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

rongretlarson at comcast.net rongretlarson at comcast.net
Mon Jul 18 15:07:36 CDT 2011




Crispin (cc list) 

To stovers. The original start of this thread yesterday by Nat Mulcahy was on "Biochar". There are four "biochar" lists also managed by Tom Miles. 

To the Yahoo biochar lists: We have agreed that the one related to climate topics should be "biochar-policy" (URL given above). For continuity (hopefully temporary as it relates to the climate topic), I also include "biochar". 

I think there have been no restrictions on talking climate topics on "stoves" - so I feel it necessary to comment on the several (conflicting) types of misinformation I find in Crispin's message below. mainly from the stoves perspective. I wrote a different kind of support response last night to the "Biochar" list, for any (non-biochar) stovers finding this interesting. 

See inserts below. 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com> 
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:30:43 AM 
Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise reporting of facts. 





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. 

[RWL1: Crispin. you have not read enough of the Biofuel Watch literature. You have gotten the BFW message exactly backwards (hope you can prove me wrong). They repeatedly warn against all (especially Biochar) man-made intervention in attacking global warming. They are mysteriously silent on what they believe about anthropogenic causation of warming. However, unlike you, I am pretty sure they do acknowledge that global warming exists and that it is due predominantly to fossil fuels. You continue to amaze me with your denial of these two fundamental beliefs. If I thought they believed as you I wouldn't be paying as much attention to their nonsense about Biochar. 


I have asked you repeatedly to tell me one thing found at www.skepticalscience.org with which you diagree. I ask again (I think this site does an excellent job of saying what the [mainly experimental] evidence is for what you claim doesn't exist). The complaint of Nat about BFW, with which I agree totally, has nothing to do with the causation of the sequestration need for biochar.. 




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. 

[RWL2: After you start reading more of the anti-biochar literature (almost all originating with BFW), you will find that they [three non-experts (zero peer-reviewed publications) in the field] have been hugely influential in slowing down actions to promote biocchar R&D and implementation. They are very clever in the PR department.] 




The first three links in your letter did not work. The 4 th 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. 

[RWL3: Again you need to read more closely. There is a 97% consensus on a "CO2 argument" among climate scientists (I am sure you know where to find the data behind that statistic). The money for Biochar R&D is miniscule - I believe still none officially in any US Government agency - specifically marked "Biochar" 

I am not sure why you couldn't pick up the first link (to a June 2011 BFW document). I had the same problem until I was sure I had both lines of Nat's citation. This is the key one. I assume the others work. I hope you will find the most damaging statement to Biochar's promise that you can find there (out of 150) and we can talk about the validity of that citation. Nat's complaint in part is that they are misusing what he is saying - and I think many of the "citees" would say the same. Most of the cites are non-controversial; I am talking about ones that you think make Biochar look really bad or dumb. (the BFW hypothesis)] 



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. 

[RWL4: Sorry, this is only a difficult sell with deniers. Start learning about Biochar's reason for rapid growth at www.biochar-international.org. New technical papers on Biochar are coming out at a rate of about twice a week - and popular press much more often. While there, look at the IBI view of the BFW misconception at 


http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Biochar%20Misconceptions%20and%20the%20Science.pdf 


In brief, charcoal is more valuable in the soil than being combusted - but you have heard this many times before. Believe me, Nat is not throwing any away. Of course, no one would disagree that some places are better than others. 




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. 

[RWL5: I find it hard to believe, but everything in this paragraph is wrong. One of the biggest advantages of the TLUDs and TLODs is an ability to start them and then leave them alaone. Nat is finding 5-6 times more char being turned in than expected. Reason: people are going into business with the stoves. Also if you would read Nat's material you would find the words "pellets", and "residues" and "non-trees". Life is decidedly simpler for the Lucia stove user - one of the the reasons for rapid expansion of Nat's business. 





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

[RWL6. Now we agree. Not sure how you got here though.] 




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. 

[RWL7: On your first point, Nat has made a conscious decision to only market pyrolyzers. His (unique) concept could gasify - and he has chosen not to - for reasons I think you cant (as a climate denier) understand. The dust you are talking about is coal dust - which has no place in anyone's garden. Users of Biochar take great pains to get it safely in the ground - especially (in Nat's case) using char surrounding individual seeds. 





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. 

[RWL: Again several agreements and disagreements. Obviously we can all agree with your first sentence. But I ask anyone reading this to suggest an alternative better for either carbon sequestration or soil augmentation (Biochar comping from pyrolyszing stoves being the one Nat is following). I think you have insulted a lot of fine people (maybe Nat?) who are in the Biochar business for the right reasons. Unless you have some proof of the intentions of those entrepreneurs who are trying hard to make Biochar work, I think it better not to guess on motivations (which BFW does continually). BFW shrewdly makes a big deal of Mantria - but that is/was an outlier, in my opinion. When Nat talks about unknown money - he is referring to those very few who downplay Biochar. 


Lastly, Nat is nowhere approaching "collateral damage". His is a spectacularly successful operation, growing very rapidly - based on an outstanding business plan. What amazes me is his ability to find the time to fight back against the likes of BFW.. 




Apologies for taking up too much space - but I couldn't let Crispin's (and BFW's) comments stand unchallenged. I urge you to re-read both Nat's and the BFW material. 





Ron 








Your fan, 

Crispin 


_______________________________________________ 
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/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110718/0eb4b111/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list