[Stoves] more on ocean acidification
Ronald Hongsermeier
rwhongser at web.de
Sat Aug 10 03:16:40 CDT 2013
Dear Paul,
A couple of the paragraphs you wrote seemed to me to sound either/or to me.
Please consider that the last I heard, enough of China's underground
_reserves_ of coal were burning annually to equal Germany's entire
annual energetic output/needs in CO2 equivalents. This is a long term
problem for the Chinese. Does it make more sense to use the coal in an
improved stove or let it burn in the ground under conditions that
certainly cause lots of BC and really ugly tars? (Please note, the
question is consciously oversimplified, not as condescension, but to
jostle thinking!)
When a government as directly oriented as the Chinese is not capable of
keeping people from independently mining coal, how do you propose to
help these poor people -- how to convince them it would be better to
just use biomass?
regards,
Ronald von Weiherbayernsonnenschein
On 10.08.2013 09:13, Paul Olivier wrote:
> See comments below.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com
> <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major
> study including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a
> co-author, made a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There
> is no question that BC is a major concern for “climate disruption”
> and health. It is not either biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement
> is needed for both.
>
>
> I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning
> coal to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be
> trying to improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass
> stoves make a lot more sense in terms of global warming?
>
> Tami’s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including
> the Dec 2012 study reference are at:
> http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html
>
> The study was, “A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease
> and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor
> clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the
> Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.” Lim et. al December 2012.
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-8/abstract
>
> Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the
> comparative risk assessment as #4 globally. Tami described the BC
> impacts of kerosene and biomass and the impact of stove design on
> the evolution of BC and its persistence in the atmosphere.
>
> I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is
> that we are all GACC.
>
>
> I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no
> intention of being disparaging. I asked this question because I am
> left with the impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health
> of a cook as she cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor
> people in the world could afford bottled gas through a series of
> national or international subsidies, would the mission of the GACC be
> fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of fossil fuels such as coal on
> the same footing as the use of biomass fuels such as rice hulls? Would
> a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the GACC be just as
> acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where both coal
> and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC with
> regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
> incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a
> huge inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?
>
> We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts
> to solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can.
>
>
> I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human
> health and the health of the environment. What is the position of the
> GACC with regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean
> acidification, and how does their position with regard to these
> important issues impact their choice of the stoves they seek to promote?
>
> Many thanks.
> Paul
>
> Tom
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
> Tom,
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black
> carbon? Do you do so mainly from the point of view of human
> health? Or do you have other environmental considerations in mind?
> As you know, many scientists maintain that black carbon warms the
> earth. Are you not going in the direction of another contentious
> issue that some might consider to be unrelated to stove design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas
> should we try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we
> try to put a lot more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not
> make sense to develop stoves that are low in black carbon and at
> the same time do not create CO2 from non-renewable sources such as
> coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions? Or does it operate
> out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like black
> carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to
> stove design?
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all:
> no rice hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue
> of any kind. And let us suppose that in this barren landscape
> there is nothing but coal. Here I concede that it makes sense to
> focus attention on developing more efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Paul
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com
> <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related
> reason for developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A
> study published yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black
> carbon from China is from fossil fuels. A significant portion of
> that is from coal burning stoves. They recommend developing more
> efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all relevant and identified
> as part of the strategic work plan of the Global Alliance for
> Clean Cookstoves (GACC).
>
> Tom
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen,
> August Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao,
> Martin Kruså, Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke
> Du and Örjan Gustafsson Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013
>
> Copyright © 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification
>
> Dean,
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean
> acidification and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we
> go about designing stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil
> fuel stoves? Do we place all on a equal footing as long as they
> are clean-burning? If we build biomass stoves, should these stove
> be burning or producing biochar? How can we design a stoves in a
> theoretical vacuum?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Paul Olivier
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com
> <mailto:deankstill at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked
> that we return to the topic of stoves.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina,
> speculations, straw men and loose assertions there was nothing
> left in the message.
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read
> the ‘Skeptical Science’ playbook on how to handle skeptical
> criticisms of AGW. It was a document put together by the Team
> (as you know) and promoted to the compliant as a way to
> communicate – a style, if you will – of how to handle people
> who were ‘off message’.
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in
> the USA which I read this past week. It is pages long. It
> includes specific instructions for example to always mention
> ‘climate disruption’ as it is harder to dispute and refute
> than ‘global warming’ now that there isn’t any. It suggests
> ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who are
> presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic
> side of AGW (can’t have that). The vast majority of CAGW
> skeptics concede a human role in global warming, but assert
> that it is tiny and to date, undetectable. The instructions
> are to try to try to paint skeptics as ‘denying’ /all/ human
> influence on the planet then offers various pejorative
> comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> the skeptic or those listening to them.
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always
> pooh-poohing the credentials of any author cited, always
> trying to paint the skeptical correspondent as ‘alone’ in
> their understanding, always insert some mention of how settled
> things are with the ‘majority’ of ‘reputable’ scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not
> (at all) address the fact that there is no such thing as
> ‘acidifying the ocean’ when the number of anions is reduced
> through a process called neutralisation so it is less
> alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ‘wears army boots’.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will
> have noticed by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters^1 .
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after
> country is bailing out.
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself):
>
> “…hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted,
> flushed down the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because
> Public Policy in Europe was highjacked by a group of political
> power craving environmentalists and grubby, funding desperate
> scientists who realized their First Class ticket on the Fame
> and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about human influences on the climate.
>
> “A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be
> treated well by future historians.
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could
> have purchased.
>
> “Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued
> up, glued together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear
> pictures that currently disgraces the scientific community
> could have taken place if the science funding had not been
> hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists that
> are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten
> level research.”
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for
> over the past 6 years with respect to stove testing?
> Surely everyone knows by now. I am calling for the /peer
> review/, the /independent assessment/ of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they
> give can be believed. The resistance to this at every
> level has been amazing and not without consequence.
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet
> has no errors in it. I compliment whoever is working on
> the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April 2013 version contains
> more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for
> precision, accuracy and conceptual relevance.
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or
> that aspect of climate science information has been
> brought forward in articles that ‘were not peer reviewed’
> even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere –
> who knows) and put your energy into demanding that the
> GACC, the WB, the EPA, the Universities of Illinois,
> Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit their
> protocols to competent authorities for independent review?
> Actually the WB has its project protocols reviewed…well,
> they should continue to do so.
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid
> claims and money trading hands on the basis of them. We
> cannot change things overnight, but by implementing this
> rule that you favour so highly a major contribution to the
> field of domestic energy can be attained.
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short
> summer in the Arctic
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>
> or photos of stack emissions are faked
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>
> or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law parody
> <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>
> or even if US winter temperatures continue to plunge
> <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>.
>
>
> I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it causes
> <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>’. I don’t like
> trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.
>
> Let’s work together and bring some proper science and
> engineering to the planet of stoves. I know you’ll want to
> help. We all do.
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
> ^1 For those who do not know what this means, it is
> English for ‘letters after your name’ signifying formal
> recognition of capacity, knowledge and /or authority.
> Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6565 - Release Date: 08/09/13
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130810/96f907d4/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list