[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Fri Aug 9 03:42:01 CDT 2013

Ron,

If you want to slap my hand for posting a link from the New York Times on
ocean acidification, I probably deserve it. I am sorry if it took a lot of
your time to offer such a magnificent rebuttal.

Check out this article that appeared about 12 hours ago:
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/08/ocean-acidification-center-another-example-of-state-leading-the-nation/
This article appeared on August 6:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/environment/Unprecedented+ocean+acidification+from/8607447/story.html
This one on August 3:
http://www.kval.com/news/local/Federal-vessel-sets-sail-to-study-ocean-acidification-oysters-218148151.html
This article on July 26:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2013/07/26/baby-oysters-in-death-race-with-acidifying-oceans/
This article appeared on July 25:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ocean-acidification-west-coast-20130725,0,2298023.story
This article appeared on July 21:
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130721-politifact-r.i.-on-the-surface-senator-whitehouse-right-about-ocean-acidification.ece
On July 16:
http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html
This article on July 15:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/15/south-africas-stance-on-ocean-acidification/

Ron, I could go on and on. To deny all of the above is truly hard to do.
It's as if some of us do not live on the same planet.

But in my mind it all comes down to this: why do we design stoves the way
we do? If global warming and ocean acidification are not real and are not
caused by human activity, then why bother with biomass stoves as long as
fossil fuels can be extracted from the earth at a reasonable price? I just
returned last week from Malaysia in order to look into the gasification of
palm kernal shells. This looks quite feasible, even without forming these
shells into pellets. But bottled gas in relatively rich Malaysia is very
cheap compared to relatively poor Vietnam, because the Malaysian government
subsidizes bottled gas. At the same time, Singapore and large parts of
Malaysia were recently subjected to dangerous levels of smoke from the
large-scale burning of biomass in Sumatra over a period of several weeks.
The entire city of Singapore was virtually shut down for a few weeks. Once
again, why bother with biomass stoves as long as governments are willing to
subsidize the price of bottled gas? After all, no biomass stove can match
the safety (low CO and low PM), convenience (the simple twist of a knob)
and turn-down ratio (1 to 99) of bottled gas.

I design biomass stoves the way I do primarily because I believe something
should be done about global warming and ocean acidification. Here in
Vietnam huge quantities of rice hulls, rice straw, coffee husks, pine
forest debris and many other types of biomass are uselessly burned, while
many people, especially in urban areas, burn coal and bottled gas to cook
their food. So ridiculous. At the same time large portions of the Mekong
(the center of food production in Vietnam) will soon be under water as sea
levels continue to rise at their current rate.

But replacing bottled gas is not my only goal. Burying biochar is also
critical in combating global warming and ocean acidification. Here CO2 is
pulled from the air and locked in the soil for hundreds of years. At the
same time, there are the many benefits of biochar that I have read about
from scientists such as Ogawa (AM fungi), Lehmann and Joseph (a member of
this stove list). Also in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, we have done more
than 22 biochar studies with biochar from my gasifiers. These studies show
remarkable numbers with regard to plant and animal growth. Then finally, in
the city where I live, rice hull biochar is a hot commodity when
incorporated into potting soils in greenhouses. Why burn biochar when it
sells at such a good price, especially when it is worth far more than the
biomass from which it was derived? So I cannot help but conclude that
stoves that do not burn biochar, but make it, are incredibly important.
Also, if I were to burn biochar within the reactor of my TLUD, this would
be such an inefficient exercise, since the distance between the pot and the
burning biochar would be so great.

No, it makes so much sense to keep the biochar. We can feed biochar to
pigs, cows and chickens. We then take the solid waste from these animals
and feed it to BSF larvae. We then take the residue of the larvae and feed
it to red worms, and finally we take the vermi-compost loaded with biochar
back to the soil. The biochar passes through the gut of three creatures
before it gets incorporated into the soil. When we put biochar in a dry
bedding for pigs and cows, listen carefully, there is no urine or ammonia
smell. We have virtually odorless pig pens. The pigs play in the bedding
and even eat it. More than 60 farmers in the area have now adopted this way
of raising pigs. All of these farmer use biochar. Also there are no flies
around these pig pens. Antibiotics are no longer used. Not a single piglet
gets diarrhea.

The pig farmers make rice wine, and the mash gets fed to the pigs. I will
start supplying gasifiers to these pig farmers for the distillation of
their rice wine. The burning of low-grade biomass for rice wine
distillation will stop. The farmers will then be able to make their own
biochar to incorporate into pig bedding.

Ron, slap my hand, but not too hard. There are the big issues like global
warming and ocean acidification, and I am proud to be able to play a very,
very minute roll in helping to solve these problems. Then there are more
mundane issues like showing a pig farmer how to use eliminate odor and
disease through the use of biochar. All of these things figure into the way
I design a stove.

Ron, thanks so much for speaking up in your last email. I value your
contribution enormously.

Paul Olivier

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Ronal W. Larson
<rongretlarson at comcast.net>wrote:

> List:
>
>    1.   Apologies to Erin, but the conversation re ocean acidification has
> turned enough into stoves topics I feel a need to enter and also support
> Paul Olivier (who should have his hand slapped for bringing up the ocean
> and pH subjects).
>
>    2.   First about the supposed  outstanding talk by a young unemployed
> recent chem engineering graduate.  I am pretty sure that his calculation
> (which I am not going to go through even I were competent to judge in
> detail) was calculating the *average *pH change in the ocean.  The entire
> ocean community agrees that that change is small.  All the talk of an 0.1
> change in pH  (same as 30% change when not in log units) refers to the near
> surface pH.  Calculating an average change is worse than ludicrous.  His
> picking on one of the world's most well respected ocean scientist
> (Lubchenko) displays further ignorance.   Why should anyone be surprised
> that the average ocean *surface* pH changes by 30% when the atmospheric
> level has changed a little bit more?  (there are huge fluxes each way every
> day)  A great reference on all this is the PNAS paper given today (by
> mistake?) by Kevin.  Check wiki.  Check a yesterday Skeptical Science
> article on this at
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-Eating-Away-at-Life-in-the-Southern-Ocean.html
>     I see no credentials (claimed or otherwise) for this young guy knowing
> any biology, so his comments on reduced calcium carbonate in certain sea
> creatures should receive zero credence (especially in the Antarctic)  And
> one wouldn't expect anything like a peer review at WUWT.   I consider WUWT
> to be the antithesis of sound science.  In my circles, it is considered a
> joke.
>
>   3.   About half or more of the list has an interest in char-making
> stoves.  So I have to ask why Crispin is out there by himself with the
> first pat of this following quote from him today.  The entire stove
> community from what I have seen disagrees with Crispin on this:
>
>    *It has so happened that in recent years the emergence of char making
> TLUD stoves has exacerbated the errors in the simple models used for
> decades and there are serious consequences for the stove section. Stoves
> that are really IWA tier 1 performers can get a tier 4 rating for something
> because of defects in the models. "*
>
>    My conclusion is this observation would be approved by the vast
> majority of WUWT followers.  If something related to excess CO2 is proposed
> (such as char going in the ground), then the idea must be bogus, because
> climate scientists are liars, cheats, free-loaders etc.  Well fortunately
> that is not the majority view around the world and stove models and
> performance ratings are doing perfectly fine, with Crispin fighting all the
> way.  Glad to see Crispin bringing this up and hope we can continue this
> stove-related discussion.
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *4 .  *The above two sentences were followed by these:
> *      "It is like that with the climate too. To date there are 73 well
> known, accessible climate models (GCM’s). Not one of them has predicted the
> current 200 month stasis in global temperature (indistinguishable from zero
> change). That means the models are invalidated. The implications are pretty
> serious.*
> *     *There is no reason at all to conclude that the models are in error and
> "*invalidated" - *and least of all for the relative flatness (for less
> than 200 months), given every other AGW indicator.  The oceans
> have continued to warm (and levels rise).  Arctic ice volume is about the
> same as last year's record low. Record temperature highs greatly exceeding
> record lows.    For decades the annual land temperature rise greatly
> exceeded the ocean temperature rise.  Why be surprised if it slows for
> awhile, to let the oceans catch up?
>
> 5.  I applaud Cecil's comments.  I didn't think Crispin defended well.
>  But not enough stove material there except Cecil's last on precaution.
>  Thanks Cecil.
>
> 6. . Lastly,  three additions below in the latest Crispin message.
>
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 12:21 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Kevin****
>
> I thought the young man addressed matters very directly and effectively.
> There is a comment below from a guy named Bob. Search for “Somewhere in my
> misspent youth I picked up 3 degrees in chemistry, postdoctoral research
> and a couple of decades in the chemical industry.”
>
>         *[RWL7.    Te the young man - yes he wrote well - but missed the
> main several points (stated above)    Nothing here on stoves.  I have
> searched for "Bob" and have no idea what that was about.*
>
> ****
>
> I haven’t found a chemist yet who supports the ‘acid ocean’ theory. But as
> Steve asks, why are they so silent? The answer is intimidation or they are
> bored with such a stupid topic.
>
>       *[RWL8:  I have not above used the word "denier".  These exemplify
> denial.   I don't think I could find a published peer reviewed paper that
> didn't think ocean surface.  pH has been climbing steadily*
>
> ****
>
> A topic that should follow this into the grave of silence is: ‘burying
> charcoal to help prevent the acidification of the oceans’. We do indeed
> have a long way to go.****
>    *[RWL9:  I was going to stay out of this "stove" dialog until reading
> this.  Truly amazing to say this on a stove list where he insults a**t
> least **half** of the list!   And most of them are not about to become
> deniers if I can help it.   I think/hope Crispin indeed has a "long way
> to go."      Ron*
>
>
>
> Chemically yours,****
> Crispin****
>
> ** **
> Dear Crispin****
>  ****
> Thanks very much for the URL for the excellent article.****
>  ****
> It is amazing what can be deduced using real science. :-)****
>  ****
> It is scary that organizations like the UN, IPCC, and NOAA don't have
> competent people on staff to vet their "Ocean Acidification" statements.
> When a recent Chemical Engineering Graduate can point out the folly of
> "jumping on the Ocean Acidification Bandwagon", it should lead us to raise
> the question:****
> "What else are the UN, NOAA, and the IPCC telling us about AGW that is
> wrong?"****
>  ****
> Best wishes,****
>  ****
> Kevin****
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130809/8e4ea2af/attachment.html>