[Stoves] Continuing in response to Crispin and James

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dan!

As we say in Swaziland, "Menlo mandala!". It means my eyes have grown old since I last saw you.

Isn't it amazing what you can learn on the stoves list?

About the steel: isn't the purpose of the super low oxygen environment intended to reduce the oxidation of the iron?

It would keep the temperature up as high as possible while maintaining was nearly no available O2. Make sense?

About the glaciers, the only reason they flow to the sea is they are pushed from behind. I am speaking of those that are really big. The ones that terminate on land are not so interesting but there are lots of them. Just because a glacier flows doesn't mean there is a net change in mass. Let's suppose there is a drop in mass. That means the total water mass in the oceans rises. The land moves up (rebound) the sea floor moves down. The Hudson Bay shore is rebounding about 40mm per year, with, as you say, a delay of several thousand years.  All things considered sea level rises - very slowly these days compared with 10,000 years ago.

Those that calculate such things have recently changed how sea level is reported, meaning how it is calculated. They are adding an estimated depth increase to the actual rise, and report it as " sea level rise" even though the sea level doesn't rise that much.  So the number you an find now reported is padding: about 50% of it. Amazing, right? Sounds like good old stove testing. You can't really trust anything you hear, even about simple things.

How's the bush clearing going? Can you get a large propane tank to use as a charcoal kiln?

Best regards
Crispin

From: carefreeland at aol.com
Sent: February 24, 2019 3:46 PM
To: crispinpigott at outlook.com
Cc: schmidt at ithaka-institut.org; kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com; biochar at yahoogroups.com; d.michael.shafer at gmail.com; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org; psanders at ilstu.edu; wastemin1 at verizon.net
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Continuing in response to Crispin and James


Crispin and all.  A quick check of The MAKING SHAPING and TREATING of STEEL notes the following.  Blast furnace gas has zero methane.. It has 27.5% of CO and even 1% H2 makes it through the reaction. While methane, fuel oil, and even steam are introduced to balance the smelting reactions, methane and hydrocarbons do not make it out. Note this is a high temperature yet oxygen starved reaction. In any half efficient combustion devise that allows adaquate secondary air, the methane and light hydrocarbons are first to combust.

Now, Crispin, according to your hypothesis:  Any glacier melting would raise sea level, but the sea would sink deeper from the added weight. This would keep the actual level constant.  I say maybe after 10,000 year lag or more. - Dan Dimiduk.

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid
On Feb 24, 2019 7:09 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
Dear Paul and Mike and All

An important addition to Mike's comment about the stack temperature of 900 is that it must have some minimum O2 content for the statement to be true in general.

On the topic of many charcoal kilns in a confined space on a windless day etc. This question seems to confuse radiative effects of GHG's with "air pollution".

There is no way charcoal making can compare with rotting that vegetation to gases, in terms of its net GHG effects. The whole point that has been made is that charcoal is a way of holding the carbon. Methane can't be made without carbon. If the char exists, the methane and CO2 that would have been produced by rotting doesn't.

For example, the alarming claim that melting permafrost "will produce a lot of methane" is based on the fact that permafrost is full of frozen forest products. Of course it will produce methane, at least it will in summer, but there are two other questions that must be answered at the same time as the methane bomb is mooted: how did that forest debris get there in the first place (it grew there the last time it was warm enough to do so) and what will grow there if the ground is melted (another forest, of course, far more than offsetting the effects of any methane).

So there is no meaningful net effect of methane "influence" on the atmosphere other than the new forest which will grow on that land will again start sequestering CO2. Proof? Look south - what do you see, an endless forest. In other words the net effect is the opposite of the myopic (partial) analysis given by the methane bomb advocates.

Frankly, this charcoal-making-methane bomb equivalent is a tempest in a tea cup, a thimble, an eye-dropper. When I stand on the shore and piss into the ocean, it raises sea levels. That is half the story. The other half is I weigh less so the ground under me rises and deepens the ocean, cancelling my "influence".

Charcoaling systems should burn the effluent to prevent smoke which is a pollutant. However if we managed to completely suppress all fires in all forests and grasslands, it would probably stop raining because raindrops form around aerosol particles, a large fraction of which are from bad combustion.

In times of drought on the Great Plains, the First Nations people learned to recognise supersaturated conditions in the air and lit grass fires to cause the formation of raindrops which then fell in the vicinity. Rainmaking is a real thing. If they instead made charcoal in a modern kiln it wouldn't have worked. Too clean.

Crispin's rule number one: Never assume anything.

Regards
Crispin assuming this is adequate



From: d.michael.shafer at gmail.com
Sent: February 24, 2019 1:54 AM
To: psanders at ilstu.edu
Cc: crispinpigott at outlook.com; biochar at yahoogroups.com; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org; schmidt at ithaka-institut.org; kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com; wastemin1 at verizon.net
Subject: Re: Continuing in response to Crispin and James


Thank you for the useful information.

Crispin, although I am not sure I am as sanguine as you about the limited relative importance of CH4 from char making, I think that your observations about the extent of anaerobic decomp and rain forests is sweet.

James, For those of us who are equipment challenged, your observations about temperature are great. While measuring CH4 may be difficult, temp is easy. We know, for example, that our stacks run at 900 C + which explains why we have no CH4 emissions.

Your suggestion re temp also suggests a simple way to test for the possibility of CH4 - inserting temp probes, say 4 or 5, stacked one above the other from burn surface up. If the probes routinely fail to break 690 C, we have every reason to worry.

M

..
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 10:53 AM Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:

Crispin,

Thank you. Well stated.

One question I have is about scale. A TLUD stove or 1000 of them together are still small. But would a full size Kon Tiki flame-cap kiln (or 100 of them) alter the scenario that you describe? I am asking for your opinion, because there never have been 100 large flame-cap kilns operating together, so measured results are not possible. And consider that they could be well operated (no winds) vs. poorly operated (windy day with damp fuel). In other words, would scale up in very large numbers alter your statements?

With respect for alternative explanations, or for some confirmation, I hope that some who are more informed than I am (the chemist types) to make comments. Also, there should be opportunity for those who published papers (or the peer reviewers) to respond. I hope that Hans-Peter might comment on this aspect.

To All: Please note, we seek clarification, not to make one person correct and another person incorrect. The instruments for measurement can give sufficient rationale for some statements.

On the other hand, if this large discussion about methane-during-char-making is essentially concluded without much more discussion, then your (Crispin’s) comments will be circulated and saved and quoted in subsequent discussions about PyCCS and climate impact. Let’s get it right, as best we can.

Note: As I was writing the above, an excellent additional message was posted by James Joyce. I have appended that message below after the one by Crispin.

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<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C24548fe6aa4e40beeceb08d69a993563%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866380144249848&sdata=EioetWpn6w0iO6ow0qdWZjOjXceb8adQ74COZkY9qwk%3D&reserved=0>

From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 3:38 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>; d.michael.shafer at gmail.com<mailto:d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>; biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>>
Cc: Stove Discussion <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>; Hans-Peter Schmidt <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>>; Kathleen Draper <kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com<mailto:kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com>>; Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net<mailto:wastemin1 at verizon.net>>
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

Dear Paul

Since you asked:

Measurement of methane is done using a CxHy detector (which burns it, if it is cheap, makes it glow if it is expensive). Such a device is in the NDIR detector of the 500 and 700 series of ENERAC combustion analyzers. They measure CO2, CO and CxHy with the same cell.

The main point is that the exact molecule sought is not accurate, it is "centered'. This means the detector is set to report CH4 (which is C1H4 and thus a CxHy) in the centre of its detection range. You could have it set to C2H6 if you wanted. It will report "CxHy" but it is really the combination of several different gases with the methane reported mostly.

So the detection of methane accurately is not really available in small, inexpensive devices.

The numbers you cite for the CO2e of methane are unusually high. There is extremely little methane in the atmosphere inspire of thousands of points of leakage of natural gas (seeps) into the atmosphere. That low value is because it is quickly converted to CO2. Further, there a host of critters that take it directly for food.

The idea that charcoal making could produce enough methane to be detectable against the huge natural leakage is far fetched. There is a large cloud of detectable methane over all tropical forests created by rotting wood. That is far more than could ever be produced by turning the wood waste into charcoal.

Anytime you want to paint some scary scenario you should force people to put numbers on it so it can be viewed in perspective. It takes place in a context where there are huge natural processes in place.

Taken together, turning wood into charcoal or cooking with wood waste and making charcoal, in the context of domestic cooking cannot meaningfully dent anything.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/7db73b4f/attachment.html>