[Stoves] Methane from char-makers
dan weinshenker
danweinshenker at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 08:59:26 CST 2019
Just as measuring CO2 is a good proxy for power, is already-being-collected
CO data a good proxy for methane?
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:20 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Stovers and Char makers, (and is this message reaching Jim Jetter and
> Tami Bond and others?)
>
>
>
> 1. The explanation by Hans-Peter makes sense (below). Persons
> discussing the impact of methane on climate should clearly specify if they
> are referring to the impact during the long-term of 100 years (25 times to
> 36 times) or in the shorter-term of 20 years (70 times to 110 times worse
> than CO2).
>
>
>
> 2. Methane is bad!!! “But may only be 1% of total emissions.” If 1%,
> then is it correct to say that methane is equal to 25% of total emissions
> during the long-term, or is equal to 100% of total emissions during the
> 20-year term?. Stated that way, methane that comes from burning biomass
> (such as in stoves) is nasty and bad and serious!!!
>
>
>
> 3. But our stoves testing procedures do NOT report methane. Repeat that
> sentence!! WHY NOT? Something is not making sense yet. Is testing for
> methane complicated or expensive? Someone please reply about this.
>
>
>
> 4. So, SHOULD we be taking steps to lower methane emissions in stoves and
> in char making? For the moment, and until we hear alternative statements,
> we should be discussing (and doing something) about methane emissions. I
> would be very happy if told that I and we do not need to concern ourselves
> about methane emissions, but at least Hans-Peter is saying that it is
> important.
>
>
>
> 5. Accepting importance, then what is there to do about reducing methane
> for stoves and char-makers?. I have gleaned two corrective actions from
> the discussion thus far:
>
> A. DRY fuel. Drier than what is normal. Drier than the fuels for
> which we have designed our stoves.
>
>
>
> B. RECIRCULATE the combustion gases back into the hot, burning
> environment.
>
>
>
> C. Any other suggestions. Can it be done simply with better turbulence
> (mixing) or time or temperature?? It is a combustible gas.
>
>
>
> 6. I am currently working on a field-scale pyrolyzer. So the inclusion
> of efforts (methods and devices) to have much drier fuels AND/OR to have
> recirculation of some or most gases is now of interest. Testing for
> methane (and how?) are now included in what I need to do.
>
>
>
> 7. AND IS IT WORTH THE EFFORT to reduce methane in char-makers,
> especially as they become larger? Is methane emissions reduction something
> that can earn carbon offsets (in what circumstances???) And are the large
> char-makers (Biogreen and ROI Carbonator 500 and others) running the risk
> of being told that methane emissions could negate their biochar production
> benefits for climate concerns. Does methane production kill the prospects
> for PyCCS (Pyrolytic Carbon Capture and Sequestration)???
>
>
>
> I am making a serious plea for assistance to help understand about these
> issues of methane. Should this be a serious concern????
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
>
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
>
> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:26 AM
> *To:* Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Methane from char-makers
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> In regard to your question about methane:
>
> Methane has a GWP (global warming potential) of 28 – 36 CO2e over a 100
> year period. However, most of the CH4 in the atmosphere will be decomposed
> already within the first decade. So when you look to only 10 or 20 years,
> the GWP of CH4 during this period is much higher than the average over the
> 100 years period. In the first year after the release, CH4 has the highest
> GWP decreasing with every year. Over 20 years the GWP of CH4 is generally
> given as 70 to 110 times CO2e. So if you look to the short term climate
> effects of a forest fire, a Kon-Tiki or a TLUD, the methane effect has the
> highest impact although it may only be 1% of the total emission.
>
> Best to you, Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> *Von: *"Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Datum: *Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 15:39
> *An: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "biochar at yahoogroups.com" <
> biochar at yahoogroups.com>, 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <
> schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>, Kathleen Draper <kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com>
> *Cc: *"Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Betreff: *Methane from char-makers
>
>
>
> To all,
>
>
>
> The message from Hans-Peter (HPS) is important about emissions from
> cookstoves AND from char-making devices. The focus is on methane
> emissions. Some comments, based on a rapid look at the 2 articles
> attached, which should be studied by the chemists and emissions specialists
> in our groups.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> 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?)
>
> 4. I take issue with one comment from table 4 on page 12 (of 16 in Kon
> Tiki article) about disadvantage of TLUD stoves: “Too small to generate
> larger amounts of biochar.” THAT statement is the perspective of a
> SINGLE stove. But when they are used by the thousands, each 1200 TLUD
> stoves produce about one ton of char/biochar EACH DAY. 36,000 in West
> Bengal are producing about 30 tons per day, every day, and have been doing
> so for a few years, and will continue. On a worldwide scale today, that
> much charcoal is probably more than that of all the flame-cap devices
> combined on a daily basis. (That last statemen can be challenge if anyone
> has and data.)
>
>
>
> AND the heat energy is not being wasted when TLUD stoves make
> charcoal. Although the comment in the table overlooks the importance
> of “scale by number” (instead of “scale by size”), I am glad that the TLUD
> stoves were at least mentioned in the report and Table. That is progress
> over being totally ignored.
>
>
>
> I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
>
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
>
> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
> *To:* Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Cc:* Kathleen Draper <draper at ithaka-institut.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Please find attached our paper on low tech pyrolysis emissions. The
> CH4-emissions of TLUD and Kon-Tikis are in the same order. Optimization of
> gas combustion and especially the use of dry feedstock can greatly reduce
> CH4-emissions of both. CH4-emissions of forest wild fires are in the some
> order as optimized Kon-Tiki (see the other attached paper). In field
> burning of harvest residues produce more methane especially when the
> residues are humid as is often the case.
>
> The quantity of emitted methane may not look high but as the Global
> Warming Potential (GWP) of methane is about 100 times that of CO2 in the
> first 20 years, the climate effect of rather low CH4-quantities is already
> considerable.
>
> The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane
> molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.
>
> Be well, Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> *Von: *"Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Datum: *Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
> *An: *"Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>
> *Cc: *"biochar at yahoogroups.com" <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> *Betreff: *RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> Hans-Peter,
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> There was no attached graph. Please send.
>
>
>
> I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because
> you do not send replies to that address. So I am forwarding your very
> valuable comments to the Biochar listserv. More comments are below.
>
>
>
>
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
>
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
>
> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
> *To:* Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> ... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in
> tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one
> standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not
> achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha
> there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or
> less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.
>
>
>
> *[PSA>>] The above is a valuable statement. DM is “dry matter”,
> right? Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to
> have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha. 100 ha is NOT a very big area; it
> is only 1 sq km.*
>
> *So a safe easy statement is that there can be sufficient biomass to
> produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq
> km. *
>
> *??? Did I say that correctly? We do not want to be saying things that
> we later need to retract. *
>
> *???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda,
> etc.) could comment about this.*
>
>
>
> The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data,
> the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln
> systems.
>
> *[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln. Nice video of a small model
> at *
>
> *https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ>*
>
> *???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?
> Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up? Either way, that is a good
> starting point.*
>
>
>
> It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material
> and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production.
> And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to
> start upscaling.
>
> *[PSA>>] I agree. The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the
> limit for investors. And that is ONLY based on when serial mass
> production is possible. *
>
> *??? Statement: What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that
> costs only $25,000. Is that a good goal or “dream”??? Would that price
> make the production of biochar become a major factor quickly??? I would
> like several people to comment about this. Not just Hans-Peter has
> answers. Comments from all are appreciated.*
>
>
>
>
>
> The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper
> (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not
> completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next
> months.
>
> *[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph. I really did not
> associate methane with burning of biomass. I need some instruction.
> Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out
> considerable methane emissions? The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a
> methane concern!!!! So is it something about the flame-cap of the
> Kon-Tiki and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created
> and to escape?? Please help with this question. I am still not
> understanding about methane for such fires.*
>
>
>
> *[PSA>>] Paul*
>
> Best, hp
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von: *"Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Datum: *Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
> *An: *'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <
> schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>, "biochar at yahoogroups.com" <
> biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> *Cc: *"Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Betreff: *Webinar comments by Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> Hans-Peter,
>
>
>
> Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would
> be a size that would be appropriate for villages? We are discussing
> developing countries. Would this be expected year round, or maybe only
> seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?
>
>
>
> And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from? I
> am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have
> some basis for it.
>
>
>
> *********
>
> Another question:
>
> I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of
> methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers. Any links to
> reports about this? Why methane? I would have more easily believe high
> PM or CO.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
>
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
>
> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190222/56749110/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list