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

[Ronal W. Larson]

Crispin and cc list;

	Apologies for tardy response.  See below.

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 8:40 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> 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.‎”
	[RWL1:  I suppose I wrote this;  I certainly believe it.   There was probably more of the same ilk.
> 
> So, would you support efforts to cut the amount of coal consumed in half?
	[RWL2:  Yup - if it included doing it in about 10 years or less.
> 
> ‎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. 
	[RWL3:  You have badly misrepresented the biochar process.  All biochar production should use the pyrolysis gases productively - thermal, liquid or electrical (or combined).  There is no “instead of” re energy.   One isn’t “burying it in the ground”;  one is carefully placing it (which involves a lot more than the raw charcoal) close to the root structure.   And yes there will be more “demand for cutting it”;  which is good, because we need both the energy and the carbon dioxide removal, and one only gets into this game with lots of afforestation/reforestation and some conversion of ag land to energy land.  With a major biochar program we will be expanding the carbon stores both above and below ground.  Unlike coal which can never be sustainable, biochar can and must be.
> 
> 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?
	[RWL4:  Already answered.  I think we can (and must) phase out coal altogether by 2050.  Coal is the easiest of the fossils to get off of.
> 
> There is no chance whatsoever that the poor of Kyrgyzstan will use biomass instead of coal. There isn’t any. 
	[RWL5:  I have lived twice in Kyrgyzstan for 3 months each -  in Bishkek and Osh.  I say you don’t understand enough about Kyrgyz agriculture and forestry.  But I would certainly start with a lot more use of solar for cooking; the Kyrgyz have a great solar resource.  They have one of the world’s best hydro resources - so cooking with electricity can take over a lot from coal thermal use.  One can produce liquid fuels from biomass that can replace coal for heating.  
	My quick research reading tonight doesn’t support your negativity.  See 
  a)    http://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/Events/KICW_Brussels_2015_P4_Temiraliev.pdf <http://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/Events/KICW_Brussels_2015_P4_Temiraliev.pdf>
	Good on hydro, tiny amount (but not zero) on biomass electric.
 b)  https://www.uni-kassel.de/maschinenbau/fileadmin/datas/fb15/110923_SWC_Paper_Botpaev_RE_in_Kyrgyzstan.pdf <https://www.uni-kassel.de/maschinenbau/fileadmin/datas/fb15/110923_SWC_Paper_Botpaev_RE_in_Kyrgyzstan.pdf>
	"Utilization of energy from biomass as well as from solar energy is in an “embryo” stage, even though Kyrgyzstan is an agrarian country and has good solar radiation potential.”   (I worked with one of these authors, and can attest he was very bright and well trained in the Soviet.)
 c)   	http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/PD_Kyrgystan_Presentation_ENG.pdf <http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/PD_Kyrgystan_Presentation_ENG.pdf>
	"In the Kyrgyz Republic biomass as a source of renewable energy, has considerable potential.”
 d)  I enjoyed myself for too long googling for the combination of Kyrgyzstan and both agriculture and forestry.  Lots there that was encouraging; I found nothing discouraging.   I can say if a coal enthusiast came to Colorado and assessed our biomass energy (and CDR) potential based only on what is now in operation - they also would be badly in error. Colorado can do a lot with biomass.

	 I encourage all to do little googling about Kyrgyzstan and biomass and tell us all why Crispin is right when he says:  “no chance .. isn’t any.”  My own conclusion (and I only claim a little background on the country and only a little research tonight on its biomass) is that he has grossly underestimated the Kyrgyz people and their fine country.  Kyrgyzstan is not the basket case that Crispin represents.

> 
> 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. 
	[RWL6:  If there were trees anywhere in the past, they can (and should) be replaced.  And they will possibly grow twice as fast with biochar.  It is not the fault of the biomass that it was used out of necessity. 
	 I was there shortly after the Soviet Union breakup - and the Kyrgyz (wonderful people) were not treated fairly; they were dumped cold.  I’d like to know how many trees were in place one and two thousand years ago.  That can be re-created, as one reduces the herd sizes that have ruined much of the land by overgrazing.
> 
> 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.
	[RWL7:  a)  re “RIGHT”, where does that right stop?  Canadians excluded also? Why not the US?   What everyone has is a right to support from your “rich foreigners” who put most of the excess carbon up there.  There are some who dispute there is any excess CO2 - but this is a tiny number and getting smaller every year (as each year’s temperature gain beats the last - and Arctic summer ice keeps getting smaller while Arctic temperature differences climb into double digits).  The deniers will have to face their own conscience down the road.  The Kyrgyz will step up (probably already have in the international negotiations) - because they know what climate change is going to do.
	b)  Re abrogation:   What we “rich foreigners” have a responsibility to do is find a way to help - other than by encouraging something that makes the problem worse.  The Kyrgyz and Tajiks need not be any worse off as they wean themselves off of all fossil fuels.  Same for anyone reading this.  Renewables are already least cost almost everywhere, if you include externalities.
	And I can never recall reading anywhere of anyone telling anyone to “freeze to death.”   Where did that idea come from?

Ron

> 
> 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/20161216/3bad8e09/attachment.html>