[Stoves] Fwd: [CDR] [geo] EASST 2018 - CfP - The politics of negative emissions
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Tue Dec 26 11:11:50 CST 2017
Dr. Nurhuda cc List, Paul and Julien (and adding Prime headquarters) and (late addition Jorund)
We met briefly at the GACC meeting in Cambodia.
I am following up on Paul’s “Prime” reference to Julien’s account below of successful stove sales because of positive user response (to biochar) to his TLUD design in Bangladesh. There are thousands of reports of using biochar (even that many technical papers per year). But there are very few reports of biochar and soil associated with char-making stove designs. In my opinion, too many are simply burning the char inefficiently in the same stove in which the char is produced.
Deep below in this thread are several references to work by Dr. Winter in Bangladesh. A good many off us on the stove list are hoping you can report that improved soil productivity is driving some sales (as in Bangladesh) - as hoped for by Dr. Anderson immediately below by your company.
I have looked over the Prime website and am pleased to see the word “biochar” there. For others who have not been to the Prime site, here are two screen shots that I found as good ways to market any stove - and presumably the Prime stove line:
(I presume/hope that the “reducing climate emissions” portion is intended to include “removing” as well as “reducing”; and “improving livelihood” to include making money from sales for use as biochar. All four of these are things that the three-stone fire can’t do. Rockets can do all as well, but none as well as the Prime and other char-making designs. For the rightmost topic - any Prime numbers such as I wrote about two messages down (i.e. making $9.00 in a few months?)
And this screen shot shows an impressive list of Prime partners.
Dr. Nurhuda, do you think any of these 15 groups are concerned about your stove both providing heat and providing char? Any concern from any of this groups about the ISO TC-285 activity, which recognizes char energy as an important and valid part of the water boiling test (WBT) for stove comparisons (Tiers included)?
But my main question is that asked by Paul below - any data from Indonesia or anywhere on use of your produced char as biochar?
As I searched for your email address, I came upon this from 2 years ago - a travesty of justice:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/23/world-class-indonesian-stove-lost-local-market-due-subsidy.html <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/23/world-class-indonesian-stove-lost-local-market-due-subsidy.html>
Any further news on this LPG topic?
Thanks in advance on anything you can provide on the economic advantages of producing char in a biomass cookstove - and hopefully especially after your char has been placed in the ground. (or on any stove design topic you wish to inform this list)
Ron
> On Dec 23, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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 <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> 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://nomadit.co.uk/easst/easst2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6270>
>>>
>>> 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 <http://www.biochar-bangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_06_03_TheNewNation.pdf>
>>>> 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 <http://www.biochar-bangladesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_12_11_DhakaTribune_Akha.pdf>
>>>> 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 <http://www.biochar-international.org/network/communities> 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://easst2018.easst.net/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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://nomadit.co.uk/easst/easst2018/conferencesuite.php/panels/6270>
>>>>>> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171226/ccc4b06f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 410414 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171226/ccc4b06f/attachment.tiff>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 574262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171226/ccc4b06f/attachment-0001.tiff>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list