[Stoves] Fwd: [CDR] [geo] EASST 2018 - CfP - The politics of negative emissions

Tue Dec 26 10:04:27 CST 2017

Dear Jorund

This is exciting. There are some clear possibilities. One is the use of palm kernel shells close to the point of origin. Another is candle nut shells. A third is empty palm hands.

They are available in large quantities. ‎As in China, the development of a high value added organic fertilizer industry is a major opportunity.

The charcoal market in Java for cooking is poorly developed. What charcoal there is in Yogyakarta, for example, is from one preferred species, in the main, because the consumers are picky. It is unsustainable. It would be eradicated if expanded.

The development, as Cecil reports, of a 'clean kitchen' and a 'dirty kitchen' even in very small dwellings is a new phenomenon. The clean kitchen has its pots and utensils. It is gas or kerosene and electricity based. The dirty kitchen is used to cook long means and especially to heat water.

The development of water heaters in the 90% efficient range would or could go with a charcoal fuel in the way the Sarai Stove comes with its own charcoal fuel. The idea is to use less total biomass and to remove biomass burning completely from the home.

Replacing a 17% Keren stove heating and replacing it with a charcoal heater in the >80^% range would be impressive. Urban folk are buying the wood now so if they spent no more and used 1/2 as much biomass the resource can go twice as far. The convenience of a Sarai Stove-like water heater ‎would be a major hit in urban cooking.

Call me! This could be an interesting project.
Crispin

From: Jorund Buen
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 10:41
To: Paul Anderson
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fwd: [CDR] [geo] EASST 2018 - CfP - The politics of negative emissions

Dear all,
We mentioned the potential for charcoal gathering&selling in our proposal in 2012 or 2013 to USAID/Conservancy International for a stove distribution project in North Sumatra. The project was funded, and formed the basis for our Indonesia distribution today, but that specific idea wasn’t picked up. I’d be interested in piloting it, if the context (and, yes, funding) is right.

Kind regards
Jorund Buen
CEO
Mobile/WhatsApp: +47 932 83 350
Skype: jorundb1
www.primestoves.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.primestoves.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=7eDKSduL9MSYDMmubNQsVpP81L5I6bDi74A28TaPzKk%3D&reserved=0>

24. des. 2017 kl. 05:25 skrev Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>:

Ron and Julien,

Good that your did the monetary exchange rates and the conversion from C to CO2e to get the cost per ton.   That needs to be done with the raw numbers for the Deganga TLUD project in India.   I will ask the project implementer to make those calculations and sent them to me.

We need to build the case for the value of the char from TLUD stoves.   Whether sold to be burned or to be used as biochar is not the issue.

I have not heard of other TLUD projects with selling of the charcoal made in TLUDs.   Maybe Prime has an example???

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=Pk26OnS60%2Bm5Jb3cIAjqXkCfAcm0uj9Ic2vAPEHBhac%3D&reserved=0>

On 12/23/2017 1:01 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Stoves List:  (many on this list are also biochar list members - so apologies for sending this twice.)

I could have used many ways to make biochar as I supported a French CDR (carbon dioxide removal) person, who objected to the way 3 organizers of a future CDR conference were describing all CDR approaches as “controversial".  I chose Dr.  Julien’s message to this list because I think it really well proves the beauty of char-making stoves, while also making a real positive statement about both biochar’s CDR’s potential.  So many thanks to Julien for his message a few weeks ago.

i just looked up the value of  a “tk” = Taka, which is 1.2 cents.  So the woman quoted below made $9.00 in a “few months” just in charcoal - but also was buying less wood.  And someone else was making money off increased soil productivity and less expense for fertilizer.  The price for her char was (at 1000 times 12 cents) $120/tonne char.  This is about $40 tonne CO2 - and many CDR approaches are bragging they can get down to $100/tonne CO2.

Anyone on this list see why biochar (and char-making stoves) should be “controversial?   (This thread being about CDR controversiality.)

Ron

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
Subject: Fwd: [CDR] [geo] EASST 2018 - CfP - The politics of negative emissions
Date: December 22, 2017 at 11:34:52 PM MST
To: Biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>>

List:

I suggest below that biochar proponents not attend a meeting where biochar will certainly be discussed.  But if anyone can attend this meeting (time and place TBD),  you might have a very interesting time.  I do of course hope some list member will be able to submit an abstract per instructions at https://nomadit.co.uk/easst/easst2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6270<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnomadit.co.uk%2Feasst%2Feasst2018%2Fconferencesuite.php%2Fpanels%2F6270&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=iXvHpM2B5%2BOZJWdBl1K8HcWdkXXB9CLoftQGI8KlTlY%3D&reserved=0>

Ron

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
Subject: Re: [CDR] [geo] EASST 2018 - CfP - The politics of negative emissions
Date: December 22, 2017 at 11:22:16 PM MST
To: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.derichter at gmail.com<mailto:renaud.derichter at gmail.com>>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval at googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDioxideRemoval at googlegroups.com>>
Cc: n.markusson at lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:n.markusson at lancaster.ac.uk>, rob.bellamy at insis.ox.ac.uk<mailto:rob.bellamy at insis.ox.ac.uk>, d.mclaren at lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:d.mclaren at lancaster.ac.uk>, RAU greg <ghrau at sbcglobal.net<mailto:ghrau at sbcglobal.net>>

Dr.  de Richter and CDR list

1. Thanks for your contribution - adding the word “some”.  I like your emphasis on methane and N2O removal via solar towers;  biochar can do some of the same.

2.  Being active on the biochar side of CDR, I was very pleased to hear this past month of a successful biochar operation in a report on a “stoves” list by Dr. Julien Winter.  His Bangladesh biochar organization’s website had two articles on a new stove type that both used less wood and produced about 20% charcoal, which is being placed in soil as biochar.  The articles and a brief excerpt from each are:

a.  One and a half years ago:   http://www.biochar-bangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_06_03_TheNewNation.pdf<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biochar-bangladesh.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2F2016_06_03_TheNewNation.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=MjCn88HtZDQVPlePG9h4ljy1d5JKGUhb%2FmqQkoB01Dc%3D&reserved=0>
If one household burning 3kg of wood per day produced 0.6kg of biochar per day, they would have 18kg of biochar per month. For a village of 500 households, that could amount to 108,000 kg biochar per year. Across the landscape, the people of Bangladesh could become the World’s largest per capita sequesters of carbon. This is, as a by-product of cooking without cutting any additional forest.

b.   One year ago:  http://www.biochar-bangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_12_11_DhakaTribune_Akha.pdf<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biochar-bangladesh.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2F2016_12_11_DhakaTribune_Akha.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=jwfz6YPGdqLXYGaVIyR18jZ9QsfiWm3ewl5SDj%2FlZrM%3D&reserved=0>
In Manikganj, Monkhusi Halder has been using them for a few months and she sells the bio-char to farmers as fertiliser, making some extra cash along with dinner. “I have been using this stove for the last few months and sold 75kgs of bio-char for Tk10 per kg, reducing the cost of fuel,” Monkhusi told the Dhaka Tribune while using her Akha stove. Khorshed Ali, a farmer in Manikganj, was visibly excited about the new bio-char fertiliser.

These articles are not emphasizing CDR - but there is zero conflict with soil improvements, increased food production and, income generation.  And trivial investment- we heard the stoves cost about $20.

3.    At  http://www.biochar-international.org/network/communities<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biochar-international.org%2Fnetwork%2Fcommunities&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=DnowR5Gui5gQ6JvxrnLQyBvKXvBCQMe%2B4x4DDqAo6BI%3D&reserved=0>  you can see the names of more than 50 similar regional biochar groups.   About 10 years ago, there was only IBI, the International Biochar Initiative  (see same site for its 10-year history) .  Does any other CDR approach have 10% as much global grassroots CDR support?   What is the  evidence that biochar is “deeply controversial”?  I don’t believe China is finding the subject controversial;  the IBI site describes a very aggressive 5-year plan that is well along.  China is clearly the world biochar leader - and the IBI headquarters has been moved there.

4.  I now find it difficult to encourage any biochar supporter to attend this meeting.  Pity - as we need more multi-CDR meetings - if the discussion is not pre-ordained to prove universal “controversiality”.

Ron

On Dec 22, 2017, at 1:10 PM, Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.derichter at gmail.com<mailto:renaud.derichter at gmail.com>> wrote:

Does not start very friendly:
... Much like their taxonomic cousins, geoengineering by reflecting sunlight back into space, negative emissions ideas are also deeply controversial, potentially propping up carbon capitalism, making sweeping changes to land-use and posing significant environmental risks. ...
Why not adding the word "some" just before "... negative emissions ideas are also deeply controversial,..."

Nils, Rob & Duncan, there are many NETs that are not controversial, but are just not yet well known nor discussed.

Bw, and Season's Greetings!

2017-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Greg Rau <ghrau at sbcglobal.net<mailto:ghrau at sbcglobal.net>>:

Dear all,

We invite you to submit proposals for papers to our open panel

The politics of negative emissions

At Meetings – Making Science, Technology and Society together, EASST2018 Conference, Lancaster, UK, 25-28 July 2018 - https://easst2018.easst.net/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feasst2018.easst.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=fPXAvAFX0mgdV64h3V14W4BSaeW%2FF%2F4Xw5sYCcyQaS8%3D&reserved=0>

Convenors:
Nils Markusson (Lancaster University) n.markusson at lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:n.markusson at lancaster.ac.uk>
Rob Bellamy (University of Oxford) rob.bellamy at insis.ox.ac.uk<mailto:rob.bellamy at insis.ox.ac.uk>
Duncan McLaren (Lancaster University) d.mclaren at lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:d.mclaren at lancaster.ac.uk>

The Paris Agreement on climate change has set out global commitments to keeping global warming well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels and to aim for limiting the rise to 1.5 °C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that meeting these targets is possible – but nearly all of their scenarios rely on the extensive deployment of large-scale technologies that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere but do not currently exist (as complete socio-technical systems). Critics have argued that assumptions about when such ‘negative emissions’ technologies might be ready and how they might be deployed at an impactful scale are desperately optimistic.

Much like their taxonomic cousins, geoengineering by reflecting sunlight back into space, negative emissions ideas are also deeply controversial, potentially propping up carbon capitalism, making sweeping changes to land-use and posing significant environmental risks. This panel seeks to explore the politics of these prospective negative emissions technologies and what they imply for our changing relationship with nature in the age of the Anthropocene. We ask: what political imaginaries and interests are co-produced with negative emissions ideas in climate models, experiments and policies? How might research, development and deployment of carbon removal be governed responsibly where power relations and socio-technical systems are co-evolving? What are the implications for power, knowledge and politics of (discursive) decoupling of carbon removal from other forms of geoengineering? How does negative emissions politics compare to other technoscientific politics? What should our roles as STS scholars be when engaging with negative emissions?

To submit a paper please go to https://nomadit.co.uk/easst/easst2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6270<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnomadit.co.uk%2Feasst%2Feasst2018%2Fconferencesuite.php%2Fpanels%2F6270&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=iXvHpM2B5%2BOZJWdBl1K8HcWdkXXB9CLoftQGI8KlTlY%3D&reserved=0>
The call for papers closes at midnight CET on 14 February, 2018.

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto: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<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=y0sk3Ub0W1oex%2Bw%2FlKRF5Co7BkfCzKuLuVfsc1Q%2Bdec%3D&reserved=0>

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C582d5a714db5405013c308d54c7715c7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636498996707453672&sdata=FRXZOMPX2vtX9paIezD4ePehvNzpkcoJP5qIP8mx6vw%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171226/e594165a/attachment.html>