Drivers

Firstly, we were engaged by Chandala Poultry to design a system that would recover the energy from chicken litter the farm produces and use it to meet the farms energy requirements. We did look at other bioenergy technologies including anaerobic digestion but decided, after consultation with the owner, on pyrolysis.

Secondly, technologies to produce biochar in Australia are either too big, needing thousands of tonnes of feedstock to be viable and a very high capital expenditure or the smaller, cheaper technologies, a little underdeveloped.

The final and key driver to start building a biochar kiln was that we wanted to demonstrate bioenergy technology to farmers. We believe that bioenergy and the valuable byproducts produced by the process complements agriculture and closes the nutrient loop. Most farmers have not had the opportunity to visit a bioenergy plant so we decided to bring bioenergy to farmers.

Beginning the process

After making the decision to begin building a biochar kiln, we sourced a design that would meet our requirements:

• Simple and user friendly
• Affordable
• Continuous flow
• Able to be made mobile for demonstration purposes.

We then contacted various Geraldton based (trying to keep it local) firms capable of building a biochar kiln and asked them to quote on materials and some construction work. It was our aim to get the components built and do most of the construction of the biochar kiln ourselves, this way we get to know the machine inside and out.

In the beginning of 2013 we started building the biochar kiln and after some testing quickly found a few issues that needed to be addressed. These included:

Maintaining heat

It is critical to be able to maintain heat inside the biochar kiln for the pyrolysis process to take place. In the beginning, we used minimal insulation and because of this we were losing a lot of process heat. After we addressed this problem we were able to get to operating temperature quickly and maintain the temperature where it was needed, inside the pyrolysis chamber.

Gas vs diesel

Initially we were using LPG gas to heat the biochar kiln however, after looking at the issues and regulations associated with using gas, we decided to use a burner fired on diesel to provide the heat needed to get the process going. We find it easier to manage logistically, just as efficient and a lot safer to operate.

Course material

As we are using augers to move the feedstock into and through the biochar kiln, unless it is ground quite fine we can have some issues, the longer pieces wrap around the auger shafts and can block the auger. This necessitated purchasing a tub grinder which we will use to grind organic materials like wheat straw and wood chips.

Moisture content

Feedstock moisture content is also very important. If the moisture is too high then the process does not work and we have to use a lot of energy just to dry the material to a point when it will char. This is inefficient and not what we are trying to achieve. The ideal environment for the biochar kiln is to use an external heat source to heat the chamber then be able to turn it off and rely on the incoming material to provide the energy necessary to maintain the process, this is renewable energy.

This particular problem meant we had to come up with a way to dry the material before we processed it. After long debate we designed and engineered an internal drying system. The dryer is an auger we have installed inside the kiln above the pyrolysis zone. We load the material via a loading auger which feeds into the dryer where it moves along very slowly. The moisture is driven off by the heat produced by the biochar kiln as it moves through the dryer.When it reaches the end of the drying auger the material drops out into the pyrolysis auger.

This auger completes the biochar process, gases bound up n the material are released as the material turns to biochar. These gases are then combusted in the gasification zone to create heat.

Where are we now?

Since the upgrade last month we have run the kiln a few times but like anything new, we have had a few teething problems. Namely, with heat expansion and some manufacturing issues with the drying auger. We believe we have sorted out these issues and are looking forward to testing the process again soon.

Stay tuned for updates or contact us to learn more.

I think its great to see the variety of projects and it’s the first real step to getting farmers and the rest of Australia away from their reliance of fossil based products and toward more sustainable agricultural systems.

Overall 117 projects shared 72 million dollars with research including reducing emissions from livestock and cropping, through to on–farm trials of practices and technologies to help land managers become more resilient to a changing climate. Let’s face it, this is the big investment in agriculture and will ensure its sustainability into the future.

The bad press and the resentment of the “carbon tax” (actually, it’s not a tax, it’s a floor price for a market based mechanism) comes from a lack of understanding of the reasons behind why we really do need a price on carbon.

Sure, climate change is seen as the main driver and this is true, we can’t continue to pollute the environment without incurring some cost to the very way we live our lives. However, the main reason we need a price on carbon is to reduce our dependence on fossil based energy and the products that flow from it, such as fertiliser chemicals, fuels and oils.

Pricing carbon begins the transition away from this source, as the price on carbon makes fossil based energy and products less attractive, investment will flow to more sustainable sources. For farmers, this means a range of alternative farming practices will become more attractive and others will become involved in other industries, such as bioenergy, where farmer groups can team together, form grower owned cooperatives and use their crop residues to fire local bioenergy plants producing bioenergy, biofuels and biochar.

Research projects like, Filling the Gap and Action on the Ground take it another step further by investing in projects that will benefit the environment and potentially put a dollar into the back pocket of Australian farmers.

For more information on the funding outcomes checkout DAFF’s Carbon Farming Futures website and see for yourself, the amount and variety of work being done in this area.

Reforestation and afforestation

This methodology proposal involves the reforestation of cleared land and afforestation on land where no forests previously existed in order to sequester carbon.

• The project activity involves establishing trees through direct means, such as hand-planting seedlings, machine-planting seedlings, or direct seeding
• The project activity occurs on lands that were clear of non-project trees for at least the five years preceding commencement and no non-project trees are removed in order to undertake the project activity
• Can be comprised of a single tree species, or a mix of tree species
• Trees within the project area cannot be harvested

Native Forest Protection

This methodology applies to the establishment of projects to protect native forests through the prevention of clearing and clear-felling harvesting activities.

The establishment of native forest protection projects is intended to prevent the emissions generated through business-as-usual logging practises, and to maintain and enhance the carbon stocks in native forests. Such projects have the additional benefits of enhancing local biodiversity, diversifying landowners’ income and maintaining aesthetic and recreational values of the forest.

Continue reading.

We travelled to Dale Park’s property just south of Badgingarra in the Northen Ag Region of Western Australia (WA) on Friday the 25th to lend a hand to Dale, Paul Blackwell from DAFWA and Dave Gartner from AG Lime WA to lay down the West Midlands Group’s first biochar trial under the Northern Agriculutral Catchments Council (NACC) Sustainable Farming grant.

This trial is looking at annual pasture response with an application of 2 different biochar with and without lime. The group also plans to run similar trials this year looking a responses from biochar applications in cropping systems in WA.

While Energy Farmers have no direct involvement into this project we are very much encouraged that work on biochar is being carried out and we see the integration of biochar into WA pasture and cropping systems as being a positive thing for agriculture.

For more information on the project and biochar in WA contact the West Midlands Group, Paul Blackwell from the DAFF office in Geraldton or visit our biochar page.

Here are a few photos of the day.

The Government has taken industry views into account in making regulations for:

• the Australian National Registry of Emission Units which will support both the Carbon Farming Initiative and the carbon pricing mechanism;
• An initial list of activities which will be eligible under the CFI once technical methodologies are developed;
• The protections against adverse impacts on water resources, biodiversity and local communities;

Application forms are available on the DCCEE website for potential participants to:

• become a ‘recognised offsets entity’
• open an account in the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units

For more information on the CFI and methodologies currently under development see the DCCEE’s website

The Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food have launched “Filling the Research Gap” as part of its Carbon Farming Futures Program. 201 million dollars will be invested to support research into emerging abatement technologies, strategies and innovative management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the land sector, sequester carbon and enhance sustainable agricultural practices.

The funding is available to Australian companies, business, research organisation, government agencies and departments. Research priorities for funding round one of the Filling the Research Gap program are:

• reducing methane emissions
• reducing nitrous oxide emissions
• increasing soil carbon
• improved modelling capability.

This is a good opportunity for the Ag sector to investigate ways to better manage our emissions and ultimatley profit from doing so.

Whatever side of the political fence you sit the federal government’s announcement yesterday does have some good outcomes for rural communities.

The Carbon Faming Initiative will pay farmers who change the way they farm and use practices that lock up carbon in trees or in the soil and who reduce their on farm emissions.

Carbon Farming Futures Program ($429 million over the first six years) will help farmers and landholders benefit from carbon farming by supporting research and development, measurement and action to reduce emissions or store carbon, including support for conservation tillage equipment.

Biodiversity Fund ($946 million over the first six years) to support projects that establish, restore, protect or manage bio diverse carbon stores. Funding will be provided for establishing mixed species plantings in target areas, such as areas of high conservation value including wildlife corridors, riparian zones and wetlands. The Fund will also support action to prevent the spread of invasive species across connected landscapes and the management of existing bio diverse carbon stores. Includes land already under conservation covenants, subject to land clearing restrictions, and publicly owned native forests.

The plan also provides a pathway for Australia to transition toward more sustainable energy and rural communities will benefit.

The reality is that we have to move away from energy sources like coal and oil for two reasons. Fossil fuels pollute and they are non-renewable, meaning, that once we use them they are gone.

As people in the bush are large fuel users we are especially subject to fluctuations in fuel prices and are at risk of energy security. Take the Libya conflict for example, when that started, we all saw a rise in fuel prices. Peak oil is another issue that we should be concerned about, if it is real and we are at the risk of running out of oil, what will this do to prices and our ability to secure fuel for our operations?

What this plan does is provide the necessary mechanisms for us to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels and provide pathways for investment to flow to less carbon intensive energy sources.

As farmers we have the capacity to produce electricity and grow our own fuel through existing and emerging energy technologies. The problem in the past is that these types of technologies are very expensive to develop, it’s so much cheaper to use the fuel that is dug out of the ground and be the price takers we have always been.

A price on carbon will change this as polluters, having to pay for the emission they create, look at new ways to become energy efficient and create cleaner energy. Investment will look to wind, wave, solar (what we all want to see more of) and what’s especially exciting for rural communities, biomass energy.

Biomass energy means taking our waste streams like the straw from the back of the header that we are burning to control weeds, capturing this straw (and the weeds) and using technology to convert it to create clean electricity and fuel which we can use ourselves or sell to the market. Imagine that…using fuel grown on our own farms!

This is an insurance policy for the future and one we need to understand fully to get an idea of how it affects us individually however, most of us insure our car and our home so why not the future.

For more information on how the Governments Clean Energy Future affects the land.

The federal government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DOCCEE) have released another two draft carbon farming methodologies for public comment under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Comments open until 26th July 2011.

1. Environmental Plantings

This methodology involves the establishment and management of permanent native forests that increase removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  The abatement activity includes planting and/or seeding native species on cleared or partially cleared land.

This methodology applies to projects that meet the following requirements:

1. Established through direct seeding or planting. This methodology does not apply to projects that involve the promotion and management of natural seed sources that result in regrowth.
2. Do not involve harvesting of wood products, with the exception of firewood for personal use. Under this methodology, proponents can remove a maximum of 10% of debris per year. Proponents may undertake some thinning for the purposes of promoting carbon sequestration, fire management or other ecological benefits, provided that the biomass remains onsite and the forest continues to meet the RMT requirements outlined above. Other removals of biomass would impact on the variability of carbon stocks and require application of an averaging approach, which is not covered by this methodology.
3. Involve establishment of environmental plantings. Environmental plantings include species native to the local area, typically a mix of trees and understorey species, but can be single species where monocultures naturally occur. The ‘mixed species environmental planting’ setting in the Reforestation Modelling Tool (RMT) is calibrated for permanent, native forest sinks and must be used for this methodology.
4. Do not involve on-going grazing by livestock. Projects may involve occasional grazing after the trees are established, e.g. occasional grazing to manage fuel load and weeds. The methodology does not include procedures for calculating impacts of grazing on tree establishment or emissions from livestock.
5. Established on land that has been clear or partially clear of forest for the five years prior to project commencement. If the area would convert to forest without the project, no abatement would be generated through reforestation.

2. Destruction of methane generated from piggeries

The methodology involves the capture of biogas generated by the decomposition of the piggery manure waste in anaerobic lagoons, and the combustion of the methane component of the biogas.  The abatement activity includes:

1. Covering anaerobic lagoons;
2. Installing a gas collection and combustion system (flares or electricity generation system);
3. Collecting the biogas; and
4. Combusting the methane component of the biogas.

Read more about methadologies on the DOCCEE website.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency released the positive and negative list discussion paper for the Carbon Farming Initiative yesterday.

The positive list identifies activities that would be considered additional and eligible to participate in the scheme while the negative list identifies activities that are ineligible in certain circumstances because they risk adverse impacts on communities and the environment.

The consultation paper provides an opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the approach to developing the positive and negative lists and to propose activities for consideration. All Submissions are due on 30^th June.

See the full report here.