[Stoves] [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

[Schmidt, Hans-Peter]

Dear Michael, 

Thanks for your kind reply. I completely agree with you that any type of charring is better than burning crop wastes in the field. Any incentive to abandon this terrible practice is good (it took Europe 30 years to abandon this practice). However, I do not think that selling carbon credits for carbon sinks that are not really carbon sinks are a long term solution. It has to be named what it is not what it not is, and then you can build a sophisticated economic system on it. It could be emission reduction (that can be neatly calculated) or air quality improvement or ecosystem services. Governments in Europe pay farmers all sorts of subsidies to reduce the environmental burden of agriculture. Farmers cannot be let alone with it as these are national and global problems where farmers are the weakest part of chain.    

Both, China and India, identified it as their major problem (beside lignite burning) for the devastating air pollution. Their progress (especially in India) is slow but they do progress. As for climate change, air quality and ecosystem services need wise government programs and decisions, we as innovative entrepreneurs or scientists can only help set them on the right track in showing how it may work. 

With a proper carbon sink certification and trade (at 50 Eur / t CO2), it will become extremely profitable for tropical farmers to sell their biomass for pyrolysis (with (E-pyrolysis) systems turning 90% of the carbon into storage). I know that this may sound like the second step before the first, but that is the vision we are working on. And as it is one of the only long term solutions we have to handle climate change, I am still positive to see massive changes in the next 10 years. However, to implement it we need water proof certification schemes assessing only the part of a sink that is really a sink – and that is what the discussion here is about. 

Be well, Hans-Peter

 

Von: "d.michael.shafer at gmail.com" <d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>
Datum: Montag, 25. Februar 2019 um 04:30
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>, biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>, Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Kathleen Draper <kdraper2 at rochester.rr.com>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>, Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net>
Betreff: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

 

Han-Pieter,

 

No apologies required. This is a sensitive subject and the discussion has proved very informative. Thank you, in particular, for clarifying a number of points here that were previously missing in the discussion. First, the 20 time horizon. Yes, the GWP of methane declines rapidly over time, starting much higher than 25 and falling to 25 as the "at 100 years standard." I think that it is very important to make the short-term time scale of these calculations clear because I have never encountered them before. Everyone I know and all of the articles with which I am familiar use the 100 year standard. Second, there is your contention that TLUDs and Kon-Tikis operate in the same universe. I think that they do not. In our TLUDs, the rising gases, including of course, CH4, meet the air arriving at the gap above the barrel and instantly ignite. As they flame up the stack and above, they reach very high temperatures. Thermal gun measurements have reached almost 1,000 C. I do not believe that at this temperature we are throwing off much CH4. Our one closed room rest did not register any. Our troughs and trenches, like all Kon-Tikis and flame-caps, are another matter. Not having any data on temperature, James Joyce's comment, I do not know what the temperature is or whether it rises above 690 C.

 

Finally, with crop waste fires producing 5.82 kg of CH4/tonne of biomass burned and using the GWP multiplier of 25, CH4 from crop waster burning is a big issue, especially when combined with the other primary emission, NOx at 3.11 kg/tonne and a GWP multiplier of 298. When there are hundreds of billions of tonnes of crop waste that cannot be collected for high tech pyrolysis, this means that for every one of those hundreds of billions of tonnes, 1.073 tonnes of eCO2 is being emitted. Because this stuff can be charred only using loc-tech, the loss in the methan component of eCO2 calculations is very hard on anyone trying to find a way to engage the rural poor of the developing world in charring not burning. Profit margins are razor thin already and the potential of carbon sales at present offers the only hope that sustainable business models can be found.

 

You may be correct, but if so, there are a huge number of small farmers who will have no incentive not to burn.

 

M

 

 


Michael Shafer
www.warmheartworldwide.org
www.twitter.com/warmheartorg

http://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide



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 
 

 

  
 

Latest Tweet: Oh, yes. THE critical message for all students. Think beyond or live a small life forever. https://t.co/I1E7YBGsOd Read More 
Get your own email signature 

 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:49 PM Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt at ithaka-institut.org> wrote:

Dear all, 

I am sorry for having provoked this sensitive debate. The context of the discussion was a talk about carbon sink certification that Paul attended. For a C-sink certification it is necessary to assess not only the amount of carbon that is stored somewhere (e.g. in soil or buildings) but also the greenhouse gases that were emitted for the establishment of the sink. In regard to biochar based carbon sinks this includes the production of the initial biomass, transportation, transformation, leakage, decomposition. The emissions of the pyrolysis process are thus part of the overall carbon balance that needs to be included when calculating the global warming/cooling potential of a biochar based carbon sink. As an example, I provided a diagram showing the strong influence of methane on the global warming potential of low tech pyrolyses. Methane emissions are rather low though due to its very high global warming potential of 70 to 100 CO2e over the first 20 (!!) years, the impact is considerable. There is no big difference between wild fires, Kon-Tikis or TLUDs in regard to CH4 though their CH4 emissions decrease with the humidity content of the feedstock and of the combustion air. 

Higher tech pyrolysis systems with sophisticated pyrolysis gas combustion (i.e. residence time of > 2 sec in > 800°C combustion chambers or, much better, flameless oxidation) oxidize methane to a much higher extend (getting practically to 0). However, in our C-sink certification scheme, we do measure pyrolysis emissions including CH4 for high tech pyrolysis plants too (this was the initial reason why we discussed the issue).

Now, what does it mean that due to CH4-emissions TLUDs and Kon-Tikis become carbon negative only after 20 to 50 years? It does not mean that TLUDs or Kon-Tikis are bad for the environment or for the climate. CH4 is not a crucial point for TLUDs or Kon-Tikis as long as they are optimized and well handled (i.e. dry feedstock). Many people use the Kon-Tiki in many countries of the world to produce organic biochar based fertilizers, to increase yields and food security. TLUDs save many lives in rural houses in addition to producing biochar. Globally seen, these low tech devices have so many advantages for the people and for the environment. 

The only issue is that when you want to trade carbon certificates with Kon-Tiki or TLUD produced biochar, the methane would have to be considered and would make the carbon balance positive for at least the first 20 - 50 years which means you cannot sell C-certificates. But that does not mean, that TLUDs and Kon-Tikis should get negative press.

 

Those who pretend that there is no scientific data about CH4 emissions and for those who still doubt that the GWP of CH4 is about 150 CO2e in the first year, 70 – 100 CO2e after 20 years and 28 to 35 after 100 years, they could read the attached papers (already sent several times) as well as the latest two IPCC reports. Doubting that TLUDs or Kon-Tiki produce methane is like doubting climate change because there are not enough scientific data. It is physically impossible to make biochar in a TLUD or Kon-Tiki without producing methane. However, it only matters when you want to sell carbon credits as it cancels out the sequestered biochar carbon for at least 20 years. However, reducing CH4 emission through optimized devices and dry feedstock can change the GHG balance reaching climate neutrality after 20 to 50 years instead of 200 years or never and makes a huge difference. 

 

When run properly, optimized low tech devices are fantastic with all sort of benefits for nature, agriculture and health. CH4 is only one of the aspects that needs to be taken additionally into account especially as some hope to sell carbon credits for it.       

   

Best, Hans-Peter

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Datum: Samstag, 23. Februar 2019 um 18:49
An: "d.michael.shafer at gmail.com" <d.michael.shafer at gmail.com>, 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>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>, Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net>
Betreff: 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 

 

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) 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 

 

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

???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 

 

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul | View attachments on the web 

1 of 1 File(s) 

cornelissen-kon-tiki_2016_PLOSOne.pdf

Posted by: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu> 

Reply via web post •Reply to sender •Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1) 
Have you tried the highest rated email app? 

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 

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 

 

SPONSORED LINKS

.


__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/c52e1bb5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/c52e1bb5/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 424 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/c52e1bb5/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 361 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/c52e1bb5/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 334 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190225/c52e1bb5/attachment-0003.jpg>