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

[dan weinshenker]

This statement jumps out at me: " ... (with (E-pyrolysis) systems turning
90% of the carbon into storage)."

Is not the correct achievable figure more like 20-30% ?

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:21 AM Schmidt, Hans-Peter <
schmidt at ithaka-institut.org> wrote:

> 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
> <http://www.youtube.com/warmheartvideo>
>
>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt. photo]
>
> *Dr. D. Michael Shafer*
> Founder and Director, Warm Heart
>
> +1 732-745-9295 <+1%20732-745-9295> | +66 (0)85 199-2958
> <+66%20(0)85%20199-2958> | d.michael.shafer at gmail.com
>
> www.warmhearworldwide.org | Skype: d.michael.shafer53
>
> 61 M.8 T.Maepang A.Phrao 50190 Chiang Mai Thailand
>
>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]
> <http://www.facebook.com/d.michael.shafer>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelshaferwarmheart?trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]
> <http://twitter.com/warmheartorg>
>
>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]
> <https://www.facebook.com/warmheartworldwide/>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]
>
>
>
> [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]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 [image: Das Bild wurde vom Absender entfernt.]email signature
> <https://www.wisestamp.com/signature-in-email?utm_source=promotion&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=get_your_own>
>
>
>
> 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)
> <#m_-809987385319382088_m_8074159538654219644_m_401255655462046> 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
> <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
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/attachments/465317892;_ylc=X3oDMTJyOTdhbms2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDYXR0YWNobWVudARzbGsDdmlld09uV2ViBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA3NTk5NDE->
>
> *1 of 1 File(s) *
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]cornelissen-kon-tiki_2016_PLOSOne.pdf
> <https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22438052/1884038946/name/cornelissen-kon-tiki_2016_PLOSOne%2Epdf>
> ------------------------------
>
> Posted by: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Reply via web post
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/24610;_ylc=X3oDMTJyODdya3MzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMyNDYxMARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE1NTA3NTk5NDE-?act=reply&messageNum=24610>
> *
>
> •
>
> Reply to sender
> <psanders at ilstu.edu?subject=Re%3A%20Methane%20from%20char-makers>
>
> •
>
> Reply to group
> <biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Methane%20from%20char-makers>
>
> •
>
> Start a New Topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY2t1MTVvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA3NTk5NDE->
>
> •
>
> Messages in this topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/topics/24610;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZzB0dDllBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMyNDYxMARzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA3NTk5NDEEdHBjSWQDMjQ2MTA->
> (1)
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> 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=X3oDMTJmb25xZ2RjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE1NTA3NTk5NDE->*
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. Yahoo! Groups]
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJldWMwa21uBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTU1MDc1OTk0MQ-->
>
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
> Unsubscribe <biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
> of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
> *[image: Image removed by sender.]*
>
> *[image: Image removed by sender.]*
>
> *[image: Image removed by sender.]*
>
> .
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> __,_._,___
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190225/43124a9e/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/20190225/43124a9e/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/20190225/43124a9e/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/20190225/43124a9e/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/20190225/43124a9e/attachment-0003.jpg>