<div><div>Crispin and all. A quick check of The MAKING SHAPING and TREATING of STEEL notes the following. Blast furnace gas has zero methane.. It has 27.5% of CO and even 1% H2 makes it through the reaction. While methane, fuel oil, and even steam are introduced to balance the smelting reactions, methane and hydrocarbons do not make it out. Note this is a high temperature yet oxygen starved reaction. In any half efficient combustion devise that allows adaquate secondary air, the methane and light hydrocarbons are first to combust. </div><div><br/></div><div>Now, Crispin, according to your hypothesis: Any glacier melting would raise sea level, but the sea would sink deeper from the added weight. This would keep the actual level constant. I say maybe after 10,000 year lag or more. - Dan Dimiduk. </div><div><br/></div><div><font style="color:#333333"><i>Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid</i></font></div></div><div class="elided-text">On Feb 24, 2019 7:09 AM, 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 and Mike and All</div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">An important addition to Mike's comment about the stack temperature of 900 is that it must have some minimum O2 content for the statement to be true in general. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">On the topic of many charcoal kilns in a confined space on a windless day etc. This question seems to confuse radiative effects of GHG's with "air pollution". </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">There is no way charcoal making can compare with rotting that vegetation to gases, in terms of its net GHG effects. The whole point that has been made is that charcoal is a way of
holding the carbon. Methane can't be made without carbon. If the char exists, the methane and CO2 that would have been produced by rotting doesn't. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">For example, the alarming claim that melting permafrost "will produce a lot of methane" is based on the fact that permafrost is full of frozen forest products. Of course it will produce
methane, at least it will in summer, but there are two other questions that must be answered at the same time as the methane bomb is mooted: how did that forest debris get there in the first place (it grew there the last time it was warm enough to do so) and
what will grow there if the ground is melted (another forest, of course, far more than offsetting the effects of any methane). </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">So there is no meaningful net effect of methane "influence" on the atmosphere other than the new forest which will grow on that land will again start sequestering CO2. Proof? Look
south - what do you see, an endless forest. In other words the net effect is the opposite of the myopic (partial) analysis given by the methane bomb advocates. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Frankly, this charcoal-making-methane bomb equivalent is a tempest in a tea cup, a thimble, an eye-dropper. When I stand on the shore and piss into the ocean, it raises sea levels.
That is half the story. The other half is I weigh less so the ground under me rises and deepens the ocean, cancelling my "influence". </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Charcoaling systems should burn the effluent to prevent smoke which is a pollutant. However if we managed to completely suppress all fires in all forests and grasslands, it would probably
stop raining because raindrops form around aerosol particles, a large fraction of which are from bad combustion. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">In times of drought on the Great Plains, the First Nations people learned to recognise supersaturated conditions in the air and lit grass fires to cause the formation of raindrops
which then fell in the vicinity. Rainmaking is a real thing. If they instead made charcoal in a modern kiln it wouldn't have worked. Too clean. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Crispin's rule number one: Never assume anything. </div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div style="width:100%">Regards </div>
<div style="width:100%">Crispin assuming this is adequate</div>
<div style="width:100%"><br />
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p dir="ltr"><br />
</p>
</div>
</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> d.michael.shafer@gmail.com</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> February 24, 2019 1:54 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> psanders@ilstu.edu</div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> crispinpigott@outlook.com; biochar@yahoogroups.com; stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org; schmidt@ithaka-institut.org; kdraper2@rochester.rr.com; wastemin1@verizon.net</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: Continuing in response to Crispin and James</div>
</div>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<br />
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Thank you for the useful information. </div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Crispin, although I am not sure I am as sanguine as you about the limited relative importance of CH4 from char making, I think that your observations about the extent of anaerobic decomp and rain forests is sweet.</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>James, For those of us who are equipment challenged, your observations about temperature are great. While measuring CH4 may be difficult, temp is easy. We know, for example, that our stacks run at 900 C + which explains why we have no CH4 emissions.</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Your suggestion re temp also suggests a simple way to test for the possibility of CH4 - inserting temp probes, say 4 or 5, stacked one above the other from burn surface up. If the probes routinely fail to break 690 C, we have every reason to
worry.</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>M</div>
<div></div>
<div><br />
</div>
..<br />
<div class="elided-text">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 10:53 AM Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<br />
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<p>Crispin,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Thank you. Well stated.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>One question I have is about scale. A TLUD stove or 1000 of them together are still small. But would a full size Kon Tiki flame-cap kiln (or 100 of them) alter the scenario that you describe? I am asking for your opinion, because
there never have been 100 large flame-cap kilns operating together, so measured results are not possible. And consider that they could be well operated (no winds) vs. poorly operated (windy day with damp fuel). In other words, would scale up in very
large numbers alter your statements?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>With respect for alternative explanations, or for some confirmation, I hope that some who are more informed than I am (the chemist types) to make comments. Also, there should be opportunity for those who published papers (or the peer
reviewers) to respond. I hope that Hans-Peter might comment on this aspect.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>To All: Please note, we seek clarification, not to make one person correct and another person incorrect. The instruments for measurement can give sufficient rationale for some statements.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>On the other hand, if this large discussion about methane-during-char-making is essentially concluded without much more discussion, then your (Crispin’s) comments will be circulated and saved and quoted in subsequent discussions about PyCCS
and climate impact. Let’s get it right, as best we can.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Note: As I was writing the above, an excellent additional message was posted by James Joyce. I have appended that message below after the one by Crispin.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Paul<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p>Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">
<span style="color:#0563c1">psanders@ilstu.edu</span></a> Skype: paultlud<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Website: <a href="https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4465e6b1016741bae84308d69a24f24e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636865880803949672&sdata=pyRnjbIPjLBvqtaOcEAJq97RmyXTOQEuzU%2BoJa1QMwg%3D&reserved=0">
<span style="color:#0563c1">www.drtlud.com</span></a> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p><u></u> <u></u></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> Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>
<br />
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 23, 2019 3:38 PM<br />
<b>To:</b> Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>>;
<a href="mailto:d.michael.shafer@gmail.com">
d.michael.shafer@gmail.com</a>; biochar <<a href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com">biochar@yahoogroups.com</a>><br />
<b>Cc:</b> Stove Discussion <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>>; Hans-Peter Schmidt <<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>>; Hugh McLaughlin <<a href="mailto:wastemin1@verizon.net">wastemin1@verizon.net</a>><br />
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">Dear Paul <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">Since you asked:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">So the detection of methane accurately is not really available in small, inexpensive devices. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'initial' , serif;color:#4060bf">Taken together, turning wood into charcoal or cooking with wood waste and making charcoal, in the context of domestic cooking cannot meaningfully dent anything. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div>