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

Sat Jul 23 21:40:19 CDT 2011

Stove list: 

A few days ago, I felt list moderator Andrew Heggie was saying there was not enough stove material in this thread. Accordingly, I will transfer the discussion to the Biochar-policy list. Anyone wishing to follow it there, but not on, or not wanting to be on the continuing thread but wanting to keep advised of the discussion, please write me personally off-list. The thread started (by Nat Mulcahy) on the Biochar list, but because this is mostly now about COs and anthropogenic warming, it seems to best fit the rules of the four Biochar lists to continue the dialog only on "Biochar-policy". 

But, before leaving, I am pretty sure it was on this stoves list that Crispin made a pretty negative statement about Biochar that I need to respond to now - but cannot now locate. In this following (now heavily truncated) message, Crispin said about 80% in: 
" I have already tried to engage you in a discussion about the math that seems to underlie their char-adding methods, pointing out on this site that it would take more than a millennium to grow on a square meter of soil enough wood to make enough char to produce the sort of results they are talking about for large scale agriculture (where the carbon sequestration argument ultimately lies). " 

RWL:: I do remember Crispin's assertion and thought/think I responded. But now I can't find his or mine, so I ask Crispin or anyone (able to find it - I gave up after 30 minutes) to give an exact cite. As a start I can say that every year, photosynthesis produces (a net, on average) about 1/2 kg C/square meter (using 60 Gigatons of carbon from about 12 gigahectares of land, 10^3 kg/tonne, and 10^4 sqm in a hectare.). On good soil, and the right species (like sugar cane), it can be ten times higher (even more from algae). Assuming 2 kg C (not biomass)/sqm-yr, through pyrolysis we can get about 50% (25%of initial biomass weight) or 1 kg char per square meter (or 10 tons per hectare) - which is a common (high) dosage. For land and species not doing as well as this example - add more years - but I can't see a way to get to a millennium. 

Needless to say, there is not much else that I found to agree with - and will write about that soon on the Biochar-policy site.. 

Ron 

The next will remind others where to find what I am now going to be commenting on elsewhere. One more remark below.. 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com> 
To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:59:22 PM 
Subject: Re: [Stoves] WorldStove replies to BioFuelWatyche's latest imprecise reporting of facts. 

Dear Ron and All 

I am not copying this to the other lists because I don’t think it will post from my address. 

<long snip> 

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. 

I am a supporter of biochar and investigated it long before it became popular in stove circles. As you may know I was the Director of Technical Services for a national appropriate technology parastatal corporation and we were omnivorous about development technologies. It is still not clear that the terra preta in the Amazon was deliberately created. If it worked everywhere agronomists would long ago have recommend broadening its application. They all know about it. Biochar people may be in their business for very good reasons. I have already tried to engage you in a discussion about the math that seems to underlie their char-adding methods, pointing out on this site that it would take more than a millennium to grow on a square meter of soil enough wood to make enough char to produce the sort of results they are talking about for large scale agriculture (where the carbon sequestration argument ultimately lies). 
<RWL: now a shorter snip, ending with Crispin saying something also hard to follow. The "manufactured consensus" article commented on by Prof. Curry was no help to me. Crispin - your point here is what as it relates to World Stoves, BFW, stoves or biochar?> 

Stovers: Did you know that if all the world’s biomass combustion were cleaned up (with reference to smoke/particles) there would be a large increase in the atmospheric forcing from biomass combustion? At present the particles from biomass burning cause net cooling. Put that in your (chimney) pipe and smoke it! Do we want to make smokier fires to cool the planet some more? Or does it make nearly no difference at all ? And if there is a consensus one way or the other, was it manufactured? http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/ + 624 (!) comments. 

Best regards to all you patient readers, 

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/20110724/38b60dbb/attachment.html>