[Stoves] CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock)

[Jock Gill]

Please see a few comments inserted below

Sent from my iPhone



Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 4, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Jock
>  
> I am not sure you get the point.
>  
> I have read all your contributions. What is your position on misreporting the cooking efficiency (fuel consumption) to make charcoal making stoves appear to use less fuel than they do? I have not seen you take a position on this.

In our work on an industrial pyrolizer, we always worked with the idea that the device required twice the feedstock of a combustion device producing the same BTU result.  We also looked at the total materials handling process and costs.

We mothballed the company to wait until the price of the carbon produced, Biochar, would make all of the above sufficiently profitable. That day has not yet arrived.  This after a very significant investment in building several devices.

So, yes, we basically agree that pyrolytic devices typically take 2X the feedstock and also produce a co-product that also requires handling.

> >1. I only support Stoves that are attractive to users and that make social and economic sense. Hopefully  they do not also damage the environment for which we ALL have serious responsibilities.
>  
> Fully agreed. Like Ron, I have been promoting sustainable solutions for more than 40 years.

Sustainable is not a good enough goal. We want a regenerative solution: continuous improvement in quality and quietly of the total system of course production of which the stove can be seen as as part. See:

http://vermontbiochar.com/biochar/pdfs/publications/small_farmers_journal_.pdf


>  
> 2. Draw down of excess atmospheric CO2 is a global task and obligation.
>  
> As mentioned, please read the Kyoto document and you will see where it was agreed responsibilities lie. This has nothing to do with cooking stoves in developing countries. Speaking for myself, I am promoting stoves that reduce coal consumption for winter heating by 66%. Some object to this work because it involves burning coal! Can you believe it? Without coal they will freeze to death. In many places there is nothing else to burn.

Kyoto is not of interest to me. I am interested in how we all work together to reduce the impact of global climate disruption. We are all in the same life boat and better learn  to cooperate as best we can.

>  
> >The more Stoves and thermal energy devices around the world that can contribute to that process, that also meet the conditions in #1 above, the better.
>  
> We do not agree on the definition of what constitutes ‘damage’ and by whom. You cannot define for billions of other people what their responsibilities are. Listen to them first.

You are defining. I am not. We are all in this  together, like it or not. We either work together as best we can or we all suffer. Pointing fingers makes this harder. 

>  
> 3. The issue at the moment is that charcoal for regenerative agriculture is not yet priced highly enough to make it a no brainer.
>  
> Correct. The benefits are specific to certain soil types, certain crops and certain loads. Ron and I have discussed this several times on this list, looking at the time it would take to convert a field to a ‘char dosed’ one. Using biomass raised on the same farm it would take between 2000 and 8000 years.

Different farms at different scales. A kitchen garden could be helped by even small amounts of charcoal mixed with dung and compost made into small balls to be used in growing mounds - much as native Americans taught the English immigrants in 1622. Don't use the mix where you do not  plant seeds. 


>  
> Virtue signalling is not helpful. Let’s take Tajikistan. The agriculture Ministry wants to stove the people burning so much animal dung because it should be going onto the fields. The best way to do that in the short term is to make highly improved stoves available through normal channels. We are trying this with 40 homes this winter. Some of them are dung burning. Some not. If there is a proposal that all the dung could be charcoaled and then used as ‘fertiliser’ (not reducing consumption) with the alternative being 50% being burned to ash and the remainder + ash put on the fields, that is something that can be tested side by side. Which is better?
>  
> The current policy supports reducing consumption and adding the dung to the fields. That is they decision. I am not clear what you man by ‘regenerative agriculture’. I have to presume you mean Rodale etc. Is a comparison available between adding dung v.s. adding char? Will a char making stove produce meaningful amounts of char?

Google "regenerative agriculture".  

> >If I can make money making charcoal for agriculture and at the same time do my cooking, or space conditioning, then I have a compelling twofer.
>  
> I agree provided it is compelling. Nothing wrong with that at all.  But no one gets a free pass to make any claim they like because sit could work in theory. Come join me in the field and make a demonstration. If all the fuel is consumed and there is a nice big pile of char to put in the fields, and the cooking is done, and the performance report says that only half the fuel was consumed, then we are in an alternate universe.

Compelling is the operative word. 


>  
> If you want support and assistance from professionals the numbers have to add up. Declaring that there is energy in the char so only have the fuel was consumed will not fly.
>  
> >It has to be the case that cooking makes money, not costs money. We are not there yet. 
>  
> >Clear enough?
>  
> Are you clear that there are already people making money creating char using cooking stoves? I just described some in Indonesia, there are others in India. In Vietnam they sell the rice hull char – not sure if it exceeds the cost of rice hull, but in principle it might.

The user has to make the money, not the producer. We are trying to make use compelling.
..
> Reality also has to be face that there are a lot of people who had no interest in ‘making money’ making char while they cook. Handling char is a messy business and (usually) they have to feed in more fuel because of the lost energy. Where to get it? Most people are very practical. If it sounds like more work they are usually not interested.

Do not agree. If the economics are powerful enough the benefits of having the income flow will be persuasive. If you are living in $2 per day, if making charcoal could double your income, and maybe even improve your kitchen garden,  I expect making charcoal as you cook would be attractive. The question is how much does the charcoal have increased daily income to make it compelling? Is a 50% increase sufficient? 25%?

Cheers,

Jock

http://vermontbiochar.com/biochar/pdfs/publications/small_farmers_journal_.pdf





>  
> Regards
> Crispin
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170204/1e097915/attachment.html>