[Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

Pardon a distraction from Hebei wastes - where I agree with you different
wastes have different potential value chains.

1. The methane-hydrogen production idea is fabulously exciting. Back 25
years ago I was asked to produce something on the potential for hydrogen
economy in China.  It was Bob Williams' fantasy of PV hydrogen. I didn't
find anything worth recommending to the Chinese.

Who'd've thunk of biogas hydrogen in China? I am guessing China did not
have much milk use 40 years ago.  Now it has 7 million heads (USDA 2016
<https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Dairy%20and%20Products%20Annual_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_11-16-2016.pdf>)
and alfalfa grass from Montana or Idaho is exported to China. (China: U.S.
Alfalfa Hay Exports to China Climb
<https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-us-alfalfa-hay-exports-china-climb> USDA
22 June 2017). I read a WSJ story a few years ago that the US alfalfa
operation is owned by an industrial conglomerate from UAE.

And Walmart probably imports dairy and beef products from China.


I leave it to sustainable bean counters to compute national net trade in
embedded water and GHG.

2.  Your comment that CDM and Gold Standard computations being

"driven by the use of a performance rating system that has not been
properly reviewed. It contains two serious defects: it does not rate the
fuel consumption of stoves based on their fuel consumption, and it
overcomes this failure by applying annually a ‘corrective formula’ that
explains away the difference between a defective lab or field test and the
observed performance, thus re-crediting the stove with a fuel mass saving
that is not achieved in practice.



Seeing that the whole purpose of the trade is ‘fuel mass saved’, this seems
a particularly egregious pair of errors."


I for one don't for a moment think that the whole or even partial purpose
is "fuel mass saved". The purpose is to keep bean-counters employed, so
that high-cost intermediaries can certify what they get paid to certify.
What they claim they do is for the credulous.

Nikhil



On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
>
>
> The situation in Hebei is affected by what is marketable. If something has
> value, it is traded. The question for agricultural crop wastes is, will the
> farmers be paid enough to make it worth collecting, whether that be stover,
> straw or slash.
>
>
>
> *>*Thank you for pointing out market signals due to fertilizer subsidies.
> Very interesting.
>
>
>
> The organic fertilizers made in Hebei are almost, without exception, sold
> to nearby provinces because there is a small subsidy to use them, but not
> in Hebei. That is a matter of local policy.
>
>
> >China also must have a great deal of animal waste from the food industry
> - couldn't that go to fertilizer and climate char?
>
>
>
> Something of high value is not going to be applied to a low value chain.
> If something makes great pig food, it won’t be wasted making char. It might
> go to compost, rather, but as cooked food it is better eater directly.
>
>
>
> For manure, there are of course biogas applications and I work in the
> bioenergy section of the College of Engineering, where most grad students
> work on biogas. Collected paper are available from the university as
> “Biogas Engineering and Application Vol nn”. One of the presentations made
> at the October conference last year was on the use of a two stage digestion
> process in which methane and hydrogen production are separately optimised
> by changing the cooking temperature and selected microbes partway through
> the process. In this way the highest total energy can be recovered in the
> form of combustible gas.
>
>
>
> Therefore the use and treatment of field wastes is a far cry from the
> simple idea of tossing it in a stove and making magic dust. Expanding the
> organic fertiliser market and raising its value through specialised
> blending will eventually create a market for all the field products, I
> assume. (They don’t just dump everything into a bin and call it ‘organic
> fertilizer’. It is a science.)
>
>
>
> >CDM and GS computations are driven by theories that have not been
> validated in practice.
>
>
>
> They are also driven by the use of a performance rating system that has
> not been properly reviewed. It contains two serious defects: it does not
> rate the fuel consumption of stoves based on their fuel consumption, and it
> overcomes this failure by applying annually a ‘corrective formula’ that
> explains away the difference between a defective lab or field test and the
> observed performance, thus re-crediting the stove with a fuel mass saving
> that is not achieved in practice.
>
>
>
> Seeing that the whole purpose of the trade is ‘fuel mass saved’, this
> seems a particularly egregious pair of errors.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170920/16e2c530/attachment.html>