[Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon

Thu Dec 29 13:08:35 CST 2011

George,

You are hitting the nail on thread here: So many of us are shooting for efficiency green gas emissions biochar etc etc. Yet, these are NOT the main priorities of the target market: 

Its all about COST first and foremost. If there is a capital cost hurdle focus on getting around that: Viz.,  buyback scheme, micro finance, carbon credits, finance thru reduced fuel costs with use etc.-some financing mechanism under certain  conditions amenable to the trainer. etc etc.. (In the holey briquette extension arena we encourage producing the donuts in exchange for training and a press --assuming that the trainers themselves are also producers --and they have an ongoing market for the product…).

Sure lots has been done in this regard, but that resides as the overall issue isn't it?: Thanks, George "of the Jungle" for bringing it to our attention,

Richard of the petroleum culture
www.legacyfound.org

On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:00 AM, George Riegg Gambia wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
> 
> One question - are you saying that these 2 categories you're suggesting are mutually exclusive?
> 
>> Should there be two fundamental categories for "Improved Stoves" as follows:
>> 1: "Efficient Stoves with Low Indoor Air Pollution"
>> and
>> 2: "Stoves Producing Biochar"
> 
> Not being a technical guy myself but helping to run a pilot in The Gambia all I know is what our target market wants:
> 1) Pay less for fuel for the same result
> 2) Pay less for fuel for the same result
> 3) to whatever....... same again
> Way down on the list:
> Have a good stove that is easy to work
> Have a good stove that is affordable
> Have a good stove that is safe to use
> Bring health benefits (IAP)
> Help saving trees
> Reduce GHG emmissions (whatever they are - in their perception)
> 
> Cheers
> George from the Jungle - well.... sort of
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: <crispinpigott at gmail.com>; "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon
> 
> 
>> Dear Crispin
>> 
>> One definition of a "Stove" is "a device that consumes a fuel to produce heat."
>> 
>> As recently defined by the List Owner, "... This stoves discussion group is for cooking stoves for developing countries, ..."  In most stove, boiler, and furnace systems, efficiency is measured by the degree to which the fuel can do the intended job. One of the significant efficiency losses in a poor stove, boiler, or furnace system is "Carbon Loss", ie, unburned fuel in the ash pit.
>> 
>> Thus, if the Stove Owner wishes to minimize the requirement for input fuel, a stove that produces biochar would be a poor choice, in that it would consume more input fuel than a stove that burned the biochar. Clearly, however, if the Stove Owner wants biochar, because biochar gives benefits greater than the cost of extra fuel, then a "Char Producing Stove" is "a good thing."
>> 
>> Should there be two fundamental categories for "Improved Stoves" as follows:
>> 1: "Efficient Stoves with Low Indoor Air Pollution"
>> and
>> 2: "Stoves Producing Biochar"
>> 
>> For those interested in minimizing their fuel requirements, and IAP, they would look for stoves in the first Category, but if they wanted biochar, then they would look in the second category.
>> 
>> Biochar is "a good thing" for those who want it", and a "bad thing" for those who don't.
>> 
>> Should not the Stove Buyer or Maker be given a clear choice of the stove type that is best for his/her specific circumstances?
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Kevin
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar - UnfulfilledPromises in Cameroon
>> 
>> 
>>> Dear Friends
>>> 
>>> 1. There is a reasonable review of the issues raised at http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/biochar-fund-giving-biochar-bad-name.html drawing the obvious conclusion that one project, good or bad, does not make or break a technology.
>>> 
>>> 2. Readers will note from reports that the application rates were 10 to 20 tons per hectare. This is the same range I used in my calculations for the stove-produced char earlier this year. The indications are that if stoves are to be a major source for biochar applied to agriculture, the timeline for conversion/meaningful application is not 7 years as indicated by Biochar Fund, but considerably longer.
>>> 
>>> 3. If the charcoal production rate was 12.5% and the source material was wood, they applied about 20 tons per ha, and they used about 1/2 the biomass as wood input to the charcoal kiln, it means they used 320 tons of biomass to treat a hectare (320,000 kg). If a family were to produce cooking stove char at twice that efficiency at a rate of 0,5 kg per day, it would take 320,000 days to treat one hectare, roughly a millenium. This is a statistically significant difference in the estimated time for biochar production.
>>> 
>>> 4. As there are suggestions that as much as 50% of applied char is missing (not sequestered) after only one year in some soils, so there maybe a need to re-apply char. There may be an upper limit for the carbon content of biologically active soil (self-limiting). It seems to confirm strong variability in the results.
>>> 
>>> 5. What is not clear to me is that charcoal application to soil has anything like a universally positive result, or that cooking stoves offer a meaningful way to produce the quantities required to see the beneficial effects, or that it would not be a great deal more efficient to make charcoal on site or alternatively, to just bury the biomass as a green manure fertiliser. Comparisons are required.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Crispin
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kevin C <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>> Sender: stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
>>> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:50:57
>>> To: <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
>>> Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>>> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>> Cc: Erich Knight<erichjknight at gmail.com>; biochar-policy<biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com>; <biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Discussion of biomass<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar - Unfulfilled
>>> Promises in Cameroon
>>> 
>>> Quoting rongretlarson at comcast.net:
>>> 
>>>> Kevin and several lists:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. You said below: "# I have read the BFW Report. What are the
>>>> "Selected Quotes" to which you refer? "
>>>> 
>>>> Answer: They were in the cite I gave about a dozen lines earlier (my
>>>> second line under "2"):
>>>> 
>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-production/message/833:
>>> 
>>> # Thanks. However, I am reluctant to discuss selected quotes out of
>>> context. Selected quotes leave the door wide open for "cherry
>>> picking". If you could start by selecting a few of the quotes that you
>>> feel are most relevant, tehn we can focus on them in context.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. I think our discussion on Rademakers and BFW would go better
>>>> after hearing your response to those quotes (of BFW).
>>> 
>>> # I would suggest that neither of us are competent to discuss the
>>> correctness and fairness (or incorrectness and unfairness of the BFW
>>> Report, unless we have first hand facts. Mr. Rademaker and his work
>>> are being discussed in the BFW Report. Mr. Rademaker would have the
>>> first hand facts to discuss or rebut the BFW Report. What does he say
>>> on the matter?
>>>> 
>>>> 3. I have more coming on this topic (which I put in a "Box" labeled
>>>> "BFW" - not "Biochar", and certainly not "stoves").
>>> 
>>> # Anything that leads to "Truth In Biochar", and makes it easier for a
>>> Farmer to decide on the merits of Biochar utilization in his operation
>>> is of great interest to me.
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Kevin
>>>> 
>>>> Ron
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Kevin C" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>>> To: rongretlarson at comcast.net
>>>> Cc: biochar at yahoogroups.com, "Discussion of biomass"
>>>> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Erich Knight"
>>>> <erichjknight at gmail.com>, "biochar-policy"
>>>> <biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 2:01:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -
>>>> Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon
>>>> 
>>>> Quoting rongretlarson at comcast.net:
>>>> 
>>>>> Kevin and ccs:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. This is getting complicated - as the dialog has shifted from the
>>>>> BFW story on Africa/Rademakers over to the IBI material.prepared by
>>>>> Kelpie Wilson. My perception is that you are looking for specific
>>>>> information from both reports that were not intended and aren't
>>>>> there. So I see no reason to respond to your questions about
>>>>> Kelpie's IBI work .
>>>> 
>>>> # This is not complicated at all:
>>>> a: BFW presents a report on biochar tests
>>>> b. "Defenders of the Faith" demonize BFW, rather than showing where
>>>> their Report is wrong in a factual, scientific, and professional manner.
>>>> c: I made no mention of Kelpie's work.
>>>> d: You would appear to be clouding the issue, to avoid dealing with
>>>> the matter in a factual way. I am amused that you criticize me for
>>>> asking for information that is not in the report, and which the report
>>>> did not intend to convey (why the corn with biochar grew so well), yet
>>>> you do not criticize Erich when he assumes that it was the biochar,
>>>> and not other conditions, that made the corn grow so well. (more
>>>> water, fertilizer, organic matter, manure, compost, better soil in
>>>> general, better test management, etc.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. The BFW story was covered on the biochar lists about a month ago; see:
>>>>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar-production/message/833
>>>>> It is unfortunate that this story is started over again on the
>>>>> stoves list. It doesn't belong - there is zero stoves aspect to the
>>>>> BFW story..
>>>> 
>>>> # You yourself are using the Stoves List as a way to promote biochar
>>>> production! How can you possibly say that the Article has no relevance
>>>> to Stoves? If the BFW Article has a valid basis, then it would suggest
>>>> that the potential for biochar is diminished. Nobody so far has
>>>> refuted their article in a rational manner. Can you?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. I look forward to hearing your reaction to the selected quotes
>>>>> from BFW's report - which I presume you have not yet read.
>>>> 
>>>> # I have read the BFW Report. What are the "Selected Quotes" to which
>>>> you refer?
>>>> 
>>>> Best wishes for a happy and Prosperous 2012
>>>> 
>>>> Kevin
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ron
>>>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Kevin C" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
>>>>> To: biochar at yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 8:37:12 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [biochar] [Stoves] allAfrica.com: Africa: Biochar -
>>>>> Unfulfilled Promises in Cameroon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> 