[Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal

Mon Apr 22 03:30:13 CDT 2013

Ron,

Today I met a mycologist from Saigon who wants to make large quantities of
rice hull biochar. His plan is to load this biochar with plant nutrients
and AM fungal spores. When I asked what he planned to do with the syngas he
would be generating, I immediately saw that he had no thought this through.
His intention (like that of so many people) was simply to make biochar.

Today I sent him an email that read as follows:

*It was so good meeting you again.
Here is a YouTube video of my gasifier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnM5Itk7wlQ

*
*I can design for your research and biochar production center gasifiers of
any size. But the ideal would be to use syngas (gasifier gas) in the place
of bottled gas. When we replace bottled gas with syngas, we, no doubt, can
get the highest possible value for the syngas. Making electricity from
syngas would cost as much as $100,000 US in gasifier, gas filtration and
other equipment. And such a costly venture would make relatively little
money. How can you compete with cheap hydroelectric or cheap coal? But
since syngas can provide the same high-quality heat as bottled gas, there
is a fairly unlimited market before you. Very large quantities of biochar
could be generated as a by-product of burning syngas in the place of
bottled gas.
* *
So the ideal would be to find several small businesses in Saigon that are
now burning bottled gas. You could show them how to eliminate the use of
bottled gas by means of small-scale gasification. They would get their gas
for virtually nothing compared to what they are spending now, and you could
set up a business arrangement with each producer where you could get their
biochar for free. It's a big win for both sides.
*
*
*
*Also please confirm to me in writing what you were saying today about AM
fungi not growing in a liquid medium such as we see in hydroponics and
aquaponics.*

Thanks.
Paul Olivier

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Ron <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:

> Paul and list:
>
>    Thanks for a very complete response.  This is to hope Crispin will
> respond fully.
> If so, I ask him three more  to add to yours
>
>      a.  why he has chosen to NOT join the sister biochar lists, given the
> heavy emphasis there as well in char-making stoves.
>
>      b.  whether much of his knowledge on biochar has come from WUWT.  If
> not what source (i am asking for a few specifics -not generalities) has he
> for his statement below
>
> There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read
>> and hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to
>> close scrutiny.
>>
>     c.  Does he see the connection I do between his being a "climate
> denier" and being a skeptic on biochar?
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com> wrote:
>
> See comments below.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jeff****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thanks for that contribution.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The point of Paul’s description is that in the circumstances where he is,
>> it works. It works on several levels and it will probably continue to work
>> for a long time.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The scenario was discussed on this list several times before, going back
>> years, but there was nowhere that all the ingredients were present. One of
>> the things that makes the rice hull char attractive is the existence, on a
>> big scale apparently, of land that benefits from the addition of the char,
>> and growing of crops that benefit from it.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read
>> and hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to
>> close scrutiny.
>>
>
> Crispin, I take issue with this statement. The biochar research that I
> have been involved with (that is, biochar from my gasifiers) has been done
> in three different countries, and it involved seven universities. More than
> 20 experiments have been carried out, and in none of these experiments did
> biochar have negative effects. Contrary to what you might believe, this
> research does stand up to close scrutiny. These people are not just reading
> about biochar, but they are actually doing biochar research. I know many of
> these researchers, and they are not engaged in deceit. They are trying to
> help poor farmers understand the benefits of biochar.
>
>
>> The same holds for permaculture
>>
>
> What's wrong with permaculture?
>
>> and improved stove and lots of things, so there is nothing ‘special’
>> about char, it is just that people get enthusiastic about something and
>> wish it were universally true.
>>
>
> Crispin, it is hard for me to believe that you actually wrote this!
> How do you know that that there is nothing special about biochar?
> Is this your field of expertise?
> Have you actually been involved in biochar research?
> I strongly suggest that you read the following:
>
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Agronomy_Carter%20et%20al%202013%2002%2017.pdf
> http://www.lrrd.org/public-lrrd/proofs/lrrd2501/chha25008.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/2/siso23032.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24026.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24039.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24034.htm
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Biochar%20utilization%20in%20Rice%20crop%20on%20Tuk%20Vil%20Luvisol.pdf
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/leng24199.htm
>
> If you really want to understand the benefits of biochar, please read this
> book:
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Johannes%20Lehmann%2C%20Stephen%20Joseph-Biochar%20for%20environmental%20management_%20science%20and%20technology.pdf
>
> The people who wrote and edited this book are not charlatans. They are not
> deceitful. They are as good in their science as anyone could possibly be.
> Crispin, the moment you start doing biochar research of your own, then you
> might have something serious to say in this regard.
>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> No problem, we can live with filters on information to sift out what is
>> beneficial and in what circumstances the claims how true. Independent
>> investigation will support it if it is.
>>
>
> Then do the independent investigation yourself.
>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> As I understand if, the Japanese have being doing this the longest and
>> they are very circumscribed about what claims are made for biochar.
>>
>
> Some of the best biochar research was done by the Japanese (Ogawa et al)
> back in the early 90's. They showed how biochar positively impacts the
> growth of AM fungi. This is explained in the book by Lehmann and Joseph.
>
>
>> It is particular soils, particular crops and particular treatment of the
>> char (temperature, species) that are in combination, what gives improved
>> results. This theme constantly appears in the literature. As has been
>> pointed out, just randomly putting char into soil can have negative
>> consequences – it depends on the soil conditions. The last thing we need is
>> a case of the char causing more harm than good while claims are made that
>> it is improving things. The stove community should be working with
>> agricultural trials experts.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I read in the past that adding rice hull ash to rice fields is beneficial
>> – maybe because the silica is extra-available, don’t know. Not my field.
>>
>
> If this is not your field, then on what authority do you base your
> statements about rice hull biochar or rice hull ash?
> Again, I challenge you: do the research, as Preston, Leng and Shackley
> have done.
> What upsets me here is that I know well some of the people who have been
> conducting research with rice hull biochar.
> They know agriculture quite well, they have impeccable scientific
> credentials, and they, unlike you, are experts in this field.
> Then you come along, without any basis in fact, and question their
> research as not being scientific.
> Wow!
>
>
>> I am just glad we have a working example of using gas and char that makes
>> economic sense.
>>
>
> It only makes economic sense, Crispin, if biochar plays a positive role in
> promoting plant and animal growth. If biochar does not play a positive
> role, we might as well burn it.
>
> Thanks.
> Paul Olivier
>
> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Regards****
>>
>> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130422/73a9ef64/attachment.html>