[Stoves] stoves and credits again

[Ronal W. Larson]

Philip et al:

	I guess that your views below also impact your views on the denominator equation.  Possible?

Ron

> On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:50 AM, plloyd at mweb.co.za wrote:
> 
> Just a thought on Sub Saharan charcoal use. As Africa urbanizes, so it needs energy to cook. Wood takes up too much volume, and the roads are primitive. So it makes sense to use charcoal. A bicycle load will keep ten homes cooking for a week. 
> The use of char oal has everything to do with logistics and nothing to do with the environment.
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
> From: Nikhil Desai 
> To: Ron Larson 
> CC: Andrew Heggie ,Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ,Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
> 
> 
> Ron: 
> 
> What makes you believe that users of biomass-fuelled stoves are predominantly growers (of biomass)? 
> 
> Saw the figures for urban charcoal markets in Sub-Saharan Africa lately? Or looked at non-household cooking (in my view roughly 50% of cooking energy consumption worldwide)? 
> 
> Nikhil
> 
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
> Andrew and list:
>>>  
>> 
>> There appears to be a win win situation here and I gather there is
>> still a vast part of equatorial Africa where annual burning  takes
>> place. However it brings me to another reason I like the idea, though
>> not the practicalities, of a householder-subsistance farmer being paid
>> a subsidy funded by the developed world. The trouble is I have a
>> parochial view and not a good worldview of what types of persons
>> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly growers?
> 
> 	[RWL9:  Yes to Andrew’s last question.  I disagree with Andrew calling himself “parochial” - when he supports (as do I) the ethics of “a subsidy funded by the developed world”.
> 
> 	  
> [RWL10:   Agree totally.  And I think this is what will eventually kill the geoengineering technology that is often placed ahead of biochar - BECCS.  In BECCS, as with “clean coal”, the CO2 from combustion (never pyrolysis) is placed, as  liquid, deep underground.   Major expenses needed to protect the world’s soil are not needed for biochar.  Soil quality is closely linked to carbon content - and biochar does this with no penalty - while apparently being the cleanest and most efficient of all possible solid-fuel stoves.
> 
> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.
> 
> Ron
>>  
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170924/e566e66d/attachment.html>