy metals removal. No other biochar to date has been shown to be regenerable.
I am proud to be part of the patent process that brought 901X to market.
https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAbstract?id=11235988&type=patNum
https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAbstract?id=12030791&type=patNum
Let me also state that in my opinion, the rice husk biochar that Dr. Lin created has explosive potential in heavy metal removal, process improvement, and catalyst delivery, which is becoming more and more critical to groundbreaking manufacturing technologies. Indeed, we have had great success in the industrial arena minimizing waste discharge at an automotive manufacturer, reusing toxic metals at a medical device facility, and replacing hundreds of hours of tank-cleaning labor at a plant that makes cooling coils. Glanris 901X hasn’t even scratched the surface of what its water filtration capabilities are.
A Recurring Discovery
In a recent article published by trellis.com author Jim Giles extolled the virtues of biochar as a tool against climate change and biomass pollution. He pumped up biochar as something that could save our planet. However, in the first paragraph of his article, he lamented that up until now, investment into biochar has been anemic.
Many are puzzled by this, however, if we set aside the euphoria and fanaticism of “saving-the-planet and soberly examine the critical part of science that climate conversations typically ignore, the lack of enthusiasm for funding biochar projects starts to make sense.
What Is Biochar?
Before we get into the obstacles to biochar, let’s define what it is. Biochar is a stable solid, rich in carbon that is made from organic waste material or biomass that is partially combusted in the presence of limited oxygen. Normally, the char process, called pyrolysis is performed at temperatures that can range from 275° C – 1,000° C or even higher.
https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/biochar
The raw material used to make biochar includes rice husks, corn husks, grape vines, nut shells, coconut shells, feathers, manure, and basically any crop material that normally gets thrown away. I know of an operation that turns discarded shoes into biochar, (don’t ask).
Some Biochar Downsides In Agriculture
- Crop yield may decline due to sorption of water and nutrients by the biochar.
- Reduced efficacy of pesticides due to sorption by the biochar.
- Some biochars are a source of contaminants like heavy metals etc.
Biochar is nothing new. Farmers have used this for decades to improve their soil. However, with the Earth accumulating more biomass the research into what else can be done with biochar has grown exponentially. Scientists like Louie and I have found that biochar can capture heavy metals, reduce atmospheric CO2, make smarter concrete, and perform many additional tasks.
To the casual observer investing in biochar is a no brainer. Unfortunately, science, engineering, and the basic principles of commerce illuminate why it isn’t a no-brainer. Let’s illuminate some of them.
Problem #1 -Biochar Is Not Novel Or Distinct
For the most part biochar is biochar. It doesn’t matter where the biochar comes from, save for a few exceptions, the differences between various biochar types is at most, minimal. Oh, the different makers will extol the virtues of their process and feedstock, but the truth be told, there are no outstanding biochar products that threaten to disrupt the market and do something boldly different than their competitor. If I was investing in biochar, the first question I would ask is, “how is yours different”?
Now, there are certain chars that excel in certain areas. Bone char remains the king for metal removal while coconut shell char remains the king of making granular activated carbon. However, these are age-old technologies, and within their respective markets, every media company has their own version of the same basic products.
Making matters worse, it doesn’t require rocket science to make biochar. Anyone can buy a rotary kiln and start pyrolyzing whatever biomass they choose. I don’t know about you, but I would be reluctant to invest in something that anyone with a few bucks could duplicate. And remember, many large farms already generate biochar.
So, you have a patent to make your biochar at 560° C ? Okay, I will simply make mine at 560.3°C. Unfortunately, before I can get an order from my customer, someone else has made theirs at 560.6°C. So how are they different?
Imagine now that you approach a customer who is using Corn Husk biochar to make cement. You tell him that your corn husk char is better. Meanwhile, he has other salesmen trying to convince him that grapevine char, rotten fruit char, and sheep dung char is better. Just how many tests of different chars does the industry expect that a customer is going to make? How does a char company differentiate their product from another? Is corn husk char from Nebraska the same as corn husk char from Ohio? What happens if the farm changes its crop seed?
Climate advocates deal in idealism and emotions. On the other hand, scientists, chemical engineers, process managers, and plant managers deal in specifics, in hard details.
For instance, the user of hydrochloric acid can look at the assay of a sample and calculate exactly what the yield, waste, energy consumption, heat generated, off gasses, and a whole host of other process details are before making his choice on a particular offering.
Conversely, the biochar company can offer no such technical, and performance assurances.
Climate advocates just can’t get it through their heads, that the world of process management is not going to discard their precise science just because some char salesman is chirping happy prose about saving the planet. That isn’t enough. If the biochar industry wants to make headway, then it needs to start speaking the language of engineers, chemists and process designers.
Problem #2 – Don’t Be Dense
Density, or more specifically, low density is a problem for the biochar industry. Depending on the type of feedstock, biochar can weigh anywhere from between 5 – 20 pounds per cubic ft, with 10 pounds per cubic ft.
https://www.biochar-journal.org/en/ct/71
So why is low density a challenge for the biochar industry? Let’s look at the projected shipping costs associated with biochar.
- A 40-foot truck trailer can carry between 40 – 50 supersacks.
- A supersack contains 30 cubic ft
- At 10 pounds per cubic foot average weight, a supersack of biochar weighs about 300 pounds
- Extrapolating, a truck can deliver between 12,000 – 15,000 pounds of biochar.
A typical 40-ft tractor trailer can deliver a load of 58,000 pounds. What this means economically is that it will take 4 – 5 truckloads of biochar to equal the same weight of competitive media. While biochar may look economical to the naked eye, when we account for shipping, even though it may be cheaper per pound to buy, it could wind up costing 3- 4 times as much as other media because of the shipping charges.
In some processes, perhaps 1 part biochar will replace 3 or 4 parts of something else in which case the density wouldn’t be an issue, but still, overall, having a higher per-pound price right out of the gate is a disadvantage for biochar. At a certain distance from the manufacturer, biochar ceases to be feasible. This is a product that usually requires the customer to be located close to the pyrolysis plant.
Also, a problem is that the feedstock itself is often very low in density, and it is not feasible to ship the raw feedstock at any great distance. This means biochar plants have the best chance of success when they are located close to where the crop is grown and to where the customer is. This doesn’t eliminate biochar as a viable business, but it does restrict it geographically.
Please understand, I am not condemning the biochar business to failure, however, when asking the question of why have investors been steering clear of the industry, the density issue looms large
Problem #3 – Don’t Ignore Science
The thunderous, and I believe ominous factor that does condemn biochar to a very small, confined space, can be found in simple science.
It has been my experience that there are two types of scientific entities associated with C02 reduction/climate change mitigation.
- The non-scientific opportunist who believes that they can jump on a bandwagon, supersede all existing scientists, and save the world with their enlightened leadership
- University researchers whose asses never leave the lab chair, and who get paid to produce the desired outcomes of the grant money funding this agenda.
What you won’t find connected to climate change technology are scientists and engineers who build and operate plants, who are responsible for profitability, who have their hands actively involved in the manufacturing/profit/consumption/discharge process.
If you were to spend a day with a sharp plant manager of a company that consumes a lot of energy, water, and raw materials, and who generates a lot of waste/discharge, you would find a man who dedicates his life to finding efficiencies, savings, regulation/citation avoidance and making his process as profitable as possible.
The entire idea of carbon sequestration then, in this author’s opinion, is an idea borne by imbeciles. Allow me to illustrate.
Gasoline, diesel fuel, steel, plastics, medicines, food additives, alcohols, graphite, diamonds, sugars, proteins, fats, oils, greases, graphene, and the very composition of plants and animals all have one thing in common. That is of course they use chemistry that is based on the carbon atom.
Do you see the stupidity of carbon sequestration yet? If not, let me turn on a lightbulb to show you how a seasoned, well-rounded scientist digests this reality. All the items I listed above not only depend on carbon, but they also have high value. These are items that man needs in order to flourish. In many cases these items are becoming scarce.
The zealot wants to sequester CO2. Conversely, the scientific genius seeks to convert CO2 into Carbon Monoxide (CO). Once that is done the focus is now on how to harvest the carbon in question and convert it into the high value products listed above.
As we speak, there are numerous new technologies being launched that do the exact carbon capture/conversion of which I speak. Understand, this is not an easy feat to achieve, The CO2 molecule is extremely stable. Up until now converting CO2 to CO has been energy intense and it produces unwanted byproducts. However, this is rapidly changing as inventors are now coming forward with new technology which will make this process not just a reality, but a staple of our manufacturing plants. For the first time ever, manufacturing plant exhaust fumes will help the environment and the economy.
There are a few technologies that have captured my attention.
- MIT researchers are using DNA and other catalysts to make the conversion process economical.
- https://news.mit.edu/2022/turning-carbon-dioxide-valuable-products-0907
- CO2 Split employs compression, a proprietary plasma process and centrifugation to achieve a very high-quality graphite
- https://co2split.com
- Topsoe Inc., uses a refined electrolytic process to make the conversion to CO efficient
- https://www.topsoe.com/processes/carbon-monoxide
A quick Internet search of CO2 conversion will greet the viewer with many aggressive, powerful and profitable technologies for capturing and reusing this problematic gas. Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this technology is that in addition to removing CO2 from the atmosphere, these technologies can capture the CO2 right from the manufacturing smokestack before it ever goes into the atmosphere.
And if this is not amazing enough, several scientists/inventors have developed technology that can pull CO2 directly from the atmosphere and turn it into useful carbon. Researcher Yang Yang at the university of Florida has developed one such technology. Others, abound.
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-08-device-captures-products.html
I have said this many times before and will continue to do so. The concept of man-made climate change is a concept borne of imbeciles and adhered to by imbeciles. Notwithstanding, if our desire is to reduce CO2, and that represents a huge potential marketplace, then the direction science will take is towards conversion, and not sequestration.
Why would we sequester something that has great commercial value? I am sure many potential investors are asking this question. People choose to invest in things for a variety of reasons so I imagine biochar will find investors who are not science savvy. However, if the task of finding biochar funding has been difficult up to now, new conversion technologies will make it even more difficult.
