[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 15, Issue 18
Art Donnelly
art.donnelly at seachar.org
Sun Nov 13 22:39:17 CST 2011
Dear Paal,
Thank you for once again being the most reasonable voice in these
discussions.
Congratulations on your recent news. Well deserved. By the way, I answered
Bojca off-list.
We are using a TLUD. The Estufa Finca, which owes a great debt to you. It
makes both a great deal of heat and biochar. The great big farm families we
are working with in rural Costa Rica seem to enjoy bot attributes. We
conducted CCTs in our Pilot project earlier this year and consistently
achieved 40-50% increases in fuel efficiency over their existing open
fires. We are starting field trials with biochar and cocao and are looking
forward to doing the same with coffee in the near future.
my best wishes for you sucess
Art Donnelly
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:00 PM,
<stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org>wrote:
> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Re looking for a stove design for large amounts of
> biochar (Paul S. Anderson)
> 2. Re Looking for stove design (Paal wendelbo)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:59:43 -0600
> From: "Paul S. Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Re looking for a stove design for large amounts
> of biochar
> Message-ID:
> <20111112225943.1205263zsdtikog0 at redbirdmail.illinoisstate.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> format="flowed"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:47:27 +0100
> From: "Paal wendelbo" <paaw at online.no>
> To: <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Re Looking for stove design
> Message-ID: <4F1AFAF10FCF4A9D8F7AE86B07DB0B2D at firmanav10a4e1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Crispin, Anderson and others
>
> A common Miombo forest in Africa will give about 3 ton wood
> per ha a year. 3 ton of dry wood will give 800 kg of charcoal. A household
> of 5 consume 2-3 kg charcoal a day or about 800 kg a year. To produce 3 kg
> of charcoal you need 10-12 kg of dry fire wood in a common kiln. That will
> give one day cooking on a charcoal stove, and almost no biochar. 10-12kg
> dry chopped wood will give 3 days of cooking on a TLUD-ND or another FES
> and 2.5 kg of biochar
>
> Energy forestry using just the sprouting every year can
> give up to 10 ton wood per ha a year, easy to cut to appropriate fuel for
> TLUD-ND?s or other types of FES. By adding some biochar to soil of bad
> quality 20-30 % increased yields can be obtained, which will give more
> food, more household energy, more jobs, better economy, better health for
> women and children and saving the forest. It can probably be as simple as
> this and is that not some of what we are looking for and need?
>
> We know some changes have to take place on the household
> energy sector and we have to start somewhere. Why not start with small
> scale farmers on sandy soil, and from there develop the new household
> bio-energy strategy for developing countries. Probably also with the
> charcoal business, they have the whole infrastructure intact and can easy
> change from charcoal to alternative biomass like chopped wood or pellets
> from agriculture and forestry related waste. Or do you have a better
> solution Crispin?
>
> With regards Paal W
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111113/eb5caa10/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 15, Issue 18
> **************************************
>
--
"SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20111113/a438db43/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list