[Stoves] Biomass, coal and LPG as cooking fuels ... was Re: report with disappointing results from cleaner cookstoves

[Paul Anderson]

Crispin,    ( added the Biochar Listserve that can discuss this on that 
Listserv separately from the Stover point of view.  They should read 
Crispin's message (at bottom) before reading this message from me.)

Hold on.  Let's have clarity.   You wrote:
> *So, would you support efforts to cut the amount of coal consumed in 
> half?*
I am sure that you did not mean for the whole world, but that you did 
intend to say:

/So, would you support efforts to cut in half the amount of coal 
consumed by people who are already consuming coal because they have no 
other fuel option and their climate has cold winters, so not coal 
burning would mean death.  Therefore, they WILL burn coal, and I am only 
asking about cutting that amount of coal in half.  AND the stove to do 
that is cleaner burning than what they currently have.  Would you 
support that?

/I am sure that Ron can agree to that longer statement.   I hope we are 
all in agreement.

Now, there is a second issue.  You wrote:
> *taking biomass and instead of using the energy available, burying it 
> in the ground, thereby increasing the demand for cutting it. I** find 
> this remarkable. *
Again, unclear about "burying IT in the ground."   The IT is not 
biomass.   The IT is charcoal in the form of biochar.

I am sure that Ron does believe that.   And so to I.   What I find 
remarkable is the you (Crispin) seem to not agree with that activity.  
And here is why you might want to agree.

The world now has TLUD stoves.  Compared to 3-stone and simple mud 
stoves, to do the same cooking tasks (but with cleaner cooking) TLUDs 
use only half or less than half of the FUEL used for traditional 
cooking.   I said FUEL, not energy.  AND there is still the charcoal 
coming out of the TLUD stove.   So the charcoal is just a fringe 
benefit.   It happens in TLUD stoves.   So, if Ron or I or others want 
to bury it, that should not be objectionable.   In fact, in the "Case 
Study... Deganga" article at my website, the women (cooks) are delighted 
to SELL that TLUD-created charcoal to the charcoal buyers.  The women 
earn about $2.50 to $3 per month. Important money to them.  And they do 
not care about where that char goes.  12,000 TLUDs are producing about 
10 TONS of good quality char each DAY in that Deganga area.  12,000 
household selling US$2.50 of char each month is a cash flow of $30,000 
each month.  That becomes a business.   BTW, that Deganga char is 
re-sold for burning, and not used as biochar.   At least not yet.

Sorry, I digressed a bit.  Now back to the point.  By burying char as 
biochar, each ton of C (carbon) has the CO2eq of 3.66 tons.  So 10 tons 
would be over 36 tons of CO2eq per day.   In one month that would be 
over 1000 tons per month.

The "street price" of a ton of CO2eq (that is, one carbon credit) is 
variable, but yesterday on the Internet I saw prices of $8 to $25 per 
carbon credit.  1000 tons per month X $10 per CC becomes $10,000.   Note 
that $10,000 is only one third of the cash flow of $30,000 from selling 
the char.   But for $30 per carbon credit, the women would sell the char 
to someone who wants to bury it.  And I have heard that carbon credit 
prices could go past $50 with the increased interest in climate change.

Well, biochar is believed to enhance soil characteristics.   I think the 
evidence supports that, but that is not the issue now.   The issue is 
that some poor lady using a TLUD stove is getting some money to help her 
family survive and get ahead, maybe buying a school uniform for a 
daughter, or purchasing some medicine.

I hope that clarifies some of the issues.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 12/13/2016 9:40 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> *Dear Ron*
> *
> *
> *"The big difference is not in the combustion characteristics ...it is 
> in the** global warming **impact of all the fossil carbon sources.‎"*
> *
> *
> *So, would you support efforts to cut the amount of coal consumed in 
> half?*
> *
> *
> *‎If not, I think you owe us an explanation. You have strongly 
> advocated the reduction of CO2 emissions even going to the extent of 
> taking biomass and instead of using the energy available, burying it 
> in the ground, thereby increasing the demand for cutting it. I** find 
> this remarkable. *
> *
> *
> *I know you have many times expressed a rejection of coal combustion 
> on any scale. So will you support an effort that delivers a 50% 
> reduction in its consumption?*
> *
> *
> *There is no chance whatsoever that the poor of Kyrgyzstan will use 
> biomass instead of coal. There isn't any. *
> *
> *
> *The capital of Tajikistan is piped for natural gas, all over the 
> place. But there is no gas at all. So they burn coal. Since the 
> dissolution of the Soviet Union the rural population has swept the 
> trees off the mountain sides. They are bare. ‎There is only coal and 
> dung. The dung is needed for agriculture. *
> *
> *
> *I think they have a RIGHT to burn coal and that right shall not be 
> abrogated by rich foreigners telling them they should freeze to death. *
> *
> *
> *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/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161214/f98a3918/attachment.html>