Date   

Re: Methane from char-makers

James Joyce
 

In terms of measuring CH4 emissions, thought I would mention that we found nearly a decade ago that CO (carbon monoxide) was an reliable indicator of combustion efficiency in the emissions control stage of our systems. We compared VOC, CH4 and HC readings to CO readings. CO is one of the last gases to “go”, with an autoignition temperature of 690 deg C compared to 540-600 deg C for methane, depending which reference you use. Most other species have an autoignition temperature in  in the range of 350 to 500 deg C. CO is relatively cheap to analyse for using a chemical cell meter like a https://www.testo.com/en-US/testo-310/p/0563-3100 .

 

We find that CO readings less than 200 ppmv (at less than 10% O2) indicate effective destruction of all hydrocarbon species (i.e. >98.5%). Obviously is important to take the readings  where you are not getting lots of air dilution, which could be hard for a stove. We find that thermal oxidation of biomass off-gas for 2 seconds residence time at more than 850 deg C can yield CO readings as low as zero. That probably can’t be achieved in flame cap devices due to radiant heat losses. All I can suggest is to achieve temperatures exceeding 600 deg C in the flame cap for as long as possible. I think high double wall sides would help in this regard. If the flames are escaping from the stove or flame cap kiln they will almost certainly be releasing more unburnt hydrocarbons than if they are contained within a sidewall, because when they escape they are rapidly quenched.

 

 

Regards,

 

James

 

 

 

 


Re: Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

Kevin,

 

I would agree with you except that at least for a while we need inputs from many people, at least about their perception of the problem.   In that regard, your message is highly appropriate to express your concerns that methane “is probably not a problem.”

 

If we have 5 to 10 others sending comments about whether to discuss on-list or off-list, I will gladly follow the suggestions (including consideration of yours).

 

All messages about this should continue with the word “Methane” in the subject line so that it can be read or avoided according to the reader’s preferences. 

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@...
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 7:29 PM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Cc: ''Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal'
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Hi Paul

 

Would it be possible that you and Hans-Peter did a bit of work off-line, and then reported back to the List, giving a perspective on the nature and extent of the “Methane Problem”, and the circumstances where it might be an actual concern on stove and chart systems?

 

My “off-the-cuff”, “simple-wild-ass-guess” is that methane is not a problem if there is no smoke.

 

No point in consuming the List with a Subject that probably is a non-problem

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 10:37 AM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves@...>
Cc: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Kevin,

 

The topic of methane only arose because Hans-Peter presented info about methane from Kon Tiki devices, and then the topic grew from there.

 

1.  Stove-size TLUDs:   no problem with methane had been detected, and current actions will continue unless someone who deals with stoves actually says that methane from cookstoves (of any type) is an emissions issue to be considered.  

 

2.  Char-makers such as Kon Tiki / trench for biochar AND CLIMATE MITIGATION are getting large enough that methane could be a problem that prevents or negates the value of sequestration.   THIS needs further discussion by the biochar folks.

 

3.  All big efforts such as Biogreen and ROI Carbonator 500 could be facing a challenge to their claims of climate benefits if methane is a true and serious problem.   Should be considered further.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:21 AM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves@...>
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Hi Paul

 

“Methane from Char-Makers” is a rather broad Subject Line. One can make char with many systems and techniques, and one can expect to produce various quantities of methane and char in various qualities. Clearly, a gasifier producing “Engine Grade Gas” and Char” could have Char/Methane output different from a TLUD, an externally heated retort, a Kontiki, a Three Stone Fire, etc.

 

In your case, where your major interest is in TLUD systems, it would appear that one way to proceed would be as follows:

1: Do “methane analysis” on TLUD flue gas, under various operating conditions, to determine how much, if any, CH4 is produced, and if any is produced, under what operating conditions is it produced.

 

2: Considering the markets into which you are selling various TLUD systems, is there a problem or opportunity associated with the presence or absence of CH4 in TLUD exit gases?

 

If there are no methane related problems or opportunities associated with your products and the markets into which you sell them, then you need have little to no concern for methane.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 1:06 AM
To: biochar@...; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 


Re: [Stoves] Methane from char-makers

Gordon West
 

To add more context, flame cap devices are often used to dispose of residual biomass. I know that in Kelpie’s work with forest thinning projects and with one of our primary sources of biomass that is the case. The options for treatment of such residual biomass is to leave it to decompose (creating lots of gases and which may increase the risk of catastrophic forest fire) or to pile burn. Neither of those is likely to be as “clean” as flame cap pyrolysis, and neither creates much in the way of CO2 sequestration. So the analysis needs to address the full lifecycle.

Gordon West
The Trollworks
503 N. “E” Street
Silver City, NM 88061
575-537-3689

An entrepreneur sees problems as the seeds of opportunity.

On Feb 23, 2019, at 11:04 AM, Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu> wrote:

Hugh,

Thank you. We need this type of info.

And we do know that CO can escape combustion in stoves and flame-cap devices when conditions are good for escape (bad for complete combustion).

When a TLUD is operating with very very low CO emissions, can we assume that methane is also not being emitted?

I find it easy to believe that the Kon-Tiki and other open-top flame-cap devices do have substantial emissions of CO and PM and (by inference also methane). Flame-cap (noted for the open top) might not be as good as we have tended to think that it is. Let’s try to clarify about this with our internal discussions before some opposition person rams down our throats some “proof” that our char-production methods are faulty (or terrible).

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>

From: Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1@verizon.net <mailto:wastemin1@verizon.net>>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 11:46 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>>; Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>; Kathleen Draper <kdraper2@rochester.rr.com <mailto:kdraper2@rochester.rr.com>>; Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

Small symmetrical molecules, including CO and Methane, have high autoignition temperatures. The presence of water vapors raised the vapors heat capacity, lowering the temperature rise for a given radiant energy flux, leading to lower combustion efficiencies for CO and Methane. All the oxygenated organics go first. Hugh

On Feb 23, 2019 8:48 AM, "'d.michael.shafer@gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer@gmail.com>' d.michael.shafer@gmail.com <mailto:d.michael.shafer@gmail.com> [biochar]" <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.

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.

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.

M



On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

[Attachment(s) <x-msg://6/#m_4012556554620465370_TopText> from Anderson, Paul included below]
To all,



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.



1. Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results? (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2. HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse. Which is it?

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?)

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.)



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.



I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.



Paul



Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email: psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud

Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>


From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@ithaka-institut.org <mailto:draper@ithaka-institut.org>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter



Hi Paul,

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter



Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Cc: "biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter



Hans-Peter,



Thank you.



There was no attached graph. Please send.



I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address. So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv. More comments are below.





Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email: psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud

Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>


From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter



... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.



[PSA>>] The above is a valuable statement. DM is “dry matter”, right? Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha. 100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.

??? Did I say that correctly? We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this..



The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln. Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ
???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day? Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up? Either way, that is a good starting point.



It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50..000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.

[PSA>>] I agree. The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors. And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.

??? Statement: What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000. Is that a good goal or “dream”??? Would that price make the production of biochar become a major factor quickly??? I would like several people to comment about this. Not just Hans-Peter has answers. Comments from all are appreciated.





The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph. I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass. I need some instruction. Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions? The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!! So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape?? Please help with this question. I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.



[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp





Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org <mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>, "biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter



Hans-Peter,



Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages? We are discussing developing countries.. Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?



And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from? I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.



*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers. Any links to reports about this? Why methane? I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.



Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email: psanders@ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud

Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>




_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/


Re: Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

Hugh,

 

Thank you.   We need this type of info.

 

And we do know that CO can escape combustion in stoves and flame-cap devices when conditions are good for escape (bad for complete combustion).

 

When a TLUD is operating with very very low CO emissions, can we assume that methane is also not being emitted?  

 

I find it easy to believe that the Kon-Tiki and other open-top flame-cap devices do have substantial emissions of CO and PM and (by inference also methane).   Flame-cap (noted for the open top) might not be as good as we have tended to think that it is.  Let’s try to clarify about this with our internal discussions before some opposition person rams down our throats some “proof” that our char-production methods are faulty (or terrible).

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 11:46 AM
To: biochar@...
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>; Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>; Kathleen Draper <kdraper2@...>; Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

Small symmetrical molecules, including CO and Methane, have high autoignition temperatures. The presence of water vapors raised the vapors heat capacity, lowering the temperature rise for a given radiant energy flux, leading to lower combustion efficiencies for CO and Methane. All the oxygenated organics go first. Hugh

 

On Feb 23, 2019 8:48 AM, "'d.michael.shafer@...' d.michael.shafer@... [biochar]" <biochar@...> wrote:

 

According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.

 

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.

 

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.

 

M

 

 

 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 

[Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul included below]

To all,

 

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.

 

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?

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?)

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.)

 

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.

 

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hi Paul,

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter   

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@...>
Cc: "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Thank you.

 

There was no attached graph.   Please send.

 

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address.   So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv.   More comments are below.

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

 

[PSA>>]  The above is a valuable statement.   DM is “dry matter”, right?     Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha.   100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can  be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.  

??? Did I say that correctly?   We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.  

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this..

 

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln.   Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ

???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?   Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up?   Either way, that is a good starting  point.

 

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50..000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.   

[PSA>>] I agree.   The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors.   And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.  

??? Statement:   What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000.    Is that a good goal or “dream”???   Would that price make the production  of biochar become a major factor quickly???    I would like several people to comment about this.   Not just Hans-Peter has answers.   Comments from all are appreciated.

 

 

The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph.   I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass.   I need some instruction.   Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions?   The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!!    So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki  and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape??  Please help with this question.   I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

 

[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp

 

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>, "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages?    We are discussing developing countries..  Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

 

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from?   I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.  

 

*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers.   Any links to reports about this?   Why methane?   I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.  

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

 


Re: Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

Paul S Anderson
 

Michael, Hans-Peter (HPS), and all,

1. Several days of messages. The chemists and testing-experts have not replied (yet).

2. HPS has provided two publications that indicate methane, but there are no “replications” that confirm nor deny. Basically, we have very little info.

3. This thread of discussion started because HPS mentioned significant methane from Kon-Tiki (and by association, other flame-cap devices/ combustion).

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)?

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).

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.

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.

I think this topic should be of highEST interest to the IBI and USBI and others. Please assist.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: d.michael.shafer@gmail.com <d.michael.shafer@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 7:48 AM
To: biochar <biochar@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.

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.

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.

M



On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> [biochar] <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>> wrote:

[Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul included below]
To all,

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.

1. Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results? (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)
2. HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse. Which is it?
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?)
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.)

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.

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:draper@ithaka-institut.org>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hi Paul,
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.
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.
The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.
Be well, Hans-Peter

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Cc: "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter,

Thank you.

There was no attached graph. Please send.

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address. So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv. More comments are below.


Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

[PSA>>] The above is a valuable statement. DM is “dry matter”, right? Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha. 100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.
So a safe easy statement is that there can be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.
??? Did I say that correctly? We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.
???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.
[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln. Nice video of a small model at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ
???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day? Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up? Either way, that is a good starting point.

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.
[PSA>>] I agree. The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors. And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.
??? Statement: What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000. Is that a good goal or “dream”??? Would that price make the production of biochar become a major factor quickly??? I would like several people to comment about this. Not just Hans-Peter has answers. Comments from all are appreciated.


The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.
[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph. I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass. I need some instruction. Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions? The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!! So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape?? Please help with this question. I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

[PSA>>] Paul
Best, hp


Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>, "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter,

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages? We are discussing developing countries. Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from? I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.

*********
Another question:
I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers. Any links to reports about this? Why methane? I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.

Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>


Re: Methane from char-makers

Hugh McLaughlin
 

Small symmetrical molecules, including CO and Methane, have high autoignition temperatures. The presence of water vapors raised the vapors heat capacity, lowering the temperature rise for a given radiant energy flux, leading to lower combustion efficiencies for CO and Methane. All the oxygenated organics go first. Hugh

On Feb 23, 2019 8:48 AM, "'d.michael.shafer@...' d.michael.shafer@... [biochar]" <biochar@...> wrote:
 

According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.

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.

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.

M



On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul included below]

To all,

 

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.

 

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?

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?)

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.)

 

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.

 

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hi Paul,

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter   

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@...>
Cc: "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Thank you.

 

There was no attached graph.   Please send.

 

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address.   So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv.   More comments are below.

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

 

[PSA>>]  The above is a valuable statement.   DM is “dry matter”, right?     Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha.   100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can  be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.  

??? Did I say that correctly?   We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.  

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this..

 

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln.   Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ

???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?   Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up?   Either way, that is a good starting  point.

 

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50..000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.   

[PSA>>] I agree.   The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors.   And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.  

??? Statement:   What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000.    Is that a good goal or “dream”???   Would that price make the production  of biochar become a major factor quickly???    I would like several people to comment about this.   Not just Hans-Peter has answers.   Comments from all are appreciated.

 

 

The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph.   I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass.   I need some instruction.   Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions?   The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!!    So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki  and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape??  Please help with this question.   I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

 

[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp

 

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>, "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages?    We are discussing developing countries..  Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

 

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from?   I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.  

 

*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers.   Any links to reports about this?   Why methane?   I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.  

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 



Re: Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

According to the EPA, the GWP or Global Warming Potential, of methane is 25.

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.

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.

M



On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:40 PM 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul included below]

To all,

 

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.

 

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?

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?)

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.)

 

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.

 

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hi Paul,

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter   

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@...>
Cc: "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Thank you.

 

There was no attached graph.   Please send.

 

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address.   So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv.   More comments are below.

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

 

[PSA>>]  The above is a valuable statement.   DM is “dry matter”, right?     Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha.   100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can  be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.  

??? Did I say that correctly?   We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.  

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

 

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln.   Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ

???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?   Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up?   Either way, that is a good starting  point.

 

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.   

[PSA>>] I agree.   The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors.   And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.  

??? Statement:   What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000.    Is that a good goal or “dream”???   Would that price make the production  of biochar become a major factor quickly???    I would like several people to comment about this.   Not just Hans-Peter has answers.   Comments from all are appreciated.

 

 

The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph.   I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass.   I need some instruction.   Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions?   The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!!    So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki  and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape??  Please help with this question.   I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

 

[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp

 

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>, "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages?    We are discussing developing countries.  Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

 

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from?   I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.  

 

*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers.   Any links to reports about this?   Why methane?   I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.  

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 


Re: Characterizing Biochars, Part 2: Measuring Ash after the moisture is removed

d.michael.shafer@gmail.com
 

Thanks, Hugh, most comprehensive and comprehensible explanation yet. Not that I have a functioning muffle oven around or, praise the Lord, a ready tank of oxygen.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 6:18 AM Hugh McLaughlin wastemin1@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:
 

All,

Second, let's look at measuring the ash in dry biochar. After all the moisture is removed (or not), the next step is to remove the organic carbon, which includes any graphitic material but does not include “inorganic”carbon present as carbonates. One example of inorganic carbon is Calcium Carbonate or CaCO3, which is just the addition product of calcium oxide (calcined limestone) and atmospheric carbon dioxide, but there are many carbonates possible with all the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals. The good news is that any errors associated with inaccurate drying, either leaving some residual adsorbed moisture due to too low or too short of drying conditions, or stripping some volatiles that accompany the removal of the moisture, has less impact on the ash testing, since the moisture content overlaps with the volatiles content, and what does not get removed as moisture is removed by oxidizing the volatiles.

Just like removing the moisture without stripping excessive volatiles is a challenging partition, the conditions to oxidize the carbon (both organic and graphitic) without decomposing the inorganic carbonates is a fine line. If organic carbon is left unoxidized, it will be attributed to the ash fraction. If the carbonates are decomposed, inorganic carbon dioxide will be released and the ash determination will be artificially low, making the biochar look more organic carbon-rich.

The three proposed methods are again taken from the IBI Standards, the EBC (European Biochar Certificate) and the BBM (Baseline Biochar Metrics). IBI specifies ASTM D1762-84 “Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Wood Charcoal”, which calls for ashing at 750 °C for 6 hours. It is performed as part of a sequence of measurements where the same sample is transitioned through a series of conditions and the various measures are taken along the way, consisting of air dried and ground sample, dry at 105C for two hours (record moisture loss), then measure volatile matter to as the weight loss in a covered crucible at 950C, then ash at 750C for 6 hrs uncovered. The volatile matter step is especially challenging, where it is specified as “Heat the muffle furnace to 950°C. Preheat the crucibles used for the moisture determination, with lids in place and containing the sample, as follows: with the furnace door open, for 2 min on the outer ledge of the furnace (300°C) and then for 3 min on the edge of the furnace (500°C). Then move the samples to the rear of the furnace for 6 min with the muffle door closed. Watch the samples through a small peep-hole in the muffle door. If sparking occurs, results will be in error. Cool the samples in a desiccator for 1 h and weigh.”

The EBC and BBM methods are similar in that they both use 550C as the ashing temperature. EBC calls out “heating at 5 K/min to 106°C under nitrogen atmosphere then at 5 K/min to 550 Celsius under oxygen, hold for 1h”. Without having the actual regulation to review, I suspect that “oxygen” is really air, since flowing pure oxygen into a muffle furnace at 550C is not recommended - ever. The BBM method provides periodic inspection of the sample to determine how long at 550C for complete ashing, since it depends on the porosity of the biochar and the ash level.

So, it comes down to which temperature is best. The background of the IBI method seems to be a paper by Akio Enders, Kelly Hanley, Thea Whitman, Stephen Joseph, Johannes Lehmann “Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance”, Bioresource Technology 114 (2012) 644–653. In that paper, bottom right column of page 645, the statement is made: “The majority of carbonates in biochar, specifically calcium and potassium carbonates, resist decomposition at 750 C (Dean, 1999), the temperature prescribed by ASTM for quantification of the ash content.” Since this setpoint is so pivotal between the methods, it was decided to test it out in the lab with a sample of pure calcium carbonate, obtained as a free sample at an agricultural show and being a white finely divided powder. The results are shown in the first slide of the attachment.

As a confirmation, a sample of high carbon wood ash, known to contain a significant portion of calcium carbonate as the ash, which also represented a significant fraction of the dry biochar weight, was subjected to the same temperature variations. The results are shown in the second slide of the attachment.

What appears to be happening is the decomposition of the calcium carbonates at 750C, thereby lowering the weight of ash reported in the assay. Even more problematic is the rebound after the assay, where the ash determination slowly rises over time, presumably due to the slow uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the calcium oxide formed at the 750C ashing temperature, making the measurement a moving target.

Thus, the impact of using 750C as the ashing temperature is to under-report the ash level by an amount dependent on the level of carbonates in the original biochar sample. Since the total make up of the biochar adds up to 100 weight percent, the likely beneficiary is the resident carbon measure because the moisture, ash and mobile matter (volatiles) are removed and whatever is not accounted for is deemed resident matter or stable carbon. This is favorable if you are selling the biochar and especially positive if there are credits being given for sequestering stable carbon as biochar in the soil – unless you get caught by your customer or the carbon registry.

In conclusion, it is highly recommended to use 550C as the ashing temperature, as advocated by the EBC and BBM methods, but in direct conflict with the IBI Standards. However, if you want your biochar to look artificially better, the 750C temperature may improve the ash numbers by lowering them. However, at some point, one has to decide if artificially better is preferred over the alternative, which is the truth, in cases where it is actually worse than artificially better.


Re: Methane from char-makers

kchisholm <kchisholm@...>
 

Hi Paul

 

Would it be possible that you and Hans-Peter did a bit of work off-line, and then reported back to the List, giving a perspective on the nature and extent of the “Methane Problem”, and the circumstances where it might be an actual concern on stove and chart systems?

 

My “off-the-cuff”, “simple-wild-ass-guess” is that methane is not a problem if there is no smoke.

 

No point in consuming the List with a Subject that probably is a non-problem

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 10:37 AM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Cc: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Kevin,

 

The topic of methane only arose because Hans-Peter presented info about methane from Kon Tiki devices, and then the topic grew from there.

 

1.  Stove-size TLUDs:   no problem with methane had been detected, and current actions will continue unless someone who deals with stoves actually says that methane from cookstoves (of any type) is an emissions issue to be considered.  

 

2.  Char-makers such as Kon Tiki / trench for biochar AND CLIMATE MITIGATION are getting large enough that methane could be a problem that prevents or negates the value of sequestration.   THIS needs further discussion by the biochar folks.

 

3.  All big efforts such as Biogreen and ROI Carbonator 500 could be facing a challenge to their claims of climate benefits if methane is a true and serious problem.   Should be considered further.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:21 AM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves@...>
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Hi Paul

 

“Methane from Char-Makers” is a rather broad Subject Line. One can make char with many systems and techniques, and one can expect to produce various quantities of methane and char in various qualities. Clearly, a gasifier producing “Engine Grade Gas” and Char” could have Char/Methane output different from a TLUD, an externally heated retort, a Kontiki, a Three Stone Fire, etc.

 

In your case, where your major interest is in TLUD systems, it would appear that one way to proceed would be as follows:

1: Do “methane analysis” on TLUD flue gas, under various operating conditions, to determine how much, if any, CH4 is produced, and if any is produced, under what operating conditions is it produced.

 

2: Considering the markets into which you are selling various TLUD systems, is there a problem or opportunity associated with the presence or absence of CH4 in TLUD exit gases?

 

If there are no methane related problems or opportunities associated with your products and the markets into which you sell them, then you need have little to no concern for methane.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 1:06 AM
To: biochar@...; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 


Re: [Stoves] Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

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.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: dan weinshenker <danweinshenker@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:59 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>; Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu>; biochar@yahoogroups.com; posttowebsite-new <P5rth98QxAYb@drtlud.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Methane from char-makers

Just as measuring CO2 is a good proxy for power, is already-being-collected CO data a good proxy for methane?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:20 PM Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>> wrote:
Stovers and Char makers, (and is this message reaching Jim Jetter and Tami Bond and others?)

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).

2. Methane is bad!!! “But may only 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!!!

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.

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.

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:
A. DRY fuel. Drier than what is normal. Drier than the fuels for which we have designed our stoves.

B. RECIRCULATE the combustion gases back into the hot, burning environment.

C. Any other suggestions. Can it be done simply with better turbulence (mixing) or time or temperature?? It is a combustible gas.

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.

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)???

I am making a serious plea for assistance to help understand about these issues of methane. Should this be a serious concern????

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:26 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Subject: Re: Methane from char-makers

Hi Paul,
In regard to your question about methane:
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.
Best to you, Hans-Peter

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 15:39
An: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>>, "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>, 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>, Kathleen Draper <kdraper2@rochester.rr.com<mailto:kdraper2@rochester.rr.com>>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Betreff: Methane from char-makers

To all,

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.

1. Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results? (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)
2. HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse. Which is it?
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?)
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.)

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.

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:draper@ithaka-institut.org>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hi Paul,
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.
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.
The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.
Be well, Hans-Peter

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Cc: "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter,

Thank you.

There was no attached graph. Please send.

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address. So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv. More comments are below.


Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

[PSA>>] The above is a valuable statement. DM is “dry matter”, right? Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha. 100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.
So a safe easy statement is that there can be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.
??? Did I say that correctly? We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.
???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.
[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln. Nice video of a small model at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ
???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day? Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up? Either way, that is a good starting point.

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.
[PSA>>] I agree. The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors. And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.
??? Statement: What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000. Is that a good goal or “dream”??? Would that price make the production of biochar become a major factor quickly??? I would like several people to comment about this. Not just Hans-Peter has answers. Comments from all are appreciated.


The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.
[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph. I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass. I need some instruction. Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions? The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!! So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape?? Please help with this question. I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

[PSA>>] Paul
Best, hp


Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>, "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter,

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages? We are discussing developing countries. Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from? I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.

*********
Another question:
I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers. Any links to reports about this? Why methane? I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.

Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/


Re: Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

Kevin,

 

The topic of methane only arose because Hans-Peter presented info about methane from Kon Tiki devices, and then the topic grew from there.

 

1.  Stove-size TLUDs:   no problem with methane had been detected, and current actions will continue unless someone who deals with stoves actually says that methane from cookstoves (of any type) is an emissions issue to be considered.  

 

2.  Char-makers such as Kon Tiki / trench for biochar AND CLIMATE MITIGATION are getting large enough that methane could be a problem that prevents or negates the value of sequestration.   THIS needs further discussion by the biochar folks.

 

3.  All big efforts such as Biogreen and ROI Carbonator 500 could be facing a challenge to their claims of climate benefits if methane is a true and serious problem.   Should be considered further.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@...
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:21 AM
To: biochar@...; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Hi Paul

 

“Methane from Char-Makers” is a rather broad Subject Line. One can make char with many systems and techniques, and one can expect to produce various quantities of methane and char in various qualities. Clearly, a gasifier producing “Engine Grade Gas” and Char” could have Char/Methane output different from a TLUD, an externally heated retort, a Kontiki, a Three Stone Fire, etc.

 

In your case, where your major interest is in TLUD systems, it would appear that one way to proceed would be as follows:

1: Do “methane analysis” on TLUD flue gas, under various operating conditions, to determine how much, if any, CH4 is produced, and if any is produced, under what operating conditions is it produced.

 

2: Considering the markets into which you are selling various TLUD systems, is there a problem or opportunity associated with the presence or absence of CH4 in TLUD exit gases?

 

If there are no methane related problems or opportunities associated with your products and the markets into which you sell them, then you need have little to no concern for methane.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 1:06 AM
To: biochar@...; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@...>
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 


Re: Methane from char-makers

kchisholm <kchisholm@...>
 

Hi Geoff

 

Your questions below get to the heart of the matter:

I guess two questions would arise, - one is why would pyrolising wood give off extra methane, and what would stop the flammable gas methane from just burning as it usually does in a flame?

In regard to #1, I would suggest that ALL pyrolysis processes produce CH4 is the converting solid biomass into “gasified biomass and char”.

 

In regard to the second question, “local reaction conditions” are very important.  Temperature, time, turbulence, primary and secondary air conditions, moisture in initial fuel, etc, are all important in determining the “exit gas analysis”, as it leaves a local reaction site.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 2:10 AM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Yes Paul, there was earlier mention of flame cap kilns but the main last bit seemed on stoves. 

So on Flame caps, it is true that not all the gases will go back through the charcoal, - although a lot will, as the flame cap is where the gases mix and are then burnt, - it is complex, some are going down or the fire would completely extinguish, some are mixing and burning like in an efficient wood heater, - double burning, some may just pass through the flame cap once, and go out perhaps not totally combusted, - although that has to be a low percentage otherwise lotsa smoke.

I guess two questions would arise, - one is why would pyrolising wood give off extra methane, and what would stop the flammable gas methane from just burning as it usually does in a flame?

Surely unless there is some evidence of methane, (not one part in a billion) my original question should still stand, - why test only  for methane, why not  radioactivity, bubonic plage or terrorist messages?

My nose for hidden agenda suggests that, because some people argue that the tree should just be left to rot, as that is ‘natural,’ rather than pyrolized to save the planet from excess co2,  that just left to rot argument was shot down by another member who claimed that the tree would then emit 10% methane, probably true,  so no one likes to be shot down.

However, sometimes the only way to learn, - I get shot down all the time ;)

 

On 22 Feb 2019, at 3:06 pm, 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:

 

 

Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...> 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1..  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 

 

 


Re: Methane from char-makers

kchisholm <kchisholm@...>
 

Hi Paul

 

“Methane from Char-Makers” is a rather broad Subject Line. One can make char with many systems and techniques, and one can expect to produce various quantities of methane and char in various qualities. Clearly, a gasifier producing “Engine Grade Gas” and Char” could have Char/Methane output different from a TLUD, an externally heated retort, a Kontiki, a Three Stone Fire, etc.

 

In your case, where your major interest is in TLUD systems, it would appear that one way to proceed would be as follows:

1: Do “methane analysis” on TLUD flue gas, under various operating conditions, to determine how much, if any, CH4 is produced, and if any is produced, under what operating conditions is it produced.

 

2: Considering the markets into which you are selling various TLUD systems, is there a problem or opportunity associated with the presence or absence of CH4 in TLUD exit gases?

 

If there are no methane related problems or opportunities associated with your products and the markets into which you sell them, then you need have little to no concern for methane.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

 

From: biochar@... [mailto:biochar@...]
Sent: February 22, 2019 1:06 AM
To: biochar@...; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: RE: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

 

Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 


Re: Methane from char-makers

Geoff Thomas
 

Yes Paul, there was earlier mention of flame cap kilns but the main last bit seemed on stoves. 
So on Flame caps, it is true that not all the gases will go back through the charcoal, - although a lot will, as the flame cap is where the gases mix and are then burnt, - it is complex, some are going down or the fire would completely extinguish, some are mixing and burning like in an efficient wood heater, - double burning, some may just pass through the flame cap once, and go out perhaps not totally combusted, - although that has to be a low percentage otherwise lotsa smoke.
I guess two questions would arise, - one is why would pyrolising wood give off extra methane, and what would stop the flammable gas methane from just burning as it usually does in a flame?
Surely unless there is some evidence of methane, (not one part in a billion) my original question should still stand, - why test only  for methane, why not  radioactivity, bubonic plage or terrorist messages?
My nose for hidden agenda suggests that, because some people argue that the tree should just be left to rot, as that is ‘natural,’ rather than pyrolized to save the planet from excess co2,  that just left to rot argument was shot down by another member who claimed that the tree would then emit 10% methane, probably true,  so no one likes to be shot down.
However, sometimes the only way to learn, - I get shot down all the time ;)
 

On 22 Feb 2019, at 3:06 pm, 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:


Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@... <biochar@...> 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 




Re: Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

Dear all,

 

I place comments below in Geoff’s message (shortened) and then I paste the key first paragraph of a message from Frank Shields.  Both add to our information and also raise some questions relating to methane.

 

See below.

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: biochar@...
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:19 PM
To: biochar@...
Subject: Re: [biochar] Methane from char-makers

 

  [PSA>>] Geoff wrote:

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.

Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?

[PSA>>] There is some disagreement here.   SOME units pass the exhaust gas through glowing hot charcoal (such as downdraft gasifiers), But TLUDs pass it through residual charcoal, and flame-cap (Kon Tiki) do not pass it through any charcoal.

You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..

Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

[PSA>>] I think that questions 1 and 3 still need further answers.

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?[PSA>>]  Already answered by Hans-Peter

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?)

Below is Frank Shield’s comment:

Hi Paul,

There is equipment to measure methane without a lot of cost. I played around with them when at the Soil Control Lab. There may be interference from other gasses (false positives) so that will need be checked. I do not have that equipment and I am sure they at the lab would not know where it is. Also; I found that biochar will take up methane like it does butane. I tested that using pure methane but I no longer have my results. Likely in a combustion atmosphere there will be other gases competing with the methane and may dirty the char.

PSA:  I can appreciate the difficulties of getting good measurements.   But note that the flame-cap Kon Tiki does not have the gases (including methane) passing through charcoal. 

I think the questions #1 and #3 could still have further responses.

Paul

 


Re: Methane from char-makers

Geoff Thomas
 

Thanks for that table Valentine, anyone who claims variance from that should be able to prove it or at least cite studies so indicating.
Q/1, why are stoves not tested for methane? - well, the dominant information in the Biochar world is that the passing of exhaust smoke through a glowing charcoal bed crazy for oxygen causes all the aromatic etc oils to burn, the carbon dioxide to burn, the water to split into oxygen and hydrogen and burn, - why would methane be excepted?
You might as well ask why are stoves not tested for radiation, Bubonic plague or terrroism messages..
Q/3, answered by 1, except if far too much water is added, in which case the stove would probably self extinguish. 

By no means a fault exclusive to the Biochar  movement, but met in all walks of life is the habit of declaring assertions that are totally unfounded, but because they are declared with force and ferocity, intimidate the unsure.
This habit is particularly rife in Politics, and indeed some politicians construct a whole career wherein almost nothing they ever say has any basis in fact or even attempts to have such a basis.
Hard facts and proven studies are the only counter to this arrant stupidity, and I think if more of us speak out, the habit of unfounded assertions would dwindle.
I would also argue that virtually the whole movement of global warming denying is based on these assertions, most of which somehow justify those who benefit from fossil fuel ownership.
On the tombstone of planet Earth may be soon written, “Were not critical enough of unfounded assertions.”

On 22 Feb 2019, at 4:03 am, 'Valentine A. Nzengung' vnzengun@... [biochar] <biochar@...> wrote:


The data below is from a NOA report and published in Environmental Science textbooks.



Valentine Nzengung
Professor
Environmental Geochemistry
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602, USA
Office Ph: (706) 542-2699
Mobile: (706) 202-4296
Email: vnzengun@...
http://geology.uga.edu/directory/valentine-nzengung



From: biochar@yahoogroups..com <biochar@...> on behalf of 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar] <biochar@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:38 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; biochar@...; 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal; Kathleen Draper
Cc: Anderson, Paul
Subject: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]
 
 
[Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul included below]

To all,

 

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.

 

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?

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?)

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.)

 

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.

 

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...> 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hi Paul, 

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter   

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@...>
Cc: "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Thank you.

 

There was no attached graph.   Please send.

 

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address.   So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv.   More comments are below.

 
 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

 

[PSA>>]  The above is a valuable statement.   DM is “dry matter”, right?     Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha.   100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can  be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.  

??? Did I say that correctly?   We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.  

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

 

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln.   Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ

???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?   Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up?   Either way, that is a good starting  point.

 

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.   

[PSA>>] I agree.   The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors.   And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.  

??? Statement:   What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000.    Is that a good goal or “dream”???   Would that price make the production  of biochar become a major factor quickly???    I would like several people to comment about this.   Not just Hans-Peter has answers.   Comments from all are appreciated.

 
 

The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph.   I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass.   I need some instruction.   Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions?   The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!!    So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki  and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape??  Please help with this question.   I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

 

[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp

 
 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>, "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages?    We are discussing developing countries.  Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

 

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from?   I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.  

 

*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers.   Any links to reports about this?   Why methane?   I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.   

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 




Re: Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

Stovers and Char makers, (and is this message reaching Jim Jetter and Tami Bond and others?)

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).

2. Methane is bad!!! “But may only 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!!!

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.

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.

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:
A. DRY fuel. Drier than what is normal. Drier than the fuels for which we have designed our stoves.

B. RECIRCULATE the combustion gases back into the hot, burning environment.

C. Any other suggestions. Can it be done simply with better turbulence (mixing) or time or temperature?? It is a combustible gas.

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.

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)???

I am making a serious plea for assistance to help understand about these issues of methane. Should this be a serious concern????

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 10:26 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: Methane from char-makers

Hi Paul,
In regard to your question about methane:
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.
Best to you, Hans-Peter

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 15:39
An: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>>, "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>, 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>, Kathleen Draper <kdraper2@rochester.rr.com<mailto:kdraper2@rochester.rr.com>>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Betreff: Methane from char-makers

To all,

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.

1. Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results? (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)
2. HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse. Which is it?
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?)
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.)

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.

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:draper@ithaka-institut.org>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hi Paul,
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.
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.
The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.
Be well, Hans-Peter

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Cc: "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter,

Thank you.

There was no attached graph. Please send.

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address. So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv. More comments are below.


Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

[PSA>>] The above is a valuable statement. DM is “dry matter”, right? Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha. 100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.
So a safe easy statement is that there can be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.
??? Did I say that correctly? We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.
???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.
[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln. Nice video of a small model at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ
???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day? Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up? Either way, that is a good starting point.

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.
[PSA>>] I agree. The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors. And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.
??? Statement: What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000. Is that a good goal or “dream”??? Would that price make the production of biochar become a major factor quickly??? I would like several people to comment about this. Not just Hans-Peter has answers. Comments from all are appreciated.


The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.
[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph. I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass. I need some instruction. Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions? The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!! So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape?? Please help with this question. I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

[PSA>>] Paul
Best, hp


Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@ithaka-institut.org<mailto:schmidt@ithaka-institut.org>>, "biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>" <biochar@yahoogroups.com<mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com>>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu>>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter,

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages? We are discussing developing countries. Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from? I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.

*********
Another question:
I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers. Any links to reports about this? Why methane? I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.

Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>


Re: Dirt to Soil: One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agr

João Pedro Moreira Gonçalves <joaovox@...>
 

What readings would you suggest about "the role of wildfire on soil"?

Thank you.

A qua, 20/02/2019, 16:56, Lou Puls lou.puls@... [biochar] <biochar@...> escreveu:

 

Awareness of the damage of industrial chemistry to agriculture is certainly welcome, but six pages on the carbon cycle and a mention of the role of wildfire on soil is hardly a call to farm land like a forest.


Re: Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]

Valentine Nzengung
 

The data below is from a NOA report and published in Environmental Science textbooks.




Valentine Nzengung
Professor
Environmental Geochemistry
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602, USA
Office Ph: (706) 542-2699
Mobile: (706) 202-4296
Email: vnzengun@...
http://geology.uga.edu/directory/valentine-nzengung



From: biochar@... on behalf of 'Anderson, Paul' psanders@... [biochar]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:38 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; biochar@...; 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal; Kathleen Draper
Cc: Anderson, Paul
Subject: [biochar] Methane from char-makers [1 Attachment]
 
 
[Attachment(s) from Anderson, Paul included below]

To all,

 

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.

 

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?

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?)

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.)

 

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.

 

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul
Cc: Kathleen Draper
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hi Paul,

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter   

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@...>
Cc: "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Thank you.

 

There was no attached graph.   Please send.

 

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address.   So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv.   More comments are below.

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

 

[PSA>>]  The above is a valuable statement.   DM is “dry matter”, right?     Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha.   100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can  be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.  

??? Did I say that correctly?   We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.  

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

 

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln.   Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ

???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?   Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up?   Either way, that is a good starting  point.

 

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.   

[PSA>>] I agree.   The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors.   And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.  

??? Statement:   What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000.    Is that a good goal or “dream”???   Would that price make the production  of biochar become a major factor quickly???    I would like several people to comment about this.   Not just Hans-Peter has answers.   Comments from all are appreciated.

 

 

The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph.   I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass.   I need some instruction.   Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions?   The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!!    So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki  and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape??  Please help with this question.   I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

 

[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp

 

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>, "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages?    We are discussing developing countries.  Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

 

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from?   I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.  

 

*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers.   Any links to reports about this?   Why methane?   I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.  

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 


Methane from char-makers

Paul S Anderson
 

To all,

 

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.

 

1.  Why are the stove tests not including methane emissions results?  (be sure Jim Jetter sees this.)

2.  HPS says methane is 100 times worse than CO2, but others say 25 times worse.   Which is it?

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?)

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.)

 

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.

 

I hope that there is substantial discussion about the methane topic.

 

Paul

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:29 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Cc: Kathleen Draper <draper@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hi Paul,

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.

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.

The problem with methane in all low-tech pyrolysis systems is that methane molecules get wrapped by arising water vapor which prevent its combustion.

Be well, Hans-Peter   

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2019 um 04:25
An: "Schmidt, Hans-Peter" <schmidt@...>
Cc: "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Betreff: RE: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Thank you.

 

There was no attached graph.   Please send.

 

I am assuming that you are not subscribed to the Biochar Listserv because you do not send replies to that address.   So I am forwarding your very valuable comments to the Biochar listserv.   More comments are below.

 

 

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

From: Schmidt, Hans-Peter <schmidt@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@...>
Subject: Re: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

... considering that 40 t DM of biomass per ha is what can be expected in tropical carbon farming systems, the 1500 t of biomass necessary for one standard size E-pyrolysis would need about 40 ha. And even when they do not achieve those numbers in productivity in the first years, with 100 – 200 ha there would be enough biomass per village. In the tropics, this is more or less year around, and the machines can work in continuous processes.

 

[PSA>>]  The above is a valuable statement.   DM is “dry matter”, right?     Just knowing about 40 t/ha/year would require 40 ha, and then to have extra, allow up to 100 or 200 ha.   100 ha is NOT a very big area; it is only 1 sq km.

So a safe easy statement is that there can  be sufficient biomass to produce 1 t of char per day for a year from a area the size of about 1 sq km.  

??? Did I say that correctly?   We do not want to be saying things that we later need to retract.  

???? Maybe others who are in the tropical settings (Thailand, Uganda, etc.) could comment about this.

 

The US$ 50.000 estimate are based on our experimental E-Pyrolysis data, the Pyreg 1 t BC per day systems and experiences with other rotary kiln systems.

[PSA>>] I looked up the Pyreg rotary kiln.   Nice video of a small model at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=138&v=Rok9a28IJqQ

???Where is there some info of a larger unit that does 1 t BC per day?   Or was that a calculated estimate of scale-up?   Either way, that is a good starting  point.

 

It is only an estimate but I do not see any that may increase the material and construction cost beyond 50.000 when it enters serial mass production. And I also think that 50.000 would be a kind of limit for investors to start upscaling.   

[PSA>>] I agree.   The $50,000 is not a trivial amount and could be the limit for investors.   And that is ONLY based on when serial mass production is possible.  

??? Statement:   What the world needs is a 1 t of BC per day system that costs only $25,000.    Is that a good goal or “dream”???   Would that price make the production  of biochar become a major factor quickly???    I would like several people to comment about this.   Not just Hans-Peter has answers.   Comments from all are appreciated.

 

 

The methane emissions shown in the graph are based on our Kon-Tiki paper (attached). The data are even much worse when the feedstock is not completely dry. We are going to publish a paper about it within the next months.

[PSA>>] As said before, please send the graph.   I really did not associate methane with burning of biomass.   I need some instruction.   Does an open fire (bonfire or campfire or 3-stone fire) put out considerable methane emissions?   The testing of cookstoves does NOT have a methane concern!!!!    So is it something about the flame-cap of the Kon-Tiki  and other open cone kilns that “causes” the methane to be created and to escape??  Please help with this question.   I am still not understanding about methane for such fires.

 

[PSA>>] Paul

Best, hp

 

 

Von: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2019 um 23:57
An: 'Hans-Peter Schmidt' - Switzerland - Nepal <schmidt@...>, "biochar@..." <biochar@...>
Cc: "Anderson, Paul" <psanders@...>
Betreff: Webinar comments by Hans-Peter

 

Hans-Peter,

 

Just wondering, why do you think that the 1 t/day of char production would be a size that would be appropriate for villages?    We are discussing developing countries.  Would this be expected year round, or maybe only seasonally for 2 to 5 months (and then idle)?

 

And where did the $50,000 price per pyrolyzer installation come from?   I am content if you say it was just a convenient number, but maybe you have some basis for it.  

 

*********

Another question:

I was surprised by your comment about the (relatively) high emissions of methane from the Kon Tiki (and other) flame-cap charmakers.   Any links to reports about this?   Why methane?   I would have more easily believe high PM or CO.  

 

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP

Email:  psanders@...       Skype:   paultlud

Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

Website:   www.drtlud.com

 

6321 - 6340 of 30892