Stove list, Otto, Rajan, Roger, Crispin etal Reply comments below from a Biochar supporter (in Rio - having just finished IBI conference #3)
----- Mensagem original ----- De: "Otto Formo" <[email protected]> Para: "rajan jiby" <[email protected]>, "Roger Samson" <[email protected]> Cc: "stoves" <[email protected]> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 15 de Setembro de 2010 13:16:03 Assunto: Re: [Stoves] The Biochar myth..another stovers myth Dear Rajan, does not composting also release Methan (CH4), which is considered as the culpit of climate change gazes? RWL - CH4 is a (not the) culprit. CO2 is larger in general and probably also even for compost. In most places where stoves are used, my experience is that compost probably is mostly gone in a year. The taiga in Sibiria is melting down and has started giving Methan to our atmosphere coursing a raising temperature and climate change leaving the Northern Passage open for shipstraffic this year for the first time in historie. RWL - Mostly agree - but primary cause has been CO2 - and the passage was open last year and maybe one or more before in recent history. I predict no transit (in September) problem for many future years and 2010 will have a new record low arctic ice volume (not area, for which 2007 is still the leader - but probably not for many more years ) for the fourth year in a row. (More below) Otto > From: [email protected] > Sent: 2010-09-15 17:43:43 MEST > To: Roger Samson [[email protected]] > Cc: stoves [[email protected]] > Subject: Re: [Stoves] The Biochar myth..another stovers myth > > Dear Roger, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Samson" <[email protected]> > To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 September, 2010 07:47 PM > Subject: RE: [Stoves] The Biochar myth..another stovers myth > > > > > Yes Crispin is correct that is another stovers myth is that biochar saves > > trees. Energy lost in carbon buried is carbon borrowed from another > > source. RWL - Crispin, being a climate denier, should not be taken as the final word on these issues. Biochar in many places is giving a doubling of soil productivity for centuries not just the first year, when there is a need for twice as much fuel. But as Nathan Mulcahy has been emphasizing, the fuels for pyrolyzing stoves need not be wood at all. And for charcoal consuming stoves - almost certainly obtained from wood, the gain of pyrolyzing stoves is even greater. > > Biochar can be used as fuel or soil nutrient or some other purpose according > to somebody's choice. RWL - Wrong. The word [Biochar] is normally reserved for char placed in the ground - not used (ever) as fuel. There are many advantages from placing biochar in the ground besides increased biomass production. Examples are water, nitrogen, and phosphorus conservation, capture of both methane and N2O , and of course climate protection. > > "Saving of trees" happens when we "stop cutting the trees". Personally, I am > very much against unreasonable cutting of trees. > > My main points are as follows: > > 1. Use residues for fuel instead of cutting trees. > 2. If charcoal from residues is used as soil nutrient, the process is > carbon-negative. > 3. If charcoal from residues is burnt as fuel, the process is carbon > neutral. > 4. If somebody is cutting trees for fuel ( without proper replacement ), > the process is carbon-positive - contributing to global warming, etc. This > is precisely what is happening today - see how forests disappear. RWL concurs in all of above - and this is a partial list. > > > > > It's the lignin fraction in biomass (trees, grasses roots etc) that is not > > readily decomposed when added to soils. Lignin can be considered the most > > important relatively stable C fraction in plants that is not readily > > decompsoed. Phytoliths in grasses are also an important carbon source for > > forming soils. The grassland soils of the world (chernozems etc) are > > formed > > as a result of years of deposition of phytoliths We can grow grasses and > > pelletize them and create both improved soils and lots of clean bunring > > high > > yielding fuel. RWL The last part is indeed true - but I am pretty sure that trees generally produce more than grasses on an annual basis. But grasses are pretty hard to use in all but pyrolyzing stoves. Compost and lignin can be relatively long lasting - but orders of magnitude less than char - and (repeating) hardly last at all in equatorial regions. This Biochar conference had many papers showing much superior carbon sequestration with char over compost. > > > To my knowledge, carbon from biochar remains in the soil as carbon for much > longer time - compared to carbon present in compost ( which gets converted > into CO2 ). Please correct me if I am wrong. RWL - saying you are right - and ending this brief defense of Biochar.. > > Best Regards, > > > Rajan >
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org http://stoves.bioenergylists.org http://info.bioenergylists.org UNSUBSCRIBE HERE; http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
