[Stoves] maize cobs a winner in the peko pe..

[Richard Stanley]

Otto/Paal, 

I am envious indeed !   

There are lots of choices for solid fuels, but yours takes the cake for practicality: Indeed where you are close to a reliable source of the required biomass and you have the Peko-pe to use, its a winner and we will be first in line to promote your idea,  really.  

Kind regards, 
Richard 
Harbor of heat and humidity, but also, of a great humanity, Tanzania 

On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Otto Formo wrote:

> Dear Crispin and Richard, nice to see you are commited, still.
> We are just back from Zambia where we have introduced the use of maiz kobs as fuel in the Natural draft gasifier unit, Peko Pe to small scale farmers, growing maize on subsistance basis using conservation technics, including the use of biochar.
> The cobs was working perfectly in the Peko Pe and gave very suitable biochar to be used as a soil improvement remedie.
> The farmers and their spouses was very happy to be able to produce their own biochar while cooking on their own produced maize cobs from the previous harvest. 
> 
> Bags of maize cobs can easily be ferried into peri- and urban areas to replace charcoal as well, involving the excisting charcoal business and transport links of to day and create jobs for all and everybody.
> 
> The prices of both charcoal and electricity has reach new picks everyday and the low production of hydropwer has forced ZEZCO to annonce powercuts all over the country.
> The prepaid system for electricity has also forced a lot of medium income households to use charcoal to replace electricity for cooking.
> 
> As a whole the society will benefit from the change from charcoal to any type of dry biomass, processed or unprocessed, like maize cobs.
> The cobs was burning for about half an hour in the 6 l units and was glowing in the Mbawulla for another two hours.
> 
> Thanks for your attention.
> 
> Good luck, Richard.
> 
> Otto
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [crispinpigott at gmail.com]
>> Sent: 2011-12-01 22:05:29 MET
>> To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' [stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org]
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] HEDON Newsletter (30/11/2011)
>> 
>> Dear Richard 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Interesting argument but I feel that you leave out one very critical
>> element in your assessment: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I agree I left out an analysis of biomass fuel processing. Thanks for
>> covering that base.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Your assumption that the fuel ( as charcoal ) has to be transported is, I
>> assume, based on the fact that one cannot go around making charcoal in the
>> cities. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That plus people usually make charcoal in fields and it has to be
>> transported to somewhere else to be used. I was really referring to the
>> trucking of urban fuel. It is apparently worth trucking charcoal 600 km in
>> Mozambique, and I believe the same for Dakar in Senegal as some of the wood
>> and charcoal is from Kaolack.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> The issue of transport does not figure into the equation for the biomass
>> briquette producer because of lower energy densities, although the
>> difference is hardly 50%, when comparing well made agro residue briquettes
>> to lump charcoal. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am very interested to know what you mean when you said hardly 50%. 50% of
>> what compared with what? If you have charcoal at 4-6% moisture and maybe 27
>> MJ/kg, what do you get from a leafy/grassy briquette and what from a
>> sawdust/mechanical paper (etc). I have heard from several people who write
>> to ask about drying the briquettes to move them more quickly. I figured the
>> stove with horns on the side for drying them is an elegant (good and simple)
>> solution: to apply waste heat coming through the stove body for drying. That
>> will elevate the energy per kg. But what is the actual heat yielded by an
>> average not-elegant stove. I was figuring on more like 15 MJ. That is where
>> I got the 50% of heat per unit mass.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The issue of transport does not figure into  the equation mainly because few
>> would tend to attempt widespread distribution to distant markets,  .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Agreed. Where I made an investigation into distribution from a large
>> producer (the super-max prison in Bloemfontein) it was still only as far as
>> the edge of town.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Small is not only beautiful but logically linmited  by common sense. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> And always was.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Where a charcoal form of heat is preferred, the local producer will just
>> sweep up the waste crumbs and dust (15 to 20% generally) that accrues  just
>> from the handling of the charcoal (just from the truck to the  retailer(s)
>> and on to the customer.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Charcoal is of course here to stay though, but even if the cost of lump
>> charcoal goes up, the wastes tend to remain just that.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This being up a point: what happens where there is little to no dust left
>> over anymore? That is a resource that is rapidly going to become
>> commoditized and enter the fuel supply chain. Isn't Chardust processing
>> about 7 tons a day? Pretty soon it will be like paper - you will have to pay
>> to get it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Still, that adds value to the waste stream and someone gets a job out of it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Crispin
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> 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/
>