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

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Paul

>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.

Agreed. It could heat water for a retained heater in a house.

>Also, our language lacks words that differentiate the different types of
charcoal.  But the word "biochar" is explicit about charcoal that is headed
for spreading into soils.   

Perhaps once it gets to the field.  There will be resistance to describing
all char from all fires as biochar. The meaning of the word will evolve to
mean char produced from wood which is not what you want.

I see people trying to carve a space for 'biochar'. I have seen it used in
the way 'green' is attached to all manner of things to mean 'energy
efficient'. It is losing its meaning because of over-use.  Biologically
applied char makes 'biochar' sense. That is agricultural. What would be good
is to have people use the term when discussing agriculture because to a
stove or a stover it is just char. There are not yet special stoves that
produce special char that is uniquely 'bio' in some manner. We might find
activated charcoal (which has a clear definition) being better at being bio
than ordinary char. Who knows? There is a lot of people working on it
because it is not known.

>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.

I guess you could start calling it biochar as soon as it hit the ground - in
a field, not next to the stove!

>I am showing the biomass input that will yield 1/3 kg of biochar when the
yields are 20% and 25%.

OK.

[snip]

>> Well, that is not how science works.

>Science works in incremental steps.  

Only in some cases. It is often a part of the experimental evolution of a
product. I am sure you can think of examples of both incremental and quantum
leaps.

>And the data gathering is  on-going on this topic of the impact of saving
biochar upon the amount  
of trees being cut.

It is going to be a big question hanging over all projects that bury char. I
participated in the third Gold Standard webinar this week and they are very
meticulous about such things. You have to prove every claim so one that says
additional fuel is not consumed will probably be tested separately from a
carbon sequestration argument. Even though one can argue that there is a net
negative carbon argument when taken together, you will have a hard sell if
the total fuel consumed increases unless there is a large unused supply
(which is some cases there is, others not). You would have to prove it, each
year.

>> 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.  

I am making my own comments and I hold the doors open for all technologies.
That is often my role here and it is something I can do to share experience.


>...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.

Respect and recognition? Good grief. They are all deserving of attention.
There are no special stoves of special merit. They are just stoves. You
opinion is welcome here but you can't tell me what stoves to include in a
discussion, can you?

>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.  

People promote what they are interested in because without enthusiasm we get
nowhere, I suppose. In a common space like this you can expect to be
constantly shown how that technology fits into an array of others. That is
reasonable.

>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??

There are I suppose the churches of gasifiers, pyrolysers, direct burners,
rockets, fan stoves and others. Combustion systems with potential that are
not in the mainstream churches get very little attention, testing or
promotion. Think of the Mayon Turbo stove - a natural draft, refuellable,
rice hull gasifier. No discussion at all. Lots of talk about batch loaded
rice hull gasifiers - all sorts of them - none of which can be run
continuously. Is the MTS not a much better product from several points of
view? What's up with that?

Not sure about the 2005 reference - the Romans built TLUD's, so I read,
right Kevin?  It is important not to close old doors just because something
new comes along 'with potential'. Lots of combustion systems have potential.


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

Have you considered that there are serious limitations to the technology you
are promoting in its present state? 

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

Good. Looking forward to it. I hope it is not crazy.

Regards
Crispin