[Stoves] Jamaican cooking

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Ron

 

>
wouldn't a reduction in the amount of _charcoal_ used also reduce the
total system effects? I have to assume that the people burning charcoal have
decided to do so. If I can reduce the amount of charcoal they are burning,
they might even have enough extra cash to buy a tree seedling.

 

This was looked at very carefully by Peter Coughlin who makes the POCA, the
technology underlying the recent capture of a major award. The benefits of
saving even a small amount of charcoal, say 15%, are quite large in terms of
the current practises and the total emissions. It certainly pays (in carbon
trade) better to save charcoal than to save wood.

 

>One interesting thing about aluminum is that its heat transfer capabilities
make it surprising hard to melt by a very small fire. 

 

Same for copper. Even using a cutting torch it is difficult to melt a block
of copper. Steel can be melted with char if you have a fan (as Philips found
out!) so it is more about heat balance and flow than the material.

 

>I'm also not aware of the net "greenhouse emissions" of turning out the
steel for a stove vs. the aluminum for a stove, but if you check that out
there might be another factor to add into your total equation of life.



A consideration here is that once produced, aluminum is easily recycled with
a very low energy cost which is why roadside producers can turn out products
with almost no equipment. It is not only the life cycle of the product that
should be considered by the life cycle of the material itself.


Crispin von Suchenachgutenschweißer

 

 

regards,

Ronald von Kannschlechtschweißen



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110405/589344e8/attachment.html>