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

[tmiles at trmiles.com]

Develop a new “Platinum Standard” with the “paradigm shift” that you have been advocating. What would that look like? 

 

Tom

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Nikhil Desai
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 6:57 AM
To: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown

 

Crispin: 

You wrote: 

>That speaks to motivation. Motivations are claimed, calculations are real.




When the motivation is to cultivate credulousness, or repress dissent or even doubt, "real" calculations in service of fictions suffice. 

CDM is a process agreed to by nation states, so objections and revisions have a legitimate role, beyond which one has to yield to the authorities. 

Gold Standard on the other hand is a make believe for the glib and the gullible, so as to keep the middlemen happy; there is no point objecting to private parties creating noise and mirth. 

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com> > wrote:

Dear Nikhil, continuing to confabulate two disparate story lines,

 

>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.

What the researcher showed is that with a certain inoculation and temperature, the could get a methane rich biogas first, digesting for a particular time. Then with a second inoculation, and a different digesting temperature, they could get a hydrogen-rich biogas. The two combined produced more total energy than a single process. I think it is a fundamentally good idea. The point is to take energy in one form and produce as much as possible in another, without adding anything energetic.

>>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". 

 

Well, taking them at their word that they are saving unsustainably harvested forests, I am only trying to help. And it is not as if I haven’t tried. I made quite sure their technical advisor was aware of the details and the misdirection provided by their current corrective formula that adjusts the baseline efficiency of stoves downwards until the putative WBT relative efficiency gain is realised. The root of the problem is they believed the WBT and CCT ‘energy efficiency’  metric was telling them something real about the fuel consumption. I know people are tired of hearing about it but it is wasting a lot of effort and people are paying for something that is not being delivered. 

 

>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. 

 

That speaks to motivation. Motivations are claimed, calculations are real.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170921/bf9195c2/attachment.html>