<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><style>p { margin: 0; }</style><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">Stove list:<br><br> In advance - apologies. I am combining answers to 3 different messages from yesterday - all pretty much directed to me. Sorry for the length but glad I have generated this much discussion on an important stove topic.<br><br>1. From George (Gambia) on the 12th, quoting me (and he responding in blue)<br><br>a. "Partly
this can be done locally, but also these same unemployed can plant and manage
trees. They can also prepare wood of the proper type for shipment to
cities for use in pyrokyzing stoves (and thosecity people save in the
process). The same tree used as wood can probably cook for 4 to 5 times
as many people (I have seen the number 7). And the properly managed tree
(and its roots) will not be savaged - but rather coppiced.<br><font color="#0000ff">Well yes I can say that sitting here to - let's start with
Texas. I heard they seem to have alot of spare land available now and
because they too have been mismanaging their resources they just have
discovered that water actually can be recycled. Not really sure where you got
these figures from but i'd be interested to get hold of one of these stoves
that increases efficiency of ANY fuel by 700 %!</font>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <strong>[RWL1a: Please re-read my sentence, I did not say what you are saying I said. Crispin (below) has it right. We are talking about the whole process of getting energy out of an input biomass. Many of us believe that a pyrolyzing stove can be twice as efficient as a charcoal-burning jiko. Many of us believe that the (illegal) production of char out in the bush is getting at best about 1/3 of the available wood energy into the char. Put these together and you have a factor of 6 - and there are cases that are worse. And the illegal charcoal-maker is not planting trees, whereas someone making char legally might well be.</strong><br><br>There is
a good reason for most laws and I hate to see the subject of illegal charcoal
making going undiscussed.<br><font color="#0000ff">I thought this is a stove
discussen forum?</font></div>
<strong>[RWL1b: I was the first stoves list coordinator fifteen years ago - and can guarantee that we have talked a lot on this list about the horrors of what illegal char-making out in the bush can do. I saw it from a year in Sudan and the errors behind charcoal-using stoves is the main reason I started talking about this - before there was a stoves list. I write now from a climate perspective, but deforestation and desertification is just as important (and reversing these are the best way to solve our climate problems.) We don't have much discussion here on jikos - but this is all about replacing them.]</strong><br><br><br>2. From <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ngwasiri P Ndasi </span>(Cameroon), who wrote yesterday:<br>
<br>"rongretlarson; in response to your question <br><br> <span style="color:#1F497D;"></span><span style="color:black;font-style:italic;">Does anyone know of any African country where char production is considered a plus for the economy? </span><br><br>In
cameroon where i live, biochar is really not known but charcool
production actually is a plus to the economy and soical life of the
people. This is due to the wide application of charcoal in house hold
revenue generating activities. For exaple, about 20% of household depend
on roasting fish at night by the road sides which they sell to take
care of their families and more than 66% of the population consume
roasted fish in the evening. semilar senarios are seen in the roasting
of corn or miaze and plums<br><br> <strong>[RWL2: You answered the question only from the perspective of char users and char makers. That is fair and your answer might be partially right - as I was not sufficiently explicit. I meant Government (example Cameroon) lawmakers, administrators, planners - folks who are looking down the road a decade or two. Please let me know if you think those who are looking out for the general, not a few individual, Cameroon welfare would agree with your response.</strong><br> <strong>My point is that those folk will be a lot better off if they can be given an alternative - and that alternative is Biochar. They will spend less for cooking the fish and they will leave (via a more porductive soil) a better future for their children.<br> I searched around quite a while for more on the illegality of char-making in the Cameroon - but didn't find a definitive answer. I found plenty of mention that 50% of the country's logging is illegal. There are probably plenty who say that income is needed by needy rural folk also.<br> The key word here is sustainabililty - and I ask you whether you personally feel that Cameroon is on a sustainable path as regards cooking energy and biomass resources? <br> Take a look at this document, which summarizes what I am trying to get across - and has a little on Cameroon. Dan Kammen has since moved to a very senior position at the World Bank:<br> <br></strong><span class="Object" id="OBJ_PREFIX_DWT963"><a target="_blank" href="http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/very-old-site/Kammen.charcoal.pdf">http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/very-old-site/Kammen.charcoal.pdf</a></span><br><br><br>3. Yesterday, Crispin wrote the following: <br><br><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear Stovers with a Sense of Duty</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As
Ron (as usual) and Paal (as usual) have both taken time out of their
busy days to make derogatory comments about me mixed together with
partially informed (as we all are) and incomplete proposals to interfere
with the natural, economic and social environments of whole nations, I
will take the time to make an extended comment on the subject of
charcoal, its production and use.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> <strong>RWL: I was a little surprised to see that I had made a derogatory comment. In the following I don't see any, but if so I apologize - that was not my intent. I consider Crispin to be very bright on many stove topics - just not all, and least on the value of charcoal in being a key part of our serious climate problems. I am not going to comment much on anything related to Paal, but think Crispin has not responded adequately to what I consider correct and pretty mild remarks from Paal. I don't think Paal is guilty of what he was accused of. My main concern in this part of the message is that we are talking past each other. Paal and are are talking climate issues. These are basically not of concern to Crispin. The word "climate" is rarely in a Crispin message to the list (I get a lot). The word "soil" is acknowledged a little - but not in the sense of my message last night to this list showing big dollar earnings and savings (roughly equal) through the use of a pyrolyzing stove (I have received one off-list message saying I may change that some). I look forward to Crispin's explaining where my last night's example calculation was in error (it was only an example - it won't be true everywhere). The beauty of the pyrolyzing stoves that makes and uses the char in the ground is that the value is cumulatively growing - faster than linearly. A char-making stove user is making more from the stove in the fifth year than the first. My example never used the concept of a carbon credit.<br></strong></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> I believe the gist of Crispin's following arguments to Paal are that the energy content of the char from a char-making stove is more valuable than the value if/when the char is put into the ground. This is probably true in most places, because we (the world)have not agreed that global warming is a huge problem. I am responding in part to make that case, but mostly to say that pyrolyzing (char-making) stoves are the nearest thing we have to a cost-effective carbon negative solution. A lot can be learned through this list as the rest of the world catches up. I believe my economic argument last night can be extended from $ to energy (joules) as well. If one is getting doubled soil productivity with garden plants, we can likely do the same with Jatropha hedges, anything that can go into a pellet, and managed forests. To not burn a piece of char does not mean that life cycle energy has been reduced - any more than in my example for dollars. Repeating - in a positive sentence - placing char in the ground can ease both future energy problems and future cash flow problems. Biochar use is an investment, not an expense.<br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The next page or so is Crispin responding to Paal's ">":</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br></span></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">Biochar
has come to be, no doubt about that, and what happen in Cambia is what
will happen allover as long as you have charcoal fans like Crispin and
others. <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Paal,
you are (again) quite out of line to blame me for what happened to the
forest in the Gambia. It is not helping your argument to turn erect a
straw man of your choosing to knock down. You should listen more
carefully to what I write, not just fling words at me and others who do
not agree with your sweeping partial arguments made in support of your
stove product. Your enthusiasm to assist the people on the ground is
overcoming the social restraint needed to discuss the implications for
societies of the grand schemes thought up on their behalf.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">People are desperate for money. <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Yes,
but are they more desperate for money than we are to promote our
favourite solutions to their problems? Perhaps not. Can’t be sure. So
also the people in also the financial district in London where they burn
(your) money to implement their favourite schemes.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">The
low prices of charcoal will lead to more use of forest, probably short
time cheaper household energy, but also competition about the resources
for production of charcoal. <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">The
first question to ask is why the price is still so low if there is no
forest to cut down. Two reason stand out: it is not from Gambia, and
people can’t afford to pay more (though there are 1/3 higher prices in
the richer parts of Banjul). So that is a supply-side argument, and an
absolute poverty argument. As it tends to, the market sorted out what
the price should be. The charcoal market exists because it is
financially viable and the resources are there.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">The
women of Richards will loose their material for making briquettes with
the enormous quantities char needed for soil improvement.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Let
me rephrase that: the briquette makers are now using a variety of
materials and processing them into briquettes. Char dust is one
ingredient. At the moment there is nearly no competition for this
resource – it is lying on the ground at the markets. The amount of char
needed to achieve a meaningful amount of soil improvement is large.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">If
the special conditions needed to turn cooking char into soil amendment
exist, it may be in Rwanda. Nat is implementing an experiment there on a
large enough scale that it can be viewed as a test bed, an experiment.
If it succeeds or fails does <i>not</i> mean it is automatically
possible to do it somewhere else. There are many factors at play in
something that complex. I hope it works because in theory it is a great
plan. I also hope that it is not dependent on ‘carbon trading’ (CO<sub>2</sub> offset selling) to be economically viable because there are many unintended consequences that emerge from subsidised behaviours.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">Taken
into consideration the fact, the losses of combustible gases lost by
production of charcoal, could nearby cover the need of household energy
for people using charcoal for cooking. <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">This
has always been true. Let’s stick with tree charcoal for a moment. The
difficulty has been to deal with the reality of where the wood is, where
the charcoal use is, and to overcome the huge logistical problems of
moving the tree logs from where they are to where the cooking is done
(mostly cities), chopping and drying them into a size suited to the
stoves and to producing stoves on a meaningful scale that can cook
acceptably using the available material. We are not talking yet about
making char, we are talking about the energy ‘lost’ turning wood into
charcoal and cooking with the result.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Paal,
you have several times stated that the losses are huge and, in effect,
proposed that if the wood were instead put into a stove to make
charcoal, and perhaps burn that too, there would be a gain in energy
available. You have offered numbers that suggest the very low charcoal
conversion efficiency and cooking efficiency indicate that charcoal <i>as a fuel</i>
should be banned completely. I have countered with an alternative
solution and alternative analysis. I suggest that the conversion
efficiency of charcoal can easily and inexpensively be increased a great
deal – approximately tripled. The solutions already exist. Next, the
waste from the present production process should not be left I the
forests and fields but sent to town as well to go into briquette
production. That would increase the net efficiency. Then I proposed that
the stoves be increased in cooking efficiency by approximately 100% -
solutions exist here too.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">I
have also described in detail the calculated energy flow showing that
even at present, there is not much difference between cooking with an
inefficient wood fire and charcoal, taking the original tree into
consideration as the raw material. The reason is simple: crummy charcoal
stoves are much more efficient than crummy wood stoves. When one
contemplates (fantasizes) that the charcoal production and cooking are
done using much better technologies and skill, the charcoal fire again
comes out looking very good compared with wood. Why? Because high
quality, consistent, high carbon fuels are more efficient than
inconsistent wooden branches. Because cities do not (yet) produce enough
domestic energy fuels, ‘energy carriers’ are imported from outside.
Charcoal has more energy density (29.7 MJ/kg) so it is cheaper to
transport. It is also much easier to load and unload, and easier to
transport by bicycle. It is more profitable to move on any scale and
thus the impact of providing the energy can be spread over a larger
geographical region. It can involve more people in the energy business
as a part-time occupation spreading the money farther. Everything that
works against these benefits will have negative consequences for people
and the environment so be careful what you propose as sweeping changes
to whole communities.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">By
changing to charcoal-producing TLUD stoves, whatever Crispin will try
to tell us, you will utilize this gases for cooking and in addition have
about 20% char left, which could go back to soil improvement. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">This
of course has nothing to do with the argument that the energy ‘lost’
producing charcoal (outside town) could be used for cooking. It is a
separate argument. Let us examine it.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">A
TLUD stove uses wood or other biomass to cook. A top-lit up-draft stove
does not necessarily produce charcoal so we have to be clear: some
TLUD’s produce cooking heat and ash, some produce cooking heat and if
operated correctly at the end of the burn, leave unburned charcoal in
various amounts. Top-lighting is an ignition technique and has been used
for centuries to make low-smoke fires. Boy Scouts used it when I was
young. It produces a smoke burning fire. Now that the stove body
encloses the fire, it has become controllable to the point that the
flame is primarily a non-carbon burning one which turns out to be very
easy to make clean and hot. About ½ the carbon in the fuel is burned,
the other half is not – but only with some stoves. It is not inherent in
a TLUD. IT is inherent in certain designs. The initial attraction was
not to the char, it was to the very low smoke level that was measured.
‘TLUD’s burn clean!’ was the cry from the lab. Well, yeah, they usually
do. Now, how about burning all the fuel? After all, the main energy
content of biomass fuel is in the carbon.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Not
all the TLUD’s are good at burning the carbon (we are still talking
about air-dried wood as a fuel). They had a lot of totally dry char left
over which contained a significant percentage of the original heat
content. If 20% of the original mass of the fuel is left, it will be
about 0.5% ash and 85-90% Carbon with an energy content of about 30
MJ/kg which is about 40% of the original heat content. The proposal is
that the TLUD stove cook with the same raw fuel (wood that use to be
charcoaled) and that 40% of the heat will be lost, but charcoal will
remain. I have pointed out that if you do not increase the thermal
efficiency of the stove by more than enough to compensate for this loss,
more fuel will have to be gathered to put into the stove to finish
cooking. You can’t take energy out without a compensating increase in
efficiency.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">To
recap: you have delivered wood to the city and it has about 16 MJ/kg.
You can burn it directly in a fire at a certain efficiency. Or you can
turn it into chunks suitable for TLUD stoves and use about 10 MJ of the
heat, leaving 6 MJ in the form of charcoal. That is the alternative
offer. Well, to cook with the same amount of fuel the TLUD stove will
have to be 1.6 times more efficient than the wood stove. If someone
offers an improved wood stove, say 35% efficient, the TLUD will have to
be 56% efficient to compete on an energy basis. That is a steep
challenge but, possible I would say. I just haven’t seen it yet.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">To get out 25% or 30% charcoal only makes the challenge more….challenging!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Then
comes the argument (confessing that the efficiency challenge is
impossible) that switching to other forms of biomass will fill in the
missing raw fuel requirement. The proposal is that non-woody biomass can
be used instead of wood so the efficiency challenge is avoided. Paal,
this is your main argument: don’t burn wood at all, burn something else.
But as you also pointed out, this creates demand for the raw materials
people making briquettes from non-woody biomass also want. OK, for the
moment let’s suppose those biomass resources exist in some communities
for at least part of the year. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">There
are two proposals: burn the fuel completely, or burn it and extract the
charcoal. The same argument above applies: show that you have enough
fuel (we agree there is for the moment) to overcome the ‘inefficiency’
of subtracting 40% of the energy in the form of char. Arguments resting
on PM and smoke do not apply because we have all sorts of clean burning
stoves around these days. This is purely an energy question. Assuming
the biomass exists, there is a net gain in the available energy supply.
No doubt about it. Whether or not it is char burning or producing only
changes the amount of input material needed.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US">You
would have a win/win situation. By changing from charcoal to TLUD, you
will have more energy, better health, higher agriculture yields, forest
conservation , more jobs, better household economy. What more do you
ned?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">We
would have a win-win. It is not necessary to ‘change to a TLUD’ we need
to make char producing stoves. I do not want to limit inventers to one
type of stove layout. Any non-woody biomass burning stove can deliver
the win-win. The TLUD is one way of doing that, assuming the biomass is
available. We could even produce char, we could collect it (additional
energy), we could sent it to the fields (additional energy), we could
still cook. Great.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">When
proposing this great idea we have NO IDEA what the unintended
consequences of the proposed transformation will be, only the fantasized <i>intended</i>
consequences. That is why they are called ‘unintended consequences’. As
we move into the field, our fantasies may be turned into realities, and
at the same time the <i>unintended</i> consequences will also emerge to be dealt with, if possible.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">The
first reality is that the biomass energy does not exist in some places.
It is sometimes already being burned whole (Harare), turned into
briquettes (Nairobi?), or recycled into the gardens and fields
(everywhere). That problem could be overcome by importing it from rural
areas but the cost per unit of benefit is much higher than with wood of
charcoal because of volume and the low energy density. The viable radius
is small(er). From an energy audit point of view it would be far better
for rural folk to turn their biomass into charcoal pellets and ship
them efficiently to the city. But that promotes charcoal! Oh dear! And
we have been told charcoal is bad. And what about the wasted energy in
the grass-charring process? Well, I said above that we are assuming the
biomass exists for this so let’s char it as an alternative. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Stop
charcoaling trees, and charcoal non-woody biomass. How does that look?
Looks pretty good! No trees cut, charcoal pellets produced (a-la-AD
Karve) and can be done on a small scale. Still involves charcoal trade
to the cities, but this time no tree cutting involved. The work can be
spread over a larger area than with raw biomass (more transport
efficient). It basically comes down to a choice of moving large amounts
of raw biomass, or processed high-carbon fuels. Obviously the processed
fuels are going to be more efficient. Given that all good high carbon
fuel stoves are inherently more efficient than all good raw biomass fuel
stoves (for chemical and combustion reasons) it makes the most sense
for the most people to use charcoal processed in a rural area using
non-woody biomass. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Quite
separately, it people want to put char into the ground (the biomass
existing to supply both cooking and biochar) they can avoid the
complexities and costs of bring it from the cities by creating char in
the rural area and applying it directly to the soil. That is far more
efficient.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Next, let’s assume the needed biomass does <i>not</i>
exist to supply the city’s cooking needs and a growing biochar demand.
In short, the city dwellers will burn anything they can to completion,
and never send char out of the city as it is fuel. The rural folk will
only send into the city enough energy to provide income for their needs
or only spare fuel. It might be processed charcoal, it might be whole
biomass, but it will be what is left over.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Whether or not one uses a TLUD or advanced stove or raw wood or processed pellets, it is pointless to be <i>against charcoal</i>.
It is like being ‘against energy’. Everyone is against wasteful energy
use, wasteful charcoal production, wasteful wood burning, wasteful
transport models, wasteful cooking methods.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">RWL: Time limitations preclude my answering the above individually. I repeat only that Crispin's views on climate seem to preclude his appreciating charcoal as the main future means of taking carbon out of the atmosphere. I hope someone can suggest a better means than biochar - with a small (but first) part of the future atmospheric carbon removal coming from pyrolyzing stoves. The last part of Crispin's message was about my comments:</span><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Ron asks:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>If charcoal making is so great for the economy - why is production illegal? </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">I
think the real answer is pressure from people who see the disappearance
of the forests. The forests (or savannah forests) are disappearing
because the creation of managed woodlots turns out not to be a very high
priority. This is a long-standing problem. The trees could easily be
replaced but they are not. Some countries have addressed this. Niger is
one. Canada is another, so has Swaziland. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Everyone
complains about the disappearance of trees and no one does much
practical to replace them even though it has been known for quite a
while that trees can be replanted. The story of community managed
forestry is not very encouraging though I remain convinced that it is
the long term solution, as the Brits found out in the 1500’s.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL3a: I agree that Crispin has stated the problem correctly - not enough forests. But I think he has not answered my question. I think the correct answer is that charcoal-making as presently practiced is NOT great for the economy - and plenty of reason to outlaw illegal production. Loss of biodiversity leads to loss of tourism dollars. More money expended for (climate-harming) fossil fuels, etc.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">More below on this topic.</span><br><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>Second
the cost we should be talking about should involve externalities - not
just its availability because people have no other employment. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Rural
people are ‘an externality’ in terms of food pricing, dumping
practices, unfair global trade rules and pro-urban political pressures.
City people are not automatically better or more deserving people. Why
are they there? They have been driven off the land because it is
hopelessly uneconomic to remain there in miserable rural poverty. Many
political parties encourage this because they see the future of humanity
as urban. The more cynical say they do it because they are easier to
control in the cities. The urban poor (our target market) are ‘an
externality’ of the failure to address the needs of the rural masses.
Promoting the further diminution of the rural economy is not going to
help anyone.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Rural people (nor urban) are not an externality by any economic definition I have seen. I am saying that $150/ton of charcoal does not take account of the same factors that cause some countries to add a punitive tax on fossil fuels. Someone in Gambia and Cameroon is going to eventually go back and plant replaements for the illegally harvested trees. Someone is going to have to pay the hospital bills for patients using stoves that may cause as much monetary harm as water-borne disease.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Someone is going to have to pay for emeergency food supplies because the land has been ruined (Haiti being a good example). And there are trillions of damage control coming later as ocean rise occurs, more tornados, etc. These externality factors are considered by many to be an important part in deciding whether $150/ton for illegal char is a good deal.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Maybe one solution is for Gambia to put a tax on - doubling the !50 probably is not enough, but would probably swing a lot of users to pyrolyzing stoves.</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>I still maintain that Gambia is probably being ruined from people breaking the law. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">A
friend of mine (not Cecil) said he saw charcoal production 150 metres
from the office (in Banjul) responsible for preventing charcoal
production in the Gambia. Banning something usually means the price goes
up, not that it is actually banned. It is banned because of pressure
from outsiders who believe that making something illegal will produce a
different outcome for the forest without having to address the need to
change people’s attitude to the law. There are PV solar electric feed-in
tariffs in Germany but not in Italy for the same reason.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Re the 1st sentence - I know I can find a stolen new tape recorder in Denver for a lower price than one from an honest store. The second sentence doesn't follow from anything - of course laws have to be enforced AND we have to change peoples attitudes. But the main thing we have to do is provide a better honest means of livelihood. Biochar can do that - and the payment needs to come from developed countries - to developing countries. I doubt there are many developing countries opposed to me paying for their help in removing excess atmospheric carbon - whil improving soils and lifelihoods (oops - that was my next sentence).</span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">And
Biochar production in pyrolysis stoves by these same unemployed folk
can be accomplished by people like me paying for taking atmospheric
carbon out of their (and my atmosphere. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Those
are two quite different issues. A rural family that collects biomass
now and that changes to a pyrolysing stove will have to collect more
biomass, unless the stove is more efficient (see above). The management
of funds (subsidies) is fraught with problems in an environment where
the office in charge of preventing charcoal making has a charcoal
production business 150 metres from its own head office. Think.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Re first issue, yes they can collect less - because of the higher efficiency of char-making stoves (as you agree to below). Also they can collect different (residues).<br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Re second - I gather this means you think the problem is insolvable. I disagree. About what should we "Think"?<br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; color: black;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>Partly this can be done locally, but also these same unemployed can plant and manage trees. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">Those
places which tried managed forestry have a spotty record, and I think
there is a big future in it. It would be more efficient to turn some of
the forest into char for local agriculture and to ship whole or
processed fuel to the cities.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Case closed. I don't know what we have been arguing about. (Except I want to be paying for this through a fund you don't believe is needed.)]</span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>The
same tree used as wood can probably cook for 4 to 5 times as many
people (I have seen the number 7). And the properly managed tree (and
its roots) will not be savaged - but rather coppiced.<br><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">I
would like to see those numbers in a detailed form. I am suspicious
that the stoves efficiency, good stove efficiency, has not been factored
properly into the equation. People tend to pick the worst case with
which to compare their best case scenarios. Stoves and fuels are hugely
complex and huge in scale. Making sweeping technology changes without
first hearing from the social scientists is plainly foolish. The number
of urban people a rural tree can cook for might well be 4-7 times more
in some cases, but that is not the whole energy equation – and the
argument has been made on a whole equation basis. I don’t think there is
any denying that. The proposal has big differences showing partial
equations tacked onto holistic arguments.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: I think you have just agreed to what I said above to George of Gambia. I suggested a loss of 2/3 the energy when char is made in a pit (a loss factor of 3) - what is your estimate? Same question for stove efficiency comparison (factor of 2?). <br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> I don't understand any part of the last "partial equations - holistic" sentence.]</span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>There is a good reason for most laws and I hate to see the subject of illegal charcoal making going undiscussed.<br><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">What would you like to say about it? It is like banning bread and saying, “Let them, rather, eat cake.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: Re 1st question, I think this entire email is what I want to see discussed. I hope I have exhausted the topic. I hope some found it informative. I hope some stop promoting charcoal-using jikos and instead start using charcoal-producing stoves/</span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Sorry, the "bread-cake" comment doesn't compute.]</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>Thanks
for the report below that Bakari has used the phrase "very big
improvement" from Biochar I hope he can give us more detail. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Cecil
might be able to provide details. I see that George of the Disappearing
Jungle also knows my e-buddy. Cecil visited his garden to get a
firsthand report. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">>I
don't know whether that is 20% (very big in this country) or
200%.(which I am hearing a lot in Africa). The difference can start
with the rural stove.<br></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><br>I
take it then you are not against charcoal in general? Would you make
trade in TLUD-stove char legal? That would be like legalizing elephant
ivory if the elephant died of natural causes. When caught with tusks,
people will claim the elephant died of ‘natural causes’, to wit, ‘lead
poisoning’. It was a mistake to ban charcoal production, when they
really wanted to ban tree cutting. There is a big difference. Perhaps we
should lobby for the lifting of the charcoal making ban and ban tree
cutting. No? Wouldn’t work? People would cut trees anyway? <i>Quell surprise</i>.
The solution is planting and managing, not banning. It is a supply-side
production problem, not an energy shortage problem. Running out of
energy does not change the nature of the cause of the problem. It is
secondarily an energy efficiency problem. By that I mean there is a
demand-side partial solution to supply-side problem.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: I hope list members realize the first part are not serious questions for me. Yes I would make trade in char headed for the ground legal (not limited to TLUDs), but it would have to have had a productive use of the pyrolysis gases, and certainly woul have to have demonstrated that the resource was legal. And yes, we can control that trade - because my tax dollars are going to be insisting on it - and because we <u>can</u> track where it went (Char is highly recalcitrant). The (tiny) Biochar industry is all over thiscertification topic - there must be accountability. <br></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> After "Quell surprise" some agreement. But I see it as not just both energy supply and demand, but also issues/reasons favoring char in the ground - both climate and soil issues/reasons. The beauty of Biochar is different from every other carbon sequestration approach - it provides out-year benefits, including increasing (not decreasing) energy benefits. Putting CO2 underground CCS and BECS) is failing - for cost and legal reasons - but it provides only costs, no benefits. Biochar is a totally unique "animal" - and charcoal-making stoves are key to getting started down these terribly important (for energy, climate, and soil) reasons</span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Joyfully,
the stoves that burn most efficiently also produce the least PM and CO!
I see all the elements of a win-win-win-win solution: faster, cleaner
cooking, renewable energy self-sufficiency, rural employment and
improving agriculture. Proposals dealing with these complex issues
should include the whole energy equation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">[RWL: I agree (with surprise) with this closing - with two additions. Stove and all energy proposals should deal with more than energy (meaning also climate and soils). I also think you are saying that a char-making stove beats other stoves in being faster, cleaner, employment, etc . Thanks to Paul Anderson for emphasizing these additional benefits - much of which is due to your own comments. Tell us if I am reading that wrong. Ron]</span><br><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US">Regards</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" lang="EN-US">Crispin</span></p><br></div></div> <snip><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>