<div><div>Crispin, it makes sense that rainforests would produce a lot of methane. Probably due to so many opportunities for anaerobic decomposition. Even biomass sitting on the surface will decompose anaerobicly if constantly wet. We know the difference between stinky compost and sweet compost is air. 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 23, 2019 4:38 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott@outlook.com> wrote:<br type='attribution'><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
</div>
<div style="outline:none">
<div style="width:100%">Dear Paul </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Since you asked:</div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Measurement of methane is done using a CxHy detector (which burns it, if it is cheap, makes it glow if it is expensive). Such a device is in the NDIR detector of the 500 and 700 series
of ENERAC combustion analyzers. They measure CO2, CO and CxHy with the same cell. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">The main point is that the exact molecule sought is not accurate, it is "centered'. This means the detector is set to report CH4 (which is C1H4 and thus a CxHy) in the centre of its
detection range. You could have it set to C2H6 if you wanted. It will report "CxHy" but it is really the combination of several different gases with the methane reported mostly. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">So the detection of methane accurately is not really available in small, inexpensive devices. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">The numbers you cite for the CO2e of methane are unusually high. There is extremely little methane in the atmosphere inspire of thousands of points of leakage of natural gas (seeps)
into the atmosphere. That low value is because it is quickly converted to CO2. Further, there a host of critters that take it directly for food. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">The idea that charcoal making could produce enough methane to be detectable against the huge natural leakage is far fetched. There is a large cloud of detectable methane over all tropical
forests created by rotting wood. That is far more than could ever be produced by turning the wood waste into charcoal. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Anytime you want to paint some scary scenario you should force people to put numbers on it so it can be viewed in perspective. It takes place in a context where there are huge natural
processes in place. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Taken together, turning wood into charcoal or cooking with wood waste and making charcoal, in the context of domestic cooking cannot meaningfully dent anything. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">The focus should remain on delivering effective and appreciated cooking services at low cost. To a certain extent, but not obsessively, the memes about charcoal being the enemy of
the environment should be countered with realistic quantification and the promotion of modern science and engineering. Aircraft engineering and cell phone technologies get modern science behind them, why not domestic fuels?</div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Thanks for raising awareness</div>
<div style="width:100%">Crispin </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
</div>
<div>
<table width="100%" style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;display:table;outline:none"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="background-color:rgb( 255 , 255 , 255 )">
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb( 181 , 196 , 223 );padding:3pt 0in 0in;font-family:'tahoma' , 'bb alpha sans' , 'slate pro';font-size:10pt">
<div><b>From:</b> psanders@ilstu.edu</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> February 23, 2019 12:49 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> d.michael.shafer@gmail.com; biochar@yahoogroups.com</div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org; schmidt@ithaka-institut.org; kdraper2@rochester.rr.com; crispinpigott@outlook.com; wastemin1@verizon.net</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]</div>
</div>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<br />
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p>Michael, Hans-Peter (HPS), and all,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1. Several days of messages. The chemists and testing-experts have not replied (yet).
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. HPS has provided two publications that indicate methane, but there are no “replications” that confirm nor deny. Basically, we have very little info.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. This thread of discussion started because HPS mentioned significant methane from Kon-Tiki (and by association, other flame-cap devices/ combustion).
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. The question remains: Is methane is so important that methane emissions from char-making could negate (cancel, or even be worse than char) the impact of PyCCS (that includes sequestration of carbon as biochar)?
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. If this is true, then this could shatter the prospects for PyCCS. We cannot sweep this under the table. It must be understood. There is a difference between knowing the impact (or lack of impact, so we can forget about this) versus
just dropping the topic as if it perhaps doesn’t matter (or that it is contrary to what we want to believe).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6. I do seriously question whether TLUD stoves (all or most of them) emit methane of consequence, versus the published results about stoves that are reported to be TLUDs but do we know for sure and what fuel was used and if operated correctly.
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>7. What do Jim Jetter and Tami Bond (both are not yet receiving these messages) and Hugh McLaughlin and Crispin PP and others say? If in fact they did test for methane? Do we reach out to the authors of the publications that HPS provided?
I hope that HPS can assist further.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think this topic should be of highEST interest to the IBI and USBI and others. Please assist.</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="https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77c581dfb8af4e934fda08d699b730c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636865409408371591&sdata=oBkJPkfNQuZ66vjRw5vbmhQdNhOiWyEUixy%2FopWFA3k%3D&reserved=0">
<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> d.michael.shafer@gmail.com <d.michael.shafer@gmail.com>
<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:48 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com><br />
<b>Cc:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>; Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>; Kathleen Draper <kdraper2@rochester.rr.com>; Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p>According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>As for emissions, I am personally surprised by any claim that TLUDs emit methane. The entire point of a good stack is to encourage methane to burn at a high temp to break down other GHGs. Certainly none of our emissions tests has registered
any CH4.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Out here it is nigh on impossible to get a closed room for testing emissions from a trough or trench. (Thai universities see no interest in uncompensated research in the public good.) The water wrapped methane molecules strikes me as improbable,
although I think that the suggested risk to the climate is so great that someone needs to re-run these emissions tests immediately.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p>M</p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p>On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">
psanders@ilstu.edu</a> [biochar] <<a href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com">biochar@yahoogroups.com</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>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:9pt">[<a href="#m_4012556554620465370_TopText"><span style="text-decoration:none">Attachment(s)</span></a> from Anderson, Paul included below]</span></b>
</p>
<div>
<p style="background:white">To all,</p>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<p style="background:white">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 style="background:white"> </p>
<p style="background:white">1. Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results? (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)</p>
<p style="background:white">2. HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse. Which is it?</p>
<p style="background:white">3. Major comment by HPS: “methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.” Correct or not? Can it be explained more fully? And conclusion would be to use very dry fuel,
right? (meaning changing our stoves?)</p>
<p style="background:white">4. I take issue with one comment from table 4 on page 12 (of 16 in Kon Tiki article) about disadvantage of TLUD stoves: “Too small to generate larger amounts of biochar.” THAT statement is the perspective
of a SINGLE stove. But when they are used by the thousands, each 1200 TLUD stoves produce about one ton of char/biochar EACH DAY. 36,000 in West Bengal are producing about 30 tons per day, every day, and have been doing so for a few years, and will continue.
On a worldwide scale today, that much charcoal is probably more than that of all the flame-cap devices combined on a daily basis. (That last statemen can be challenge if anyone has and data.)</p>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<p style="background:white">AND the heat energy is not being wasted when TLUD stoves make charcoal. Although the comment in the table overlooks the importance of “scale by number” (instead of “scale by size”), I am glad that the TLUD
stoves were at least mentioned in the report and Table. That is progress over being totally ignored.</p>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<p style="background:white">I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.</p>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<p style="background:white">Paul</p>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<div>
<p style="background:white">Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD</p>
<p style="background:white">Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP</p>
<p style="background:white">Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">
<span style="color:#0563c1">psanders@ilstu.edu</span></a> Skype: paultlud</p>
<p style="background:white">Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434</p>
<p style="background:white">Website: <a href="https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C77c581dfb8af4e934fda08d699b730c0%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636865409408381602&sdata=bmJ9jryG9JfjhlxDaO4s6Unn1Js13BiTaOsfBvX3%2BBA%3D&reserved=0">
<span style="color:#0563c1">www.drtlud.com</span></a> </p>
</div>
<p style="background:white"> </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 style="background:white"><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 12:29 AM<br />
<b>To:</b> Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>><br />
<b>Cc:</b> Kathleen Draper <<a href="mailto:draper@ithaka-institut.org">draper@ithaka-institut.org</a>><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter</p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<p style="background:white">Hi Paul, </p>
<p style="background:white">Please find attached our paper on low tech pyrolysis emissions. The CH4-emissions of TLUD and Kon-Tikis are in the same order. Optimization of gas combustion and especially the use of dry feedstock can greatly reduce
CH4-emissions of both. CH4-emissions of forest wild fires are in the some order as optimized Kon-Tiki (see the other attached paper). In field burning of harvest residues produce more methane especially when the residues are humid as is often the case.
</p>
<p style="background:white">The quantity of emitted methane may not look high but as the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane is about 100 times that of CO2 in the first 20 years, the climate effect of rather low CH4-quantities is already
considerable. </p>
<p style="background:white">The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.
</p>
<p style="background:white">Be well, Hans-Peter </p>
<p style="background:white"> </p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p style="background:white"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Von:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">"Anderson, Paul" <<a href="href"></a></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>