List:
I have found this dialog on PV quite interesting (see below), but think it
is not at all related to Paul O's main point. His point is that today's end
users of fossil fuel for thermal energy can save money if they make char.
The similarity with the PV story is not about taxes, but rather about
supplying the hardware via only monthly charges (no up front down payment) and
also keeping the equipment in good running order.
There is also a big difference in that the PV owner pays monthly but saves,
but the char - making gas user returns char, to someone who wants it. Maybe
money monthly is not involved. That is a huge difference
In both cases, the economics are favored by the big differences in
wholesale and retail prices. In many developing countries, there is also an
issue of assured supply. Also there is no issue in the biochar case of needing
to worry about energy storage/backup. This is a big advantage that biomass has
over both solar and wind.
Note that Paul is mostly not talking stoves - but meeting a need for a
combustible gas. His pyrolyzer can do that with fans/blowers; natural draft
will have a much harder time filling this gap.
In trying to better understand the Solar City story (which I still find
very confusing), I found the comments after this story helpful:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/10/treasury-dept-fingers-solarcity-in-exploration-of-the-dark-underbelly-of-solar-leasing
I believe, for climate reasons, that RE ( including especially biomass)
subsidies/incentives are still justified, but that performance based FITS (
Feed In Tariffs) are a better approach than tax credits. I don' see a way to
apply them easily to stoves, although a lease operation still might work. But
Paul is raising a leasing question not an incentive one. We need more
discussion on leasing for stoves.
Ron
On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:22 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Dear Paul
>
> I read the linked article and it appears they are operating in the USA only
> taking advantage of the subsidies available for PV electricity provision. I
> am not sure about California but in Ontario the subsidy is generated by
> taxing nuclear and hydro power (2.9 cents per kWh) and paying the PV owner 82
> cents for the same amount of energy.
>
> As the largest solar PV panel manufacturer went under this month I have my
> suspicions about the viability of this subsidy model. As usual I want to see
> all the numbers.
>
> From what you have told us so far it sounds like the situation in Vietnam
> with respect to rice hull and the economic benefit to char producers is on a
> different plane of existence.
>
> I will continue to follow and encourage your work with interest.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> From: "Paul Olivier" <[email protected]>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]>
> Sent: April 21, 2013 9:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
>
> Please take a look at this:
>
> We decided to build on our expertise in providing remote services and to
> focus on distributing solar energy. We install solar panels free, then sell
> the energy they generate to customers, often at a lower rate than they pay
> their utility providers.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/jobs/solarcitys-chief-on-a-turn-toward-the-sun.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130421&_r=0
>
> Get this: SolarCity supplies solar panels free of charge. These people have
> developed a business model that makes clean energy more affordable.
>
> I firmly believe that the day is coming in Vietnam when biochar merchants
> will supply cook stoves to households and businesses free of charge in
> exchange for some of the biochar produced by these cook stoves. It's all
> about coming up with business models that make clean energy more affordable.
>
> Thanks.
> Paul Olivier
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Paul Olivier <[email protected]> wrote:
> See comments below.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Jeff
>
>
>
> Thanks for that contribution.
>
>
>
> The point of Paul’s description is that in the circumstances where he is, it
> works. It works on several levels and it will probably continue to work for a
> long time.
>
>
>
> The scenario was discussed on this list several times before, going back
> years, but there was nowhere that all the ingredients were present. One of
> the things that makes the rice hull char attractive is the existence, on a
> big scale apparently, of land that benefits from the addition of the char,
> and growing of crops that benefit from it.
>
>
>
> There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read and
> hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to close
> scrutiny.
>
>
> Crispin, I take issue with this statement. The biochar research that I have
> been involved with (that is, biochar from my gasifiers) has been done in
> three different countries, and it involved seven universities. More than 20
> experiments have been carried out, and in none of these experiments did
> biochar have negative effects. Contrary to what you might believe, this
> research does stand up to close scrutiny. These people are not just reading
> about biochar, but they are actually doing biochar research. I know many of
> these researchers, and they are not engaged in deceit. They are trying to
> help poor farmers understand the benefits of biochar.
>
> The same holds for permaculture
>
>
> What's wrong with permaculture?
> and improved stove and lots of things, so there is nothing ‘special’ about
> char, it is just that people get enthusiastic about something and wish it
> were universally true.
>
>
> Crispin, it is hard for me to believe that you actually wrote this!
> How do you know that that there is nothing special about biochar?
> Is this your field of expertise?
> Have you actually been involved in biochar research?
> I strongly suggest that you read the following:
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Agronomy_Carter%20et%20al%202013%2002%2017.pdf
> http://www.lrrd.org/public-lrrd/proofs/lrrd2501/chha25008.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/2/siso23032.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24026.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24039.htm
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24034.htm
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Biochar%20utilization%20in%20Rice%20crop%20on%20Tuk%20Vil%20Luvisol.pdf
> http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/leng24199.htm
>
> If you really want to understand the benefits of biochar, please read this
> book:
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Johannes%20Lehmann%2C%20Stephen%20Joseph-Biochar%20for%20environmental%20management_%20science%20and%20technology.pdf
>
> The people who wrote and edited this book are not charlatans. They are not
> deceitful. They are as good in their science as anyone could possibly be.
> Crispin, the moment you start doing biochar research of your own, then you
> might have something serious to say in this regard.
>
>
>
> No problem, we can live with filters on information to sift out what is
> beneficial and in what circumstances the claims how true. Independent
> investigation will support it if it is.
>
>
> Then do the independent investigation yourself.
>
>
>
> As I understand if, the Japanese have being doing this the longest and they
> are very circumscribed about what claims are made for biochar.
>
>
> Some of the best biochar research was done by the Japanese (Ogawa et al) back
> in the early 90's. They showed how biochar positively impacts the growth of
> AM fungi. This is explained in the book by Lehmann and Joseph.
>
> It is particular soils, particular crops and particular treatment of the char
> (temperature, species) that are in combination, what gives improved results.
> This theme constantly appears in the literature. As has been pointed out,
> just randomly putting char into soil can have negative consequences – it
> depends on the soil conditions. The last thing we need is a case of the char
> causing more harm than good while claims are made that it is improving
> things. The stove community should be working with agricultural trials
> experts.
>
>
>
> I read in the past that adding rice hull ash to rice fields is beneficial –
> maybe because the silica is extra-available, don’t know. Not my field.
>
>
> If this is not your field, then on what authority do you base your statements
> about rice hull biochar or rice hull ash?
> Again, I challenge you: do the research, as Preston, Leng and Shackley have
> done.
> What upsets me here is that I know well some of the people who have been
> conducting research with rice hull biochar.
> They know agriculture quite well, they have impeccable scientific
> credentials, and they, unlike you, are experts in this field.
> Then you come along, without any basis in fact, and question their research
> as not being scientific.
> Wow!
>
> I am just glad we have a working example of using gas and char that makes
> economic sense.
>
>
> It only makes economic sense, Crispin, if biochar plays a positive role in
> promoting plant and animal growth. If biochar does not play a positive role,
> we might as well burn it.
>
> Thanks.
> Paul Olivier
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> [email protected]
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> [email protected]
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> [email protected]
>
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
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/
