1 / 13

Conservation of Feedstock Nutrients in Pyrolysis Biochars Jatara Wise, PhD 31-7-2012

Conservation of Feedstock Nutrients in Pyrolysis Biochars Jatara Wise, PhD 31-7-2012. Benefits of Bio-char. Sequester C in soil Increase Ca, Mg, P, and K Increase Fertilizer efficiency Decrease Al toxicity Increase Soil Water holding capacity Decrease Nitrous oxide emissions

reed
Download Presentation

Conservation of Feedstock Nutrients in Pyrolysis Biochars Jatara Wise, PhD 31-7-2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Conservation of Feedstock Nutrients in Pyrolysis Biochars Jatara Wise, PhD 31-7-2012

  2. Benefits of Bio-char • Sequester C in soil • Increase Ca, Mg, P, and K • Increase Fertilizer efficiency • Decrease Al toxicity • Increase Soil Water holding capacity • Decrease Nitrous oxide emissions • Reduce bulk density: Soil Dependent

  3. Terra PretaOxisol

  4. Pyrolysis Reactors Fixed-bed (Auger-fed) Fluidized-bed Source: Boateng et al, 2007

  5. Slow Pyrolysis system layout

  6. Why Nutrient Conservation? • Give bio-char a value in fertilizer terms • Improve soil conditions and crop production • Sustainable conversion platform

  7. Research Objective and Hypotheses Objective Hypotheses H0: The conservation of nutrients, on a feedstock basis, does not depend on feedstock, pyrolysis conditions, or reactor design. Ha: There is some dependence. • Evaluate the conservation of feedstock nutrients, mass, and energy in co-products among feestocks using two different reactor designs.

  8. Experimental Design Fixed-bed, slow pyrolysis Fluidized-bed, fast pyrolysis 3 Feedstocks Corn, Switchgrass, and HES 1Temperature 1 Flow rate • 4 Feedstocks • Corn stover, Rice biomass, Switchgrass, and HES • 2 Temperatures • 500 C, 600C • 2 Flow rates • 1 Lpm, 2 Lpm → 4x2x2 Split-Split Factorial Design →Focused on feedstock

  9. Fixed-bed, Slow Pyrolysis Conservation of bio-char nutrients †P=0.05

  10. Fluidized-bed, Fast Pyrolysis Conservation in bio-char and bio-oil †P=0.05

  11. Conclusions • Feedstock dependence • Switchgrass is different from HES, Corn stover, Rice Biomass • Reactor design dependence • Hence, conservation cannot be simply and arbitrarily assumed for a given feedstock or reactor design • Correlation to feedstock fiber properties (cellulose, hemicellulose, sugars, lignin) • Correlation analysis, MLR • Reactor design and construction may contaminate pyrolysisbiocharresulting in elevated (>100%) conservations of select nutrients • Release of metal contaminants from tubing • Needs further investigation • Low conservation of feedstock K (both reactor designs) • Consistent with literature • Vaporization losses (Gaskin et al., 2007) • KCl and K2SO4 at temperatures above 500°C (Boman, 2005) • More complex thermo-chemical reactions • Inside reactor (labile fraction)

  12. Acknowledgements • Committee members • Don Vietor, PhD (Co-chair) • Tony Provin, PhD (Co-chair) • Sergio Capareda, PhD (member) • Clyde Munster, PhD (member) • Funding Sources • USDA National Needs Fellowship • Sloan Fellowship • Hispanic Leaders in Agriculture and the Environment (HLAE) • Sun Grant North Central Region • Group Members • Matt Keough • Derek Husmoen • Ronnie Schnell • Bill Allen

More Related