[Stoves] Continuing in response to Crispin and James
d.michael.shafer at gmail.com
d.michael.shafer at gmail.com
Sun Feb 24 22:19:27 CST 2019
Crispin,
I like the permafrost argument, to a point. My point would be that by the
time currently frozen permafrost zones have melted to the point that they
are supporting major carbon-sink forests, we are going to be toast. Were
that not worrisome, we would also be applauding the use of fossil fuels
which also began as forests.
The timing of the whole show matters or rather, the time scale matters. At
issue is where our short time scale matters relative to the global time
scale. Even if we accept that we "caused" the current warming, we know that
the world has been this hot before. Does it matter? Should we care?
Interesting questions. One thing that has always amazed and amused me is
the rapidity and complexity of nature's responses to our worst abuses. Why
should we expect these processes to stop working without us? Indeed, why
should we expect humans not to adapt as have so many other species? Put
differently, are we worried about "life on earth" or our "life style on
earth"?
M
Michael Shafer
www.warmheartworldwide.org
www.twitter.com/warmheartorg
http://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide
<http://www.youtube.com/warmheartvideo>
[image: photo]
*Dr. D. Michael Shafer*
Founder and Director, Warm Heart
+1 732-745-9295 | +66 (0)85 199-2958 | d.michael.shafer at gmail.com
www.warmhearworldwide.org | Skype: d.michael.shafer53 <#>
61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
<http://www.facebook.com/d.michael.shafer>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelshaferwarmheart?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile>
<http://twitter.com/warmheartorg>
<https://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide/>
Latest Tweet: <https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg> Oh, yes. THE critical
message for all students. Think beyond or live a small life forever.
https://t.co/I1E7YBGsOd Read More
<https://twitter.com/WarmHeartOrg/statuses/1085712958934712320>
Get your own email signature
<https://www.wisestamp.com/signature-in-email?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:17 AM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
> Dear Paul
>
>
>
> I will end my contribution by asking that you not reject my analysis of
> permafrost. I live in Canada where there is a huge amount of permafrost and
> 15,000 years there was FAR more of it. Where it melted, there are now
> forests covering millions of sq kilometers. This is not disputable. From
> 200km north of me to the treeline, there used to be permafrost. Now it is
> unbroken forest.
>
>
>
> The standard arguments (presentations) about “methane” are partial. There
> is no point describing an elephant as a wall because it has large flat
> sides. You must look at the whole picture.
>
>
>
> Seeing some or other effect in context gives meaning. If you are going to
> step into speculations about climate impacts, you have to be prepared to
> understand the context. Methane *on its own* in an atmosphere with
> nothing else that is IR radiatively interactive can have some CO2e value,
> but when emitted into an atmosphere with a large amount of water vapour
> many of is (sharp) absorption bands are already saturated. Here
> <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/041/jresv41n6p615_a1b.pdf> is a
> paper on the calculated absorption bands for methane. Dr Tom Sheahen takes
> up this point in more detail here
> <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/>.
> The first chart co-plots the absorption bands of H2O (the most important
> GHG), CO2 (which as 2% of the effect of H2O), O3 (nearly no effect on IR
> save in one sharp band), N2O (two narrow bands), CH4 (two very narrow bands
> with 20 times the effect of CO2, but there is very little of it: 1.7 ppm)
> and CO (apart from being very low in concentration, is overlapped entirely
> by N2O, and CO doesn’t live long).
>
>
>
> CH4 absorbs 20 times as much IR as CO2 *if there is nothing else around*.
> Well, there is, so it doesn’t. Looking up a number on a chart doesn’t tell
> you what that material does in practice in a real atmosphere. Typical
> <https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/the-big-3-co2-ch4-n2o/>
> conversations about relative forcing give a nod to H2O as being the most
> important, then ignore it.
>
>
>
> There is nothing you can do with stoves or char production that makes a
> dent in anything to do with methane other than reduce the total that would
> have been produced. To “create more” you would have to show that without
> doing anything, leaving the biomass to grow then die and rot, would produce
> less CH4 than burning it. It produces more (the aforementioned methane
> that is supposed to come from melting permafrost. They can’t have it both
> ways. Either it produces less when rotted or less when burned really badly.
> My view is that it produces far less when burned in any practical device.
> Producing char is not only burning some of what might have become methane,
> the rest of the carbon is locked into the char so it is not even available.
>
>
>
> There is no monster in the closet.
>
> Sleep tight.
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hans-Peter, Crispin and all,
>
> 1. To HPS, Do not be "sorry" about triggering this discussion. Much
> good is already coming, IMO. BUT I do strongly disagree with your
> interpretation about the methane (to the extent that there is some) as a
> factor to counteract the sequestration value of biochar into soil. MAYBE
> part of the disagreement relates to "low temp" pyrolysis. This discussion
> will continue.
> 2. To Crispin: I am agreeing with you about the methane from
> pyrolysis (char-production) not having massive impact. But your most
> recent comment does not hold up (such as about permafrost melting and have
> forests where there is now tundra and all is fine).
>
> SHORT messages above because I am having some computer app problems with
> email.
>
> Let the discussions continue.
>
>
>
> Paul
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2019 6:09:16 AM
> *To:* d.michael.shafer at gmail.com; Anderson, Paul
> *Cc:* biochar; Stove Discussion; Hans-Peter Schmidt; Kathleen Draper;
> Hugh McLaughlin
> *Subject:* Re: Continuing in response to Crispin and James
>
>
>
> 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> 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 Skype: paultlud
>
> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138554976373&sdata=FGXDfM90zWGl0fJ4KJJzhVNhDXWwWbEEiDyNXO%2BDnPc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *From:* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 23, 2019 3:38 PM
> *To:* Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu>; d.michael.shafer at gmail.com;
> biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> *Cc:* Stove Discussion <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Hans-Peter
> Schmidt <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>; Kathleen Draper <
> kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com>; Hugh McLaughlin <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.
>
>
>
> The focus should remain on delivering effective and appreciated cooking
> services at low cost. To a certain extent, but not obsessively, the memes
> about charcoal being the enemy of the environment should be countered with
> realistic quantification and the promotion of modern science and
> engineering. Aircraft engineering and cell phone technologies get modern
> science behind them, why not domestic fuels?
>
>
>
> Thanks for raising awareness
>
> Crispin
>
> ********************
>
> *Here is the message from James Joyce that also adds valuable content:*
>
> In terms of measuring CH4 emissions, thought I would mention that we found
> nearly a decade ago that CO (carbon monoxide) was an reliable indicator of
> combustion efficiency in the emissions control stage of our systems. We
> compared VOC, CH4 and HC readings to CO readings. CO is one of the last
> gases to “go”, with an autoignition temperature of 690 deg C compared to
> 540-600 deg C for methane, depending which reference you use. Most other
> species have an autoignition temperature in in the range of 350 to 500 deg
> C. CO is relatively cheap to analyse for using a chemical cell meter like a
> https://www.testo.com/en-US/testo-310/p/0563-3100
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.testo.com%2Fen-US%2Ftesto-310%2Fp%2F0563-3100&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138554996331&sdata=Clqan6IAXcb%2F7RvfKnS0sTwBpqUyBkbV44TQHL%2FUqAs%3D&reserved=0>
> .
>
> We find that CO readings less than 200 ppmv (at less than 10% O2)
> indicate effective destruction of all hydrocarbon species (i.e. >98.5%).
> Obviously is important to take the readings where you are not getting lots
> of air dilution, which could be hard for a stove. We find that thermal
> oxidation of biomass off-gas for 2 seconds residence time at more than 850
> deg C can yield CO readings as low as zero. That probably can’t be achieved
> in flame cap devices due to radiant heat losses. All I can suggest is to
> achieve temperatures exceeding 600 deg C in the flame cap for as long as
> possible. I think high double wall sides would help in this regard. If the
> flames are escaping from the stove or flame cap kiln they will almost
> certainly be releasing more unburnt hydrocarbons than if they are contained
> within a sidewall, because when they escape they are rapidly quenched.
>
> *********** [ end of message by James Joyce ]***********
>
> *From:* psanders at ilstu.edu
>
> *Sent:* February 23, 2019 12:49 PM
>
> *To:* d.michael.shafer at gmail.com; biochar at yahoogroups.com
>
> *Cc:* stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org; schmidt at ithaka-institut.org;
> kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com; crispinpigott at outlook.com;
> wastemin1 at verizon.net
>
> *Subject:* RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
> Michael, Hans-Peter (HPS), and all,
>
>
>
> 1. Several days of messages. The chemists and testing-experts have not
> replied (yet).
>
>
>
> 2. HPS has provided two publications that indicate methane, but there are
> no “replications” that confirm nor deny. Basically, we have very little
> info.
>
>
>
> 3. This thread of discussion started because HPS mentioned significant
> methane from Kon-Tiki (and by association, other flame-cap devices/
> combustion).
>
>
>
> 4. The question remains: Is methane is so important that methane
> emissions from char-making could negate (cancel, or even be worse than
> char) the impact of PyCCS (that includes sequestration of carbon as
> biochar)?
>
>
>
> 5. If this is true, then this could shatter the prospects for PyCCS. We
> cannot sweep this under the table. It must be understood. There is a
> difference between knowing the impact (or lack of impact, so we can forget
> about this) versus just dropping the topic as if it perhaps doesn’t matter
> (or that it is contrary to what we want to believe).
>
>
>
> 6. I do seriously question whether TLUD stoves (all or most of them) emit
> methane of consequence, versus the published results about stoves that are
> reported to be TLUDs but do we know for sure and what fuel was used and if
> operated correctly.
>
>
>
> 7. What do Jim Jetter and Tami Bond (both are not yet receiving these
> messages) and Hugh McLaughlin and Crispin PP and others say? If in fact
> they did test for methane? Do we reach out to the authors of the
> publications that HPS provided? I hope that HPS can assist further.
>
>
>
> I think this topic should be of highEST interest to the IBI and USBI and
> others. Please assist.
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555006338&sdata=QbO3joRrW9iCB7HpfVh7O3s16oZCi%2F6%2B36f1eBdLZGs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *From:* d.michael.shafer at gmail.com <d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:48 AM
> *To:* biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Schmidt, Hans-Peter <
> schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>; Kathleen Draper <kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com>;
> Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
> 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
> [biochar] <biochar at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> *[**Attachment(s)*
> <#m_-6964943923316725753_x_m_-2699343958059036340_m_352888682402>* 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 Skype: paultlud
>
> Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555026411&sdata=gcxq8pKyq%2F%2FhcKpd%2F2zRYrAncfhblOBsKViRehRDPw4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *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
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555036355&sdata=awY3UfzTw9PzMY%2BcYkp8AP4%2Fs%2FGPnel0eYlRyIZtXFA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ftime_continue%3D138%26v%3DRok9a28IJqQ&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555046420&sdata=tzeQvrG%2F4Z7u7qXE9EOjKaV7qjAElAObYcZjUMa2Vcc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *???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
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555066390&sdata=60%2BtKfB588mgIumFn7GFLAVkiDeHlqCZybLlOh7sN7w%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
>
> *Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul* | View attachments on the web
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.yahoo.com%2Fneo%2Fgroups%2Fbiochar%2Fattachments%2F465317892%3B_ylc%3DX3oDMTJyOTdhbms2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDYXR0YWNobWVudARzbGsDdmlld09uV2ViBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA3NTk5NDE-&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555076386&sdata=EaSkcI1VDqP%2FIOSX3SNQycPzwV12%2FPdi83hil15iqJI%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *1 of 1 File(s) *
>
> cornelissen-kon-tiki_2016_PLOSOne.pdf
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F22438052%2F1884038946%2Fname%2Fcornelissen-kon-tiki_2016_PLOSOne%252Epdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C06daedc98bb34d17b31608d69a60f530%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636866138555086445&sdata=msBOSN8Ibgx5btqqDdSrRRe4GtKgMyvZsOvbDWjIDfs%3D&reserved=0>
> ------------------------------
>
> Posted by: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> ------------------------------
>
> _T
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/28ff6fb0/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list