<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=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>Philip et al:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I guess that your views below also impact your views on the denominator equation. Possible?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ron</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 24, 2017, at 9:50 AM, <a href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za" class="">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">Just a thought on Sub Saharan charcoal use. As Africa urbanizes, so it needs energy to cook. Wood takes up too much volume, and the roads are primitive. So it makes sense to use charcoal. A bicycle load will keep ten homes cooking for a week. <br class="">The use of char oal has everything to do with logistics and nothing to do with the environment.<br class="">Philip<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Sent from my Huawei Mobile<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br class=""><br class="">-------- Original Message --------<br class="">Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<br class="">From: Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008@gmail.com class=""><br class="">To: Ron Larson <rongretlarson@comcast.net class=""><br class="">CC: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com class="">,Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott@outlook.com class="">,Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br type="attribution" class=""><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">Ron: <br class=""><br class="">What makes you believe that users of biomass-fuelled stoves are predominantly growers (of biomass)? <br class=""><br class="">Saw the figures for urban charcoal markets in Sub-Saharan Africa lately? Or looked at non-household cooking (in my view roughly 50% of cooking energy consumption worldwide)? <br class=""><br 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>
</blockquote></stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></crispinpigott@outlook.com></aj.heggie@gmail.com></rongretlarson@comcast.net></pienergy2008@gmail.com></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>