<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"> Crispin with cc to List:<br><br> This partly influenced by similar response sent this PM to Kevin. <br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott@gmail.com><br><b>To: </b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:50:54 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove<br><br><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Dear Ron</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The two messages seem to have crossed in the post but I will try to catch up.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL1_ I don't think there is a need to respond to anything in the "crossed" mail.]</b><br></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">></span>Forget everything about joules as the fundamental variable. <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">My second response did not include Joules. Just Carbon and how to make a CO2 production comparison.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span>do appropriate computations where the fundamental variable is kgs of C or CO2<span class="apple-style-span">. Think about comparing the carbon neutrality and carbon negativity values of stoves.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The carbon neutrality of the source is judged on 2 counts by the UNFCCC, meaning there is non-renewable use of biomass and renewable. As I understand their present formulas (they allow mixing of the two) you will have to include the concept and consider coal to be in the same non-renewable category.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL2. I don't know this literature - and would appreciate a lead to it from anyone. A big disappointment to me is the failure of the UNFCCC to talk much about carbon negativity at all. Thanks goodness for Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben. But my note assumes renewable biomass.]</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><b></b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">So if I get you right you want to consider first the renewable or non-renewable aspect, right? That is not an attribute of the stove but it is an attribute of a programme with stoves in it, or could be.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL3: No. this is not "first" to me. I am presuming that all char-making stoves will be operated only with renewable fuels. Carbon credits will certainly be dependent on a certified renewable source.]</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><b></b> <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Next you want to consider the turning of a renewably sourced biomass converted into a sequestered carbon, right?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL4: No - I want to <u>simultaneously</u> consider both the carbon neutral and carbon negative aspects of stoves.</b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">A non-renewably sourced biomass turned into sequestered carbon would cancel, are we agreed?</span> Because it is unsustainably removed then put back.</p><span style="color:#1F497D"></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL5: Maybe. I think there could also be worse than "cancel". Much char production in the boondocks is in that "worse" category.]</b><br></span></p><br><span style="color:#1F497D"> Is your point also that in doing so, we can get the H2 energy out? <br> <b>[RWL6. That has not been my point - but H2 is an important part of the computations.</b><br><br>If so, then something that was about 50% not-sustainable could be changed into equally-sustainable, right? </span><span style="color:#1F497D"><span style="color:#1F497D">And I mean in terms of Carbon only, right?</span> <b><br> [RWL7: Probably both not "right". I don't understand the question. I have not quantified anything about the measurements as being sustainable or not. I am assuming that the testers will assure sustainability.] </b><br> </span><span style="color:#1F497D"> <br></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">What it boils down to is that you could grow biomass using carbon that was not only recycled into new biomass after taking out some of the energy, but there would be a net sequestration. Is this the idea?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL8: You are extending my note to a "stoves" list way further than I intended. All these thoughts are better discussed on the sister "biochar" list. Probably I can agree to the general thought here, but this is not the place to get into that. </b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The stove would be part of that equation though it is not a contribution directly by the stove, it is a contribution or achievement of the programme that manages the char and the biomass. <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL9: Disagree. I am only dealing with the stove at this point.]</b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">For that reason I can’t see how you would attach the sequestration to the stove. If it an attribute of the system of which the stove is an integral part. But without the programme, the stove would not achieve it.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> <b> [RWL10: Maybe my numerous "No's" above will clarify that I am only trying to analyze a stove (not a system) in C/CO2 terms. You have not convinced me that the stove can't be analyzed this way.]</b><br><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> RWL: I am certainly claiming that a stove with favorable carbon negative attributes needs to be recognized by stove performance monitoring groups. <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">So my point is that the stove is not itself carbon negative.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL11: I didn't say it was. I am saying that enough stove data (energy, char, emissions, etc) is being collected to talk, in a meaningful way, about the carbon negativity of one stove's operation vs another's.]<br></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><b></b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> It is the behaviour of people who use it, or a programme that uses it. And that programme would qualify as the creator of that sequestration, not the stove. It is not a feature, metric of attribute of the stove.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL12: Disagree - rationale above.]</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><b></b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F497D">></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I do happen to believe that many char-making stoves are more energy efficient (because they can easily control power level and excess air) <span style="color:#1F497D"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I expect them to be and have been disappointed lately as people copy one product or another and don’t get the basics right. I see a digression of opinion from forestry people and stove carbon people coming. The forestry people want to know how much raw fuel a stove takes from the stock of trees and they view ‘efficiency’ as the work done and the amount of wood taken. So ‘efficient’ has two quite different meanings. I think the heat transfer efficiency of gasifiers should or could be great but I approach things from an engineering perspective – efficiency of mass transfer! No so the boys with the seedlings.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL13: All of this paragraph seems to not relate to my note (where my single sentence was intended as an energy-aside). I think you underestimate the interest of foresters in stoves and carbon issues. There is some wonderful biochar literature from foresters - and I think many (primarily in developing countries) will often be interested in stoves and C/CO2 topics.]</b><br></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#1F497D">>></span><span style="color:#1F497D">Totally agree. There is to be </span><span style="color:#1F497D">[NO] </span><span style="color:#1F497D">double-counting.</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> RWL. I don't understand last sentence.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Because I left out a word. </span><span style="font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> I meant that, as you said, you can’t claim both to be using less fuel while simultaneously creating masses of char, when that ‘less fuel’ is a number calculated from the energy used, not the fuel used. <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL14: All this (sort of, now) understood. Jim Jetter's note today is partly on your last sentence - and not part of my dialog, I think/hope. I look forward to your response to Jim.]</b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">A stove can’t use ½ the fuel AND yield ½ of the energy in the form of char AND cook a meal with ‘the other ½’. That is three halves.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> <b>[RWL15: This part I don't understand. I only see two halves here - your first and third "halves" seem identical to me. Ron]</b><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regards</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Crispin</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://www.bioenergylists.org/<br><br></div></div></body></html>