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

Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson at comcast.net
Sat Dec 17 18:04:50 CST 2016


List:   cc Crispin

	I fail to see anything new in here.  Crispin and I simply disagree on almost everything.  So, having other things I consider more important,  I choose not to reply to what I consider numerous Crispin misunderstandings below.  But I would be glad to respond to anyone else (but only on the list; not privately) who thinks Crispin has made a valid point and I am in error.

	Warning:  Getting me an interesting biomass stove question (I don’t want to talk about Canadian energy prices - on this list [I think the Canadians have a lot to be proud of in their energy policy]) will require you going back to my original - which included all of Crispin’s statements to which I responded.  Some of mine (and almost all of Crispin’s to which I was responding) have been deleted.  My message from which Crispin has drawn the ones he wanted to rebut was sent by me last night at 10:40 Denver time.

	Speaking of Denver, here is an example of something Crispin left out of his response:   (Me quoting myself for clarity on a small part of my 4th response):
 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.”
	My question for Crispin and this list is why does he choose to not comment on these 4 sentences?  The Kyrgyz part?  The Colorado part?

Ron
	ps - I have found that numbering my responses is a big help in this “game” we are playing.


> On Dec 17, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron
>>> 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.
> 
> Good, we have something to work on together. Perhaps you will stop calling me names in your effort to diminish my humanity.
> 
> ‎>>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.
> 
> The ‘biochar process’ as you call it is not defined by you or me. Biochar production is a well defined process.
> 
>> All biochar production should use the pyrolysis gases productively - thermal, liquid or electrical (or combined).
> 
> We agree on two things today. Pyrolysis gases are very useful, or should be.
> 
>> There is no “instead of” re energy.
> 
> I consider the ‘instead of’ in the sense that having collected the fuel, processed it into biochar and not burning it as fuel (see separate message following this one) is a tremendous waste of resources, both time, energy and prepared fuel.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I presume this is your belated response to the detailed calculation I provided on this list showing that it would take 2000-8000 years to grow enough biomass to make enough biochar to raise the soil-char level to that demonstrated by the Japanese to be necessary for meaningful (not ‘detectable’) changes in agricultural production. Your response at the time was that by ‘individual dosing’ of plants there was some leveraged benefit that was otherwise unavailable. In short, it is agreement that applying small amounts of char to soil does nothing detectable. It is in the 12-20 tons per hectare that some benefit is assured, remembering that it is only for certain crops growing in certain kinds of soil. There hundreds of experiments going on all over the world confirming that biochar is not a fertiliser nor is it beneficial in all cases, nor even stable in the soil. I do not with to take the time of this list to detail the great benefits and the flim-flam in the field of biochar.  There is a far greater implication from the increase in off-take of fuelwood if the char is not used for fuel.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Well hold it right there. There isn’t enough biomass to take! The problem of deforestation will not be solved by cutting more of it. My basic criticism of this advocacy of yours is that you are asking the poorest of the poor to cut more of their dwindling fuel stock in order to ‘offset CO2 emissions’ by the wealthiest. That is just plain outrageous. It is neocolonisation of their energy stock. They will never agree and I will support them then they refuse to go along with this nefarious plan, not because you adhere to it, but because it is patently unjust.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> While there is a heck of a lot more coal available that most understand is the case, it is limited, ultimately, and it should be used as wisely and efficiently as possible. The biomass potential of the planet is increasing with each ppm of CO2 available to the biosphere. Some 30% of the increase in food production since the Green Revolution in 1965 is because of CO2 fertilisation. All the C3 and C4 plants we have developed in an atmosphere of 2000 ppm CO2 or greater. The current 400 ppm is at the bottom end of the range for the past 4.5 billion years. Plants are nearly starving to death at 300 ppm CO2. At 200 ppm most will, especially C3 plants.
> 
>> I think we can (and must) phase out coal altogether by 2050.  Coal is the easiest of the fossils to get off of.
> Perhaps this is true for countries rich enough to afford nuclear and large scale hydro power generation. It is definitely not true for the vast majority of people living in Asia who are dependent on coal, and will be for at least the next 30 years. Their desire is to switch to natural gas because they see the immediate benefits of it. This is unlikely because of the massive investment in capital equipment required to get it to them, and it also makes them vulnerable to political whims. At the moment there has been no gas delivered to Dushanbe, Tajikistan for 4 years for purely political reasons. They are therefore turning to coal to heat the apartments – individually. People have to install their own heating stove and run the chimney out the window.
> 
> It will be very difficult to stop burning coal for power generation even in China which is investing heavily in nuclear power including liquid salt thorium reactor development.
> 
>>> [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.
> 
> You know nothing about what I do and don’t know. Refer to your own capabilities and experiences.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Now let’s see who is up to date. The chances of cooking and heating and generating power with solar energy is about zero at the moment. It is a very poor country in decline. I hold out hope that they could use solar power for water heating, which in theory could be turned into hot water for home heating, but that would require getting reliable electricity to the affected population to operate pumps. The problem is the cost of installing such systems. Coal is the fuel of the poor and they are not in a position to pay for anything.
> 
> Kyrgyzstan has a lot of electric power generation. It is being wasted on space heating – to such an extent that there is literally no available electricity for operating manufacturing. They cannot expand the economy. At present new connections to the grid for heating are banned. There is a new policy of encouraging the use of coal for heating even in Bishkek because of the severe shortage of power. Coal stoves build to heat water for radiators (low pressure boilers, they are called) are routinely fitted with electric heating elements so when the coal fire dies out, the elements kick in automatically. According to an electrical engineer there, the loss up the chimney (air heated by the stove running on electricity) is about 30%.
> 
> The cheapest and most reliable form of home heating is to be connected to the district heating system which if course runs on coal, generating electric power at the same time. This is approximately 2.5 times more efficient that the systems used in the USA in terms of energy applied to work.
> 
> The current policy is to move more people onto coal at the domestic level, even in the big cities, because they absolutely need more power, in the hope they will be able to export it at about 6.5 c/kWH into the central Asia grid. ‘Renewable’ energy is far too expensive to sell at that price so they plan to increase hydro power a bit and use a lot more coal. My role is to develop stoves and LPB’s that use half the coal (compared with current models) while reducing the emission of PM to about zero – well below that of the district heating power stations.
> 
>> One can produce liquid fuels from biomass that can replace coal for heating.
> 
> A good example of that is Indonesia where the forests are being clear cut, destroying the habitat of the orangutan and driving them to the edge of extinction. The areas cleared are planted in oil palm trees which is then turned into biodiesel. And you want this to expand over what portions of the tropics? Some of it? How much of it? It is a biofuel fantasy. It is the destruction of Nature in order to save it from misplaced fantastical ideas. It reads like a 1950’s science fiction novel.
> 
>            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
>            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
>            "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
>            "In the Kyrgyz Republic biomass as a source of renewable energy, has considerable potential.”
> 
> So I have given you current policy and actions, not potentials and opinions.  Perhaps we attend different meetings. Of course sunny places had potential to capture heat and make some electricity from it. Now, make it financially viable and we have a project. Of course it has potential to increase the use of biomass, but not much at present because transport is a bit problem. In the SW the coal cannot even be moved to Bishkek for the power station because it costs too much. It is being sold to Tajikistan where it is considered the ‘good coal’, mostly because the Aini coal is so bad (40% stones, or more).
> 
>> 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.”
> 
> I also encourage the same. Maybe you can help Ron prove that Crispin was wrong about something and then we can all ignore everything else I assert.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Basket case? Misquote much? Why, Ron, are you so openly resistant to anything I saw? Have you no respect at all for the opinions of others? I won’t say it for you, you should present your case in your own words why I should have my scribblings to misrepresented by you. “Basket case”!!  The ‘basket case’ is that people in Africa and Asia should increase their cutting of biomass so as to burn the char in the ground.
> 
> The Kyrgyz people are very skilled producers of stoves and a cut above most in Asia when it comes to that great combination of accepting innovations, adapting it to their skillset and local materials. That is why, when shown for just a few minutes, a novel method of coal combustion that saves about 40% of the fuel 25 producers asked for drawings to be able to make it themselves. The missing ingredient was not something they lack, but something they could copy. By the end of this winter, I expect no less than 25 producers to be making coal gasifiers as space heating stoves and low pressure boilers. It fits my goal of decreasing their annual expenditure on fuel, and yours of reducing coal consumption.
> 
>> [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.
> 
> Please provide any even vague assurance that trees will grow faster if there is biochar involved. I have seen exactly none so far. To support such an assertion would require an intimate knowledge of the soil, climate, tree species and the influence of the type of biochar introduced. To get that char will require biomass and there isn’t any to speak of. It is gone. That bring s me back to the question of how long it will take to create the char to ‘treat’ the soil. Obviously they should replant the forests. There are multiple efforts underway right now. Also, coppicing is widely practiced for fuel to co-fire with dung and coal. I took some photos of coppicing to show this list. Most borders of most fields have such trees.
> 
>> I was there shortly after the Soviet Union breakup - and the Kyrgyz (wonderful people) were not treated fairly; they were dumped cold.
> 
> Since then they have built hardly a single government building. Money is short, energy is short, the population is dependent on migrant labour. The electrical grid is failing. Generating capacity has stalled. Importing electricity is out of the question (cost) and they cannot expand their manufacturing capacity. Power cuts are common. Gas distribution is limited and incredibly expensive because the bankrupt gas authority was sold for a song to a Russian oligarch. The only way to assist the general population is to greatly increase the efficiency and efficacy of coal-fueled energy.
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Well, what is your answer? Do you think the poorest in the world have no rights? What arrogated ‘right’ does someone in the USA have to tell the poor in Asia to reduce their use of energy? Good grief. God save is from those who would ‘save us’.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Define ‘excess carbon’. If we are going to talk about rights, we can start with who uses how much energy. I do not have to define this in terms of carbon, just energy. If we all have a right to enough energy to eat and stay warm, then the Kyrgyz people do not have to do anything except get their production and distribution systems straightened out. Carbon colonists and take a long walk off a short glacier.
> 
>> There are some who dispute there is any excess CO2
> 
> Again, that requires a definition of ‘excess’. Do you deny that during the last 2m years the CO2 concentration is the lowest it has been in the entire history of the planet? I didn’t think so because you know better than to challenge facts.
> 
>> The Kyrgyz will step up (probably already have in the international negotiations) - because they know what climate change is going to do.
> 
> No one knows that ‘climate change’ is going to do. According to many sources, it can do absolutely anything you want, and there is even a website dedicated to keeping track of all the things global warming can do. It makes for interesting reading. Check here<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm> for a complete list. There is simply nothing that is not caused by global warming, which of course is ‘what climate change will do’.
> 
> The climate of Kyrgyzstan increases in rainfall and the desert areas turn green when the temperatures rise about 3 globally.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> So how can it be possible that ‘things will be made worse (using your scale) if I assist Asia to reduce their consumption of coal by 50%?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Renewables, as you call them, are bankrupting the wealthiest province in Canada: Ontario. About 4% of all hydro customers have been disconnected this year, with 8% behind in their payments. The cost of electricity has doubled over the past 10 years and the government of Ontario promises it will re-double in the coming years. Hundreds of thousands are being thrown into energy poverty, all in order to subsidise thousands of stupid windmills and solar panels that produce power for 4 to 10 times the cost of hydro and nuclear.
> 
> The ‘externalities’ of wind power is the backup required to keep the lights on, which is added to the cost of the windmills themselves. In a desperate move to prevent any further social chaos, the government cancelled $4bn in new ‘renewable’ energy projects and has had to institute a grudging $30 a month ‘support’ for those earning less than $16,000 a year. Rural household bills are running $400 a month now. My own bill has gone from $80 to $180 a month after super-insulating the house. Renewable are outrageously expensive and are everywhere subsidised, mostly by hiding the fact that the hardware components are made using coal-fired electricity. A windmill produces electricity for maybe 20 years it you are lucky. For 16 of those years it generates the energy paying back its own creation, necessary to make the next replacement windmill.
> 
>> And I can never recall reading anywhere of anyone telling anyone to “freeze to death.”   Where did that idea come from?
> 
> I domes from the number of excess deaths in winter in the UK, where energy poverty is well known to affect the elderly – food or fuel choice being the problem. I am surprised you are not aware of this serious social problem.
> 
> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2015to2016provisionaland2014to2015final
> 
> [emphasis added]
> 
> “Above average temperatures were observed from November to February, with a particularly high average temperature in December. December was the month with the greatest negative difference from the 5-year average in terms of number of deaths and temperature, supporting a relationship between cold weather and excess mortality.”
> 
> The number involved is 30,000 per year in the UK (excess deaths compared with summer).
> 
> Because there are actual deaths, not modeled deaths as per WHO GBD, which Nikhil characterises as ‘killing people by numbers’. We can learn something about when happens when it is cold in the home (which relates to the ability to pay for fuel).
> 
> “The cold can have various physiological effects, which may lead to death in vulnerable people. Woodhouse et al (1993)<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8301109> reported that colder home temperature was associated with increased blood pressure in older people.”
> 
> See section 12. Hypothermia is not “the main cause’ of death in the UK.  Near my home village lived a man who was old and unable to keep his fire going. He literally froze to death. ‘Freezing to death’ is an idiom. It means to keep your house so cold you get sick and die. It is a result of energy poverty. Energy poverty in the UK, as in Ontario, is directly caused by the ‘renewable energy policy’ of their respective governments.
> 
> A pox on both their houses.
> Crispin
> 
> <winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
> 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/20161217/f3875731/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list