[Stoves] [biochar] Understanding FUEL EFFICIENCY vs Energy efficiency
Frank Shields
frank at compostlab.com
Mon Apr 8 12:42:59 CDT 2013
Hi Kevin and All,
I would like to suggest even another way of looking at things.
As an example of how the toolbox might work I will use a simple example. We
have ten pellet STOVES and we want to determine in order of best to worst.
Our means of 'measuring success' is the WBT.
So we have the variable and the measurement. To make this work all the other
variables in front of the LINE needs be controlled. The LINE is in order as
below:
Fuel > Fuel Manipulation > STOVE > Utensils > Work Manipulation > Work Done
(food, water, WPT, stack emissions etc)
So to test a group of Pellet Stoves we need all variables before STOVES to
be controlled. Fuel and Fuel Manipulation need be controlled. Then we have
our variable- the STOVES. Then we determine success using the WBT so the
Utensil and Work Manipulation need to be controlled and that is easy as it
is part of the WBT. Not as easy if cooking rice is measure of success.
How the Tool Box Works:
Fuel: The Pellet Fuel Institute has a rating system for pellet fuel. We test
moisture, ash, density, energy, hardness, length & diameter, fines,
chloride. Based on these results pellets are rated as Super Premium,
Premium, Standard, and Utility. So we find the pellet fuel used in a part of
India (where we are distributing the stoves) rates as Standard so we use in
our labs pellets that are Standard Rating.
Fuel Manipulation: This is how the person operating the stove handles the
fuel. For pellets it could be part of the stove having a hopper or worm
drive feed. It could be filling a TLUD and tapping on ground twice or simply
'following manufacturer instructions'.
STOVES - our variable
Utensil - copper bottom, cast iron, thin, size etc. For the WBT these are
stated.
Work manipulation: How a person does the work. Moving pots, adding water,
checking doneness etc. For the WBT this is already Controlled.
Work Done - WBT is our measure of success. Could have been stack emissions
or a good tasty meal or fuel efficiency. But for this example we are using
WBT.
When we are done testing the stoves and basing the results on the WBT we can
rate the stoves as best to worst using this scheme.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Rating fuels is a big one. I think coal is already rated(?) and it should be
easy to design a rating system for rice hull fuel, wood chips, and Richards
briquettes. For biomass it becomes tricky as there are so many variables but
to have this Tool Box work it must be done or that variable 'noise' will
mask over any measure of success.
So we can work on all parts at the same or different times but we cannot use
the system until we have completed all the parts on the LINE *before* the
Variable and the Measurement. Therefore a classification for Fuel is most
important because nothing gets done until this is completed. Then how the
fuel is handled should follow a specific protocol that simulates what's done
in the field (as Paul pointed out).
Regards
Frank
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Kevin
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 10:41 PM
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Hugh
McLaughlin; Bob Fairchild
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] Understanding FUEL EFFICIENCY vs Energy
efficiency
Dear Paul
I would like to suggest a different way of looking at things.... look at a
stove through the eyes of the customer.
(The "Customer" is the person or Organization that pays the Manufacturer for
the Stove.)
The fundamental question should be: "What does the Customer want?"
Does the Customer want the stove to produce biochar?
Does the Customer want the stove to have the least fuel input to accomplish
a stated task?
Does the Customer want to minimize products of combustion vented into the
living space?
Does the Customer want the stove to provide a space heating benefit for the
stove user?
Does the Customer want a stove that requires extended burn times between
refuelling, and a minimum of attendance?
Does the Customer want a single firing rate throughout the burn, OR, a "Two
Level Firing Rate capability, OR a large range of firing capabilities?
etc....
"Efficiency" is basically a measure of "Resource Input to accomplish a
desired task"
It is not the purpose of "testing" to promote a particular technology or
philosophy, but rather, to measure the effectiveness of accomplishing a
given task of importance to the Customer..
"The Customer is the King." Proper Testing Protocols should allow a Customer
to test a range of stoves, under a variety of circumstances, so that he will
be able to select the stove that best meets his requirements.
Best wishes,
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Anderson <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> ; Hugh McLaughlin
<mailto:wastemin1 at verizon.net> ; Bob Fairchild
<mailto:solarbobky at yahoo.com> ; biochar at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:50 AM
Subject: [biochar] Understanding FUEL EFFICIENCY vs Energy efficiency
Dear Stovers and Biochar makers,
We are NOT sufficiently emphasizing that TLUDs/char-maker stoves can use
fuel other than stick wood. When burning briquettes and pellets and
cobs and shells (which most other stoves cannot burn very well), we are
NOT burning tree-sourced fuel.
Crispin correctly says that a kg of wood in and pyrolyzed is no longer
wood, and therefore is FUEL used, and that relates to FUEL Efficiency.
TLUDs can consume more wood because they are converting some of that
wood into charcoal. That is different from ENERGY efficiency, which
can allow calculations for the energy in the charcoal that is not used.
Especially in char-making stoves, energy efficiency is better than the
fuel efficiency IF USING WOOD. But if the fuel is not wood, then the
WOOD-FUEL efficiency is 100% (none was burned in the cooking of the
meal), and the ENERGY efficiency might be very good, while the FUEL
efficiency (burning ag residues, dung, etc) might be low in comparison
with other stoves, but no trees were cut or burned.
About the above, there will need to be some education given to the stove
community (including GACC and manufacturers and governments). WHAT fuel
is burned does make a difference if FUEL efficiency is an important
criteria when evaluating stoves.
Just because wood is the traditional fuel used in stove testing does not
mean that stoves that can also burn OTHER biomass should be judged on
the WOOD-FUEL efficiency calculations. For places like Haiti, Rwanda,
and many large zones of numerous large countries, to be able to cook
WITHOUT FOREST DEGRADATION should be a major reason for choosing TLUD
stoves.
Having written about this here does not mean that the message has
reached the decision makers and those who report test results on
cookstoves. And the makers of "stick-wood-burning stoves" are unlikely
to want to tell this message to others.
Because the GACC is about stoves AND FUELS, I hope that proper
recognition can be given in the discussions and decisions about the
stoves that can have 100% avoidance of cutting wood, if that is important.
Paul
--
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders%40ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
__._,_.___
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJybjg1a290BF9TAzk3MzU
5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxNDg3NQRzZWMDZnR
yBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzNjUzOTY2NDk-?act=reply&messageNum=14875> Reply via
web post
<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu?subject=Re%3A%20Understanding%20FUEL%20EFFICIENCY
%20vs%20Energy%20efficiency> Reply to sender
<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Understanding%20FUEL%20EFFIC
IENCY%20vs%20Energy%20efficiency> Reply to group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbm80dmxzBF9TAzk3MzU
5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN
0aW1lAzEzNjUzOTY2NDk-> Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/14875;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZHM0bW9yBF
9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMxNDg3NQ
RzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNjUzOTY2NDkEdHBjSWQDMTQ4NzU-> Messages in
this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMGxtbnFuBF9TAzk3
MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJy
cwRzdGltZQMxMzY1Mzk2NjQ5?o=6> New Members 3
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdmhwNnUxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0
BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1l
AzEzNjUzOTY2NDk-> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbGQ0amJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyN
DM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NTM5NjY0O
Q--> Yahoo! Groups
Switch to:
<mailto:biochar-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Form
at:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:biochar-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
Daily Digest .
<mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe
. <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:ygroupsnotifications at yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=22438052/grpspId=1707418612/msgI
d=14875/stime=1365396649>
__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130408/4c6fe430/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list