Promotion of Clean Emissions Charcoal Production and Use of Biochar

Dates of Project: Jan 19 - Feb 27

Submitted to IBI: April 6, 2015

By Jay White jaywhiteadk@gmail.com

Location of Project: Sub-district Administrative Organization (SAO) of Soppoeng Baan Rai T. Soppoeng A. Mae Taeng Chiang Mai 50330 And Mae Lod Royal Agricultural Project Baan Mae Lod T. Soppoeng A. Mae Taeng Chiang Mai 50150 Individuals/Groups Responsible: SAO Soppoeng and Mae Lod Royal Project With Funding assistance by: Friends Of Thailand BACKGROUND INFORMATION List of Terms, Abbreviations, and Symbols ~ : approximately C : carbon Ca : calcium CEC : Cation-Exchange Capacity – a measure of a soil’s ability to retain nutrients based on the electrostatic surface charge of soil particles CH4: methane CO2 : carbon dioxide FOT: Friends of Thailand

GHG: greenhouse gas K : potassium N : nitrogen N2O : nitrous oxide P : phosphorous PCV: Peace Corps Volunteer pH : a measure of acidity. Higher pH values indicate alkaline conditions (low acidity) PM: Particulate Matter SAO: Sub-district Administrative Organization SOM: Soil Organic Matter TLUD: Top Lit Up-Draft kiln, designed for high efficiency low emission pyrolysis Biochar: charcoal used as a soil amendment Charcoal: carbon rich product resulting from pyrolysis incineration Feedstock: organic material that is incinerated through pyrolysis to produce charcoal Gasification burn: the incineration of the gasses released by pyrolysis Opacity: the quality of a substance to not allow light to pass through it Pyrolysis: decomposition of organic matter through incineration in a relatively low heat low oxygen environment resulting in a carbon rich product (charcoal) Rice husk: the shell of the rice seed, removed shortly after harvest Rice husk char: charcoal made from rice husks What is Biochar? The term “biochar” refers to charcoal which is used as a soil amendment. The charcoal referred to here is similar to the traditional charcoal made for cooking and iron-work and found at the base of fireplaces and woodstoves but is not similar to the high-density store bought briquettes familiarly used in backyard grills in the United States. Therefore “biochar” can be thought of as charcoal with the difference being in its use rather than its origin, composition, or physical characteristics. In this report “biochar” and “charcoal” refer to organic material put through the process of pyrolysis: a form of incineration that chemically decomposes organic materials by heat in a low oxygen relatively low temperature environment resulting in a black carbon rich product. (Odesola and Owoseni 2010; Clough et al., 2013) Early evidence of the use of biochar is found in the Amazon where pre-Columbian peoples incorporated large amounts of charred organic material into their agricultural soils 2500 to 500 years ago. These soils to this day contain

significantly higher levels of carbon (C), nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), and phosphorous (P) than the surrounding highly weathered and nutrient poor soils (typical of tropical soils) that surround it. Furthermore, these soils have much higher pH values and cat-ion exchange capacity (CEC) - a measure of nutrient retention and soil fertility- than the surrounding Amazonian soils. In Asia, particularly Japan and Korea, biochar in the form of charred rice husks have a long history of use incorporated in potting soils and organic fertilizers. (Heafele, 2007; Hunt et al., 2007; Steiner, 2007) Agriculture and Global Climate Change Agriculture is one of the most significant sources of anthropogenic (of human origin) caused climate change accounting for 10-12% of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (GHG). Agriculture contributes to three GHGs: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Agriculture’s contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) comes from three sources: (1) burning of fossil fuels, (2) microbial decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM), and (3) burning of natural vegetation and agricultural wastes such as rice straw and corn stover (stalks and cobs). Methane (CH4) is 21 times more potent a GHG as CO2 and is created by microbial decay of organic material in oxygen deprived environments. In agriculture this occurs in gut digestion in ruminant animals (such as cattle) and in flooded rice fields. Agriculture accounts for 50% of anthropogenic atmospheric CH4. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is 310 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 and is created by microbial transformation of N in soils and manures. This is enhanced in wet soils and when excess N that is not used by plants is present, therefore, excess use of fertilizers and wet rice agriculture greatly contributes to atmospheric N2O levels. Agriculture accounts for 60% of anthropogenic atmospheric N2O. (Greenhouse Gas Working Group, 2010; Smith et al., 2007) Potential Benefits to Soil and Crop Yields by Use of Biochar Soils amended with biochar have been shown to have improved water retention, higher pH values, higher CEC, and stimulated microorganism populations. Furthermore, biochar has been shown to add significant amounts of plant available P and potassium (K) to the soil (Altland and Locke, 2012). In field tests plants have been found to have enhanced uptake of N and produce more biomass in soils amended with biochar though the reasons behind this are not yet fully understood. (Carter et al., 2013; Clough et al., 2013)

Biochar is often purported as having the ability to absorb N, reducing the loss of N from soil through leaching and N2O. Although this has been observed in the field, the causes remain speculative and little success has been made in replicating this in the lab. Altland & Locke (2012) demonstrated biochar delaying but not preventing the leaching of N from sphagnum peatmoss in the lab while Hyland et al (2010) and Yao et al. (2012) demonstrated some types of biochar being able to retain some forms of N in laboratory settings. Further research needs to be done to determine the exact causes of reduced N leaching and N2O release observed in many biochar amended soils in the field. (Clough et al., 2013) Speculation for biochar’s ability to retain N and water and boost microbial activity is the incredibly fine porosity of charcoal, especially when produced at higher temperatures (>600˚C). This physical attribute is hypothesized to provide habitat for microorganisms and act as a sponge for water and nutrients. (Hunt et al., 2010) If, as the field trials have suggested, soils amended with biochar can reduce the amount of N lost through leaching and to N2O it could have significant impacts on crop yields, the amount of fertilizer needed for those yields, and the amount of GHGs produced by fertilizer application. It could also mean reduced water pollution from agricultural runoff (Hyland et al. 2010). Issues of nitrogen notwithstanding, the research suggests that use of biochar will improve soil structure, soil pH (in acidic soils), water retention, CEC, and plant growth. (Carter et al., 2013; Clough et al., 2013) Biochar and Greenhouse Gasses Along with biochar’s potential to reduce N2O emissions biochar further reduces GHGs by being carbon negative; it sequesters more carbon than it releases into the atmosphere. When organic material is burned or left to aerobic microbial decay the carbon is released into the atmosphere as CO2; when left to anaerobic microbial decay (under water or animal digestion) it is released as CH4. When the same organic material is charred through pyrolysis some of the C is released, primarily as CO2, and the rest is bound in the resulting charcoal. If this is burned, all the C in the charcoal is released, primarily as CO2, but if it is buried it can last for thousands of years as stable C in the soil such as that in the Amazon. This is effectively taking C from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil. (Heafele, 2007; Hunt et al., 2010; Steiner, 2007) If this is done in wet rice agriculture the potential to reduce potent CH4 by replacing the unstable SOM in rice paddies with stable biochar is even more substantial (Heafele, 2007). Furthermore, if agricultural waste such as rice straw, rice husks, corn stover, and tree prunings were charred rather than burned, as is

commonly done, atmospheric pollution* from agriculture could be substantially reduced as well. *Atmospheric pollution here is referring to the atmospheric particulate matter (PM) produced from burning. This is in reference to the visible emissions produced from combustion and often responsible for respiratory problems, not to the emissions’ potential as a GHG. Traditional vs. New Methods of Pyrolysis Although modern Thailand now enjoys widespread access and use of clean burning LPG gas many Thais of lower incomes and living in remote areas still use fuelwood and charcoal for cooking. Furthermore, the preference for charcoal’s effect on flavor and texture in grilling certain foods means that, as in the United States, there is still demand for it in Thailand by people with access to cleaner burning fuels. Therefore, there is still production of charcoal in Thailand and in Tambon Soppoeng it is usually done through the traditional mound or buried kiln techniques. Charcoal cooking is less efficient than using fuelwood directly due to the energy lost in burning during the charcoal production. However, charcoal is easier to use for cooking (lighter weight per unit energy, easier to store, burns at hotter temperatures, produces more even heat, burns longer) and has cleaner emissions (lower PM levels), reducing the health risk in the home. (Misginna and Rajabu, 2014) Many farmers in Thailand and in Tambon Soppoeng already make and use biochar in the form of charred rice husks. The low temp low oxygen environment is created by piling rice husks over a small paper fire inside a can ventilated with a chimney. This causes the rice husks piled over the can to slowly smolder. High opacity white smoke is produced (author’s personal experience) – an indication of high levels of PM and low efficiency (EPA, 1993). The resulting rice husk char is added to soil directly or to organic fertilizers. New methods for making charcoal called TLUD (Top-Lit Up-Draft) kilns make the production of charcoal at the individual’s home easier than traditional burial and mound kiln methods. They also result in higher C content charcoal and have cleaner emissions (low opacity/low PM). The low PM emissions of TLUDs are due to a secondary burn of the pyrolysis gas, referred to from here on as the gasification burn which does not happen with traditional charcoal making techniques. The low PM emissions create less smog and health hazards for local inhabitants than traditional charcoal production methods. The higher C content of charcoal produced by TLUDs means that less C is lost as CO2 during the

production therefore fewer GHGs are released per amount of heat given for cooking. (Misginna and Rajabu, 2014; PunPunOrganic, 2013; EPA, 1993) Project Goals The PCV discussed these observations and research with the agricultural specialists at the Sub-district Administrative Organization (SAO) of Tambon Soppoeng and the Mae Lod Royal Agricultural Project. Both parties expressed interest in promoting the TLUD kiln technology and the use of biochar in the community. The PCV and staff of the SAO and Royal Project agreed that before promoting these technologies the organizers of this project needed to become practiced with the operation of the TLUD kiln and with it test pyrolysis of different locally available feedstocks. The primary goal of this project was to promote continued use of biochar and the TLUD kiln among community members. The testing of TLUD kiln use on different feedstocks was a secondary outcome necessary for achieving the primary goal. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS The project’s design had three objectives to meet the goal of promoting the TLUD kiln and biochar use.

Objective 1: Build two TLUD kilns with counterparts in the SAO and Royal Project and test their use on five locally available feedstocks. These feedstocks were hardwood waste from fruit trees, bamboo, corn cobs, rice husks, and rice straw.

Objective 2: Promote the TLUD kiln design and the production of biochar in two trainings, at the Sao and the Royal Project, open to the local public and select 10 participants from the most interested attendees.

Objective 3: Provide free TLUD kilns and personal training for the 10 participants in the use of their TLUD kiln and in the incorporation of resulting charcoal into organic fertilizer.

ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Practice/Test Trials The TLUDs purchased by and used at the SAO and the Royal Project were used to test pyrolysis on five feedstock groups with variations of each tested. These five feedstocks were (1) hard wood, (2) bamboo, (3) rice straw, (4) corn cobs, and (5) rice husks.

All pyrolysis burns were undertaken with a procedure similar to shown in Jone Jandai’s video (PunPunOrganic, 2013). The barrel was loaded as tight as practical with the feedstock and suspended off the ground on three or four bricks. A fire was made on top; the hood put in place; and the barrel sealed when the fire had completed its migration to the bottom or the burners judged the pyrolysis of the feedstock to be complete. Each time the barrel was sealed in the same method: the hood was lifted off; the lid was put in place; the barrel was lifted off the rocks and placed in a shallow depression dug in the ground; and mud was used to seal the lid and base of the barrel. Details on each burn undertaken on the practice trials, the trainings, and the initiations are included in the attached chart. The percentages used to express the relative amounts of char, ash, and un-burnt feedstock were values agreed to by the kiln operators on site. These values were qualitative estimates and subjective to the judgment of the kiln operators on site based on what they perceived when viewing the contents of the barrel after emptying. They are not accurate or precise measures of yield. These values are only meant to provide a basic method of comparing different burns. The Hardwoods Kiln testers undertook pyrolysis of three variations of hard wood. These variations were (1) small diameter pieces of dry lychee wood (Litchi spp.); (2) green lychee of a similar size; and (3) large diameter dry tamarind (Dialium spp.). The charcoal from the dry tamarind and lychee was high quality (dark color and brittle texture) with the majority of the feedstock yielding to charcoal and producing a negligible amount of ash. Green lychee took much longer to burn and yielded ~60% to grayish charcoal with ~40% left un-burnt. The wood was cut to roughly 1/3rd the length of the barrel and placed in as tight as possible in three consecutive layers, minimizing the size and amount of gaps between pieces as much as possible. Cutting hardwoods into short pieces was necessary as the twists and bends in typical branches made it difficult to pack long pieces tight. The tamarind’s large diameter created sizeable spaces between the pieces, despite cutting it into short lengths. The kiln operators in this project have hypothesized that minimizing the size and number of spaces when using hardwood and bamboo among the feedstock creates a more even distribution of oxygen and a more even rate of descent. Tighter packs using smaller carefully laid pieces have in all subsequent trials using hardwood and bamboo resulted in more even descents of the pyrolysis fire. This is easier to manage and gives the kiln operators a better sense of when to seal the kiln.

Using large pieces of hardwood, in the case of the tamarind, caused the fire to drop rapidly (20 min) down the spaces between the pieces. This was faster than the rate of charcoal production. As a result the kiln operators, rather than sealing the kiln when the heat had reached the bottom, waited for two hours before they were satisfied that charcoal had been made throughout the girth of the pieces. The gasification fire on top also went out about 20 minutes into the burn and thick white smoke was produced that enveloped the surrounding area. A new fire built in its place reignited the gasification fire and stopped the smoke. When the barrel was sealed it was hotter than from any other burn before or since. Therefore, bricks and excess mud needed to be put on top to keep the barrel sealed in order to counteract the great amount of pressure from underneath the lid. Large diameter pieces were used in the tamarind trial (rather than splitting them into small pieces) in an attempt to make larger pieces of charcoal that would be more desirable for cooking and selling. However, after the process was complete most of the charcoal was in small pieces (roughly the same size as when using hardwoods of small diameter). This is because the TLUD produces a more C pure product than traditional charcoal making techniques and results in a more brittle charcoal that breaks into small pieces as it collapses inside the kiln. (Misginna and Rajabu, 2014) Conclusions on hardwood use with the TLUD:

(1) Dry wood is highly preferable to greener wood. (2) With large diameter pieces of hardwood, splitting into smaller

chunks makes the burn easier to undertake and produces the same size charcoal aggregates as when not split.

Fig 1: Small diameter dry lychee

Fi Fig 2: Green lychee

F Fig 3: large diameter tamarind

Note: the gasification fire went out and produced thick smoke till restarted. The large pieces in the last picture were incomplete; they are not large pieces of charcoal.

Bamboo Kiln testers used the TLUD kiln on several batches of dry, sometimes decomposing, bamboo and one batch of green bamboo. Dry bamboo was found to be easy to load and a quick (~45min) burn. Dry bamboo gave a high yield to charcoal (as high as 95% charcoal in trial burns) when given enough time before sealing the kiln. The kiln operators’ one trial of green bamboo took over three times as long as a typical batch of dry bamboo and yielded less than half to charcoal while the majority remained un-burnt. Bamboo was split into thin pieces and laid lengthwise in the barrel laid on the ground till tight. The barrel was then stood up and thin pieces were hammered into the gaps to make the load as tight as possible.

Conclusions on bamboo use with the TLUD:

(1) Bamboo needs to be dry (2) If dry, using old bamboo in the process of decomposition can

produce high yields. (3) Bamboo was one of the most readily available and easiest

feedstocks tested with the most productive yields.

Fig 4: Dry bamboo Rice Straw Pyrolysis of rice straw was attempted twice during practice burns and three times during trainings. The first attempt used chopped rice straw mixed with rice husks and filled in the kiln barrel with no particular method. The burn lasted 1 hour until the burn had reached the bottom of the barrel. There was no gasification burn and light white smoke was produced. The pyrolysis burn had migrated down the barrel unevenly and most of the feedstock remained un-charred. In the second attempt whole stalks of rice straw were packed lengthwise up and down the barrel. The burn lasted 5 minutes before the heat had reached the bottom and the kiln was sealed. After an hour wait the kiln was opened and about 75% had yielded to brittle dark charcoal. Another burn during the first training at the SAO produced an even higher yield of ~90% charcoal. At the time this burn it was also decided that a half hour wait was enough time before opening. During a second burn of rice straw at the SAO training trainers and participants extinguished the burn with water rather than sealing the kiln. This produced ~70% charcoal, it was agreed by those present that watering may have stopped the burn prematurely and that it may be important to leave straw sealed in the kiln after the burn to finish the process. A burn of rice straw done at the Royal Project training yielded only 30% to charcoal after the 10 minutes it took for the heat to migrate to the bottom. The

straw in this burn had been packed as tight as the participants could manage. On opening the kiln it was apparent that the pyrolysis fire had only migrated down where the rice was looser and it had sufficient oxygen to do so. Conclusions on rice straw use with the TLUD:

(1) Straw should be packed lengthwise up and down. (2) Straw should be packed with even firmness around the barrel

and not too tight. (3) If the kiln operator wants to produce a lot of char quickly, using

water to extinguish the fire is an option but may reduce the quantity and quality of the charcoal.

Fig 5: Mixed rice straw and rice husks

Fig 6: Rice straw packed vertical

Fig 7: Rice straw packed excessively tight

Corn Cobs Pyrolysis of corn cobs was undertaken once during the testing session and again in the initiations with two participants. 200 liters of dry corn cobs were de-husked and burned in the kiln. The resulting charcoal was dark and brittle. During the testing ~80% yield to charcoal was achieved. The yield could have been higher had the kiln operators waited 10 more minutes to seal the kiln. Conclusions on use of corn cobs with the TLUD:

(1) Corn is an easy feedstock to work with as there is no need for careful cutting and packing as with other feedstocks.

(2) Corn is a plentiful feedstock that is otherwise left to be burned in the field.

Fig 8: corn cobs Rice Husks Pyrolysis of rice husks was tested twice at the SAO. In the first trial, as described in the Rice Straw section, it was mixed with chopped rice straw and deemed unsuccessful. In the second trial kiln operators used 200 liters of rice husk on its own. As usual, a small fire was built on top of the feedstock and the hood was put in place. The fire was relatively cool and descended at a much slower rate than with any other feedstock. 5 hours was required for the heat to be felt at the bottom. There was never a gasification burn in the hood. The smoke was acrid but never opaque or plentiful. It was hypothesized by the kiln operators that these characteristics were due to the fine nature of the husks that did not allow sufficient oxygen to ascend to the pyrolysis burn. The rice husk yielded ~80% to charcoal, the ~20% un-burnt being at the bottom. The kiln operators decided that the kiln could have been left for another hour before being closed. Two years prior to this project (2012), staff of the SAO had taught the PCV the standard Thai method of making rice husk char using a paper fire inside a large

aluminum can with a stove pipe upon which rice husk was piled on top of. To the best of the PCV’s memory, this technique took roughly four to five hours, involved stirring the pile of rice husks, and made a considerable quantity of opaque white smoke, enough that the entire parking area behind the SAO was hazy during the process. Trials of both methods need to be observed and compared to claim any advantages of one over the other. However, the kiln operators of the rice husk trial at the SAO speculate that using the TLUD makes less smoke and could be easier (i.e., the kiln operator has no required tasks between starting the fire and closing the kiln) than the standard rice husk char method. Conclusions on TLUD use with rice husks:

(1) Use of rice husk in the TLUD will not likely provide a gasification burn but is easy enough and the emissions are low enough for this to be considered a reasonable method for making rice husk char.

(2) Comparative trials are needed to determine if the TLUD is an improvement to the traditional rice husk char production method.

Fig 9: Rice husks on their own Trainings SAO Training The SAO training took place Monday morning February 2, 2015. Fifteen community members attended. The Nyoke (municipal mayor) opened the meeting with a brief speech and the SAO’s agricultural officer followed with a presentation of material prepared by herself and the PCV on the science and benefits of using biochar. A coffee break was followed by hands on pyrolysis using two TLUD kilns (the SAO’s and the Royal Project’s) outside. Participants and organizers started a burn of bamboo and while it was burning burned a batch of rice straw. Meanwhile, participants were able to ask

organizers (PCV, agricultural officer, and other SAO staff that had helped in test trials) questions. They received visual explanations with the in-use kilns and pre-made charcoal from the different feedstocks made during the testing trials. After the kilns burning bamboo and rice straw were sealed, participants and organizers migrated to lunch. After lunch the rice straw was opened to discover a high yield of dark brittle rice straw char. As the agricultural officer from the district-wide office had stopped by to see what was happening another batch of rice straw was burned in demonstration, this time water was used to extinguish the burn rather than sealing the kiln. Before going home, five participants were chosen from the 15 attendees. They were picked based on interest and distribution around the community. It was understood by all that after delivery and initiation these were kilns to be shared with other community members. Everyone was invited to come back to the SAO to view the bamboo char when it was opened.

Fig 10: SAO Training Royal Project Training The training at the Royal Project took place Friday morning February 13, 2015. The training opened with coffee and the SAO agricultural officer’s presentation, after which participants carried three TLUD kilns out to the Royal Project gardens for demonstration. Dry lychee prunings, cut to size the day before, were loaded by participants into one kiln with oversight by project organizers. After the Lychee burn had got

underway participants cut bamboo on hand and did the same using the second kiln. Finally, the third kiln was loaded with rice straw. The straw in this burn was packed as tight as the organizers and participants could manage. The fire had difficulty descending and rods were used to pry the straw lose in order to allow oxygen in to burn. The gasification fire also had to be restarted when it went out and heavy smoke started being produced from the burn. After all three burns were complete and the kilns had been sealed, lunch was served. After lunch, participants and organizers returned to open the rice straw. Emptying the kiln, it was apparent that the pyrolysis fire had only migrated down where the rice had been pried loose and where it had sufficient oxygen to do so. Participants were chosen from the attendees in the same manner as at the SAO, focusing on achieving a distribution around the communities surrounding the Royal Project. Attendees were invited to return that afternoon to view the opening of the Lychee and bamboo.

Fig 11: Royal Project training Participant Initiations Nai Sompong Nai Sompong was delivered his kiln and initiated in its first use on Monday, February 9th, 2015. His feedstock was narrow (~5cm diameter) dry pieces of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) the same length as the barrel. As the lengths were mostly straight the feedstock was able to be tightly packed without cutting them into short segments. Still, this caused larger gaps than usually achieved with hard woods when cut short. Likely due to these larger gaps, the fire descent was uneven but kiln operators waited for the heat to reach the full circumference of the bottom evidenced by the paint burning off as this was the kiln’s first use and waited to see smoke and ash dropping from underneath. The Eucalyptus yielded about 95% to charcoal with negligible ash. Conclusion: (1)Hardwoods can be used in long segments if they are straight Other notes:

Nai Sompong and his wife already use rice husk char mixed with manure to fertilize their vegetable garden. They also make charcoal for selling in the traditional burial kiln method. It was observed that the burial kiln method produces larger pieces due to their greater strength. Their batches of charcoal typically take 3 to 7 days depending on whether they use dry or green wood. Over the

course of this time the kiln continuously produces acrid white smoke.

Fig 12: Nai Sompong Nai Song Kwamdip Project organizers delivered Nai Song Kwamdip his kiln the morning of Tuesday, February 10th, 2015. He had prepared pre-cut pieces of very old decomposing but dry bamboo. When the kiln was opened in the afternoon no ash or un-burnt wood remained, there was only dark brittle charcoal. Conclusion:

(1) Old decomposing bamboo, if dry, is an easy to use and readily available feedstock.

Fig 13: Nai Songkwamdip Nai Tammumai Nai Tammumai was delivered his kiln and initiated in its use the morning of Wednesday, February 11th, 2015. His feedstock for that day was a mixture of dry tamarind and longan (Dimocarpus longan) branches <7cm in diameter and cut to ~35cm long. The yield was roughly 95% charcoal with negligible ash. Nai Tammumai, like Nai Sompong and his wife, makes charcoal for sale using a buried kiln. Organizers initiated Nai Tammumai next to his buried kiln while it was in operation. It was a valuable opportunity to compare the two techniques.

Fig 14: Nai Tammumai Note the buried kiln in the center photo. Puyaibaan Buntamani On Monday morning, February 16, 2015 Nai Buntamiani, the village headman of Baan Nong Bua Luang in Tambon Soppoeng made his initiation a training for his friends and neighbors. Although most of the other initiations had curious neighbors who took part, this was essentially a third training with 10 local farmers and an employee of an outside agricultural development organization. Dry bamboo was the feedstock and produced a batch of almost pure charcoal with a small amount of ash.

Fig 14: Puyaiban Buntamani’s training Nai Tanapong Monday afternoon February 16, 2015 Nai Tanapong was initiated in the use of his TLUD kiln using dry corn cobs. Nai Tanapong’s garden is on top of an open hill and during the burn there was a constant breeze of moderate strength. This made the fire difficult to start and made the migration of the pyrolysis burn descend abnormally fast (20min to reach the bottom as opposed to 1 hour during the trial burn of corn cobs at the SAO). As the heat had reached the bottom so fast, kiln operators waited longer than usual after this stage to seal the kiln as the mud and equipment had not yet been fully prepared for this eventuality.

When the kiln was opened 30% of the feedstock was un-burnt. Usually the un-burnt feedstock is on the bottom. This is the only occurrence project organizers have observed of the bottom being well charred and the top left seemingly un-touched. There was also a considerable amount of tar inside the barrel. The only other time tar has been observed by project organizers was with the use of rice husks, but in a much smaller amount. Speculation for this inversion of the typical layering of char and un-burnt feedstock is that the wind pushed the fire down to the bottom. As for the tar inside the barrel, this could have been due to tar rising from the fire that had gone straight to the bottom and adhering to the un-burnt feedstock before reaching the gasification fire above. Conclusion:

(1) Use of the TLUD should be sheltered from any strong winds or breezes.

Fig 15: Nai Tanapong Nai Dit Nai Dit’s TLUD kiln was delivered to his coffee (Coffea arabica) and lychee garden the morning of Monday, February 17, 2015. His first initiation burn used old, decomposing, but dry, lychee wood <9cm diameter and ~30cm long. This yielded ~90% char and very little ash. Project organizers were impressed when upon emptying the barrel Nai Dit and his wife began re-loading the kiln with old lychee and some dry coffee wood without any hesitation or prompting. On this second burn there was a much lower yield to charcoal. Project organizers decided that the coffee wood was still too green to be burnt and that Nai Dit had sealed the kiln too early. Conclusions:

(1) Wood in decomposition, so long as it’s dry, makes for an easy-to-use feedstock producing high yields to charcoal.

(2) Green wood, at any stage, should be avoided. The drier the feedstock, the easier it will be to work with and the more satisfying the resulting product.

Fig 16: Nai Dit Nang Nom Nang Nom and her husband received their kiln and initiation in its use on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 17, 2015. Their feedstock was dry lychee wood in similar dimensions as with Nai Dit but younger, thus, harder and less deteriorated. This yielded to ~85% charcoal.

Fig 17: Nang Nom Nang Fern Nang Fern was initiated in the use of her kiln Wednesday morning, February 18, 2015. Her feedstock was dry but hard lychee, apparently identical to that used by Ba Nom. When starting the fire, however, kiln operators noticed a significant amount of moisture boiling out the ends of the segments. The burn lasted 1 hour 20 minutes. When the kiln was opened after a 5 hour wait a significant amount

of wood was left un-burnt (about 40%). A longer burn could have resulted in a higher yield. Conclusions:

(1) Kiln operators should not be impatient in sealing the kiln. When using hardwoods not in a state of dry decomposition, it is better to give the burn another 15 minutes after the heat has reached the entire circumference of the base.

(2) Feedstock should always be as dry as possible.

Fig 18: Nang Fern Nang Jam Pen Nang Jam Pen received her kiln Thursday morning, February 19, 2015. The feedstock was split logs of lychee from tree trunks rather than from branches as had been used in trials before. The logs were split to pieces <8cm in diameter and ~30cm long. They had aged well past being green but a noticeable amount of moisture had soaked in from the environment. Overall they were considered dry. The fire took short of two hours to reach the full circumference of the base and another 15 minutes was given before sealing the kiln. This yielded ~75% charcoal and a small amount of ash.

Fig 19: Nang Jam Pen Nai Wira Nai Wira, an aspiring organic farmer with a history of collaboration with the Royal Project, like Puyaibaan Buntamani, invited his friends, neighbors, and fellow farmers to make his initiation another training. The training lasted throughout the day including two burns, lunch, and lessons about making organic fertilizer by Royal Project teachers. About 10 people in total (not including Nai Wira and his wife) attended some coming and going throughout the day. The first feedstock burned that day was corn cobs which were very dry due to sitting in the sun for many days. On this burn, kiln operators waited 5 minutes after the heat had completely reached the circumference of the bottom to seal the kiln. When it was sealed the gasification fire in the hood had just gone out. It was assumed that this was due to an exhaustion of pyrolysis gases. This burn resulted in nearly 100% of the contents of the barrel yielding to charcoal. There were no un-burnt corn cobs and ash was negligible. After the barrel was emptied, the group loaded it with bamboo and undertook an afternoon burn. This time the kiln was sealed 10 min after the heat had reached the entire circumference of the base but the gasification fire had not yet completely extinguished like it had with corn cobs. When the kiln was opened that evening, and seen by the PCV the following morning, ~95% was charcoal with negligible ash. Conclusion:

(1) The exhaustion of the pyrolysis gases and the snuffing of the flame in the hood could be a more useful indicator of when to seal the kiln than using the time after the heat reaches the base. However, this needs to be tested in more trials and with more feedstocks to make this determination.

Fig 20: Nai Wira’s training PROJECT BUDGET AS IMPLEMENTED: Materials and Cost of 1 TLUD Kiln

One and a half 200 liter steel drums (400฿/drum) = 600฿

One chimney = 200 ฿

One lid = 350 ฿

2 steel rod hand holds (300฿/rod) = 600฿

Total cost = 1,750 From Friends of Thailand – 17,500฿

10 TLUD kilns to give to participants = 17,500 ฿

From SAO - 5,000฿

TLUD test kiln at SAO – 1,750฿

Bamboo, tree prunings, rice husks, and rice straw for test trials - 750฿

Lunch at SAO on training day - 1,700฿

20 bags of cow manure for participants’ biochar fertilizer (40฿/bag) - 800฿

From Royal Project - 4,250฿

TLUD test kiln at Royal Project – 1,750฿

Bamboo, tree prunings, rice husk, and rice straw for test trials - free

Lunch at Royal Project on training day - 1,700฿

20 bags of cow manure for participants’ biochar fertilizer (40฿/bag) - 800฿

Delivery of Kilns The construction of the first two TLUD kilns was finished by the 19th of January. They were both used for a week at the SAO to test different feedstocks and gain familiarity with their use by project organizers. Later, one of the kilns was delivered to the Royal Project to teach the teachers of the Royal Project their use. The first set of 5 kilns built with FOT funds for community use was finished by the 9th of February and delivered to the participants over the following two weeks. The second set of 5 kilns was not finished in time for the Royal Project trainings and delivery to the participants chosen at the Royal Project trainings. Therefore, the Royal Project borrowed the SAO’s kiln and one of the kilns not yet delivered to one of the SAO participants for the training in order to demonstrate 3 feedstocks for their training. For initiations, the Royal Project held onto the SAO’s kiln and lent it and their own kiln to participants on their scheduled days for initiation over the days February 16-19. The second set of 5 kilns built using FOT funds were completed on Wednesday, February 25, 2015. The SAO kept one of these as their own and delivered the other 4 to the Royal Project the following Thursday who distributed them to their participants. Each participant had received a kiln and initiation in its use by Friday, February 27, 2015. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY: This project had the intention of promoting biochar’s use and manufacture using the low emission TLUD kiln. In order to promote biochar’s use project organizers built on the existing local knowledge of rice husk char’s benefits promoting the idea that farmers could get the same benefits from many other available waste products. Participants and observers, for the most part, conveyed an understanding of this idea. Enthusiasm was widely expressed at the idea of turning waste products such as fruit tree prunings and old bamboo, which are in ample supply and typically burnt to get out of the way, into something with value. Surprise at the ease at which this process could be done using the TLUD kiln and the low cost involved was a universal sentiment, especially when compared to the traditional multi-day process of buried kiln charcoal production.

The PCV estimates that when combining those who took part in the trial burns at the SAO and Royal Project, those who attended the two initial trainings, those who attended the trainings hosted by Puyaibaan Buntamani and Nai Wira, and those family members and passerby’s who sat through and helped in initiations at least 70 community members received what the PCV considers a sufficient education on the TLUD kiln and biochar. This estimation is made by reflecting on each burn and making a conservative rounded figure to all the people who were involved enough to have witnessed a full pyrolysis process with the TLUD and explanation on the charcoal’s use as a soil amendment. All of these 70 people now have access to a kiln and know someone practiced in its use. While project organizers delivered each participant cow manure to mix with their biochar they did not have the time to make biochar compost with the participants as was planned. However, organizers were satisfied with how well participants understood the notion of using charcoal as a soil amendment. Nai Sompong and his wife already use rice husk char infused fertilizer in their vegetable garden and had a solid understanding on its benefits. Nai Songkwamdip and Nai Tanapong chose to use feedstocks that would not make favorable cooking charcoal which suggests their interest was primarily in making biochar rather than cooking charcoal. Puyaibaan Buntamani and Nai Wira led their own trainings focused on making biochar rather than cooking charcoal. These participants the PCV is certain have an interest in using their kilns to make biochar. As for Nai Tammumai, Nai Dit, Nang Nom, Nang Fern, and Nang Jam Pen their intentions are not so clear. With a couple of these participants the PCV is relatively sure there was a hope of making charcoal that could be sold for cooking. As discussed in the background the use of the TLUD kiln rather than older technologies for making cooking charcoal, while not reducing C emissions does reduce health hazardous PM created during production and improves efficiency reducing the C lost to the atmosphere during production. Therefore, a participant’s interest in using the kiln for cooking charcoal is not considered by organizers to be a failure. While there was no quantitative analysis of this project’s impact on the community it can be stated with certainty that a widely distributed set of people with an interest in charcoal production and agricultural soil amendments were introduced to a new technology that was widely embraced as having the promise to provide substantial benefits in these two fields. The majority of the 70 people that the PCV estimates viewed a complete use of the TLUD all expressed that this was the fastest least effort method of making charcoal they had ever witnessed.

Most of these people also understood the product’s similarities in use and benefits to rice husk char. Many of these people proved to be enthusiastic in continuing their use of the TLUD and of biochar. A new technology, with the ability to reduce local farmers’ GHG emissions and PM atmospheric pollution while improving their soil fertility, was introduced and made available around the Soppoeng sub-district. It received a sincere interest by many participants and their friends and family for its practical benefits in improving their agricultural yields while reducing their fertilizer costs. There was never any persuasion beyond demonstration needed for community members to understand the advantages of the TLUD kiln. It was a universal consensus that this could produce more charcoal faster with less noxious smoke than any other method available. Furthermore, project organizers gained valuable knowledge about using different feedstocks with the TLUD and transferred this knowledge to participants. REFERENCES Altland, J.D. and Locke, J.C. 2012. Biochar Affects Macronutrient Leaching from Soilless Substrate. Hort Science, 47(8), 1136-1140. Carter, S.; Shackley, S.; Sohi, S.; Suy, T.B.; Haefele, S. 2013. The Impact of Biochar Application on Soil Properties and Plant Growth of Pot Grown Lettuce (Latuca sativa) and Cabbage (Brassica chinensis). Agronomy, 3, 404-418. Clough, T.J.; Condron, L.M.; Kammann, C.; Muller, C. 2013. A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics. Agronomy, 3, 275-293. Greenhouse Gas Working Group. 2010. Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas emissions & capture. Greenhouse Gas Working Group Rep. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. Heafele, Stephan M. "Black Soil, Green Rice." Rice Today 1 Apr. 2007. Hunt, J.; Duponte, M.; Sato, D.; Kawabata, A. 2010. The Basics of Biochar : A Natural Soil Amendment. Soil and Crop Management, 30: 1-6. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Hyland, C.; Hanley, K.; Enders, A.; Rajkovich, S.; and Lehmann, J. 2010. Nitrogen Leaching In Soils Amended With Biochars Produced at Low and High Temperatures from Various Feedstocks. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions, for a Changing World, 38-41. Brisbane Australia.

Misginna, M.T. and Rajabu, H.M. 2014. Yeild and Chemical Characteristics of Charcoal Produced by TLUD-ND Gasifier Cookstove Using Eucalyptus Wood as Feedstock. Second International Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology. Odesola, I.F. and Owoseni, T. A. 2010. Small Scale Biochar Production Technologies: A Review. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 1(2): 151-156. Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, 2007: Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Steiner, Cristoph. Soil Charcoal Amendments Maintain Soil Fertility and Establish Carbon Sink – Research and Prospects. Soil Ecology Research Developments. New York: Nova Science, 2008. Visible Emissions Field Manual EPA Methods 9 and 22. December 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stationary Source Compliance Division Office of Air Quality and Standards. Yao, Y.; Gao, B.; Zhang, M.; Inyang, M.; Zimmerman, A. 2012. Effect of Biochar Amendment on Sorption and Leaching of Nitrate, Ammonium, and Phosphate in a Sandy Soil. Chemosphere, 89, 1467-1471. พนความร 01 : เผาถานไรควนกบพโจน จนใด [Motion picture]. (2013). Thailand: PunPunOrganic

APPENDIX 1: Notes on all pyrolysis burns over the course of the project

*Yield values are qualitative estimates and subjective to the judgment of the kiln operators on site based on what they perceived when viewing the contents of the barrel after emptying.