RE: Methane from char-makers

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<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

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.

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<www.drtlud.com>