<div dir="ltr">Paul: <br><br>My belated response to your post from Dec 17th (below). <div><br></div><div>1. "Saving mama earth" is a hyperbole. It is a meaningless term - rather, anybody can take it to mean what s/he feels like when. There is no verifiable theory of the earth, just some models. (Global modeling fancies began in late 1960s and they still remain just that.) My own take for what it is worth - think of the children and do more to protect and enhance their own capacities, their local ecosystems (not easy to define). <br><br>As for TLUDs, "carbon negative" features, what attracted to me to Biochar movement was the promise for improved soil productivities. Now, it may well be that the carbon sequestration potential is easier to sell in the near term and is not tied to - nor does it limit - soil productivity gains. (I don't know enough about the chemistry.) In any case, the carbon revenues promise to have multiplier effects with virtuous cycles. That is a good enough argument at this stage. </div><div><br></div><div>2. I was deliberately obtuse about "increase kg CO2 output per kg input of caronaceous fuel". Combustion of carbonaceous fuels puts carbon gases in the atmosphere. These are co-emitted -- in addition to CO2, there are products of incomplete combustion ranging from methane to non-methane hydrocarbons to CO. The higher the CO2, the lower the non-CO2 and vice versa. <br><br>Since non-CO2 carbon gases have both higher warming impact and disease impact, more complete combustion - "more complete union of carbon and oxygen" per mole, so to speak - is a boon to people as well as the climate. </div><div><br></div><div>It's all chemistry. <br><br>Not that the groupthinkers of ISO/IWA understand. <br><br>From what I understand, the beauty of Biochar from cookstoves is that while combustion is incomplete, the gaseous emissions of carbon are lower, leaving more carbon in the solid form (char). I will have to look at complete chemical analysis, but from what I remember, TLUDs lead to lower rates of CO, CH4 and NMVOCs air emissions per kg input. That is good as far as combustion chemistry goes; I am sure soil chemistry gains vary contextually but generally positive. Correct me if I am wrong. <br><br>Folks who reduce everything to CO2 without regard to its origins, co-emitted gases, consider the whole process a bane. They know not what they are doing.<br><br>Nikhil</div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_-8241969838295394238gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_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 dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><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"><i> </i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:09 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Ron and Nikhil and Crispin and others,<br>
<br>
I admit that (with a few lapses) I read these "exchanges". And I
learn some things. They ARE "on-topic" about stoves for
impoverished people (and I intentionally did not limit that to
biomass-fuel stoves because we need to understand alternatives and
"oppositions"). <br>
<br>
I do note that not a single person sent any message about my summary
of the LPG-stoves webinar. I thought that the data about subsidies
etc and not reaching the truly impoverished in sustainable ways
would get some reaction. No problem. That topic is over.<br>
<br>
I comment about two short segments from recent messages:<br>
<br>
1. Referring to efforts to slow or reverse "climate change" / CO2
increase, there was a comment about <br>
<blockquote type="cite">saving mama earth while her children die. <br>
</blockquote>
Saddly, it is possible that both the earth and her children "die"
(or suffer undesireable consequences) because not enough is being
done for either. <br>
<br>
We should be trying to save BOTH. That could be with separate
efforts for each (such as solar panels and planting trees for the
earth, whicl digging water wells and having water filters for the
people (children of earth). But BETTER if one effort helps both
goals at the same time. And that is the beauty of cookstove
efforts, ESPECIALLY those that can be carbon negative while doing
the cooking tasks with less biomass fuel.<br>
<br>
That happens to be the case of the TLUD stoves. But there is
pathetically little support for TLUD stoves from either the
earth-savers or the children-savers. <br>
<br>
2. I think these were Nikhil's words:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The only connection I see between stoves and
CO2 is that technologies that increase kg CO2 output per kg input
of carbonaceous fuel are a boon to people as well as climate. </blockquote>
I do not understand what "increase kg CO2 output per kg input of
[biomass] fuel" means, or how it is a boon.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="m_-8241969838295394238m_-409961847238050571moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_-8241969838295394238m_-409961847238050571moz-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_-8241969838295394238m_-409961847238050571moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a> </pre><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"> </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>