Coal as a soil amendment?!

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I grew up in "Coal Country" the hills of West Virginia (USA) the amount of ecological damage done by coal is difficult to quantify. Coal is full of very acidic sulfates and leaching of this and other chemicals from coal has killed entire water sheds of lakes, streams, and rivers. Almost nothing grows in theses areas. Anywhere coal is stored or processed suffers from the same effects. Coal contains lots of radio-nucleotides. Spreading coal around also spreads these elements around and coal releases radon gas as well. I have no desire to spread coal in any form in my garden or even my neighborhood. Even if you can somehow neutralize the damage of the chemicals in coal the damage done by the process of mining the coal makes it not worth the effort.

Good analysis. I used to work as a field biologist for the TVA. We went up into the Clinch River tributaries in VA to investigate the sources of various contaminations. Lots of evidence of damage to aquatic habitats form the disposal of 55-gal drums containing every kind of hazardous liquid. Didn't see any coal-mine tailings, though. But once we investigated a catastrophic dike failure of a massive fly-ash lagoon at some coal-fired plant up there. Made a very big mess of the Clinch River and its aquatic life.

But I'm not convinced that coal could not be used safely and wisely as a soil amendment. I like the concept. I had never thought of this before.

[Michaelangelica]

I have noticed a few "soil improvers' sold in nurseries that claim to contain coal.

I guess where the coal comes from, and what it is made of that matters.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Larv

Good analysis. I used to work as a field biologist for the TVA. We went up into the Clinch River tributaries in VA to investigate the sources of various contaminations. Lots of evidence of damage to aquatic habitats form the disposal of 55-gal drums containing every kind of hazardous liquid. Didn't see any coal-mine tailings, though. But once we investigated a catastrophic dike failure of a massive fly-ash lagoon at some coal-fired plant up there. Made a very big mess of the Clinch River and its aquatic life.

But I'm not convinced that coal could not be used safely and wisely as a soil amendment. I like the concept. I had never thought of this before.

Larv, I've been wondering about the TVA's recent catastrophic dike failure of a massive fly-ash lagoon at some coal-fired plant, and I was wondering why they don't just turn that flyash back into soil. I'd think mixing flyash, sewage, and biochar would generate a fairly good soil eventually. I'm sure they could find a succession of things to grow on it and turn it into rich soil; ultimately growing trees to be turned into more biochar--to be added to more sewage and flyash.

All the biomass from such a "soil field" should go into biochar production, as any bio-incorporated heavy metals stay in the char--sort of like being glassified or vitrified--and will not be released into the air during biochar production, or into the water table during biochar aging.
I think they already use it as an asphalt filler and non-agricultural soil amendment (now that strikes me as unwise, but...).

Got any advice? ~

p.s. Lehmann's "Biochar..." book says that coke and biochar are essentially the same thing (but I think they mean: ...except for impurities and contaminating heavy metals).
I think it's because both are formed by the hot C-vapors "condensing" onto the carbon structure and building it up into a larger--fairly amorphous, but somewhat graphitic and graphenic--carbon structure; biochar ...or coke!

[JMJones0424]

Fly ash is already being used a soil amendment in Texas, where we have an abundance of coal-fired power plants. It is typically used to lighten heavy clay soils. I have experimented with using it in clay soils myself, but did not find any noticeable benefit beyond those observed by adding high amounts of composted organic matter. This is a link to one of the ongoing Texas A&M studies.

Another common use for fly ash is to replace a portion of the portland cement required in concrete. It is a well developed technology and has been in use for more than half a century.

The ash used in both of these situations is a portion of the resultant ash from burning lignite coal (Class C fly ash), not bituminous coal. This may indicate that lignite or brown coal as referenced in all of the above studies contains significantly less heavy metals than bituminous coal, but I am by no means qualified to actually back up that statement. I do know that Class F fly ash which results from burning bituminous coal is not used for either application as a soil amendment or in concrete production.