[Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
Dean Still
deankstill at gmail.com
Sun Jan 20 20:26:00 CST 2013
Hi All,
The involuntary market can pay higher amounts per ton of avoided carbon. A
stove project I admire in Central America just sold credits at around $15
per ton. When saving tons per year the earnings are meaningful and provide
a support for the endeavor.
Dean
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
> **
> Dear Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net
> *To:* Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> *Cc:* biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org ;
> biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; Kevin Chisholm<kchisholm at ca.inter.net>; Crispin
> Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> *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<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> *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<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130120/0b3f5d68/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list