Charcoal Developing Country Context

[Autopoeisis]

I hope that this thread reflects upon a new topic for everyone's consideration. I believe in the potential for Terra Preta is great, my field is international development so I am going to focus on what I know.

 

After reflecting upon the utilization of terra preta in developing countries I found that it could certainly be effective as a cheap soil amendment to enhance local agricultural productivity at a cost significantly lower than external outputs. In addition it has clear environmental benefits in certain circumstances particularly in regions where slash and burn agriculture applied heavily South East Asia and Africa have a much higher prevalence of slash and burn as a cause for deforestation than South America. In these cases it is likely make slash and burn agriculturalists more sedentary, by eliminating their need to leave land fallow for extended periods of time and clear new lands, thus conserving tropical rainforests. In all cases it has benefits in addressing a global environmental problem, reducing green house gases.

 

Now here comes my issue, more of a barrier to implementation in specific circumstances. Now in other developing country regions we have a considerable utilization of biomass already for use as cooking fuel. In many of these countries they already produce charcoal to cook with which would compete with the production of biochar as a soil amendment. Continued use of biomass for cooking in many of these countries threatens local ecologies significantly, a good example of this would be Haiti. The adverse environmental effects are considerable. There are significant health problems associated with using biomass for cooking, it is a major cause of respiratory infections, one of the top five killers of ages 1-5 internationally.

 

Now where do we find ourselves in these circumstances. You transfer the techniques for making biochar to these poor and it may increase demand on 'biomass poor' ecologies as well as increase household costs for cooking charcoal.

 

Now this could be mitigated by introducing alternatives to cooking charcoal. I personally would like to see the complete replacement of biomass cooking in these regions, and feel that biochar could aid in healing local ecologies with complementary application of appropriate conservation techniques. But then you are not only discussing the technology transfer of biochar to poor communities but also complementary programs.

 

I hope if anyone has any similar or contrary experience with development issues that they can comment on these issues.

[InfiniteNow]

In many of these countries they already produce charcoal to cook with which would compete with the production of biochar as a soil amendment. Continued use of biomass for cooking in many of these countries threatens local ecologies significantly...

<...>

I hope if anyone has any similar or contrary experience with development issues that they can comment on these issues.

Hello Autopoeisis,

 

I want to first thank you for posting your question, and second preface my own comments by stating that you have likely studied this issue much more than me. That said…

 

Biomass cooking clearly has associated health risks, as does any activity which involves the inhalation of smoke. Much like cigarettes cause cancer so does barbecue if inhaled in great enough quantity. So, couldn’t the issue you describe be completely mitigated by the installation of proper ventilation, and by driving down cost and difficulty of obtaining such improvements in out gassing and drafting equipment?

 

Again, there are others here much more knowledgeable than myself on these issues, but that was a thought that recurred whilst reading your post.

 

 

I found interest in the following link prior to responding here. Maybe it will stir new thoughts for you and our other readers.

 

Cheers. :)

 

 

Cooking Smoke Serious Global Health Risk

Only six out of 20 homes in Brazil had acceptable levels of respirable suspended particulates, including black carbon and fine particles; in Mexico, only one of 21 dwellings had acceptable levels.

 

Wood smoke contains many different chemical products such as black carbon and other fine particles that are greenhouse gases. All are bad for human health. In addition, carcinogens, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other dangerous organic particles are constituents of wood smoke. These and other compounds also can be found in the smoke of non-woody fuels, such as corn cobs and stalks, plant leaves and livestock dung.

 

Shultz said that nearly half the world's population -- more than two billion people -- prepares meals with wood or wood-replacement fuels on primitive stoves that are often three-stone fireplaces without chimneys. Compounding the problem of smoky fuels are indoor kitchens with poor or no ventilation, or chimneys that extend horizontally from the wall, creating next to no draft.

 

In 1992, the World Health Organization identified indoor air pollution from smoke as one of the world's chief health problems. Worldwide, more children die from respiratory infections than from diarrhea, which had been the chief health problem of infants. Smoke from wood, other biomass fuels and coal has been linked in numerous studies to acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, especially among women and children. Reproductive problems, including low birthweight, stillbirths and spontaneous abortions, also have been related to high levels of carbon monoxide in the blood from smoky fires.

[mom person]

This is a very good question. I think that there are several things that need to be introduced at the same time:

1. Solar ovens. They are cheap to make and are already being spread by development agencies.

2. The pit. This is the concept of digging a pit and throwing all organic waste into it, including human waste, bones, twigs, weeds, branches, etc. then charring the contents. Since the contents would have a lot of small pieces and dust, the contents would not be as valuable for cooking with as charcoal made from wood and the agricultural use of the pit contents would be easier to sell.

The solar ovens would reduce the desire to make charcoal from wood. That would create cleaner air and lungs. The charring of human and animal waste would also promote better sanitation and cleaner streams.

Here is a link to an interesting article on the use of municipal solid waste to make charcoal:

Conversion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) into Charcoal & Producer Gas | Terra Preta

Unfortunately they are making charcoal for cooking and not for TP. :)

[Philip Small]

I personally am opposed to the replacement of biomass cooking in developing regions. Instead I support increased efficiency in biomass cooking. Specifically, I am of the opinion that the adoption of inverted downdraft biomass gasification at a household level in developing regions is key to large scale production of terra preta nova.

 

The biggest hurdle to success is getting past the mindset that wood burning for cooking is a bad thing. Done right, it is a wonderfully good thing. The future of terra preta lays in embracing it.

 

Half of humanity cooks over woodfires -- the poorer half. Nearly half the world's wood supply is used as fuel. But it's not enough -- more than 2 billion people are facing fuelwood shortages. Forests in the developing countries are shrinking by more than 15 million hectares a year. The ratio of forests-to-people is less than half what it was in 1960. For most, there's little alternative to burning wood -- wood energy is here to stay. In fact burning wood is no bad thing: the efficient use of wood fuel is much more eco-friendly than more efficient and convenient fuels like kerosene and natural gas (LPG)

 

(Source)

 

Inefficient burning is a bad thing. Particulate and CO from inefficient wood burning for cooking is a very bad thing. Using wood gasification is a recognized response to this problem. Gasification is scalable to the household level. It is affordable by the very poor. It can be configured so that a charcoal byproduct is a management option.

 

(Source)

 

(See also)

[Autopoeisis]

I agree efficiency is important. I was curious what the potential would be to make charcoal and create enough heat for the purposes of cooking simultaneously. Efficient ovens deal very well with the health effects of biomass cooking and reduce the burden on local ecologies. But if you are mainstreaming techniques in 'biomass poor' areas with the intention of helping improve agricultural productivity for the poor you may want to simultaneously conduct community based reforestation projects in the meantime.

 

Well the issue with solar cooking is that it isn't that easy to do. It takes a while to achieve temperature levels using conventional solar cooking systems. Parabolics are a bit more efficient, and there are some hybrids (I'm not sure if anyone has seen the solar cooker devised by the gaviotas people). However many of these systems are more costly working better on the community scale as opposed to the household scale.

 

In other areas you are going to have abundant levels of biomass like rainforests. I am curious as to which ways it would be most effective to mainstream appropriate techniques to produce biochar for communities. It seems that there may be potential to get funding from the clean development mechanism, because it is a significant reduction of emissions from the normal state of affairs(slash and burn agriculture). Of course you would have to carefully audit GHG reductions

[mavrickjohn]

Here is a link to a site that is dedicated to making bio-char stoves available to undeveloped countries and their people.

 

home (www)

[erich]

WorldStoves ; ( A Man, a Stove, a Mission « The Charcoal Project ) and

The Biochar Fund deserves your attention and support.

Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon

Exceptional results from biochar experiment in Cameroon - Scitizen

 

NSF Awards $1.6M to BREAD: Biochar Inoculants for Enabling Smallholder Agriculture

Award#0965336 - BREAD: Biochar Inoculants for Enabling Smallholder Agriculture