[Stoves] Fossil fuels - a boon and a bane (for different folks)

Traveller miata98 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 6 00:31:38 CST 2017


Paul:

My belated response to your post from Dec 17th (below).

1. "Saving mama earth" is a hyperbole. It is a meaningless term - rather,
anybody can take it to mean what s/he feels like when. There is no
verifiable theory of the earth, just some models. (Global modeling fancies
began in late 1960s and they still remain just that.) My own take for what
it is worth - think of the children and do more to protect and enhance
their own capacities, their local ecosystems (not easy to define).

As for TLUDs, "carbon negative" features, what attracted to me to Biochar
movement was the promise for improved soil productivities. Now, it may well
be that the carbon sequestration potential is easier to sell in the near
term and is not tied to - nor does it limit - soil productivity gains. (I
don't know enough about the chemistry.) In any case, the carbon revenues
promise to have multiplier effects with virtuous cycles. That is a good
enough argument at this stage.

2. I was deliberately obtuse about "increase kg CO2 output per kg input of
caronaceous fuel". Combustion of carbonaceous fuels puts carbon gases in
the atmosphere. These are co-emitted -- in addition to CO2, there are
products of incomplete combustion ranging from methane to non-methane
hydrocarbons to CO. The higher the CO2, the lower the non-CO2 and vice
versa.

Since non-CO2 carbon gases have both higher warming impact and disease
impact, more complete combustion - "more complete union of carbon and
oxygen" per mole, so to speak - is a boon to people as well as the climate.

It's all chemistry.

Not that the groupthinkers of ISO/IWA understand.

>From what I understand, the beauty of Biochar from cookstoves is that while
combustion is incomplete, the gaseous emissions of carbon are lower,
leaving more carbon in the solid form (char). I will have to look at
complete chemical analysis, but from what I remember, TLUDs lead to lower
rates of CO, CH4 and NMVOCs air emissions per kg input. That is good as far
as combustion chemistry goes; I am sure soil chemistry gains vary
contextually but generally positive. Correct me if I am wrong.

Folks who reduce everything to CO2 without regard to its origins,
co-emitted gases, consider the whole process a bane. They know not what
they are doing.

Nikhil





---------


On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Ron and Nikhil and Crispin and others,
>
> I admit that (with a few lapses) I read these "exchanges".   And I learn
> some things.  They ARE "on-topic" about stoves for impoverished people (and
> I intentionally did not limit that to biomass-fuel stoves because we need
> to understand alternatives and "oppositions").
>
> I do note that not a single person sent any message about my summary of
> the LPG-stoves webinar.  I thought that the data about subsidies etc and
> not reaching the truly impoverished in sustainable ways would get some
> reaction.   No problem.  That topic is over.
>
> I comment about two short segments from recent messages:
>
> 1.  Referring to efforts to slow or reverse "climate change" / CO2
> increase, there was a comment about
>
> saving mama earth while her children die.
>
> Saddly, it is possible that both the earth and her children "die" (or
> suffer undesireable consequences) because not enough is being done for
> either.
>
>  We should be trying to save BOTH.   That could be with separate efforts
> for each (such as solar panels and planting trees for the earth, whicl
> digging water wells and having water filters for the people (children of
> earth).   But BETTER if one effort helps both goals at the same time.   And
> that is the beauty of cookstove efforts, ESPECIALLY those that can be
> carbon negative while doing the cooking tasks with less biomass fuel.
>
> That happens to be the case of the TLUD stoves.  But there is pathetically
> little support for TLUD stoves from either the earth-savers or the
> children-savers.
>
> 2.  I think these were Nikhil's words:
>
> The only connection I see between stoves and CO2 is that technologies that
> increase kg CO2 output per kg input of carbonaceous fuel are a boon to
> people as well as climate.
>
> I do not understand what "increase kg CO2 output per kg input of [biomass]
> fuel" means, or how it is a boon.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170106/a46f1586/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list