[Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon

Kevin kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Sun Jan 20 17:35:31 CST 2013


Dear Ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: rongretlarson at comcast.net 
  To: Kevin 
  Cc: biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org ; biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; Kevin Chisholm ; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott 
  Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon


  Kevin, Crispin and list:

     This is to also answer the two following messages from yourselves.  I did not find them helpful - as they assume the only economics relate to the carbon credit. 

  # Exactly!! The question was about the cost of carbon credits. That was the purpose of the question... to get some insight into the cost of Carbon Credits. It was you, in your 16 Jan posting, who introduced the Carbon Credit sub-thread.

   They assume nothing (repeat nothing) about the value to the user in outyear ag benefits. 

  # EXACTLY!! They assume nothing beyond the question. However, it is an attempt to start somewhere and determine if there is any chance that Carbon Credits will be helpful in encouraging the use of TLUD or other char making stoves, and if the carbon credits will influence people to use biochar. As I see it now, the value of carbon credits, at the very best is trivial, but in reality, is insignificant. The Carbon Credits seem to sell for about $6 per tonne CO2 equivalent (trivial) but after the middlemen, brokers and field inspectors and speculators make their money, there would be an insignificant payment per tonne CO2 equivalent actually reaching the Farmer (ie, the Golden Goose who is supposed to lay the eggs that hatch into carbon credits  :-)

   Tell me how farmers in the world will react to news that (for example) land worth zero today can be brought up to a productivity level the same as other existing ag land nearby (same rainfall etc.)   Let's say that land can, after applying biochar be worth $500/ha rather than $0/ha.   If those farmers have a discount rate of 5% or 50% will make a big difference on how much they will be willing to spend per tonne of biochar and how many tonnes per ha  (which could be in rows or holes - not uniformly scattered).   Which discount rate are you using for these out-year benefit computations? 
       You can't prove biochar is worthless by talking to this list only about credits of $6/tonne CO2.

  # I am not trying to prove that biochar is worthless. I was simply trying to find out what Carbon Credits were worth. Thanks to Crispin, I found out. Those interested in determining the worth of biochar can apply whatever evaluation concepts are important to them. Large multinational agribusiness corporations with Accountants and MBA on their Staff will look at discount rates and IRR's, while the small Farmer will probably say "If I spend $100 on biochar, how long before I will get my money back?" 

  More below.
  # Yes, indeed!! :-)

   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
  To: rongretlarson at comcast.net, biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com, stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org, biochar-production at yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:29:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon

   
  Dear Ron
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: rongretlarson at comcast.net 
    To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
    Cc: Kevin Chisholm 
    Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:16 AM
    Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon


    Kevin and list:    See below


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
    To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:34:01 PM
    Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon

     
    Dear Ron

    You mention $16 and $27 per tonne CO2 equivalent. I presume you are referring to a payment that one would receive when showing that one has earned a tonne of CO2 equivalent.
         [RWL:  Yup - examples only - hopefully larger.]
    # Prices seem to vary all over the place to purchase carbon credits. What is the present price that a biochar producer could expect to receive as a carbon Credit for the biochar he produced? It is one thing to hope for future price increases for Carbon Credits, but is that realistic? Would you perhaps have a graph that shows the price trend for CarbonCrdits that you could share with the Lists? 
        
          [RWL2a:  See my opening remarks.   The price trend for credits has nothing to do with anything under discussion -  especially about black carbon.]
  # KC2a: I am not talking about Black Carbon. I am simply talking about the value to the Farmer of carbon Credits. You feel that CC prices will increase... I was trying to see if you had any rational basis for stating that you hope the price of CC's will increase. A graph showing an "uptrend" from a low price would suggest further CC increases, and would certainly suggest that your hope had a rational basis. 





    1: Where would one apply to get such payments?   [RWL:  Anywhere one can.  Numerous stove promoters on this list already getting some.]

    # OK!! Can you tell the Stoves and Biochar Lists where they could apply to get Carbon Credit payments for the biochar they produce?
         [RWL2b:  I am not in that business.  If I were them I probably would keep that answer to myself - but feel free to ask stove sellers  (which are maybe only for displaced CO2 - not char.]
  # KC2b: You quoted prices, and "hoped for prices" for CC's. I know you are not in that business. However, you make frequent reference and allusion to the potential for CC's to support the use of biochar. You should not offer such encouragement unless you are able to point to sources where biochar users can actually apply for such credits. As a strong promoter of CC's as being a support to the widespread introduction of biochar, you should be telling the List where they can go to get CC support for their proposed biochar projects, rather than keeping such information secret. Now you introduce the bombshell that maybe CC's will not be available to char!! 




    2: Who would be eligible to receive such payments?   [RWL:   Anyone who can prove they deserve them.]
    # That makes sense. 


    3: What conditions must be met, before the payments would actually be made?   [RWL:  Whatever is acceptable to the presumably willing buyer of the credits.]
    # That does not make sense at all! Surely there must be some rules or standards that must be met to ensure that the Carbon Credits are real. If not, then the entire system is open to fraud.
           [RWL2c:  I have made no comments about an open market - and those don't yet exist.  Of course, when we have organized markets accepting char as a vehicle, there will then be stringent rules.   IBI and others are developing them now.   The point in this dialog (referring back to $16 and $11) is that biochar from stoves can have a higher value (because of black carbon improvements) than biochar from some other sources.]

  # KC2c1: If there is no open market for Carbon Credits now, then the only "sure thing" for stove and biochar interests to focus on is making better stoves that rise on their own merits, and to show Farmers how they can make more money with biochar, rather than counting on something that may, or may not,  be real in the future (CC's) to make stoves and biochar economic. 

  # KC2c2 Note that it is not the biochar from stoves that yields black carbon improvements, but stove design and operation.  Crispin has designed and developed stoves with excellent combustion characteristics that have remarkably low BC emissions, and they do not produce biochar. Black Carbon is controlled by good combustion, not by the production of biochar. Black Carbon, biochar production and Carbon Credits are three very different and separate and distinct issues.



    I am concerned that with the state of the World Economy, Governments will lose their interest in longer term Climate Change Concerns, and would put their priorities on addressing short term and more immediate concerns.   [RWL:  We disagree.]
    # What is your basis for disagreement? Kyoto seems to be dead in the water. At the last meeting, I believe that most Governments said "We will do something about controlling CO2 emissions sometime after 2020, but we will not say what we will do, and when we will do it." Is this a reasonable summation? If you feel not, what would you feel is?
             [RWL2d:    I am more of an optimist than you.  Arctic ice totally disappearing in a year or two could be the wake-up call.   
  No yours is not a reasonable summation from my perspective.    A lot of people are working to promote a meaningful price,   And we don't need all governments to agree;  I have hopes for a number of EU countries.  And you didn't do more than repeat an opinion- which happens to differ from mine.  Obviously I can't give proof of anything happening in the next few years - and that is why we should agree to disagree.]

  # KC2d: I am not looking for either optimism or pessimism, but rather, the simple reality of the matter. Total disappearance of Arctic Ice in a year or two is a gross exaggeration. Do you know how cold it gets up there over teh winter? :-) The Governments of the world have already had their wake-up call with respect to increased open water in the Arctic Summer, and they appear to have decided to do little or nothing about it until sometime after 2020. You flatly state that my summation is not reasonable, but you refuse to be helpful by providing a summation which you feel is reasonable. Of course, we do not need all Governments to agree to support Kyoto... just enough to make a difference. Without the US, Canada and China, it is hard for the others to make a significant difference. My summation of Kyoto is not an "opinion"... it is a statement of observed facts. I strongly disagree with your proposal that "... we should agree to disagree..." I would propose that we seek to determine the reality of the situation.  


    What are your views on the future of Carbon Credit payments?  [RWL:  They will slowly creep up in price  (maybe in time to do some good).   Biochar credits from char-making stoves look like the easiest to sell of any.
    # The recent report on the important impact of Black Carbon on climate change would seem to reduce the relative importance of the CO2 parameter. As I understand it, most "generally accepted Climate Change Models" were calibrated under the assumption that BC was a minor or insignificant factor, and the model factors were adjusted to relate observed temperature rise to anthropogenic CO2.  Now that BC could have a "forcing effect" perhaps 2/3 as great as the present forcing effect attributed to CO2,  recalibrating the models to reflect the increased importance of BC will inherently diminish the importance of CO2 as a factor in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).  Accordingly, it would seem reasonable to project a significant decline in "Carbon Credit Revenue" to biochar producers. Does this seem reasonable? If not, why not?
          [RWL2e:   Re sentence #1: Tami Bond, in the quoted article  (which this started out to be about) put major emphasis on CO2.

  #KC2e1: And well she might! The fundamental thrust of the Report was to show that BC was a significant factor in GW or Climate Change. She (and her co-Authors) certainly do this. They were not investing the importance of CO2... they were investigating the importance of BC, and they simply acced what the IPCC said about CO2 importance.

    Re your second sentence,  all the models lump effects together under CO2e,  not simply CO2.  

  #KC2e2: This is where Tami's work can have a very disturbing effect on Climate Change Modeling. Very disturbing. It throws a huge monkey wrench into the works. More specifically, since the effects that were all lumped together as CO2e (ie, CO2 equivalent), without giving proper weight to the importance of BC, then all such modelling will have to be "re-visited", to include the effects of BC. More specifically still, all such models were "trained" without significant recognition of the importance of BC, and various factors were developed to make the models fit the observations. BC, as "the new kid on the Climate Change Modeling BBlock", is a real "game changer." The BC data presently has a large degree of uncertainty... when further research reduces present uncertainty, instead of being merely "the New Kid on the Block", BC might actually be "The Elephant in the Room." Also of possibly great significance is the potential that this BC work may lend significant support to the Svendmark Hypothesis. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Svensmark_hypothesis 
  and http://drtimball.com/2011/svensmark%E2%80%99s-cosmic-theory-confirmed-explains-more-than-solar-role-in-climate-change/ for further elaboration.

  Re the last "reasonable" - You have it all wrong.  I presume because you are still a climate denier and are looking for every way possible to make your denier view seem more reasonable.
  # KC2e3: Rather than playing "The Denier card", I would suggest that you could advance your position more if you provided palpable fact that showed where my views are wrong. 



    # Concerning carbon credits for biochar from char-making stoves, would you have an approximate idea of the value of the carbon credits per tonne for such biochar? Would you have an approximate idea of the annual tonnage of biochar that is sold in connection with a carbon credit payment.
        [RWL2f:    Re #1,  See my opening remarks.  To repeat -  there is no single value appropriate to all buyers and sellers of credits.  

  # KC2f1: Of course not!! 
  1: There is the price that the "End User" pays "The Retailer" for Carbon Credits
  2: There is the price that "The Retailer" buys the CC's from the "manufacturer or generator or producer of CC's"
  3: There is the "net price" that the producer of CC's receives, after deduction of required inspection, testing, and approval costs.
  In addition, there are are probably "volume discounts" the reflect the cost of conducting the transaction. Clearly, the unit cost of carbon credits to offset a single trip in an airplane will be greater than the unit cost of a large CC purchase by a coal fired power plant.

   This is a voluntary market - not a tax.  If we were talking a subsidy,  I think $100/tonne char  ($35/tonne CO2) would make a huge difference - and is totally justified on strictly moral/ethical grounds  (thinking of all our obligations to our children and grand-children and to developing countries.  The US will benefit a lot more from paying such a subsidy

  # KC2f2: Given the state of the US Economy, such a subsidy is very unlikely. The US is already more than $44 billion over its permissable debt ceiling. See: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

   - as the economy will suffer much worse from ocean rise, varied rainfall, size of storms, etc.

  # KC2f3: The US Agricultural Economy suffered seriously from drought last year, and is likely to suffer greatly during this coming crop year. See: http://nidis1.ncdc.noaa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought_gov/202
  Are you saying that CarbonCredits, (and greatly increased use of biochar) could reverse this drought situation and bring things back to "normal"? If the US had been using biochar in the 1920's, could this have prevented the "Dust Bowl of the 1930's"?
    
        Re #2 sentence -  I have no idea and doubt anyone does.  I do hear people saying that char is in short supply.  Such data will be partly available with an open market.   

  # KC2f4: Is it possible that char is in short supply simply because there is insufficient information to justify its widespread use, and potential producers are (sensibly) cautious about getting into production because of lack of evidence of an adequate market? Or, perhaps the biochar producers are selling most oftheir biochar into "niche markets", where they can get more for it, than the "Farm level" potential Customer can afford to pay?  

      Your whole line of questioning has nothing to do with BC from stoves and whether BC should be an important reason for near term action to promote cleaner char-making stoves.] 

  # KC2f5: No. My entire line of questioning was around the cost of carbon credits. Remember, of course, that it was you who introduced Carbon Credits into this thread.


    # As we all know,  "adequate carbon credit payments" could lead to a huge increase in biochar production and use. However, if it is unreasonable to believe that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon, then stoves and biochar must rise on their own inherent merits, without such support. Holding onto a false hope can only result in disappointment.
         [RWL2g:   Re #1  - We agree.   The reason that this is not happening is that too many do not see the ethics and morality of moving faster  (on this I presume we disagree)

  # KC2g1: Another, more likely, explanation is that the direct economics of biochar are not apparent to the Farmer.
              Re#2  -  Agree with last part of sentence - and not with the first on timing.

  # KC2g2: Perhaps you are right. If you have a rational basis for your belief that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon, please share with the List. That "good news" could very well precipitate a rush into biochar. 

              Re #3 -  Disagree.  Assuming failure, as you seem to be doing, is a self-fulfilling prophecy - to stop all progress and accept ocean rise, etc with costs much greater than the costs of credits.         Ron]

  # KC2g3: I do not assume failure... all I warn of is that if "adequate CC payments will not be available, then biochar, and stove systems that depended on them for their financial success, will have to find another justification to assure viability. "

  # KC2g4: I remind you that it is totally impossible for CC's to prevent ocean rise. Totally, absolutely, and utterly impossible.

  Best wishes,

  Kevin

    Best wishes,

    Kevin


    Ron]


    Thanks very much.

    Kevin
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: rongretlarson at comcast.net 
      To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
      Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:02 PM
      Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon


      Dean and list:

          Tami's is one huge report  (232 pages in a major journal sounds like a world record).  I spent quite a few hours today trying to grasp the topic - and know now I had better give up.  The Black Carbon problem is going to take experts like Tami to bring its importance into the world of stoves.  There may be an argument that if a stove can prove $16/.tonne CO2,  you might have a chance at proving up to (or even more than?) $27/tonne CO2e, if you are in the right place on the globe.  (These numbers based on numbers given in terms of W/sqm.)    I recommend casual readers getting quickly to the figures at the extreme end of the report/paper.  There is a lot of useful numercal geographic and sources comparisons there.

          As Crispin has indicated the intentional large scale annual burning of large parts of Africa look like a good place to instead harvest and get useful energy and biiochar instead (through stoves and more).

          Congratulations on arranging to have Tami be the ETHOS key-noter.   I think she may have been at the first!

      Ron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      From: "Dean Still" <deankstill at gmail.com>
      To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05:27 PM
      Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon

      Dear Friends, 


      Tami is the keynote speaker at ETHOS this year and it will be interesting to hear what she's been learning!


      All Best,


      Dean


      On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

        Dear Friends



        A new and I would say major major paper on the atmospheric impact of black carbon particles is available for download. We know at least two of the authors here on ‘Stoves’. Profs Tami Bond and Philip Hopke (the aethalometer builder who said he was a minor contributor) are frequent contributors on the subject of emissions testing.



        The paper is important because it is the first really detailed examination of the effects of atmospheric heating by Black Carbon (BC). 



        The abstract is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract and the paper is at 

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf



        It is not behind a paywall but it is large (40 MB). Times to get your hands dirty with BC!



        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://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.bioenergylists.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/afcddaa5/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list