[Stoves] K Smith Article in Energy for Sustainable Development

[Otto Formo]

Dear Boston Nyer,
Low income households in Africa have an average income of less than one US$ a day and in an Urban setting spend more than 50% of their monthly income on fuel for cooking.
With rising prices on both fuel and food there is not much to spend on other items, so I would very much state that US$ 10-15 could be the maximum people in low income household are ABLE to spend in Africa.

One of the challanges in developing countries is the low income and the "lack" of money to be spend, the "none monetary economy", if you like.
In addition you have the informal sector which are outside the ordinary taxation systems.

Otto


> From: Boston Nyer [bostonnyer at gmail.com]
> Sent: 2010-11-29 18:11:30 MET
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves [stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org]
> Cc: biochar-policy [biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com]
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] K Smith Article in Energy for Sustainable Development
> 
> All,
> 
> In the column, Dr. Smith does not reference his $10 price-limit.  I have
> heard this value several times and no one seems to know why $10 was deemed
> appropriate.  I've been digging and cannot find the source of this
> "decision".  Does anyone have further information?  In my opinion, its
> extremely naive to cast a blanket price for all hh stoves around the world.
> 
> Cheers,
> Boston Nyer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > Richard (cc two lists)
> >
> > See some questions/notes below on your message today.  You said:
> >
> >     "*I would buy the one that burned some form of densified non wood
> > biomass "cleanly" ......*
> >
> >     *[RWL1:  Those of us who are promoting char-producing stoves believe
> > that they are much cleaner than those that only combust.  The usual low-cost
> > stoves in developing countries almost universally use only wood (with some
> > still-minor use of your  briquettes of course).  For those new to the
> > subject, the difference is whether there is a single air supply or two.
> > Does anyone reading this think that char-making stoves are not inherently
> > cleaner?*
> >      But I especially want to support your use of the term "densified
> > non-wood" - which I think is also much needed in char-making stoves.  Nat
> > Mulcahy of World Stoves always  emphasizes the use of "densified non-wood"
> > as one of the main advantage of his Lucia stove (which could combust or
> > gasify - but he chooses to operate in only a pyrolysis mode).  See his
> > website for his rationales - which are (in part) similar to yours.
> >    Several questions to you (as the person who probably knows the most on
> > this densified non-wood cooking issue):
> >        1a.  What are the relative advantages of making (not using) pellets
> > vs briquettes?
> >    It would seem that it should be much easier to "press" (I like your
> > closing below) pellets than briquettes (especially the "holey" type).  Do
> > you have any data on the relative power or energy and/ or cost requirements
> > for production of pellets vs briquettes?
> >
> >        1b.  For those wanting char and not ash, the charred pellet is
> > already in a wonderful form for application to soils.   Pellets mean some
> > extra costs for the fuel supply in the front end of cooking - but could be a
> > wonderful boon both in burning more cleanly and evenly and in later
> > application of Biochar to the soil.  The same is possibly/probably true for
> > briquettes - which I presume break up easily after being pyrolyzed.   Do you
> > have any reason to think briquettes would be better than pellets in either
> > pyrolysis or char-application terms?
> >
> >
> > You concluded:]
> >
> > "....and would avoid both the wood supply and the char producing problems
> > in one go."
> >
> >      [RWL:     2a.  Re the first issue of supply (with which I agree), I
> > have recently read an article (author's name forgotten - I will try to find
> > it) that showed a breakdown of the well known global net primary
> > productivity (NPP) number of about 60 Gt C/yr.  They had about half going
> > into wood and half into leaves -  a ratio I had not previously seen.  Since
> > you are promoting the former (leaves) over the latter (wood) - and because
> > almost all rural stove users are now using only wood (and even many
> > briquettes and pellets seem to be made up of ground-up or chipped wood),
> > have you seen this relative photosynthesis production ratio - which would
> > seem to imply a huge wasted resource all over the world?
> >
> >      2b.  But I don't understand your term "char producing problems".  To
> > me there are only benefits and advantages (at least with kitchen stoves).
> > If you meant the horrible production of most charcoal out in the boondocks -
> > with global warming and carcinogenic gases much worse than CO2 being
> > produced - then I agree.   To prove that it is better for society to promote
> > household production of Biochar (char placed in the ground) will be the
> > subject of my next message.  Briefly it is that we need to make the economic
> > argument that Biochar's two main advantages (carbon sequestration and soil
> > improvements) outweigh the further combustion of the char for its energy
> > value.  Two main reasons that I think we can make this argument (which I do
> > not contend has already been proven).   First is the 2:1 advantage in the
> > three-flows of money (which seem in the same ballpark).  But more important
> > is that the first two monetary flows (climate and soils) are both
> > investments - with good payback over long time periods.  The energy
> > application of the char is only a single use - no out-year advantages at
> > all.  More coming on the many out-year advantages of Biochar.
> >
> >    This is not to suggest that you do not believe in all this already - but
> > others could interpret your sentence to favor burning of "densified
> > non-woody biomass" rather than pyrolysis of the same.
> >
> > Ron]
> >
> > pressing on,
> >
> > Richard Stanley
> > www.legacyfound.org
> >
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >
> > [RWL:  I have snipped this to keep the responses separate - being different
> > issues.]
> >
> > Dear Friends
> >
> > I agree with Ron that $10 is a believable figure for an improved stove with
> > a dramatic (90%) reduction in emissions of PM. For the +$50 stove
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > 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://www.bioenergylists.org/
> > Stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Boston Nyer
> Graduate Student
> Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> (585) 503-3459