<div dir="ltr">Dear Ron: <br><br>Happy New Year! <br><div><br>First, I am DELIGHTED, RELIEVED to read your definition of a "climate denier" - "a person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR)."<br><br>I do have megahours of interest in CDR. Just tell me from where, when, how much, by whom, at what cost, and where to put it. <br><br>I have been doing CDR for all my life. <br><br>Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now that I am not a climate denier, I don't have to fear going to hellfires or ovens till I die. <br><br>It's all a matter of accounting. <br><br></div><div>***</div><div>On the other hand, I am sad to see you start out a New Year on a sour note. <div><br></div><div>On Haiti and LPG Webinar, I did address your Comment 1 - "<b>I don’t think many will mind if I reopen the topic." </b>and Comment 2 - "<b> I don’t have the time now to prove this, but am sure we can find climate denial funding coming from this Association. " </b>I took my cue to reopen the topic from you, and I also made some comment on WLPGA. Please don't blame me for your neglect to read. <br><br>***<br><br>We can continue that LPG thread if you read my replies to Paul and to you on GACC and Haiti (more to come). Here I address your "I will respond about Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read. "<br><br>Oh, dear. I don't know what if anything you have read from Kirk Smith. You could start with his opinion pieces - "In Praise of Petroleum", "Power to the People", and "The Petroleum Product That Can Save Millions Of Lives Each Year". <br><br>I assume you have read his research on putting carbon gases in the atmosphere via traditional biomass combustion (defined as uncontrolled combustion of unprocessed solid biomass). <br><br>What you may find is relevant to both this thread as well as Paul's question on LPG in the Haiti thread about lower GHGs (and one earlier). <br><br>Please also tell us just what of Kirk Smith's papers you have read on health effects of biomass combustion and quotes that you like. Taking his name in vain is intellectual abuse. <br></div><br>In a 6 November 2016 post on this list's thread "LPG versus gasifiers with dry biomass", I had cited Prof. Smith's assertion: <br><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>"<span style="font-size:12.8px">And, as yet, no biomass stove in the world comes close to the boundary – is</span><i style="font-size:12.8px"> clean enough to be <span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-il">truly</span> <span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-il">health</span> <span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-il">protective</span> in household use."</i></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>He was also reported in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-cheap-clean-stoves-were-supposed-to-save-millions-of-lives-what-happened/2015/10/29/c0b98f38-77fa-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html" target="_blank">Washington Post item</a> in 2015 “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use”.<br><br>I expressed my dissent from this view, but if you agree with it, please say so. <br><br>Because that means biomass stoving for the last 50-odd years has failed in terms of being "truly health protective in household use." <br><br></div><div>Amen. I was hoping to leave all that in the last year. </div><div><br></div><div>****<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>Now to the main issue here - biomass power and climate-neutrality. <br><br>It is a matter of ideological accounting, not science. <br><br><div>Whoever has a hammer in hand sees nails everywhere. Biochar seems to be your hammer.<br> <br>I have written earlier that I discovered Biochar in 2007/8 and Stephen Joseph made me a believer. <br><br>Now just tell me your global plan for biochar. I will be a partner in Alliance for Biochar Cooking (ABC). GACC CEO can be invited to help. </div><div><br></div><div>I did some CDR work 20+ years ago on TVA co-firing of peanut shells in Georgia and other biomass power options. I also worked on CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration) options and putting CO2 in old mines and domes. How much CDR did you do? </div><br>*****<br>Apart from biochar or such projects, taking the earth system as a whole, I repeat my assertions: <br><br>“<i><b>To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period</b>. "</i><br><br>This time I will give you some suggestions to read - <a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf" target="_blank">Ruddiman</a> and <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Unger_un02100s.pdf" target="_blank">Unger</a>. Also <a href="http://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis" target="_blank">this</a>. Prove me wrong. <br><br>Water and biomass is nearly there is to understand about human climate. But please read Kirk Smith, then we can debate the GHG-neutrality of biomass combustion (alone). <br><br>“<i><b>And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere</b>." </i><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">This is a scientific truism - that any carbon emitted anywhere may be re-absorbed anywhere (tree or not) - and other assumptions are matter of accounting. Prove me wrong. <br><br>Chemistry is everything. Not counting molecules. CO2 is not a WMD; do ask CIA though. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Nikhil<br clear="all"><div><div class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- <br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Nikhil: cc List and Paul</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Whew - 5 messages today from Nikhil and finally one that I can see all of on my screen at once. (Here’s hoping I don’t have to read 5 more tomorrow for the third day in a row.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>In three of the four others I see one citation - GACC on Haiti. It would help me (and I think others) if Nikhil would keep all of my messages, not selectively pull out of them. (for his GACC2, Nikhil has excised all of my remarks #1 and #3. Why?)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I will respond about Kirk when I am told which of hundreds of Kirk Smith writings I should read. I seriously doubt that Kirk has written much about the two cites below covering BECCS and albedo. Note that neither of these have much, if anything, to do with stoves.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I don’t have time tonight to refute any of the mostly incorrect and non-pertinent arguments below, but let me repeat one (yNikhil, from below)that could only come from a climate denier - defined here as a person with no interest in carbon dioxide removal (CDR):</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>“<i><b>And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a new tree anywhere</b>." </i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I interpret Nikhil to mean that CDR via biochar only makes sense when source and sink are in the same block, county, state, or country, (or continent?) Whew! If not, what then does he mean? (Of course you have to read more below.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>In sum, I strongly support Paul’s gentle request to Nikhil to stick to topics that relate to this list - not things again/always in support of coal. And not blame me for not having responded quickly enough to some un-named publication of Prof. Smith (whose work, I repeat, on health matters related to stoves I strongly support - and look forward to learning what I am supposed to dissociate myself from in order to agree that the (9:04 AM CDT) climate-denying material (not in any way stove or health-oriented) below is on-topic.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Last point for Nikhil re his last line below </div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div> (“<i><b>To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period</b>. ")</i></div><div>- does he think that biochar from stoves cannot be carbon negative?</div><div><br></div><div>Ron</div><div><br></div><div>ps. I argue these topics (albedo, BECCS, afforestation , etc) most every day - on half a dozen lists - but never on this list. </div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jan 3, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Traveller <<a href="mailto:miata98@gmail.com" target="_blank">miata98@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Paul: <br><br>It might become on-topic once Ron reads Kirk Smith. <br><br>Nikhil</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>--------- </span></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(US <a href="tel:(202)%20568-5831" value="+12025685831" target="_blank">+1) 202-568-5831</a><br><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
To Nikhil only,<br>
<br>
I agree that your message is "Off-topic". Thank you for making
that clear in your subject line. Please do not make more messages
that are so far off-topic that they just are beyond the scope of the
Stoves Listserv.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre><div><div class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165h5">
<div class="m_8408783643530496568m_-3809348060036891259gmail-m_-5502563388408592817m_-4935686252541557581gmail-m_5543157577762061344gmail-m_7161416367219201165m_5372609412239450046moz-cite-prefix">On 1/3/2017 9:04 AM, Traveller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Oh, dear. Just because a tree is releasing CO2
absorbed earlier makes it carbon neutral? <br>
<br>
Then all trees could be harvested, burnt, and that would still
be carbon neutral. I don't think IPCC allows that -- its
inventorying methods require that such "land use change" be
reported separately. <br>
<br>
****<br>
<div>Another way of putting the question (and I think this is
implied by the current methods) is whether the CO2 released
will in future be absorbed by another tree. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
But that raises a different problem -- this re-absorption may
take years and that it may happen somewhere else. Assuming
that the Drax carbon emissions from biomass burning were to be
re-absorbed in the US forests where the pellets came from is
quite a stretch. <br>
<br>
And if you don't assume that, you leave the field open to any
carbon from biomass combusted anywhere being re-absorbed in a
new tree anywhere. <br>
<br>
Since CO2 from wood combustion in a power plant is no
different from CO2 from my breaths or cremation or CO2 from a
power plant, it is plausible to argue that CO2 from Chinese
coal-fired power plant is what gets absorbed in the net
expansion of boreal forests in Canada and Europe. <br>
</div>
<br>
Aha! But then we have the dilemma of changing the albedo effect.
(<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.jok1faoia" target="_blank">Reforestation Doesn’t Fight Climate Change
Unless It’s Done Right</a>, Natasha Geiling, ThinkProgress, 31
August 2016).
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps it's better to trim boreal forests, convert into
charcoal, and export to Nigeria, Ethiopia, DRC. <br>
<br>
Albedo effect, apart, bioenergy capture has another problem -
"<span>“</span><span>But if you are going to do
BECCS, you are going to have to grow an awful lot of trees
and the impact on land use may have very significant effects
on food security,” (</span><span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change" target="_blank">Reflecting sunlight into space has
terrifying consequences, say scientists</a>, Damien
Carrington, Guardian (UK) 26 November 2014)</span>
<div><font size="2"><br>
</font></div>
In short, the CO2 accounting business is riddled with
confusion. <br>
<br>
****<br>
<br>
Deliberate confusion for political purposes. The methods of
GHG accounting are NOT value-free; they (including the choice
to use 100-year GWPs instead of 20- or 50-year GWPs) are
intentionally biased. (I was marginally involved with this
30-odd years ago.) <br>
<br>
The most serious objection to the purported "carbon
neutrality" of "biomass" is that depending on combustion
technology, the emissions of non-CO2 GHGs - methane, which is
counted under Kyoto cooking of numbers, and NMVOCs, CO, which
Kyoto does not permit -- are more potent than CO2. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you add in black carbon, the non-CO2 damage is
significantly higher. <br>
<br>
More so if you use 20-year GWP (my preference for the
developing countries). </div>
<div><br>
The combined GHG loads from biomass direct thermal use around
the world - when counting all GHGs and black carbon (I can
cook up some estimates) - are in the range of all CO2 from
Indian coal-fired power plants, maybe even all CO2 from
Chinese coal-fired power plants. <br>
<br>
So, global warming is due to inefficient biomass use, as much
as it is from India-China coal-fired power plants. <br>
<br>
Surprised? <br>
<br>
Some sages said 16+ years ago, "If one is going to put carbon
in the atmosphere anyway, CO2 is the least harmful species
from climate or health point of view." <br>
<br>
The policy implications of this observation are profound. <br>
<br>
To begin with, biomass is not GHG-neutral. Period. <br>
<br>
<br>
Nikhil</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div>