[Stoves] [biochar] Methane from char-makers

Sat Feb 23 12:26:43 CST 2019

To add more context, flame cap devices are often used to dispose of residual biomass. I know that in Kelpie’s work with forest thinning projects and with one of our primary sources of biomass that is the case. The options for treatment of such residual biomass is to leave it to decompose (creating lots of gases and which may increase the risk of catastrophic forest fire) or to pile burn. Neither of those is likely to be as “clean” as flame cap pyrolysis, and neither creates much in the way of CO2 sequestration. So the analysis needs to address the full lifecycle.

Gordon West
The Trollworks
503 N. “E” Street
Silver City, NM 88061
575-537-3689

An entrepreneur sees problems as the seeds of opportunity.

> On Feb 23, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hugh,
>  
> Thank you.   We need this type of info.
>  
> And we do know that CO can escape combustion in stoves and flame-cap devices when conditions are good for escape (bad for complete combustion).
>  
> When a TLUD is operating with very very low CO emissions, can we assume that methane is also not being emitted?  
>  
> I find it easy to believe that the Kon-Tiki and other open-top flame-cap devices do have substantial emissions of CO and PM and (by inference also methane).   Flame-cap (noted for the open top) might not be as good as we have tended to think that it is.  Let’s try to clarify about this with our internal discussions before some opposition person rams down our throats some “proof” that our char-production methods are faulty (or terrible).
>  
> Paul
>  
> 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: Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net <mailto:wastemin1 at verizon.net>> 
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 11:46 AM
> To: biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>; Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>>; Kathleen Draper <kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com <mailto:kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com>>; Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers
>  
> Small symmetrical molecules, including CO and Methane, have high autoignition temperatures. The presence of water vapors raised the vapors heat capacity, lowering the temperature rise for a given radiant energy flux, leading to lower combustion efficiencies for CO and Methane. All the oxygenated organics go first. Hugh
>  
> On Feb 23, 2019 8:48 AM, "'d.michael.shafer at gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>' d.michael.shafer at gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com> [biochar]" <biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>   
> According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.
>  
> As for emissions, I am personally surprised by any claim that TLUDs emit methane. The entire point of a good stack is to encourage methane to burn at a high temp to break down other GHGs. Certainly none of our emissions tests has registered any CH4.
>  
> Out here it is nigh on impossible to get a closed room for testing emissions from a trough or trench. (Thai universities see no interest in uncompensated research in the public good.) The water wrapped methane molecules strikes me as improbable, although I think that the suggested risk to the climate is so great that someone needs to re-run these emissions tests immediately.
>  
> M
>  
>  
>  
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> [biochar] <biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>   
> [Attachment(s) <x-msg://6/#m_4012556554620465370_TopText> from Anderson, Paul included below]
> 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 <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: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>> 
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
> To: Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
> Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper at ithaka-institut.org <mailto: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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
> Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
> An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>>
> Cc: "biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>" <biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto: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 <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: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>> 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
> To: Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto: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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
> Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
> An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>>, "biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>" <biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>>
> Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto: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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
> 
> Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434
> 
> Website:   www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
>  
> 
> __._,_.___
> Posted by: "d.michael.shafer at gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>" <d.michael.shafer at gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>>
> Reply via web post <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/24623;_ylc=X3oDMTJyMWZyOHEwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMyNDYyMwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE1NTA5Mjk2OTQ-?act=reply&messageNum=24623>	
> •
> 
> Reply to sender  <mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20Methane%20from%20char-makers%20%5B1%20Attachment%5D>	
> •
> 
> Reply to group  <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20Methane%20from%20char-makers%20%5B1%20Attachment%5D>	
> •
> 
> Start a New Topic <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNjJrc2xpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA5Mjk2OTQ->	
> •
> 
> Messages in this topic <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/topics/24610;_ylc=X3oDMTM3bjJodDIyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMyNDYyMwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA5Mjk2OTQEdHBjSWQDMjQ2MTA-> (11) 
> 
> <image001.jpg>
>  <>Have you tried the highest rated email app? <https://yho.com/1wwmgg>
> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
> VISIT YOUR GROUP <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbGtqcXVxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA5Mjk2OTQ->
> <image002.jpg> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlM3ZlMzViBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTU1MDkyOTY5NA-->
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>  
> SPONSORED LINKS
> <image003.jpg>
> <image003.jpg>
> <image003.jpg>
> .
> <image003.jpg>
> <image003.jpg>
> __,_._,___
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190223/7d7aa074/attachment.html>