[Stoves] Air pollution in cities

Wed Nov 22 01:08:49 CST 2017

The numbers we report here are correct. There will be more details later. 3 million tons refers to the straw input. This program is just to reduce emissions from crop residues. The plants are just being built and sized initially for only a fraction of the available crop residue in each province so the impact on air quality will be slow to emerge. Policy will soon be in place to account for the carbon in the biochar fertilizers. This is a community and county scale project with industrial pyrolysis. Cookstoves are not included in this program. If pellets go into stoves it will be a collateral benefit. 

Tom

T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc.
tmiles at trmiles.com
Sent from mobile. 

> On Nov 22, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Tom:  cc Stoves and adding “biochar” list
> 
> 	1:  I understand sending this message to “stoves”  because of the emphasis on air quality in this thread.   But being also so much on biochar (and not stoves), several questions for both lists.
> 
> 	2.   Re the stoves side first - is there any evidence that the straw pellets could be headed towards char-making - in stoves?    Or char-making elsewhere?  Both methods for soil improvement?   Or are most of the pellets now headed only for combustion?  (And the char used for biochar in most of your report coming from forests or municipal sources or manure, etc?)
> 	Any way to say how much the outdoor air quality has been impacted so far?
> 	I sure hope a good bit of the char in soil came from cookstoves!!
> 
> 	3.   Re biochar:   You said below:	“They have tested the biochar fertilizer products in the field at more than 300 sites with impressive results.”    Might this “impressive” mean an annual NPP improvement of 25%  …… 50%??
> 
> 	4.  I think your 200,000 and 800,000 numbers say a quadrupling in one year.  True?  (I don’t think cell phone sales moved that fast.)
> 
> 	5.  On the biochar list, a few months ago, I noted an error at the IBI website’s report on the current 5-year Chinese biochar goals.  There was some agreement that this might have occurred because of a translation error related to numerical units that DIDN’T correspond to our increasing the major units by factors of 1000  (thousands , millions, billions, trillions, etc.  Are we pretty sure that this 3 million number is to be compared to 200,000, as fifth and first year values?
> 	I just looked at the IBI site  (http://www.biochar-international.org/node/8858) and don’t see the same numbers - but still talking about a five year plan. Any further detail on this Chinese 5-year plan in print anywhere?   
> 	Is the 3 million number below  for input or output?
> 
> 	Whatever the details, was it clear that China is going to outperform everybody in biochar as much as they already have in wind and solar?  (and what part of that might happen with stoves)?
> 
> 	Nice report.  Thanks.
> 
> Ron
> 
>> On Nov 21, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>> 
>> China is making a substantial effort to reduce air pollution. We have just completed the “2nd China-Asian Workshop on Biochar Production and Application for Green Agriculture -From Technology to Viable Systems” at Nanjing University and the International Biochar Initiative Asia-China center. Scientists and companies from around the region attended. We visited plants converting straws, manure, and biosolids to biochar and biochar fertilizers. China has invested in many biochar plants in Northern China, primarily to reduce air pollution, improve yields and soil fertility, and sequester carbon. They are currently building about 50 biochar plants. They have located a biochar plant in each of several provinces. They have tested the biochar fertilizer products in the field at more than 300 sites with impressive results. They have set up farmer coops and businesses to collect and densify crop residues at harvest. The pellets are used to store the straw and improve the efficiency for the process used to make the biochar, recover oils and vinegars, and convert the biochar into fertilizers that can be used by local for fertilizers. They have methods to account for the sequestered carbon. They grow more food with less fertilizer while reducing air pollution and sequestering carbon. Last year they converted 200,000 tons of crop residues to biochar. This year they expect to convert 800,000 tons of crop residues to biochar and biochar products. That is expected to grow to three million tons within five years. It is profitable for the farmers and for the biochar fertilizer companies. 
>>  
>> Organizations through the region will be working with the International Biochar Association to demonstrate ways to reduce are pollution from crop residues by converting part of the residue to biochar and biochar products to smallholders and large crop producers.    
>>  
>> Tom        
>> Chair, International Biochar Initiative
>> <image001.jpg>
>>  
>>  
>> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:22 PM
>> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Air pollution in cities
>>  
>> Dear Nikhil
>>  
>> I used to live in Ibadan, Nigeria. During the Harmattan the air turns into a permanent (so it seems) copy of a Delhi photo. It is perfectly natural and perfectly dreadful. 
>>  
>> "On its passage over the Sahara, it picks up fine dust and sand particles (between 0.5 and 10 microns).‎"
>>  
>> "In some countries in West Africa, the heavy amount of dust in the air can severely limit visibility and block the sun for several days,[8] comparable to a heavy fog.‎"
>>  
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmattan
>>  
>> Yup. Sounds right. Now, is the burning of agricultural wastes natural too? Is everything people do unnatural? Cooking too?
>>  
>> Regards 
>> Crispin 
>>  
>>  
>> ‎
>> Crispin:
>> 
>> Clean air is not a luxury Vishal Mathur Mint 14 November 2017.
>> 
>> I don't know what death chamber like conditions are. But no single technology is an answer to air pollution which varies by season, day, time of day, location, mobility. 
>> 
>> There are proper methods for air quality monitoring and air modeling, then a cost and schedule program has to be generated for each location. Some fuel or activity bans may work, and episodic situations like Delhi recently require emergency response measures. Just look up EPA color codes and local government responsibilities. 
>> 
>> A 40-year program. Little to do with ISO Tier 4 PM2.5 ERT. 
>> 
>> You ought to be in Delhi in a sand storm period to appreciate that the picture in Anil's essay conveys the right image. Leave aside toxicity arguments for WHO. 
>> 
>> Nikhil
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nikhil Desai
>> (US +1) 202 568 5831
>> Skype: nikhildesai888
>> 
>>  
>>> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Anil
>>>  
>>> I think this is a bit over the top:
>>>  
>>> “This did not allow the smog and dust to disperse into higher atmosphere, thereby creating death chamber like conditions on the ground.”
>>>  
>>> It is common hear claims that breathing air in such-and-such a place is “like smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day”. I provided here at least one calculation of what people are exposed to in a city.
>>>  
>>> First, PM is not equally toxic. The agricultural residue burning makes really ‘bad smoke’ stinging the eyes at 400 µg/m3. Coal smoke and vehicle smoke has nothing like the same effect, with the proviso that coal smoke varies a lot depending on what the source device is. Having experienced 3000 µg/m3 I can report that stubble burning is way worse than coal smoke.
>>>  
>>> Second, just because someone places a number on paper does not make people sick. People who have ‘pre-existing conditions’ are at risk from all sorts of things. One of my childhood neighbours, an adult woman, was allergic to house dust and lived in a hermetically sealed home – but smoked! There is no pleasing some people…
>>>  
>>> So…the photo in the article is taken over a long distance and zoomed, so you are looking ‘through’ perhaps a km or more of air. The BBC frequently shows pictures in Beijing taken in the same way – showing morning mist as ‘pollution’ when there really isn’t much to show.  How bad is Delhi air compared with living in an apartment in which one person smokes? Do the math. There is no city air as bad as sharing a flat with a smoker.
>>>  
>>> The smouldering garbage and wet leaves story is typical of real pollution in cities. Absolutely awful with a huge emission rate per kg. The inversion in Delhi is a good example of what happens in Ulaanbaatar in winter – daily. Sometimes there is no wind, like last winter. Living in the city was like smoking ¼ of a cigarette per day in terms of exposure. I am not recommending it, but it is completely untrue that it is like ‘smoking 2 packs a day’. 
>>>  
>>> What rubbish.
>>>  
>>> Anil, what is the right balance to portray between factual alarm and alarming facts?
>>>  
>>> Thanks
>>> Crispin
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> My blog which appeared as front page news in Huffington Post. 
>>>  
>>> http://m.huffingtonpost.in/dr-anil-k-rajvanshi/there-are-various-ways-devised-in-india-itself-to-reduce-pollution-from-stubble-burning_a_23281512/?utm_hp_ref=in-homepage
>>>  
>>> Cheers. 
>>>  
>>> Anil Rajvanshi 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171122/c966b1b5/attachment.html>