<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Nikhil:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>See below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" class="">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Ron: <br class=""><br class="">What makes you believe that users of biomass-quelled stoves are predominantly growers (of biomass)? <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">RWL: Replace “quelled” with “fueled”. I’m sure I based my comment mostly on twenty plus years on this list. </b></div><div><br class=""></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> But looking around a bit, I found that confirmed sort of in general and specifically in Ghana in this recent paper: </b></div><div><a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7036" class="">http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7036</a>.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">My Google search found this one for Paraguay - which (only skimmed) seems to agree: <a href="http://depts.washington.edu/sefspcmi/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Johnny-Bruce-Case-Study-Final2.pdf" class="">http://depts.washington.edu/sefspcmi/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Johnny-Bruce-Case-Study-Final2.pdf</a></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Also this from FAO -(not as much on urban-rural) - was new to me, has some DALY data: <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0789e/a0789e09.htm" class="">http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0789e/a0789e09.htm</a></b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Not sure if you disagree, but if so - why?</b></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class="">Saw the figures for urban charcoal markets in Sub-Saharan Africa lately? </div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: Not sure of your point - but yes char-use if predominant in urban areas. And in many of those cases, the production is illegal. Char-use in any setting is my main reason for being on this list. I still believe wood use is appreciably larger than char use globally.</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This had some interesting comparison data: </b><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385522/table/p45_T1.1/?report=objectonly" class="">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385522/table/p45_T1.1/?report=objectonly</a></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I also believe that most charcoal is made by folk who are also “growers” (meaning they are not living in urban areas)</b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>You believe what on this topic?</b></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Or looked at non-household cooking (in my view roughly 50% of cooking energy consumption worldwide)? <br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b class="">[RWL: apparently I am to believe (re Andrew’s question below) that “non-household cooking” which uses biomass as its fuel ARE NOT also growers? (My saying yes to Andrew’s question would say the opposite</b>, <b class="">I agree). First I strongly doubt your 50% worldwide, but especially so for those using biomass.</b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have given up looking for data on this. This site didn’t help: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking#Home-cooking_and_commercial_cooking" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking#Home-cooking_and_commercial_cooking</a></b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My guess is that world wide, less than 25% (half of your 50%) of meals are non-household, and where the fuel in the non-household is biomass, the number would drop below 10%. Now adding the conditional about the supply of fuel also being growers to my 10% guesstimate - I pass. My guess is that most such entrepreneurs do some growing but a majority of their biomass fuel is purchased from suppliers of wood and charcoal who are non-urban (therefore also likely also growers of biomass). This has gotten too deep into qualifications and definitions. But I still stand by my “yes” in answering Andrew’s query. (rephrased) “<i class="">Are the persons who depend on biomass-quelled stoves also growers?"</i></b></div><div><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div><b class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I look forward to your differing and supporting citations. But also what difference it makes in improving stoves - and (in my case) charcoal-making stoves? For this last category, I contend that larger (commercial) users of biomass stoves should be the ones most likely to want char-making (cleaner, safer, more efficient, and income-generating) stoves.</b></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Ron</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Nikhil<br class=""><div class="gmail_extra">
<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank" class="">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">Andrew and list:</div><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> </blockquote><br class="">There appears to be a win win situation here and I gather there is<br class="">still a vast part of equatorial Africa where annual burning takes<br class="">place. However it brings me to another reason I like the idea, though<br class="">not the practicalities, of a householder-subsistance farmer being paid<br class="">a subsidy funded by the developed world. The trouble is I have a<br class="">parochial view and not a good worldview of what types of persons<br class="">depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly growers?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class=""><span class="m_8387032066972498430Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b class="">[RWL9: Yes to Andrew’s last question. I disagree with Andrew calling himself “parochial” - when he supports (as do I) the ethics of <i class="">“a subsidy funded by the developed world”.</i></b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><b class=""><span class="m_8387032066972498430Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span> </b></div><b class="">[RWL10: Agree totally. And I think this is what will eventually kill the geoengineering technology that is often placed ahead of biochar - BECCS. In BECCS, as with “clean coal”, the CO2 from combustion (never pyrolysis) is placed, as liquid, deep underground. Major expenses needed to protect the world’s soil are not needed for biochar. Soil quality is closely linked to carbon content - and biochar does this with no penalty - while apparently being the cleanest and most efficient of all possible solid-fuel stoves.</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">`Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><b class="">Ron<br class=""></b><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> </div></div></blockquote></span></div></div>
<br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>