RE: [Biochar] Stoves and Africa, continued

Ron, I’ll consolidate several messages.  

 

In Africa, making 1 tonne of char from crop waste (that would otherwise be burned) with the top down burn (TDB) made into briquettes to replace wood charcoal will mitigate
9+ tonnes of CO2e.* I’m seeking comments on this analysis.

 

From our work in Malawi and Uganda, I know that farmers can easily switch from traditional burning of crop waste to the TDB.  They can make tonnes of char.  Making 1 tonne
of briquettes mitigates 9 tonnes of CO2e PLUS the reduction in emissions compared to traditional crop waste burning.

 

I’ll use an example to illustrate this.  I must guess at two of these numbers. This analysis gives 9+ tonnes of mitigated CO2e whatever numbers are used. These
are the numbers I’ll use:

– 9 tonnes of CO2e are caused in making 1 tonnes of char in an earthen mound
(as most charcoal in Africa is made). (FAO,
2017)

– 4 tonnes of dry maize stalks with TBD make 1 tonne of char. (Our
test burning maize stalks with the TDB had a 26% conversion rate.) 

– 5 tonnes of CO2e are emitted by burning 4 tonnes of maize stalks the traditional way. (Guess) 

– 1 tonne of CO2e is emitted by burning 4 tonnes of maize stalks. (Guess) 

 

Let’s compare the CO2e emissions in these scenarios:

 

Scenario 1.  Make 1 tonne of char with wood in an earthen mound. 

Emissions:  9 tonnes. 

 

Scenario 2.  Burn 4 tonnes of maize stalks to ash using traditional burn. 

Emissions:  5 tonnes. 

 

Scenario 3.  Burn 4 tonnes of maize stalks with the TDB to make 1 tonne of char. 

Emissions: 1 tonne. 

 

So in Scenario 3, since we are using the TDB
INSTEAD OF traditional burning, the net emissions are a negative 4 tonnes. PLUS we make 1 tonne of char to replace the 1 tonne of char made in Scenario 1, eliminating the 9 tonnes of CO2e. So by making 1 tonne of char with the TDB (Scenario 3), 13 tonnes
of CO2e are mitigated. 

 

Let me better explain why Scenario 3 mitigates 13 tonnes of CO2e.

 

For now, let’s ignore the char production with the TDB.  Unless we intervene, the farmer will burn his 4 tonnes of maize stalks the traditional way.  He will light the
pile on the side, the pile will explode into smoke and it will continue billowing smoke as it smolders for many hours.  Instead, we train him to light the pile on the top.  There is very little smoke.  After 3 minutes, he quenches the fire.  So instead of
hours of billowing smoke, there are a few minutes with a little smoke.  Instead of 5 tonnes of CO2e, there is 1 tonne of CO2e.  He just mitigated 4 tonnes of CO2e.  (This
video shows piles burned side-by-side, traditional vs TDB.)

 

But the farmer also made 1 tonne of char when he quenched the embers.  He can easily make that char into 1 tonne of briquettes that replace 1 tonne of charcoal.  That 1
tonne of charcoal would have been made with wood in an earthen mound and would have produced 9 tonnes of CO2e.  So using the TDB char to replace charcoal, another 9 tonnes of CO2e is mitigated.  (The charcoal would have been burned just like the briquettes
will be burned so this burning is a wash/nonissue.)

 

   4 tonnes of CO2e mitigated when burning the maize stalks

+ 9 tonnes of CO2e mitigated by replacing charcoal with TDB char

 13 tonnes of CO2e mitigated

 

*Notes:

1. The “+” in “9+ tonnes” represents the difference in emissions between traditional crop waste burning and TDB.  This assumes
that traditional burning causes more emissions than the TDB method … I am certain it does.  Therefore, making TDB briquettes causes net negative emissions compared to the baseline. The amount of emissions from traditional burning and the TDB doesn’t really
matter here, so long as the TDB gives fewer emissions.

2. Whether it takes 4 or 8 tonnes of dry crop waste to make 1 tonne of char doesn’t matter to reach this conclusion. 

3. Quality briquettes can be made with just labor using the
small plastic pipe method.

4. Transportation of charcoal only minimally adds to the CO2e.  But transportation of briquettes should be lower than charcoal
because they can be made closer to urban areas.

 

This is not just a hypothetical.  My colleague in Malawi, for example, expects to buy 2,500 tonnes of char this year to sell as biochar and to make briquettes.  Farmers
are very happy to make TDB char and sell it to him for less than $30/tonne.

 

 

Any comments on my analysis?

 

Kevin

 

 

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 6:59 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@comcast.net> wrote:

List: with 2 ccs.

 

 On May 14,  I reported to this list on a large conference held that day on stoves and Africa.  No biochar content at the Conference probably (I’m still looking), but there has been a nice biochar-related discussion on our sister “stoves”
list, which co-received that message.    This below just sent there – MAINLY about biochar. (With stoves and Africa.)

 

I learned from Teddy’s recent message of what seems to be a great opportunity to advance biochar: refugee camps.

 

This is also to ask Kevin to send this list his stoves message today that also relates to biochar production in Africa – with a different connection to stoves.

 

Looking for your comments here especially;   is our opportunity large in the refugee camp world?

 

Ron

 

Begin forwarded message:

 

From:
Ronal Larson <rongretlarson@comcast.net>

Subject:
Re: [Stoves] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: SPAM: ***SPAM*** RE: Clean Cooking Conference / environmentally charcoal production

Date:
May 22, 2024 at 4:35:00 PM MDT

To:
“stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org” <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org>,
Cookswell Jikos <cookswelljikos@gmail.com>

Cc:
Kevin McLean <kmclean56@gmail.com>

 

Teddy and list:   cc Kevin

 

1.   Really good article;  thanks.   Your last line of the 19th (all below) re ( https://www.the-star.co.ke/counties/north-eastern/2024-05-17-clean-cooking-summit-was-a-flop-says-civil-society/ )
gets us to this picture taken in a refugee camp:

 

 

2.   Assume that we see in that picture exactly 1 metric tonne (1 BDT) of biomass (after drying to bone dry conditions).  In Colorado, in chipped form, worth about $50. Assume
$20-25 in a Kenyan refugee camp? 

 Maybe a day’s worth of labor for 2-3 people?  (More employment is better in these camps.) 

 The technology exists now in that village for the woman shown (or many) to turn that one BDT into 1/5 – 1/4 tonne of charcoal (typical 20-25% stove char-making efficiency).
 

 Maybe some one else needed to turn the char into biochar – but also maybe not – if the camp grows some part of their daily food needs.

 

3.   I could try to put that same load into the number of loads per family or per unit of time – but we know little now about that refugee camp and how they cook.  But each
camp would know everything very accurately by the camp administration. (Ie the number of people and the present cost of fuel). 

     With char-making stoves, the annual fuel costs should be cut by a factor of 2 to 4. But no change in the cost of the pictured load .

 

4.   But the most important point is not the reduced annual loads or costs.  It is that the present (large) fuel expense stream turns into an income stream.  Not known well
by readers because it also varies all over the place, but one important common low number is $100/TBC.  

So the cart’s 1 BDT expense near $20-25 can go to a sales value of (1/5-1/4 tonne) x $100. = $20-25.  

Surprisingly the same number and same (roughly 80%) accuracy.  If able to value the
(now) biochar for local value in BOTH soil AND CDR terms, that cart cost of $20-25 might only be 20-25% of the sale value. (Saying the 100 year value could be well over $100/tonne.) 

 

5.  And the increased value of the pictured 1 BDT can be seen within days, not the usual months or years.

This in part because the camp operator will also know that the CDR value is in his//her hands because of being able to receive carbon credit.  No need for outside validators
for each load.  Carbon credit buyers should feel comfortable helping such UN-related camps.   He/she will also know the soil improvement value (which might be a lot in helping during droughts).

6.  One quote on the cartload weight contents (note per capital not family):’   “Most
cooks used an open fire using an average of 2.2 kg of wood per capita per day.”  (From  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0973082612000221

Same (exactly in Table 23) from:  https://qsel.columbia.edu/assets/uploads/blog/2013/09/HouseholdEnergyAfrica.pdf

 

7.   What is new to me for Teddy’s article and picture is how ideal a refugee camp is for accelerating large-scale biochar worldwide.   More true in Africa than anywhere,
probably. 

    I cannot conceive of a better combination in one place of everything needed in the chain of components of any biochar story.  More coming on this.

 

Comments?

 

Ron.   (And almost the same going separately to “biochar.io”))

 

 

On May 19, 2024, at 4:40 AM, Cookswell Jikos <cookswelljikos@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Hi All, what of when charcoal production is a by-product and subsidizes the clearing land for agriculture or thinning bush for livestock grazing as is increasingly
the case in Kenya?https://www.facebook.com/EastAfricanBiomassEnergyPortal/posts/pfbid01GKaVUJj3ArpSsSNbutt7NLpxjomVXkVJpz8LTArAjefEAXTwcXVPCK2UQzEedEol

 

Also in local news, the Clean Cooking Summit got some interesting reactions in the Kenyan press:  

 

”Civil society organisations said clean cooking crisis disproportionately
affects women and girls.

However, the list of high-level participants showed that women made up only 26 per cent of the attendees.

Only 38 per cent of the attendees were from Africa, with just 14 African women included in the list of 84 participants (17 per cent).

African CSOs warned that rush by wealthy corporations to buy carbon credits from poor African countries is a ploy by the companies to continue polluting the world to Africa’s detriment

IEA says $4 billion (Sh524 billion) in investments will be needed annually by 2030 to provide households in Africa with clean cooking.

Power Shift Africa director Mohammed Adow said the resolutions reached during the summit were created by a bunch of rich men from the global north.

“There is no mention of the absolute poverty and disempowerment of the women who are currently forced to use dirty fuels for cooking,” Adow said.

Developing a sustainable local economy with clean cooking technology was also not mentioned.

“What we need is a woman-centred approach that puts their needs first, not those of a greedy private sector looking to make profit.  There is a growing argument that most of the
women who could afford and access gas for cooking could also afford and access electric cooking, which can be powered by renewable energy.  That should be the focus,” Adow said.

Christian Aid Senior Advocacy Advisor Joab Okanda said it is not a coincidence that the summit is being held in France.

“We must ask ourselves, whose agenda was the summit driving? Was this really a summit for Africa or a summit to continue extracting from Africa?” he asked.

Power Shift Africa senior adviser Fadhel Kaboub said the EU and the IEA last year announced a clean cooking plan for Africa, without consulting the African Union or African governments.

“There is no reason to have a clean cooking summit that does not include industrialisation, industrial policy and unlocking Africa’s development potential,” he said.

“Carbon markets allow polluters in the Global North to continue polluting for little money—financial crumbs. Carbon markets are a dangerous distraction and a false solution.”

CAN International coordinator Janet Milongo said representation during the summit was skewed in favour of oil and gas lobbyists.

She said it was biased towards the continuation of the colonial, patriarchal representation of the continent.

“Women, who are the most affected by the climate crisis, had the least space at the summit to speak about their realities.”

World Resources Institute deputy director Rebekah Shirley said in order to establish truly lasting and sustainable solutions, women who represent rural and
peri-urban communities across the continent must be firmly and squarely established at the helm of the discussions.”

 

https://www.the-star.co.ke/counties/north-eastern/2024-05-17-clean-cooking-summit-was-a-flop-says-civil-society/ 

 

 

 

 

Teddy 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 4:39 PM K McLean <kmclean56@gmail.com> wrote:

 

<snip 3-4 as not being so much on Africa and cookstoves