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

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

Agree, but

1. Fuels do matter. Hans-Peter brought up lignite. There is some lignite in
India but its distribution to non-power users is restricted. Its main
contribution to air pollution comes, I think, from brick kilns in certain
areas. I don't know what alternative combustors are viable for these kilns.
Also, I think some lignite is high-sulfur; substitution by hard coal or
wood or agro wastes will change the emission profile and, depending on
meteorological conditions, pollution profiles. I don't remember ever seeing
much lignite in Chinese statistics. Maybe sub-bituminous (which India
doesn't have much of).

2. Non-combustion wastes of fuels also matter. It's not all combustion
technology.

I am aghast at the stovers and the gassers babbling about air quality.
Fuels are not emissions are not concentrations are not exposures are not
all there is to health.

Nikhil


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*



On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 3:01 PM Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Hans-Peter
>
>
>
> >Both, China and India, identified it as their major problem (beside
> lignite burning) for the devastating air pollution.
>
> It is a continuous surprise to me that whenever China and air pollution
> are discussed, the fuel is blamed, not the combustor. Is that not very,
> very strange?
>
> The problem in China is the incomplete combustion of coal, not its
> combustion. Without deviating into all the minor elements of the matter, I
> think we should stand strong and resist the tendency of some to blame a
> fuel for the incomplete combustion of it.
>
> Wood is facing the same bias, but to a lesser extent because clean
> combustion of biomass is at least admitted to be possible, even if most of
> it is not. Unhelpfully, blaming charcoal for the fraction of those who
> produce it in an appallingly bad manner is not a statement about charcoal,
> it is about behaviour of producers.  To tackle this in Rwanda, at least 5
> production improvement projects were running simultaneously to stop the
> waste and pollution. Why? Because there was recognition that people were
> going to continue to use it as a domestic fuel for a long time.  So instead
> of throwing ashes over their hair and wailing and gnashing their teeth,
> they showed people how to produce it properly.
>
> As for coal combustion, it is not difficult to burn coal properly.  We
> have been discussing this
> <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31282> paper recently
> which is one demonstration of how to do it in a challenging working
> environment. The system works, and the users no longer have a problem of
> “devastating air pollution”.  I didn’t mention it here before but this is
> also a low-NOx burner.
>
> For reasons I do not understand, this success is considered to be a
> problem in some circles.  Imagine showing that a big problem can be solved
> cheaply and conveniently within the budget and skill-set of those affected?
>
> You’d think people would celebrate instead of denigrate.  Rwanda, by the
> way, is now producing its charcoal within the country in a sustainably
> manner. I started in Haiti too, but has a long way to go. Chad did it for 4
> years then stopped (because the charcoal mafia could no longer make
> money).  I am sure there is a coal mafia and a wind mafia and a PV mafia
> and a wood fuel mafia as well. None of that means people cannot learn to
> burn fuel properly. It is just convenient for them to say it cannot. Lie,
> in other words.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20190228/2291d77b/attachment.html>