[Stoves] Biomass and climate-neutrality (Re: Ron on Kirk Smith)

Fri Jan 6 00:11:44 CST 2017

Dear Ron:

Happy New Year!

First, I am DELIGHTED, RELIEVED to read your definition of a "climate
denier" - "a person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR)."

I do have megahours of interest in CDR. Just tell me from where, when, how
much, by whom, at what cost, and where to put it.

I have been doing CDR for all my life.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that I am not a climate denier, I
don't have to fear going to hellfires or ovens till I die.

It's all a matter of accounting.

***
On the other hand, I am sad to see you start out a New Year on a sour note.

On Haiti and LPG Webinar, I did address your Comment 1 -  "*I don’t think
many will mind if I reopen the topic." *and Comment 2 - "* I don’t have the
time now to prove this, but am sure we can find climate denial funding
coming from this Association. " *I took my cue to reopen the topic from
you, and I also made some comment on WLPGA. Please don't blame me for your
neglect to read.

***

We can continue that LPG thread if you read my replies to Paul and to you
on GACC and Haiti (more to come). Here I address your "I will respond about
Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read.
"

Oh, dear. I don't know what if anything you have read from Kirk Smith. You
could start with  his opinion pieces - "In Praise of Petroleum", "Power to
the People", and "The Petroleum Product That Can Save Millions Of Lives
Each Year".

I assume you have read his research on putting carbon gases in the
atmosphere via traditional biomass combustion (defined as uncontrolled
combustion of unprocessed solid biomass).

What you may find is relevant to both this thread as well as Paul's
question on LPG in the Haiti thread about lower GHGs (and one earlier).

Please also tell us just what of Kirk Smith's papers you have read on
health effects of biomass combustion and quotes that you like. Taking his
name in vain is intellectual abuse.

In a 6 November 2016 post on this list's thread "LPG versus gasifiers with
dry biomass", I had cited Prof. Smith's assertion:

"And, as yet, no biomass stove in the world comes close to the
boundary – is* clean
enough to be truly health protective in household use."*

He was also reported in a Washington Post item
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-cheap-clean-stoves-were-supposed-to-save-millions-of-lives-what-happened/2015/10/29/c0b98f38-77fa-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html>
in
2015  “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly
health protective in household use”.

I expressed my dissent from this view, but if you agree with it, please say
so.

Because that means biomass stoving for the last 50-odd years has failed in
terms of being "truly health protective in household use."

Amen. I was hoping to leave all that in the last year.

****

Now to the main issue here -  biomass power and climate-neutrality.

It is a matter of ideological accounting, not science.

Whoever has a hammer in hand sees nails everywhere. Biochar seems to be
your hammer.

I have written earlier that I discovered Biochar in 2007/8 and Stephen
Joseph made me a believer.

Now just tell me your global plan for biochar. I will be a partner in
Alliance for Biochar Cooking (ABC). GACC CEO can be invited to help.

I did some CDR work 20+ years ago on TVA co-firing of peanut shells in
Georgia and other biomass power options. I also worked on CCS (Carbon
Capture and Sequestration) options and putting CO2 in old mines and domes.
How much CDR did you do?

*****
Apart from biochar or such projects, taking the earth system as a whole, I
repeat my assertions:

“*To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period. "*

This time I will give you some suggestions to read - Ruddiman
<http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf>
and
Unger <http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Unger_un02100s.pdf>. Also
this
<http://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis>.
Prove me wrong.

Water and biomass is nearly there is to understand about human climate. But
please read Kirk Smith, then we can debate the GHG-neutrality of biomass
combustion (alone).

“*And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from
biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere." *

This is a scientific truism - that any carbon emitted anywhere may be
re-absorbed anywhere (tree or not) - and other assumptions are matter of
accounting. Prove me wrong.

Chemistry is everything. Not counting molecules. CO2 is not a WMD; do ask
CIA though.

Nikhil

---------

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Nikhil:  cc List and Paul
>
> Whew -  5 messages today from Nikhil and finally one that I can see all of
> on my screen at once.    (Here’s hoping I don’t have to read 5 more
> tomorrow for the third day in a row.)
>
> In three of the four others I see one citation - GACC on Haiti.   It would
> help me (and I think others) if Nikhil would keep all of my messages, not
> selectively pull out of them.  (for his GACC2,  Nikhil has excised all of
> my remarks #1 and #3.  Why?)
>
> I will respond about Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith
> writings I should read.  I seriously doubt that Kirk has written much about
> the two cites below covering BECCS and albedo.  Note that neither of these
> have much, if anything, to do with stoves.
>
> I don’t have time tonight to refute any of the mostly incorrect and
> non-pertinent arguments below, but let me repeat one (yNikhil, from
> below)that could only come from a climate denier -  defined here as a
> person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR):
>
> “*And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon
> from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere." *
>

I interpret Nikhil to mean that CDR via biochar only makes sense when
> source and sink are in the same block, county, state, or country, (or
> continent?)  Whew!   If not, what then does he mean?  (Of course you have
> to read more below.)
>
> In sum, I strongly support Paul’s gentle request to Nikhil to stick to
> topics that relate to this list - not things again/always in support of
> coal.  And not blame me for not having responded quickly enough to some
> un-named publication of Prof. Smith  (whose work, I repeat, on health
> matters related to stoves I strongly support - and look forward to learning
> what I am supposed to dissociate myself from in order to agree that the
> (9:04 AM CDT) climate-denying material (not in any way stove or
> health-oriented) below is on-topic.)
>
> Last point for Nikhil re his last line below
>

>  (“*To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period. ")*
> - does he think that biochar from stoves cannot be carbon negative?
>
> Ron
>
> ps.  I argue these topics (albedo, BECCS, afforestation , etc) most every
> day - on half a dozen lists - but never on this list.
>
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> It might become on-topic once Ron reads Kirk Smith.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ---------
> (US +1) 202-568-5831 <(202)%20568-5831>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> To Nikhil only,
>>
>> I agree that your message is "Off-topic".   Thank you for making that
>> clear in your subject line.   Please do not make more messages that are so
>> far off-topic that they just are beyond the scope of the Stoves Listserv.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
>> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>>
>> On 1/3/2017 9:04 AM, Traveller wrote:
>>
>> Oh, dear. Just because a tree is releasing CO2 absorbed earlier makes it
>> carbon neutral?
>>
>> Then all trees could be harvested, burnt, and that would still be carbon
>> neutral. I don't think IPCC allows that -- its inventorying methods require
>> that such "land use change" be reported separately.
>>
>> ****
>> Another way of putting the question (and I think this is implied by the
>> current methods) is whether the CO2 released will in future be absorbed by
>> another tree.
>>
>> But that raises a different problem -- this re-absorption may take years
>> and that it may happen somewhere else. Assuming that the Drax carbon
>> emissions from biomass burning were to be re-absorbed in the US forests
>> where the pellets came from is quite a stretch.
>>
>> And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from
>> biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere.
>>
>> Since CO2 from wood combustion in a power plant is no different from CO2
>> from my breaths or cremation or CO2 from a power plant, it is plausible to
>> argue that CO2 from Chinese coal-fired power plant is what gets absorbed in
>> the net expansion of boreal forests in Canada and Europe.
>>
>> Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the albedo effect. (Reforestation
>> Doesn’t Fight Climate Change Unless It’s Done Right
>> <https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.jok1faoia>,
>> Natasha Geiling, ThinkProgress, 31 August 2016).
>>
>> Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests, convert into charcoal, and
>> export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC.
>>
>> Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has another problem - "“But if
>> you are going to do BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of
>> trees and the impact on land use may have very significant effects on food
>> security,” (Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences,
>> say scientists
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change>,
>> Damien Carrington, Guardian (UK)  26 November 2014)
>>
>> In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled with confusion.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Deliberate confusion for political purposes. The methods of GHG
>> accounting are NOT value-free; they (including the choice to use 100-year
>> GWPs instead of 20- or 50-year GWPs) are intentionally biased. (I was
>> marginally involved with this 30-odd years ago.)
>>
>> The most serious objection to the purported "carbon neutrality" of
>> "biomass" is that depending on combustion technology, the emissions of
>> non-CO2 GHGs - methane, which is counted under Kyoto cooking of numbers,
>> and NMVOCs, CO, which Kyoto does not permit -- are more potent than CO2.
>>
>> If  you add in black carbon, the non-CO2 damage is significantly higher.
>>
>> More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for the developing
>> countries).
>>
>> The combined GHG loads from biomass direct thermal use around the world -
>> when counting all GHGs and black carbon (I can cook up some estimates) -
>> are in the range of all CO2 from Indian coal-fired power plants, maybe even
>> all CO2 from Chinese coal-fired power plants.
>>
>> So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass use, as much as it is
>> from India-China coal-fired power plants.
>>
>> Surprised?
>>
>> Some sages said 16+ years ago, "If one is going to put carbon in the
>> atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful species from climate or health
>> point of view."
>>
>> The policy implications of this observation are profound.
>>
>> To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period.
>>
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170106/523ecdf9/attachment.html>