[Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise reporting of facts.

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Nat

 

I read the article at
http://worldstove.com/wp-content/uploads/download/critical_review.pdf and
repeat here your question near the end: 

 

"Why does BioFuelWatch refute fact and science, which we continue to cite."

 

When you are dealing with a funded organisation responsible one way or
another to donors, you have to tout and shout the current (funded) memes.
This is apparently an organisation that believes that the Earth's climate,
which changes massively and continuously all by itself, can be brought to
stasis by the All-Powerful Hand of Man fiddling the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere. That alone is so unscientific that it beggars belief they follow
any scientific path at all, let along one that includes your observations
and supporting documents.

 

I, frankly, have never heard of them and their anti-biochar position and
doubt they can do much to prevent the likes of you and me demonstrating all
sorts of technologies and their benefits.

 

The first three links in your letter did not work. The 4th did:
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_and_biochar_article.pdf which
outlines the massive subsidies to the beneficiaries of a lobby that seeks
money in order to survive. If there were no CO2 argument, there would be no
subsidy, so guess what, they flog it and the money rolls in. Agrofuels. Not
even 'biofuels' any more.

 

One of the 'difficult sells' with biochar is not going to go away: having
collected the fuel, why not burn it all. If someone wants to get more carbon
in the ground, plant trees. If someone wants biochar for agriculture, set up
an industry to do that. It is fundamental that having procured, processed,
dried and prepared a fuel for the fire, it is unwise to throw any of it
away. There must be cases where it makes sense,. But a heck of a lot where
it does not.

 

Everything proposed by the char producing stove seems, in my limited view,
to involve work for the stove user. If that work can be very limited and the
application of the small amount of char generated is concentrated on a small
portion of land, or as you point, dosed onto individual plants, it is
excusable. But not if there is no additional fuel readily available (because
the high energy portion is being tossed). But not if there is a net increase
in fuel taken from the source.  It looks strange to see the ordinary need
for cooking being turned into a complex battle between agriculturalists and
rent-seekers trying to bring an ever-changing climate to a halt. 

 

They are attacking your products because they have no idea what they are
doing. That is my conclusion, on several levels. Wow.

 

Your stoves work fine. If they could burn more of the carbon, so much the
better. Sitting in my urban shack having found a piece of a truck pallet to
cook for the night, I would rather have the heat than some black char to
toss outside in the roadside where it will be crushed and blown around my
already dirty, dusty township.

 

While there is no one, perfect answer, there is also no perfect
understanding and far more than one path. One far too common element is so
many people grasping at money, and failing that, straws. In their view, you,
Nat, are collateral damage.

 

Your fan,

Crispin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110718/0f9dd10c/attachment.html>