FAO - Industrial Charcoal Production

TCP/CRO/3101 (A) Development of a sustainable charcoal
industry
INDUSTRIAL
CHARCOAL
PRODUCTION
June 2008
Zagreb, Croatia
www.drveniugljen.hr
FAO TCP 3101: Industrial charcoal production
This publication is a part of deliverables of the FAO project:
TCP/CRO/3101 (A) Development of a sustainable charcoal industry
Editors:
Dr Julije Domac
Dr Miguel Trossero
Production:
North-West Croatia Regional Energy Agency
This project was launched in July 2006 within

FAO Technical Cooperation Programme withthe
objective to assess the current status of the
charcoal production in Croatia, in order to
develop a programme for the revitalisation of this
industry.
Apart from recommendations and best solutions

for the technological modernisation, the
programme will provide guidelines for the
production improvement and amplification with a
holistic approach.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water

management is responsible for the project
execution on behalf of the Government of the
Republic of Croatia.

INDUSTRIAL CHARCOAL
PRODUCTION
Project Technical Officer: Dr Miguel Trossero
National Project Co-ordinator: Dr Julije Domac
Contributing Authors: Dr Roland Siemons

CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................6

UNITS ................................................................................................................6
1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF CHARCOAL .......................7
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CHARCOAL PROPERTIES ....................7
1.2 RAW MATERIAL .................................................................................9
2 CHARCOAL PRODUCTION PROCESSES .................................................11
2.1 KILN METHODS ...............................................................................11
2.2 RETORT CHARCOAL PRODUCTION .............................................14
3 EXAMPLES OF RETORT BASED CARBONISATION TECHNOLOGIES ..17
3.1 CARBO TWIN RETORT ...................................................................17
3.2 WAGGON RETORT .........................................................................20
3.3 O.E.T CALUSCO TUNNEL RETORT ...............................................21
3.4 LAMBIOTTE ......................................................................................22
4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL CHARCOAL
PRODUCTION ......................................................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...24
4.1 ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS ...........................................................25
4.2 TECHNOLOY DEVELOPMENTS ..................26
LITERATURE ............................................................30
ANNEX A ADDRESSES ...........................................31

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

3
AC ash content (-)GCV gross calorific value (GJ/t, MJ/kg, MJ/Nm )
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change MC moisture

3
content (-) m mass (g, t) NCV net calorific value (GJ/t, MJ/kg, MJ/Nm ) T
o
temperature ( C, K) t time (s, h, d, yr) W physical work (J/s) ηenergy efficiency
3
(-) ρ density (kg/m )
UNITS
Area
2
ha hectare (10,000 m )
Distance
m metre
Energy
J Jouletoe tonne oil equivalent (41,868 TJ)W Watt (=J/s)Wh Watt-hour (3600 J)
Mass
g gram gx gram of matter at a reference moisture content (MCw) of x %m t
tonne (1000 kg) tx tonne of matter at a reference moisture content (MCw) of x
%m
Temperature
o
C degrees Celsius K Kelvin
Time
d day (24 hours)h hours secondyr standard year (365 days, 8760 h)
Volume
3 3
litre m b cubic metre, bulk volume m s cubic metre, solid matter (bulk
3
volume less voidance) m a cubic metre, solid matter including its pores
(apparent volume)
Prefixes
-3
m milli (10 )
-2
c centi (10 )
3
k kilo (10 )
6
M Mega (10 )
9
G Giga (10 )


12
T Tera (10 )
15
P Peta (10 )
18
E Exa (10 )
Subscripts
1 with energy units: primary energy 2 with energy units: secondary energy b
3
with m : bulk volume (equal to the specific volume times [1-porosity]) d on a dry
basis daf on a dry and ash-free basis e electric G gross M mechanical m with
3
%: mass percent N net p at constant pressure s with m : specific (or true)
volume of solid material th thermal v at constant volume v with %: volume
percent w on a wet basis
Currencies
Rates on Tuesday, February 16, 2007:

Currency
Euro US Dollar Croatian Kuna
names
Euro 1 0.7612 0.1359
US Dollar 1.3136 1 0.1785
Croatian Kuna 7.3468 5.5929 1
1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF CHARCOAL
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CHARCOAL PROPERTIES
The quality of charcoal depends on both wood species used as a raw

material and of the proper application of the carbonisation technology.
Charcoal produced from hardwood like beech or oak is heavy and strong.
Charcoal made from softwood, on the other hand, is soft and light. The
3 1 3
density of beech charcoal is 0.45 t/m a, that of pine charcoal 0.28 t/m a.
The bulk density of charcoal does not only depend on the apparent
density but also on the size distribution, and is in the range of 180-220
3
kg/m b. The gross calorific value (GCV) is usually in the range of 29-33
GJ/t.
Good quality charcoal was characterized by Chaturvedi as follows: “[It]

retains the grain of the wood; it is jet black in colour with a shining luster in
a fresh cross-section. It is sonorous with a metallic ring, and does not
crush, nor does it soil the fingers. It floats in water, is a bad conductor of
2
heat and electricity, and burns without flame.” Charcoal intended for
barbecue typically contains 20-30%m of volatiles, whereas metallurgical
charcoal often contains 10-15%m (or even less) volatile matter. Hence,
3
taking ash contents into account, the fixed carbon content is 78-90 %m.
7

This carbon is a finely crystalline and practically free of sulfur. Charcoal

also contains volatiles that may escape at elevated temperatures
(obviously above the charcoal manufacturing process of approximately
o
400 C), consisting of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Ash content is
approximately 1.5-5%m. Charcoal also contains water, the amount being
dependent on ambient temperature and humidity. Moisture content varies
between 5 %m-8 %m. In the European Union the quality of barbecue
4
charcoal is specified in standard EN 1860-2:2005. Major quality issues
are reviewed in Table 1.
3
1/ kg/m a is the apparent density. It assumes the volume of a piece of
charcoal, including the pores.
2/ Cited by Foley (1986).
3/ These are dry basis values. Approximately, for dry basis values, fixed carbon
= total charcoal - volatile matter
ash. 4/ EN 1860-
2:2005.
Tabel 1, Standards for barbecue charcoal and charcoal briquettes, according
to EN 1860.
Charcoal: Carbon (fix), dry basis > 75% Ash, dry basis < 8% Moisture, wet
basis < 8% Granulation [d > 80 mm] < 10%
[d > 20 mm] > 80% [0 mm < d < 10
3
mm] < 7% Bulk density > 130 kg/m b
Charcoal briquettes: Carbon (fix), dry
basis > 60% Ash, dry basis < 18%
Moisture, wet basis < 8% Granulation

Suitable for BBQ equipment of EN

1860-1 [d < 20 mm] < 10% Binder
Combustion gases cause no health
hazards in contact with food. Binder
is of food grade quality. Charcoal and
Charcoal Briquettes:
Inadmissible additions Specific rules for presence of substances like e.g.:
fossil coals and derivatives, petroleum, pitch,
plastic, glass, slag, stone powder, etc. Chemical
burner sustainers not permitted.
1.2 RAW MATERIAL
Both hardwood and softwood can be used as a raw material. Also,

sawdust, wood shavings, fruit stones, nuts, nutshells, corn cobs, bark,
cotton seeds, and similar products can be used. In these cases the
resulting charcoal needs to be briquetted. Lump wood is used directly
from the forest or from wood processing industries (i.e. their residues,
such as slabs and off-cuts).
When trees are being cut, their wood contains 50%m-60%m water (on a
wet basis). The question as to what extent the wood is to be dried prior to
carbonisation, should be analyzed from two angles: attainable yield and
productivity. With regard to yield, the basic issue is whether the volatile
matter released during carbonisation does not only carry sufficient energy
for heating the dry-matter wood to the required processing temperature of
o
about 400 C, but also for heating and evaporating all of the water
contained in the wood as well. Theoretical thermodynamical equilibrium
analysis for an ideal process without heat losses shows that the charcoal
making process does not require the wood to be dried further than about
50%m (w) prior to the carbonisation process. One can also make charcoal
from wood at higher moisture contents, but then one has to sacrifice part
of the material that otherwise could have been turned into charcoal.
However, in actual practice it was found that the presence of moisture
may have strong positive effects on charcoal yield. Mok and Antal
speculate that this is due to the moisture’s role as a catalyst in charcoal
5
formation. To develop an understanding of this phenomenon, one should
go beyond thermodynamical equilibrium theory, and analyze
carbonization at the level of secondary chemical reactions of the vapours
released during carbonization.
To some extent the presence of moisture has a negative influence
on productivity. This is because the heating of water, and its evaporation
takes time. Yet another aspect is, that drying always comes with a cost.
5/ As experienced by and hypothesised by Mok et al. 1992) and by Antal and

9

Grønli (2003), while stating that “the details of the chemistry that underlies the
improved yields are not understood.”
8
There are thus several opposing effects, and the optimum moisture
content depends on the technology employed. An MCw of 30% in the wood
feed gives good results in the Carbo Twin Retort. Usines Lambiotte
6
recommend an MCw as low as 10% for the Lambiotte Shaft Furnace.
For the charcoaler, the mass of the output, and therefore that of the wood input
counts. However, wood is most often sold in volumetric units. To make it even
more complicated wood volumes are either given as solid volume, or as bulk
(or stacked) volume. A traditional unit for wood is the stère, which is equal to 1
3
m of stacked (outer) volume. A stère of fuelwood is estimated at
3 3 7
0.65 m s, whereas a stère of pulpwood is approximately 0.72 m s. Conversion
of these units of volume to units of mass, is dependent on the wood species,
and on the moisture content of the wood.
The mass equivalence of a stère of fuelwood, after having been dried to any
8
moisture content, say MCw,2, can be estimated as follows:
ρ
s,0
. kg
1stereMC ≈ 065 MC
w,1 w,2
1 − MCw,2
where ρs,0 is the density of the dry solid wood, and MWw,1 and MCw,2 are the
wet basis moisture contents of the fresh and the dried wood, respectively. The
density of the dry solid wood, ρs,0 is specific for the wood species. Note that the
original moisture content (MWw,1) does not play a role in the estimate of the
dried mass. This is, because the density of the dry wood is supposed to be
known. If that is not the case, the mass of the dried stère can still be estimated,
however, under such a circumstance the initial moisture contents and the mass
of the “wet” stère should be determined. In that case the equivalent mass of a
dried stère can be estimated from:
1 − MCw,2
10

mass2 = mass 1.
1 − MC
w,1
6/ Mares, J. G., Usines Lambiotte, Premery, France, 1999. Personal

communication to Antal and Grønli (2003).7/ Padovani (2002).8/ The
expression disregards shrinkage of solid wood upon drying. The factor of 0.65
is based on the assumed
voidance of 35% for a stacked pile of fuelwood (Padovani, 2002). For a pile of
wood chips, Padovani substitutes
a voidance of 28% (and thus a factor of 1-0.28).
10
2 CHARCOAL PRODUCTION PROCESSES
In this chapter, operating principles are being discusse, and technologies

are characterized in tems of economics and other parameters.
A particular topic that needs some discussion to enable a proper

technologyevaluation, is yields. Yield is generally defined as the mass
ratio of charcoal made and biomass fed:
m
charcoal
Yield =
m
biomass feed
However, both charcoal and biomass feeds can be of varying qualities.

E.g. moisture contents vary with lot, climate and producer. Also the fixed
carbon contents, volatile matter content and ash content are parameters
that are different with producer and production technology. Unless these
11

quality parameters are further specified, a yield is quite meaningless as

an indicator of a technology. Already Violette (in the 1850s), made note of
9
this issue. So, one should be aware that claims of high yields should be
10
carefully evaluated in view of these quality aspects.
2.1 KILN METHODS
Traditionally, charcoal is being made in mound or pit kilns. The technology

is still widely used, both in developing countries and in industrialized
11
countries. Over the past century the kilning technology has been
improved. Some examples of such improved kilning techniques are
Missouri kilns, Argentine kilns, and Brazilian Beehive kilns. With the kiln
method, part of the feedstock is offered to start and control the process.
There is a direct contact of the combusted pyrolysis vapours with the
biomass feed (internal heating). Also the improved kilning techniques are
widely used today. Beehive kilns can be found in large industrial
complexes, making charcopal for the steel in dustry in Brazil. In the USA
this technique was also widely used for the manufacture of metrallurgic
th
charcoal, but it has been abondoned during the first half of the 20
century. Missouri kilns, however, were widespread up until 1975 and later,
12
at least in the state Missouri. At least one example of a set of Missouri
kilns was found to be currently in operation, managed by Horner Charcoal
Company (Taneyville, Missouri).
Yields are usually in the range of 5%-20%, and they vary with the skills of
the operators. Also the quality of the charcoal thus manufactured is
variable. Carbonisation rates (or the Cfix content) differ, and there can be
contamination with ash, sand and mud. The range of yields and qualities
is narrower (tending towards higher yields and better qualities) for the
improved kiln methods.
Kilning methods for charcoal making are a strong emitter of polluting

gases (mainly unburnt methane and other carbon compounds). However,
only few research has been reported in which this statement is
underpinned. Smith et al. carried out emission tests for the following
traditional
9/ Violette (1853).10/ Aucamp, e.g., observed that "extremely good

charcoal yields are commonly claimed by South American
charcoal producers. In practice, these claims are seldom related to the
moisture content of the wood, thefixed-carbon content of the charcoal, ...".
Aucamp (1979)11/ Some German and Austrian charcoal manufacturer
advertise this technology. In Germany: Holzkohlewerk
Lüneburg (Hamburg, http://www.holzkohlewerk.de), Köhlerei Jatznick
12

(Jatznick, www.koehlerei-jatznick.de). InAustria: Johann Hochecker,

(Michelbach, www.holzkohle.at).12/ 500 Missouri kilns were reported by
Deglise and Magne (1987).
1
1
13
kilning methods: Mud Beehive, Earth Mound, Rice Husk Mound. Also
improved kilning methods were studied by them, i.e. the Brick Beehive and a
Single Drum. Emissions to air were also reviewed by the USA Environmental
14
Protection Agency. In 2004, the Missouri kilns operated by Horner Charcoal
Company were facilitated with an after-burner system, to reduce polluting
15
emissions to an acceptable level under the USA EPA regulations.
Figure 2, Traditional mound kiln in Liberia (Photo: Roland Siemons,

1992).
There is not much capital involved in mound and pit kilning technology (apart
from labour and feed stock). Productivity is also low. Improved kilning
techniques do involve substantial investments.
13

13/ Smith, D. M. Pennise, P. Khummongkol, et al. (1999).

14/ EPA (1995).
15/ Source: Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority
(Missouri Department of Natural
Resources). http://www.dnr.mo.gov/eiera/index.html.
Figure 3, Beehive kilns in Canyon Creek, Wise River Ranger District, Montana
(USA)
Figure 4, A Missouri kiln. (Source: EPA, Emission

Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 10.7
Charcoal)
14

2.2 RETORT CHARCOAL PRODUCTION
Most modern industrial charcoal makers use retorts for their process. In a
retort, the pyrolysis vapours are separated from the feed material, before
being combusted. Only the vapours are used to provide the energy
sustaining the process. Exceptionally additional fuels are used, e.g. for
start-up and in case of feed material that is too wet. Direct contact of the
biomass feed with oxygen from air is being prevented. In this manner it
ensured that the entire biomass feed is available for the conversion into
charcoal. If carried out properly, charcoal yields from retort processes can
be very high. However, the development of retort technologies in the past
may have had other reasons than yield optimization alone: separation
enables the manufacturer to produce a variety of chemicals, such as
acetic acid, wood vinegar, and methanol. Today, the production of these
by-products is no longer viable in view of of the competition with other
manufacturing processes.
There are many methods of implementing the retort principle. Most of them
have been developed by the charcoal producers themselves, and few of them
are commercially offered. An implication is that knowledge of the processes
fades away, as firms who employ them halt their production over time. Some
indicative names of existing (or commercially lost) retort processes for the
carbonisation of lump wood are: Arkansas or Waggon Retort, Carbo Twin
Retort, Badger-Stafford Process (no longer in use), SIFIC Process and the
related Lambiotte Retort, Degussa Retort (Reichert Retort), VMR (no longer in
use) and the O.E.T Calusco Tunnel Retort. In these retort processes, the wood
feed is either externally heated through a shell (Carbo Twin Retort, Waggon
Retort, O.E.T Calusco), or through direct contact with the combusted pyrolysis
vapours (Lambiotte, Degussa).
For the carbonisation of biomass grains, such as saw dust or nut shells,
the following indicative names are found: Herreshoff Furnace (storey furnace),
Antal’s flash carbonisation technique (in the R&D phase), the Pyro rotary
furnace (being demonstrated).
15

Figure 5, The retort principle for carbonization.
Figure 6, A continuous multiple hearth kiln for charcoal production (Source:

EPA, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 10.7 Charcoal. EPA,
Washington, 1995.
16

Figure 7, A continuous rotary retort (Pyro 7) (Source: Pro Natura International,

Green-Charcoal, December 2004)
Retort charcoal production technologies are characterized by:
Mechanised production
20%-30% yield of charcoal by weight
Controlled, high quality
Pollution: gases are burnt during the process, thus preventing the
release of noxious gases
Spare energy may be available for steam generation or for drying
Stationary, high capital investment
In Europe, retort carbonization technologies are used by:
Belišće (HR) Waggon Retort (since early 1900)

Carbo Twin Retort (since appr.
Carbo Group (NL)
1990)
Green Coal Estonia (EE) Carbo Twin Retort
Carbo France (FR) Carbo Twin Retort
Milazzo, Mortera (I) O.E.T Calusco (tunnel retort) (ITB)
Lambiotte Shaft Retort
Prémery (France) Belgium Less
S.A. (CZ)
ProFagus (former Degussa, Batch Retort

Chemviron), Bodenfelde (DE)
3 EXAMPLES OF RETORT BASED CARBONISATION TECHNOLOGIES
In this chapter, some retort based carbonisation technologies are

described. Important criteria for their selection are, whether they are in
operation today, and whether the technology can be supplied. As it turns
out, the application of these criteria shall take some time. Of some
17

technologies it is not immediately clear if they can be delivered by a

technology supplier. This chapter therefore deserves an update later.
3.1 CARBO TWIN RETORT

16
The Carbo Twin Retort was developed by Ekoblok/Carbo Group, which
is active as briquette and charcoal manufacturer, as chrcoal trader, and
as supplier of briquetting and carbonization equipment. The latter is being
discussed here. The Carbo Twin Retort system is currently in use several
countries: the Netherlands, Estonia, Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, South
Arica, Oman, Singapore, France.
The Carbo Twin Retort is a semi-continuous production module. Its

capacity is determined by the number of batch runs that can be carried
out in a given period of time. For hard wood it is approximately 900 tonnes
of charcoal per year. The Carbo Twin Retort (for a sketch, see Figure 8) is
3
loaded with two 5 m vessels containing the wood feed, the carbonization
cyle of which are effectively operated in counter-phase. The pyrolysis
vapours released from one hot carbonizing vessel, are combusted to
heat-up another vessel freshly loaded with wood. When, after several
hours the latter has reached carbonization temperature and emits
pyrolysis vapours suitable for combustion, the charcoal in the first vessel
is ready, that vessel removed, and replaced by another that has been
filled with fresh wood. The direction of gas flows is swithched by making
use of valves. This operating principle is sketched in Figure 9.
Continuously operated, one vessel is to be removed every 4 hours (6
vessels per 24-hours) from the Carbo Twin Retort. The process is to be
repeated interminably. Carbonisation of one vessel takes 8-12 hr,
depending on wood properties. An oil burner is used to provide heat for
initial process start-up. If the wood is sufficiently dry, external energy
source are not needed except for initial start-up. When removed from the
Carbo Twin Retort, vessels now containing charcoal, are placed in a sand
lock and left to cool for a period of 24 hr. Therefore, one Carbo Twin
Retorts needs a total of 6 vessels to keep the system running (and more,
e.g. 10, if the vessels are used for pre-drying). The production steps are
shown in Figure 10.
18

16/ For a full address see Appendix A.
Figure 8, Cross-section of the Carbo Twin Retort.

Exhaust gas
Exhaust gas
19

Figure 9, Operating principle of the Carbo Twin Retort.
The Carbo Twin Retort is fed with wood that has been cut to sizes in the range
of 30x30x10cm. The optimum moisture content is about 30% (wet basis). The
o
temperature of the exhaust gas from the Carbo Twin Retort is about 580 C,
and suitable to drive a thermal wood dryer. The charcoal yield, complying with
EN 1860, is 30% or higher.
In comparison with kilning technologies for charcoal production, the Carbo Twin
Retort technology is very low on emissions to air. This is because the vapours
are completely combusted into CO2 and H2O. Thus the emission of other
polluting gases, such as CH4, CO and higher C-compounds is negligeable.
20

Also in terms of particulate emissions, the technology performs well, complying

with the strict Dutch emission regulations. The avoidance of GHG emissions,
may be a relevant issue, if the technology is replacing traditional kilning
technology, in view of obtaining project finance.
An indicative cost estimate is given in Table 2.
Tabel 2, Indicative cost estimate for a Carbo Twin Retort system.

Units Unit cost (€) Costs (€) Open
building Carbo Twin Retort 3 360,000 1,080,000 Fork lift with rotator 1 60,000
60,000 Hoist and rail 1 5,000 5,000 Total 1,145,000+ x
3.2 WAGGON RETORT
The Croatian firm Belišće operates a Waggon Retort system. The system
th
is also known under the name of Arkansas Retorts. During the late 19
th
and early 20 centrury it was widely used in Europe and the USA. The
process lost ground due to the development of semicontinuous systems
like those of Lambiotte and Degussa, which showed lower overall
operating costs. The Waggon
1
9
Retort system was particularly noted for high maintenance costs of the
steel waggons and the shell of the retort itself.
Waggon Retorts are suitable for a variety of feed sizes, including

roundwood, split roundwood and slabs from sawmilling. piece length may
be upto 1 to 1.2 metres. The wood should be dried to about 25% moisture
content for good results. The wood is charged into steel waggons with
slatter sides. The waggons fit the dimension of the retort rather closely.
The waggons roll into and are removed from the retort on steel rails which
connect with a cooling chamber of the same dimensions as the retort and
built directly facing it so that the waggons after carbonisation can be
drawn quickly into the cooling chamber and sealed for cooling. The
minimum number of sets of retorts and coolers to ensure a steady supply
of wood gas for retort heating is six but much larger numbers were not
uncommon.
The complex operation and the changing heat exposure of the various
plant components result in relatively high maintenance, supervision and
operating costs.
3.3 O.E.T CALUSCO TUNNEL RETORT
21

The O.E.T Calusco Tunnel Retort has been described in the literature, but
its operation could not be confirmed in the course of this project.
The technology is said to be developed by I.T.B. Impianti Trattamento

Biomasse in Calusco d’Adda (Italy), and said to be operational in at least
two places: Milazzo and Mortera, producing
6.000 tons/year of charcoal each.
The operating principle, showing a large resemblanc with the Arkansas

3
waggon retort, is shown in Figure 11. Wood is put in 12 m trolleys that
are moved through a tunnel. The tunnel, 45 m long, is divided in three
chambers where the wood successively is being 1) dried, 2) carbonized
and 3) cooled. The chambers are separated by a door. The walls of the
trolleys are made of perforated steel. The carbonization vapours are
removed from the carbonization chamber and combusted in an external
furnace. From there, the hot combustion gases are separated into three.
One part drives the the drying chamber where it is in direct contact with
the wood feed. Another part is used to indirectly heat the carbonisation
chamber (via a heat exchanger). The third part is cooled and used to
prevent the cooling charcoal from ignition. The total residence time within
the tunnel is 25-35 hours, varying with the characteristics of the feedstock
used.
Figure 11, O.E.T Calusco Tunnel Retort system.
20
3.4 LAMBIOTTE
The largest operational Lambiotte Retort was located in Prémery

(France), operated by the Société Usines LAMBIOTTE. It was closed
down in 2002, and from various sources it has been confirmed that the
17
firm currently no longer in existence. When still in production, the
Prémery plant produced 25,000 tons/year of charcoal from oak wood in
22

two shaft retorts. Further enquiries are being made (particularly in

Belgium)whether the Lambiotte technology can be supplied from
elsewhere.
The Lambiotte carbonisation process consists

of a continuously operated shaft furnace.
There exist two variants of the Lambiotte
process, the SIFIC and the CISR system.
Both systems have two closed gas-loops, one
for the drying/carbonisation stage and one for
the cooling stage. The SIFIC process can be
run with by-product recovery.
Wood enters the retort from the top through a lock-hopper. On its way down,
the wood passes a drying zone, the carbonisation zone and and a charcoal
cooling zone. The carbonization vapours are removed through the top of the
retort. In the SIFIC variant, the condensable fraction is taken through coolers
and scrubbers, to remove certain commercial components. The remaining gas
is burnt in a combustion combustion chamber. One part of the combustion
gases is injected in the middle of the retort, to serve as a heating medium for
drying and carbonisation. Another part is cooled and re-injected at the bottom
of the retort for cooling the charcoal. The Lambiotte process being continuous,
a homogeneous quality of wood feed is essential. The wood should be
prepared into lieces of about 10 cm, and the moisture content should be below
25% (wet basis).
23

17/ Latest available address in Appendix A.

22
4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN INDUSTRIAL CHARCOAL PRODUCTION
In a final chapter we review possible trends that apply to the charcoal

making industry. To this end we look into the development of end-user
markets, and into the options for improving the charcoal making
24

technology.
4.1 ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS
The traditional markets for charcoal are:

18
Metallurgical industries
Purification (active coal)
Barbecue in industrialized countries
Household cooking in developing countries, mainly in urban areas In the
first three markets, the role of charcoal is based on its unique properties that
cannot be easily replaced by alternative products. These markets are gradually
growing. The position of charcoal as a household fuel in developing countries is
largelydue to its suitability as a relatively clean fuel for urban environments
(moderate local emissions) and its low costs for the end-user (also taking into
account the low-costs of the appliances needed for its use). With ongoing
development of these developing countries, charcoal is likely to be phased out
as a common cooking fuel. The prospective developments of existing markets
are not likely to trigger innovative technologies.
A new market for sustainable industrial fuels
A new market for charcoal could be that of industrial fuels, including fuels
for the electricity sector. Here, charcoal could become an alternative for
mineral coal and fuel oil. In this market, the position of charcoal would be
based on two properties: its biological origin (and thus its suitability as a
sustainable carbon-neutral fuel) and its potential of contributing to the
politically desired diversification of supplies. However, charcoal is not the
only product that can play this role. Alternative products that could serve
the same energy market include pyrolysis oil and wood pellets. Torrefied
19
wood is also occasionally mentioned as an alternative fuel product.
However, whether it can be offered attractively in the market has not been
analyzed nor demonstrated yet.
The potential of pyrolysis oil for the energy market was elaborated by
20
Siemons in 2002. The product is not yet commercially offered at an
industrial scale, although a 2 MW pilot plant is currently being built in
21
Uganda and is planned to be operational in fall 2008.
Wood pellets are traded as a biomass substitute fuel for coal in electrical
power plants. Just a few examples taken from a presentation for the
22
UNFCCC:
18/ Including the production of ferrosilicon, pure silicon, ferromanganese,

and refining copper. Charcoal is also usedas a carburizing agent, for
tempering, for descaling of metal sheets and wires. Charcoal is also used
25

in blast-furnaceprocesses.
19/ Torrefaction, as a biomass fuel treatment technique (low-temperature
carbonization) has certain advantagesin view of energy use for fuel
preparation (drying, pulverization). See, e.g., Prins, M.J., Ptasinski, K.J. et
al. (2006a)and (2006b).
20/ Siemons (2002).
21/ The plant of Clean Fuels Kakira Ltd. will supply local industries with
pyrolysis oil as a substitute for Heavy FuelOil.22/ Gert Schultz (Energi E2
- Denmark).
2
3
Unit 2 (510 MWe) of Avedoere Power Station in Denmark combusted
300,000 t of wood pellets in 2001.
Unit 2 (82 MWe) of Amager Power Station in Denmark combusts
150,000 t of straw pellets annually.
In 2006, Danish power plants used 570,000 t of wood in the form of
pellets and chips, and 910,000 t of pelletized straw. This is equivalent to an
effective power of 420 MW (assuming a conversion efficiency of 45% and 7000
full-load equivalent operational hours annually).
Denmark is not the only European country that produces and imports biomass
pellets as a substitute for fossil fuels. E.g. also The Netherlands are substantial
importers. An unsubstantiated source claims the existing European
23
consumption of 8 million tonnes of pellets annually. A published market
review is not currently available.
These fuels are suitable for trading because of their ease of application
(storage, handling, combustion), as well as their cost-effective calorific value
and density. Indicative parameter values are given in Table 3. A comparison of
energy density, suggests that in terms of transportation costs, pyrolysis oil is
the most attractive biomass derived fuel, and that charcoal is less attractive
than pellets. On the other hand, this argument only applies when large
transportation distances are involved. Additionally, charcoal is less costly to
pulverize than pellets. So, for power plants and industries such as cement
works, its usage could be more attractive than pellets, especially if theyare
supplied from within the region. A comparative study is not known.
Tabel 3, , Some trading properties of bio-fuels in comparison with mineral coal.

3
Fuel typeNCV (MJ/kg) Density ( kg/m b) Energy density Ash (d)
3
(MJ/m b) Straw 14.5 130
1890 5% Straw pellets 15 600 9000 5% Wood chips 10.5 300 3200 0.50%
Wood pellets 17.5 650 11400 0.50% Charcoal (lump) 29 200 5800 1.5%
Pyrolysis oil 17.2 1300 22400 0.10% Coal 25 1000 25000 13%
Development of the market for sustainable industrial charcoal-based fuels

26

might stimulate a particular development of carbonization technologies.

This would be particularly caused by specific preferred product properties.
After all, the preferred characterisitics of lump charcoal, as being used in
the barbecue market, do not apply to fuels used in the industrial fuel
market. Granualation in sizes below or above certain sizes and a specific
fixed carbon content, as in the norms for barbecue charcoal (EN 1860)
are not an issue here. A promissing industrial concept, proposed by the
Karlsruhe Research Centre FZK, is the manufacture and trade of slurries
from charcoal and pyrolysis oil. Details are given in several papers written
24
by Henrich et al..
4.2 TECHNOLOY DEVELOPMENTS
May further developments of carbonization technologies be expected, e.g.

with regard to simplification (reducing capital costs), scale-up (realizing
economies of scale), or processing yield (reducing operational costs)?
23/
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/business/stories/070415woodpellets.ht
ml24/ E.g. Henrich and Dinjus (2003)
Scale-economy
Lambiotte (Belgium) offers systems of 2000 and 6000 t of charcoal annually,

Carbo Group systems of 1000 t/a. It is not known whether there is an interest in
scaling up the Lambiotte system to even larger capacity. The Carbo system
cannot be scaled up easily (being a balanced systemconsisting of two batches
operated in counter-phase). Larger plants using the Carbo Twin Retort operate
multiple retorts in parallel (One operator handles 10 of them, at Carbo’s own
production facility).
Whether scale-up can actually result in improved economies of scale is a

question that cannot be answered without a thorough analysis. One of the
parameters that provides a counter indication against scale-up is the increased
costs of raw material (wood), as well as the wood acquisition risk for larger
carbonization plants. The analysis will not be made here.
Yield
As discussed in previous sections, there is a distinct difference in yield between

traditionalkilning techniques (usually in the range of 5%-20%) and industrial
25
retorting techniques(20%-30%). Schenkel (1998) argued that high yields are
also feasible by means of kilningtechnologies, provided the charcoalers are
well-skilled in their trade. Note that this indeedappears to apply if the issue of
the fixed carbon content of the charcoal is properly taken intoaccount (as
discussed in Chapter 2).
27

Whether the achievement of higher yields is technically feasible, was

26
investigated by Antal andco-workers, and reported in two scientific papers.
They reviewed past research, and their ownthermal analyses and experiments.
Assessing the maximum theoretical yield is not a simplematter. At first sight,
one would perhaps approach the issue as follows:1 define the raw material and
the product,2 define the thermal production conditions by pressure and
temperature,3 analyse the reaction thermodynamically,However, there are
ambiguities that arise immediately, i.e.:
How is the product defined? Charcoal is broadly determined as a
product that contains fixed carbon at a ratio larger than 70%, but the precise
chemical composition, and physical structure vary strongly with process
characteristics and raw material .
Upon carbonization, does a piece of wood simply disintegrate into
charcoal and vapours that are gone, or should one also consider secondary
carbonization reactions of vapours that result in precipitation of fixed carbon?
Clearly, although the issue seems to be simply this: what are the improvements
in yield that we may expect from further R&D?, a theoretical approach should
be quite complicated in order to be valid.
A clear over-simplification of the matter was presented by Antal and Grønli

(2003) by a determination of the equilibrium products of cellulose pyrolysis at
varying pressure and temperature (Figure 13). For a processing temperature of
o
400 C and a pressure of 1 MPa (10 bar), they arrive at the following molar and
mass balance (it is not a reaction mechanism!):
C6H10O5 6 0.74 C + 2.65 H2O +1.17 CO2 + 1.08 CH4
25/ Schenkel, Bertaux et al. (1998).26/ Antal, Mok, Varhegyi and Szekely
(1990), Antal and Grønli (2003).
and conclude that the yield of charcoal would be 27.7% (being the mass ratio
of 3.74 mole of carbon per mole of cellulose). We cannot agree with Antal and
Grønli that this would be an indicator for “the theoretical carbon yield” of the
carbonisation process, since we observe that this charcoal consists purely of
fixed carbon in the formof graphite. One could propose to extend the model by
allowing an incomplete reaction (prior to achieving equilibrium), so that a fixed
carbon content of 75% results, like for commercial charcoal. The maximum
theoretical charcoal yield would then become 37% (= 27.7%/75%). But still - is
this the theoretical maximum? It is hard to say, because the equilibrium
calculations of Antal and Grønli are not based on a chemical reaction model,
but merely on the thermal equilibrium of their own postulated final products
(CO2, C (graphite), H2O, CH4 and CO). An intriguing question concerns the role
of secondary vapour reactions for the formation of charcoal. The relevance of
those reactions is supported by a host of scientific reports, and this was also
recognized by Antal and Grønli.
28

Figure 13, , Results of the equilibrium model of cellulose

carbonization, by Antal and Grønli (2003).
In their reviews, Antal and co-workers considered a large number of

parameters. We shall not summarize the entire discussion here. Instead, the
reader is referred to the indicated papers. In view of the results of their
equilibrium model for graphite formation (compare Figure 13), it is surprising
that Antal et al. conclude that it would be favourable to increase processing
pressure above 1 bar. They do draw that conclusion (‘high pressure, hence
high yield’) though on the basis of their interpretation of experiments. It seems
possible, that the reported effect is the result of increased vapour residence
time that may occur in a high-pressure test device, and thus is caused by
secondary vapour reactions contributing to charcoal yield. Antal et al. do not
discuss that hypothesis, but at least the results obtained by Violette (1853) (in
view of the test procedures employed by him: carbonization in a sealed glass
tube) are perhaps best explained in this manner. Therefore, we put forward that
favourable reaction circumstances for carbonization are these:
Slow vapour removal from charcoal matrix
Vapour exposure to high-temperature charcoal Options for optimised
29

reactor configuration are then:

Closed container
Vapour flow control The first of these optimizations is indeed employed
by Antal, at the Renewable Resources Research Laboratory (Hawaii Natural
Energy Institute), in the so-called Flash Carbonisation process. It is described
27
on a website, and in a paper. In brief, the concept consists of a vessel packed
with biomass, pressurized with air at 10 bar, and ignited electrically. Whether
this Flash Carbonisation process is the answer, still remains to be seen.
Reported results, so far, are an average charcoal yield of 34% an average fixed
carbon yield of 29%, and an average energy efficiency of 60% (derived by the
author of this report, from the data reported in the referred paper). Such results
are not yet very dramatic in comparison with state-of-the-art industrial
carbonization technologies. In any case, it seems an interesting R&D route, not
so much though in view of increased reaction pressures, but rather because of
the prolonged vapour residence time that can be achieved in a closed reactor
vessel.
27/ http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/bio.r3.asp#newsitem, and Antal,

Mochidzuki, and Paredes (2003).
28
LITERATURE
Antal, M. J. jr. and M. Grønli, The art, science, and technology of charcoal
production, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 1619-1640.
Antal, M. J. jr. , W. S. L. Mok, G. Varhegyi and T. Szekely, Review of Methods

for Improving the Yield of Charcoal from Biomass, Energy & Fuels (An
American Chemical Society Journal), 4, 3 May / June 1990, 221-225.
Antal, M. J. Jr., K. Mochidzuki, and L. S. Paredes, Flash Carbonization of

Biomass, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42, 3690-3699.
Aucamp, H. L., Large Scale Charcoal Technology. V Encontro Nacional de

Florestadores, Gramado & Canela, 1979; p 1.
Deglise, X. and Magne, P., Pyrolysis and Industrial Charcoal, in Hall, D.O.,
Overend, R.P., Biomass, Eds., New York, 1987.
EN 1860-2:2005 Appliances, solid fuels and firelighters for barbecuing.

Barbecue charcoal and barbecue charcoal briquettes. Requirements and test
methods.
EPA, Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 10.7 Charcoal, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Washington, 1995.
Foley, G.: Charcoal Making in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, 1986.
30

Henrich, E., Dinjus, E. Tar-free, High-Pressure Synthesis Gasfrom Biomass. In

Pyrolysis and Gasification of Biomass and Wastes;in Bridgwater, A. V., Ed.;
CPL Press: Newbury, UK, 2003; pp 511-526.
Klason, P., Heidenstam, G., Norlin, E., Untersuchungen zur Holzverkohlung. I.

Die trockene Destillation der Cellulose. Z. Angew. Chem. 1909, 25, 1205.
Mok, W. S., Antal, M.J. jr., Szabo, P., Varhegyi, G. and Borbala Zelei,
Formation of Charcoal from Biomass in a Sealed Reactor, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 1992,31, 1162-1166
Padovani, F., The Measurement of Forest products, in: Proceedings of the

Workshop and Training on Forest Product Statistics, EC-FAO Partnership
Programme (2000–2002), Project GCP/RAS/173/EC, Bangkok, 20-24 May,
2002.
Prins, M.J., Ptasinski, K.J. et al. (2006), "More efficient biomass gasification via
torrefaction." Energy, ECOS 2004 - 17th International Conference on
Efficiency, Costs, Optimization, Simulation, and Environmental Impact of
Energy on Process Systems 31 (15): 3458-3470.
Prins, M.J., Ptasinski, K.J. et al. (2006), "Torrefaction of wood: Part 2. Analysis
of products." Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 77 (1): 35-40.
Schenkel, Y., Bertaux, P. et al. (1998), "An evaluation of the mound kiln
carbonization technique." Biomass and Bioenergy 14 (5-6): 505-516.
Schultz, G. (Energi E2 - Denmark), Modern biomass utilisation,
http://unfccc.int/files/methods
_and_science/mitigation/application/pdf/eu_schultz.pdf.
Siemons, R.V. (2002), A development perspective for biomass-fuelled

electricity generation technologies - economic technology assessment in view
of sustainability, PhD thesis, Faculty of Economics and Econometrics,
Universiteit of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Smith, K. R. , D. M. Pennise, P. Khummongkol, et al., Greenhouse Gases

From Small-scale Combustion Devices in Developing Countries: Charcoal-
Making Kilns in Thailand, EPA-600/R-99-109, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, 1999.
Violette, M., Mémoire sur les Charbons de Bois, Ann. Chim. Phys. 1853, 32,
304.
ANNEX A ADDRESSES
CARBONISATION EQUIPMENT
Carbo Group b.v. Bedrijvenpark Twente 168 7602 KE ALMELO Netherlands

31

Tel: +31546570462 Tel: +31653449505 Fax: +31546570604 Email:

h.brand@carbo.nl Mr. Hajo Brandt
I.T.B. s.r.l. Via San Rocco 818 24033 Calusco d’Adda (Bg) Italy Tel : +39 035
791 800 Fax : +39 035 794 068 Email : info@itbiomass.com
Lambiotte & Cie S.A. 18, Av. des Aubépines B-1180 Brussels Belgium Tel. :
+32 2 374.44.65 Fax : +32 2 375.31.55 E-mail : mail@lambiotte.com
CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
Austria
Gebrüder Gruber Gesellschaft m.b.H. Steinholz 23 A-3263 Randegg Tel:
(07487) 8410 gruberholz@aon.at Mr Johann Gruber
Johann Hochecker Kleindurlas 13 A-3074 Michelbach Tel: (02744)

8556 hochecker@aon.at www.holzkohle.at Mr Johann Hochecker
Czech Republic
LESS a.s.
Rajnochovice 276 768 71 - Czech Republic Tel: +420 777 320 730 Tel: +420
573 391 118 macik@less.cz www.dreveneuhli.cz/de_index.html Mr.Miroslav
Macík Mr.Pavel Svoboda
EKOGRILL, s.r.o. Cvrčovice - Karla Čurdy 119 CZ-27341 Brandýsek Tel: 313
564 732 ekopor@volny.cz www.volny.cz/ekopor/
Croatia
HORMAR d.o.o.
P. Svačića 15 HR-43280 Garešnica Tel: 043 / 44 50 21 Tel: 098 / 43 61 27 Tel:
043 / 53 14 94 Tel: 098 / 23 95 69 Fax: 043 / 53 14 94 mario.horvat@bj.t-
com.hr Mr. Mario Horvat
KRIŽEVCI - PRODUKT d.o.o. Dr. Ferde Kerna 8 HR-48260 Križevci Tel: 048 /
71 45 94 Fax: 048 / 71 45 94 Mr. Zdenko Jaki
Belišće
France
ETS CALLEGARI CHRISTIAN Chez FAURE 17130 COURPIGNAC France
Phone : +33 5 46 70 30 57 Fax : +33 5 46 49 71 39
Girondine de Carbonisation 33680 LACANAU France Phone : +33 5 56 03 56

30 Fax : +33 5 56 03 55 92
Navarre
32
32

Route Nationale 134 40420 GAREIN France Phone : +33 5 58 51 41 64 Fax :

+33 5 58 51 63 44
Chemviron Carbon 58, Avenue Wagram 75017 PARIS 17 France Phone : +33
8 00 80 28 52 Fax : +33 8 00 10 07 12
Ets Rousseau et Fils 24270 DUSSAC France Phone : +33 5 53 52 61 50 Fax :

+33 5 53 52 28 16
Carbo France EURL 55290 MONTIERS SUR SAULX France Phone : +33 3 29
75 98 80 Fax : +33 3 29 75 88 83
Bordet Frères 21290 LEUGLAY France Phone : +33 3 80 81 81 69 Fax : +33 3

80 81 84 40
Usines Lambiotte Halted 3 Rue Auguste Lambiotte 58700 Premery tel :

0386377200 fax : 0386377225
Germany
proFagus GmbH Uslarer Straße 30
-371 94 Bodenfelde Telefon +49 55 72 1 94 4-0 - Fax +49 55 72 I 94 4-1 31
Heinrich Schmitz Hocksteiner Weg 62 D-

41189 Mönchengladbach Telefon: (02166)
958565 info@schmitz-holzkohle.de
www.schmitz-holzkohle.de Herr Heinrich
Schmitz
Rheinbraun Brennstoff GmbH, D-50935 Köln, Tel. (0221) 480-0,

gabriele.luecke@rwe.com, www.rheinbraun-brennstoff.de
Holzkohlewerk Lüneburg Plan 6 20095 Hamburg Director: Bernd Eichin Tel:

+49-40-3233200 www.holzkohlewerk.de info@holzkohlewerk.de
Köhlerei Jatznick Rothemühler Chaussee 2 D-17309 Jatznick Tel.: (039741)

80892 koehlerei.jatznick@freenet.de www.koehlerei-jatznick.de Peter Diers
Netherlands
Carbo Group b.v. Bedrijvenpark Twente 168 7602 KE ALMELO Netherlands
Tel: +31546570462 Tel: +31653449505 Fax: +31546570604 Email:
h.brand@carbo.nl Mr. Hajo Brandt
Slovakia
SLZ CHÉMIA, a.s. Hlavná 133 SK-98111 Hnúšťa Tel: 047/5422104 Tel:
047/5422165 Fax: 047/5422552 predajslzchemia@stonline.sk
www.slzchemia.sk Ing. Jaroslava Maceková
EUROSLAT s.r.o. Still active? Skačany 189 SK-95853 Skačany Tel:

33

038/7488136 euroslat@stonline.sk www.euroslat.sk Ivan Hudec
FINEKOS, s.r.o. Kragujevská

12SK-01001 Žilina Tel:
041/5622625 Ing. Jana Turanová
PALIVÁ spol.s.r.o. Podmostie č.1 SK-01701 Považská Bystrica Tel:

042/4322960 dd@paliva.sk www.paliva.sk
M.B.A. Dušan Divko
TENDER SLOVAKIA s.r.o. Vihorlatská 1412 SK-06901 Snina Tel:

057/7750477 Tel: 0903/239635 Robert Petřík
34

FAO - Industrial Charcoal Production

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FAO - Industrial Charcoal Production

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TCP/CRO/3101 (A) Development of a sustainable charcoal

This publication is a part of deliverables of the FAO project:

TCP/CRO/3101 (A) Development of a sustainable charcoal industry

North-West Croatia Regional Energy Agency

This project was launched in July 2006 within

Apart from recommendations and best solutions

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water

Project Technical Officer: Dr Miguel Trossero

National Project Co-ordinator: Dr Julije Domac

Contributing Authors: Dr Roland Siemons

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................6

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change MC moisture

Rates on Tuesday, February 16, 2007:

1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF CHARCOAL

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CHARCOAL PROPERTIES

The quality of charcoal depends on both wood species used as a raw

Good quality charcoal was characterized by Chaturvedi as follows: “[It]

This carbon is a finely crystalline and practically free of sulfur. Charcoal

Suitable for BBQ equipment of EN

1.2 RAW MATERIAL

Both hardwood and softwood can be used as a raw material. Also,

5/ As experienced by and hypothesised by Mok et al. 1992) and by Antal and

6/ Mares, J. G., Usines Lambiotte, Premery, France, 1999. Personal

In this chapter, operating principles are being discusse, and technologies

A particular topic that needs some discussion to enable a proper

However, both charcoal and biomass feeds can be of varying qualities.

quality parameters are further specified, a yield is quite meaningless as

2.1 KILN METHODS

Traditionally, charcoal is being made in mound or pit kilns. The technology

Kilning methods for charcoal making are a strong emitter of polluting

9/ Violette (1853).10/ Aucamp, e.g., observed that "extremely good

(Jatznick, www.koehlerei-jatznick.de). InAustria: Johann Hochecker,

Figure 2, Traditional mound kiln in Liberia (Photo: Roland Siemons,

13/ Smith, D. M. Pennise, P. Khummongkol, et al. (1999).

Figure 4, A Missouri kiln. (Source: EPA, Emission

2.2 RETORT CHARCOAL PRODUCTION

Figure 5, The retort principle for carbonization.

Figure 6, A continuous multiple hearth kiln for charcoal production (Source:

Figure 7, A continuous rotary retort (Pyro 7) (Source: Pro Natura International,

In Europe, retort carbonization technologies are used by:

Belišće (HR) Waggon Retort (since early 1900)

ProFagus (former Degussa, Batch Retort

3 EXAMPLES OF RETORT BASED CARBONISATION TECHNOLOGIES

In this chapter, some retort based carbonisation technologies are

technologies it is not immediately clear if they can be delivered by a

3.1 CARBO TWIN RETORT

The Carbo Twin Retort is a semi-continuous production module. Its

16/ For a full address see Appendix A.

Figure 8, Cross-section of the Carbo Twin Retort.

Figure 9, Operating principle of the Carbo Twin Retort.

Also in terms of particulate emissions, the technology performs well, complying

An indicative cost estimate is given in Table 2.

Tabel 2, Indicative cost estimate for a Carbo Twin Retort system.

3.2 WAGGON RETORT

Waggon Retorts are suitable for a variety of feed sizes, including

3.3 O.E.T CALUSCO TUNNEL RETORT

The technology is said to be developed by I.T.B. Impianti Trattamento

The operating principle, showing a large resemblanc with the Arkansas

Figure 11, O.E.T Calusco Tunnel Retort system.

The largest operational Lambiotte Retort was located in Prémery

two shaft retorts. Further enquiries are being made (particularly in