<div><div>Paul, I don't see why there could ever be a small problem with methane until CO was a big problem. Look at the ignition temperatures. Methane is mostly hydrogen. Monoxide is already somewhat stable requiring more energy or higher oxygen concentrations to react. Other wise blastfurnaces would emit lots of methane and or hydrogen as exhaust. By keeping a lean oxygen mixture in a hot flame the carbon draws the oxygen from the iron oxides. There is still plenty of CO left yet nearly no hydrocarbons. Dan </div><div><br/></div><div><i><font style="color:#333333">Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid</font></i></div></div><div class="elided-text">On Feb 22, 2019 10:44 AM, "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu> wrote:<br type='attribution'><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<p>Who can confirm that CO is a good proxy for methane? That makes sense. Both CO and methane are combustible gases that need some special attention to be sure that they are consumed in the flames.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Paul</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD</p>
<p>Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP</p>
<p>Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><span style="color:#0563c1">psanders@ilstu.edu</span></a> Skype: paultlud</p>
<p>Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434</p>
<p>Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com"><span style="color:#0563c1">www.drtlud.com</span></a>
</p>
<p> </p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p><b>From:</b> dan weinshenker <danweinshenker@gmail.com> <br />
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, February 22, 2019 8:59 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br />
<b>Cc:</b> Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>; Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu>; biochar@yahoogroups.com; posttowebsite-new <P5rth98QxAYb@drtlud.com><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Methane from char-makers</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>Just as measuring CO2 is a good proxy for power, is already-being-collected CO data a good proxy for methane?</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p>On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:20 PM Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p>Stovers and Char makers, (and is this message reaching Jim Jetter and Tami Bond and others?)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. The explanation by Hans-Peter makes sense (below). Persons discussing the impact of methane on climate should clearly specify if they are referring to the impact during the
long-term of 100 years (25 times to 36 times) or in the shorter-term of 20 years (70 times to 110 times worse than CO2).
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. Methane is bad!!! “But may only<b>
</b>be 1% of total emissions.” If 1%, then is it correct to say that methane is equal to 25% of total emissions during the long-term, or is equal to 100% of total emissions during the 20-year term?. Stated that way, methane that comes from burning biomass
(such as in stoves) is nasty and bad and serious!!! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. But our stoves testing procedures do NOT report methane. Repeat that sentence!! WHY NOT? Something is not making sense yet. Is testing for methane complicated or expensive?
Someone please reply about this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. So, SHOULD we be taking steps to lower methane emissions in stoves and in char making? For the moment, and until we hear alternative statements, we should be discussing (and
doing something) about methane emissions. I would be very happy if told that I and we do not need to concern ourselves about methane emissions, but at least Hans-Peter is saying that it is important.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. Accepting importance, then what is there to do about reducing methane for stoves and char-makers?. I have gleaned two corrective actions from the discussion thus far:</p>
<p>A. DRY fuel. Drier than what is normal. Drier than the fuels for which we have designed our stoves.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>B. RECIRCULATE the combustion gases back into the hot, burning environment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>C. Any other suggestions. Can it be done simply with better turbulence (mixing) or time or temperature?? It is a combustible gas.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6. I am currently working on a field-scale pyrolyzer. So the inclusion of efforts (methods and devices) to have much drier fuels AND/OR to have recirculation of some or most gases
is now of interest. Testing for methane (and how?) are now included in what I need to do.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>7. AND IS IT WORTH THE EFFORT to reduce methane in char-makers, especially as they become larger? Is methane emissions reduction something that can earn carbon offsets (in what
circumstances???) And are the large char-makers (Biogreen and ROI Carbonator 500 and others) running the risk of being told that methane emissions could negate their biochar production benefits for climate concerns. Does methane production kill the prospects
for PyCCS (Pyrolytic Carbon Capture and Sequestration)???</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am making a serious plea for assistance to help understand about these issues of methane. Should this be a serious concern????</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Paul</p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD</p>
<p>Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP</p>
<p>Email:
<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><span style="color:#0563c1">psanders@ilstu.edu</span></a> Skype: paultlud</p>
<p>Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434</p>
<p>Website:
<a href="http://www.drtlud.com"><span style="color:#0563c1">www.drtlud.com</span></a>
</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p><b>From:</b> Schmidt, Hans-Peter <<a href="mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org">schmidt@ithaka-institut.org</a>>
<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:26 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Methane from char-makers</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Hi Paul,
</p>
<p>In regard to your question about methane:
</p>
<p>Methane has a GWP (global warming potential) of 28 – 36 CO2e over a 100 year period. However, most of the CH4 in the atmosphere will be decomposed already within the first decade.
So when you look to only 10 or 20 years, the GWP of CH4 during this period is much higher than the average over the 100 years period. In the first year after the release, CH4 has the highest GWP decreasing with every year. Over 20 years the GWP of CH4 is generally
given as 70 to 110 times CO2e. So if you look to the short term climate effects of a forest fire, a Kon-Tiki or a TLUD, the methane effect has the highest impact although it may only be 1% of the total emission.
</p>
<p>Best to you, Hans-Peter
</p>
<p> </p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Von:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">"Anderson, Paul" <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>><br />
<b>Datum: </b>Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 15:39<br />
<b>An: </b>Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com">biochar@yahoogroups.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com">biochar@yahoogroups.com</a>>,
'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <<a href="mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org">schmidt@ithaka-institut.org</a>>, Kathleen Draper <<a href="mailto:kdraper2@rochester.rr.com">kdraper2@rochester.rr.com</a>><br />
<b>Cc: </b>"Anderson, Paul" <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>><br />
<b>Betreff: </b>Methane from char-makers</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<p>To all,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The message from Hans-Peter (HPS) is important about emissions from cookstoves AND from char-making devices. The focus is on methane emissions. Some comments,
based on a rapid look at the 2 articles attached, which should be studied by the chemists and emissions specialists in our groups.</p>
<p>&n</p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>