[Stoves] Re looking for a stove design for large amounts of biochar

[Paul S. Anderson]

Crispin, and others following this thread of messages.

Referring to your message earlier today:  There is a big difference  
between the pyrolysis in a retort (anoxic) like the Adam retort and a  
gasifier (oxic) like TLUDs.  That is discussed in the biochar  
listserv.  And at the size of an Adam retort, the "stove" would need  
to be an industrial bakery or other large application.

Also, our language lacks words that differentiate the different types  
of charcoal.  But the word "biochar" is explicit about chacoal that is  
headed for spreading into soils.   TLUDs and some other stoves make  
charcoal, some of it could be for burning as charcoal, and some could  
be for spreading in soil as biochar.

Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>:

>   Anderson wrote:
>> Each household produces about 1/3 kg of biochar each day.  If the biochar
>> yield by weight of the raw fuel is 20%, the biomass needed is 1.66 kg per
>> day.  If 25%, then the biomass is only 1.33 kg/day.
>
   Reply by Crispin:
> I am not completely clear on your calculation. Are you showing the amount of
> biomass input needed for a yield of 20 and 25%?
>
I am showing the biomass input that will yield 1/3 kg of biochar when  
the yields are 20% and 25%.
>
>> Less than 2 kg/day represents fuel savings compared with the inefficient
> 3-stone and other fires.  AND they are getting the biochar.  This correctly
> contradicts the people who say

Change the word "say" to read "ask the question" > that making biochar  
leads to > increased
> cutting of the forests.
>
> I am not sure who says it leads to an increase, I do read a number of people
> asking the question about that possibility which is perfectly legitimate.  I
> have, myself, asked this question and did not get clear answers for a long
> time. It may be that it was assumed the answer 'was obvious' and therefore
> unnecessary to be quantified.

I hope I have answered your question.  I have attempted a quantitative  
answer with the very limited data that is available.  I hope that the  
Wendelbo Zambia study can quantify it better.

> Well, that is not how science works.

Science works in incremental steps.  And the data gathering is  
on-going on this topic of the impact of saving biochar upon the amount  
of trees being cut.


>
>> I did NOT say that TLUDs are THE solution.  But it is major.  This
>> needs to be recognized and implemented in so many more locations.
>
>
>
> Paul, as I have said in other communications, there is more than one way to
> burn as a gasifier or a pyrolyser and I am always a little surprised that
> you mention TLUD's without leaving room for other approaches.

I did NOT exclude (as in specifically mentioning to exclude them) any  
other approaches.  I just did not mention devices about which I do not  
have sufficient information or confidence in them.  YOU are the one  
who is wanting to inject other gasifiers into MY comments.  Make your  
own comments, but do not blame me if I do not choose to include the  
gasifier types that you are studying.   Said in other words, let the  
TLUDs receive the respect and recognition they deserve, and not  
distract attention from my comments because I did not mention the  
other gasifiers that I feel do not yet merit such recognition.

Why is it so difficult for prominent Stovers (not naming anyone!!) to  
become supportive or at least give quotable recognition to the  
increasingly well documented potential of the TLUD stoves?

Suggested answer:   Because it ain't their stove!   Inertia against  
the recognition of different stove technology is frightening!!   I am  
somewhat guilty of that myself.  But my starting point is not back in  
the 1990s and with earlier stove designs.  NEW people coming into the  
stove field in the last couple of years are far more likely to become  
interested in TLUD stoves than are people who made up their minds  
about stoves prior to 2005 and have difficulty expanding their views.   
       Sort of like religion??

I could understand the inertia better if there were proprietary  
interests blocking entrance by others.  But TLUD stuff is 100% open  
source!!!

And I assure you that there are more new and interesting things about  
TLUDs coming down the road, and soon.  Keyword:    TChar    coming soon.

I am looking forward to taking to any and all of you about TLUD technology.

Paul
-- 
Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Known to some as:  Dr. TLUD    Doc    Professor
Phone (USA): 309-452-7072   SKYPE: paultlud   Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/giz2011-en-micro-gasification.pdf   (Best ref.)



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail