[Stoves] Efficiencies regarding wood, non-wood, and charcoal Re: Alternative to charcoal

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

I view the point as valid but a quibble. I concede your main point and perhaps you can concede mine. 

It is true the use of a non-woody fuel saves wood. It is often available. 

Now, the fuel efficiency (not the wood fuel efficiency) of a stove that doesn't burn fully the fuel placed into it cannot reasonably be claimed to have a consumption lower than its demand for raw fuel. That is my core objection to the calculation method that converts energy yielded into a 'fuel consumption' number. It is of course 'a number' but it is not the fuel consumption and never was. 

There are many more stoves that have had their fuel consumption understated and it is because of the char they make but can't burn. It is not complicated or aimed at TLUD's that make char. It is just a conceptual error that must be corrected so we can get on with testing. 

There are several other conceptual problems to deal with which are harder to explain than the (rather obvious) fuel consumption one. 

What gives me hope is the rapid adoption of emissions per net MJ in the pot or in the room. That alone solves all sorts of metrics issues. 

Regards
Crispin
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:46:23 
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<crispinpigott at gmail.com>; biochar at yahoogroups.com<biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Ranyee Chiang<rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>
Subject: Efficiencies regarding wood, non-wood, and charcoal    Re: [Stoves]
 Alternative to charcoal

Dear Crispin, Ron Larson, and Stovers with char interests,

Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 4/9/2013 12:18 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
>  <snipped>
>
> If I put 1 kg of 15% moisture wattle (15.9 MJ/kg) into a TLUD stove 
> and create 20% char (20% of the moist mass) the net heat provided by 
> the fire is 10 MJ/kg. The heat available from the char is still 29.5 
> so the total is the difference the bit between: 15.9-10 = 5.9 MJ.
>
> If someone wants to switch from wood fuel to a 'cleaner' TLUD and that 
> TLUD is not 1.5 times as efficient in transferring heat, their raw 
> fuel consumption will increase.
>
>
The numbers are correct, but the language is biased.    "If...switch 
from WOOD fuel...,   their RAW fuel ..... "   How about saying
"If switch from wood fuel stove to a TLUD that does not need to use wood 
fuel, their wood fuel consumption could be eliminated."

Is the issue about WOOD or is it about efficiencies of devices (TLUDs) 
that leave charcoal behind?      Actually, both are important, but the 
norms of reporting of stove testing with biomass fuels are too 
intimately connected with wood because so many stoves are designed 
as*_only _*wood burners.

Let's stop criticizing or penalizing the TLUDs because they make 
charcoal.  And the new testing protocols/reports MUST have clarity of 
wording about efficiencies without the innuendo that TLUDs lack 
efficiency because wood (if used) is turned into charcoal.

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130410/1d3c2efd/attachment.html>