[Stoves] [biochar] Methane from char-makers

[Anderson, Paul]

Dear all,

I place comments below in Geoff's message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

See below.

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website:   www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: biochar at yahoogroups.com <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.
Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?
[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.
You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..
Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish.
[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

3.  Major comment by HPS:  "methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion."   Correct or not?   Can it be explained more fully?   And conclusion would be to use very dry fuel, right?  (meaning changing our stoves?)

Below is Frank Shield's comment:
Hi Paul,
There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal.

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190222/e4b5a9b7/attachment.html>