[Stoves] Cost of stoves
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sat Nov 10 12:03:04 CST 2012
Dear Crispin and Paal and Dean and all, (Also to be posted at
www.drtlud.com )
The discussion (below by Paal and Crispin) has pointed out the
difference between the "combustion device" and the "stove structure",
and that they can be addressed separately.
TINY devices do this, such as a "Steno" can or alcohol burner (note that
neither says "stove"). The heat generation unit is separate from the
stove body. In general, the combustor or burner is too small to
support a reasonable pot. Tiny tincanium TLUDs can be in this category.
When the cooking device gets larger, the heat making aspects are
generally incorporated into the stove structure, as seen in most of the
Rocket stoves and charcoal burners and simple ICS. For the most part,
the "stick wood" burner (combustion device such as a ceramic/brick
chamber or a heavy steel box) is built into the pot-holding stove
structure. For this reason, there has been little thought to having
the combustion device separate from the pot holding.
It is VERY common for people to see a simple TLUD making heat and then
asking "where do you put the pot" or declaring "that is not a
stove." Well, the pot goes above the flame, and how the pot is
supported makes little difference to the making of the heat.
Also, TLUDs (because they are batch operated) need to be re-filled (or
exchanged) regularly, which favors having sheet metal construction
because of lighter weight and not being subject to cracking like
clay/ceramic constructions.
Yes, there is something not appealing about moving around containers of
flaming fuel or hot charcoal, but even that problem has been resolved in
the TChar variations of TLUDs.
(You do not know what is TChar??? Are you kidding me?? Check it out
at www.drtlud.com and let me know what you think.)
Anyway, Wendlebo and Reed and other early TLUD developers have been well
aware that the separation of the combustion device and the stove
structure has numerous advantages, of which one is related to the cost
of the stove (stove = combustion device AND the stove structure).
NOTE: Sometimes combustion device and pot support are intertwined such
as when a chimney
is important to combustion and to the stove structure, but we are not
focused on that case here.
Comment about TLUDs with pots on top of them: Some of the Peko Pe
units, Reed's campstoves, the Mwoto Classic and Mwoto Quad, etc have
small pot supports on the tops. Three legs on the ground also serve as
3 pot supports on some PP units. Three tiny pieces of metal on Mwoto
stoves are the only additional "stove structure" to turn a TLUD
combustion device into a complete stove.
Less expensive than 3 little supports is unlikely on such stoves. But
it does imply that the combustion device is large enough to support the
pot on the top. Much smaller TLUDs do not support the pots well. And
for institutional cookers, because the pots are so large that they are
not easily lifted off of the TLUDs that need refueling, the pots need to
be supported separately from the combustion device.
And that is the point being made by Paal and supported by Crispin:
The cost of stoves can sometimes be separated between the cost of the
combustion device and the cost of the stove structure (pot support),
especially in the case of TLUD stoves.
Consider the example of the Champion TLUD manufactured by Servals in
India. The reactor (fuel unit where gas-making occurs) can be moved
from under the tripod that supports the pot and the coupling device.
The same reactor could be used under other stove structures, and the
tripod could be used above other reactors (fuel units).
In many cases, the vast majority of the expense of a stove is in the
stove structure. It is often quite visible and people want it to look
pretty. Beautiful decorative tiles and useful attached working
surfaces all add to the cost.
Our discussion is about LOW cost stoves. Under US$10 for a complete
"stove" with both a combustion device and a stove structure.
A. Stove structure: make it from locally available materials,
including some possible "scrap." Use some adobe or other bricks to
make two sidewalls (and maybe a backside) to an appropriate height, and
then horizontally place 2 pieces of rebar to support the pot. In
Haiti, use rebar from some of the crumbled walls of buildings. Or weld
together a small "H-shaped" grate with 2 cross pieces to become like " #
". One dollar? maybe $2? Before long, the household might plaster
(use dung and clay or cement?) the sides, and even whitewash it.
Voila', stove structure that is inexpensive, and quite sturdy.
B. Combustion devices:
1. The Mwoto TLUD gasifiers in Uganda are already sold at only US$14
with pot supports (and no subsidies). And that is for a full size unit
with about 7 inch diameter fuel chamber. And the Awamu Biomass Energy
company (GACC Partner in Uganda) is fully engaged on making it for less
than $10 by using concepts such as the Mwoto Quad design, smaller sizes,
TChar versions, and less metal (which is the major cost). (Full
transparency: Awamu is owned by Nolbert Muhumuza and Paul Anderson, and
they are looking for others to join them. Awamu means "together" in the
Lugandan language.)
2. Paal Wendelbo and his associates have Peko Pe models (mainly in
Zambia, I believe) that also could probably be reduced to under the $10
price.
3. Prof. M. Nurhuda in Indonesia is making excellent progress with his
low cost TLUD stoves.
So, the target of very clean stoves for under $10 can be met.
But the nay-sayers will quickly point out that people want better
looking stoves, or have fuel preparation problems, or do not want to
change out the TLUD batch. (Conveniently forgetting that the fire has
run UNattended - but not out of sight - for 10 or 20 or 40 or more
minutes, depending on the fuel types. TLUDs do not need the 3 to 5
minute attendance cycle that Crispin so correctly pointed out as a major
problem with the vast majority of stick-burning Rocket and simple ICS
stoves.)
In conclusion, if you are not into the TLUD stoves yet, please
reconsider. We welcome your participation.
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 11/10/2012 5:03 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Dear Paal and All
>
> This idea of making a replaceable combustor has additional benefits. The idea is already in use though it may not at first be obvious to a casual observer.
>
> ++++++++++Paal Wendelbo wrote:
>
> Dean and Paul are right if they also adopt the original idea with the TLUD-ND from the 1980ties and see the TLUD as a kind of a wrapping for the fuel; a unit loaded with energy to be put into a stove. Then you will have a lot of more possibilities.
>
> ++++++++++Crispin continues:
>
> I will post a photo of a stove I have recently seen in Cambodia which has a very substantial built-in brick and cement three-pot layout. There is a single chimney against the wall and three pot-holes. There is a wood fire space under or in front of each pot with a horizontal channel to the chimney behind it.
>
> This theme is used in Indonesia as well. I saw the exact same system used in urban Jogjakarta and a multi-pot single-fire version in rural Java.
>
> In all cases the hole is shaped so that it can take large woks and flat bottomed pots of different sizes from about 230mm to 900mm in diameter. The smaller pots are accommodated using reduction rings that fit the open hole and the pots.
>
> The point is the holes are substantial and the fires variable. When there is a desire to cook for a long time the ring(s) are removed and a taper-bodied stove that looks a lot like a tall JIKO is placed into the hole. This is a 'burner insert' or 'combustor' just as described by Paal.
>
> I have a photo of such a stove in operation. It has a charcoal burning stove dropped into the larger stove body. This can be done with all three holes if desired depending on what is cooking.
>
> As the concept is already well established, all that remains is to create other combustors that will either fit into the existing holes or stove body-combustor combinations that will accept appropriate pots.
>
> Further in our favour is that there is in Indonesia a (regionally?) established precedent for having an ash cleaning hole that is built into the floor below a clay grate. This satisfies the requirement to have a low overall height (about 300 mm) for the stove body. It means the combustor can be taller than 300 mm and still fit into the stove body.
> All the drop-in burners (which are stand-alone stoves if you take them out) can be improved as they stand so the new system performance should be much better than the baseline.
>
> Paal, in order to be able to get the PP or similar burners accepted in the same communities they will have to be 1) power controllable and 2) refuellable or the equivalent of refuellable such as a convenient swappable insert that can be managed easily.
>
> There is a stove in Mongolia that is copied from a Japanese brand 'Royal' which has two TLUD combustors connected by a Y-shaped channel to a common chimney. It is able toi cook constantly while swapping back and forth between two fires which can be run sequentially or in parallel. If one is started say, 1 hour before the other, the heat is continuous and the cook can re-charge the used one while the second burns.
>
> The big mis-match at the moment is the almost unchanging power output of the simple TLUD and the need for long term variable cooking for various foods, tea, palm sugar making, sea salt making, boiling chips and sterilising or heating water. People exercise quite a bit of control over the firepower during a burn cycle.
>
> For everyone's interest the most /hated/ aspect we could determine about stoves was the time interval between needing attention. At present it is about 5 minutes for domestic stoves. Although this will be investigated in the near future in detail, the people I interviewed rated a longer time away from the stove (perhaps 10-20 minutes) more valuable than fuel saving, smoke, ignition time, cost or fuel preparation (though objection to preparation of fuel was strong).
>
> The biggest opportunity I see at the moment with basically no change for the TLUD's is the load, fire and forget water steriliser. Lanny, don't forget. It can be a stand alone or a drop-in unit.
>
> Regards
> Crispin in Carrying Place, Ontario (is there really such a place??)
This was the message from Paal Wendelbo:
>
> Stovers
>
> Dean and Paul are right if they also adopt the original idea with the
> TLUD-ND from the 1980ties and see the TLUD as a kind of a wrapping for
> the fuel; /a unit loaded with energy to be put into a stove./ Then you
> will have a lot of more possibilities. You will cover the whole
> specter of energy needed for household and institutional cooking,
> bakery and heating, with a lot of warranties of types of fuel, and
> easy to adjust to local needs and local resources. The technology
> itself is so simple that a child with a nail, a hammer and a tin can
> make a perfect clean burning unit. And the most important it will
> create jobs near connected to the marked philosophy, cheap and short
> time lasting.
>
> Paal W
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20121110/25326233/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list