[Stoves] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.

Sat Apr 13 07:54:30 CDT 2013

Dear Otto

Well it can truly be said that your posts are entertaining.

Let me (once again) set you straight about some things you say I am saying
by point out what I am not saying and what I do say. I think it matters if
you wont to hold a conversation.

>I am on the other hand, very sad to see the scepticism and disbelive in
people to be able and willing to change in developing countries.

I have no such skepticism. I am reporting what people do. You are welcome to
help them change. If the change you bring is not wanted, they will not
popularise it.

>Your arguments are very much based on that "people never change” or are to
ignorant to even consider doing that.

I made no such argument at all. I want you (I am asking for the how-many-eth
time?) to consider the whole equation. I am not pre-judging the answer, I am
with Paul M looking at all facets of a calculation I have made for you in
the past. You are welcome to check the old posts. The equation does not
change if it is all-inclusive.

>
They should be given an option to be part of the value chain from raw
materials out of agri- and forest residues to production of woodchips,
pellets and briquettes, just like in the charcoal “industry”. 

I completely agree with this idea. If we do not consider the economic impact
of decisions about technology there are many unintended consequences.
Charcoal is definitely an industry, and it is a biofuel industry. It is a
well-developed industry with a clear value chain. 

>2. We are not talking about raw wood and wood, only, but residues. which
normally are wasted on the fields and inthe  forests.

There is a great deal of waste from agriculture and forestry. About ½ the
mass of a tree is left on the forest floor after cutting – according to
South African data on managed forest plantation.

>Charcoal is lighter by weight, but consuming in volume. 

Yes it is less dense but people pile the trucks up very high until they are
overloaded. Changing to moving wood will not move more tons in the same
number of trucks, if that is what you were getting at. The same number of
overloaded tons would be moved with a much lower heat content. They do not
dry the wood in rural areas. Not for long anyway, but they could. That is
part of the equation.

>But dont forget that in a ND gasifier, or as we like to call it, a Micro
Kiln, you will utilize the gases in the biomass for cooking  and your
calculation on MJ/kg will fall apart.

When we look at the calculation of the MJ delivered into the pots, we will
see the result. I am not speculating, I am calculating. We can calculate for
the present conditions. We can calculate from improved charcoal production
technology, utilisation of charcoal fines, utilisation of small branches
presently wasted, utilisation of agriwastes for charcoal and the use of
slash (the branches and thinning from plantations). We can also remember
that after a forest fire most of the partly burned tree wood that cannot be
sawn and sold is made into charcoal.

>Traditional charcoal making, looses more than 50-70% of the energy content
in the biomass during production.

Yes, let us suppose it is 50% to be generous to the charmaker think of him
as a ‘good guy’ for a change. He does a good job and produces 50% of the
original energy in the form of char.

Now let us put a quantity of wood onto a truck and a quantity of charcoal of
the same mass onto another truck. Who is carrying more energy? The charcoal
truck of course. How much? About double. That means the energy cost of
getting the fuel to the customer is twice as much. 

When selling wood from trees as fuelwood, will it only be the parts of the
tree that are ‘nice to use’ of all of it? I think only the bits that will
sell. Large pieces can be split but that is a lot of work. I am pointing out
that not all the wood from a tree makes saleable firewood, just like not all
the charcoal that gets made gets sold.

Of the price, the transport is often 50% or more of the cost to the
consumer. Because the cost of moving wood (per MJ) is twice that of
charcoal, the landed cost of wood, even if it cost ½ as much to begin with,
is now equal to that of charcoal. The wood chopper chopped the tree, dried
it a bit, got ½ as much money for it per MJ (assuming he is willing to do
that) and because of transport, the cost per useful MJ in the city is the
same as charcoal.

So we have two fuels with different prices per kg but the same price per MJ
of useable heat. No, put the fuel into a stove. The charcoal stove is going
to be 25-40% efficient. Here we have 50% efficient ones but I am being
generous. Not everyone has good $3 stoves. If the wood stove is not as
energy efficient (calculated on the raw fuel consumed), it costs more to
run. Simple as that. Checking prices for wood in Maputo these numbers hold
up. Wood is over-priced per MJ and people avoid it.

>How can you argue that charcoal is a better option, when you bring the raw
materials, sundried, to the consumer and they are actually making and
burning their own char, while cooking?  

I am not arguing for charcoal, I am reporting the energy train that exists
and the costs and what people do. I do not do it, they do.

>Traditional charcoal making is also produced from indigenous trees and
bring a heavy tall to the forest in protected areas.

In some cases it is, in other, not so. Rwanda has been an interesting case
study for transforming this. Virtually all the charcoal sold in Rwanda comes
from woodlots on private land, and there is a lot of it sold. You can ask
Robert van der Plas about it.

>In the Northern Hemisphere, we do NOT turn the firewood into charcoal,
unless we like to bring up high temperatures and melt down iron for steel
production, like in the old days, when I was young

:) 

Charcoal is widely sold as a cooking fuel in Canada.

>Dont be so arrogant and pretend that people in developing countries are
ignorant and dont SEE, when given an option, pls. 

I have just demonstrated above that people are very wise about their
decisions regarding fuels and prices and pots and convenience. Perhaps you
could consider why they prefer to purchase charcoal. Just because an
industry is not as efficient as it could be does not mean you shut down the
industry. 

>3. The Natural Draft  - ND gasifiers, are lit form the top, yes, and that
is the whole key to pyrolysis and production of char-coal in an efficient
and proper manner. 

The ND gasifiers currently available have several shortcomings and if they
did not, I believe they would be a lot more popular. 

>The Forced Draft (gasifiers driven by fan), operates a bit differently and
consume the char. 

Natural draft gasifiers are quite capable of burning the char. It is
important not to limit the discussion to certain stoves that cannot. Alexis
makes fan gasifiers that make charcoal and do not burn it. Both are possible
and both are available.

>4. I cannot see the difference between hauling charcoal, pellets,
briquettes or woodchips, pls highlight me.

I have covered that. Cost per ton is fixed. Energy per ton is not. Each fuel
type is different.

>There is “no” need to develop any new low prized technology, Its already
there.

Even bicykles and wheel borrows can ferry pellets, briquettes and woodchips,
not in the same number of bags as charcoal, but very much the same quantity
in terms of MJ/kg. 

What is the MJ/kg in the different fuels? Wood at 16% moisture is about 15.5
MJ/kg. Charcoal at 2% is about 29.3 MJ. Chips are wood. Agricultural waste
is about 12-14 MJ. Pelleted agri-wastes are about 16. 

>5. Do you know how much work and efforts in terms of manpower, it takes to
produce a bag of charcoal?

Do you know how much to produce an equal amount of energy in the form of
chopped and split and dried wood? Pellets? Chips?

>
The technology is not NEW and very much improved over the years

The Chinese are producing a lot and have plans to produce more in the next
years but it has to be subsidised because of production and distributions
costs. The machinery suffers a lot.

>For how long can it be possible to chew on the same biscuit?

Isnt it high time to test a different brand or content?

Ask people to try. We promote anything that works that people are willing to
buy. I am of course not involved in the fuel supply chains, I just watch and
measure.

>For how long can we accept to see people  cutting the branch, they are both
literally and actually sitting on?

For as long as trees grow. Trees are renewable (if you leave them alone for
a while). Western Canada has billions of them planted after forests are cut.

Thanks for pitching some interesting points.

Regards

Crispin in Central Java where they are drowning in biomass and burn it to
get rid of it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130413/bc4997f3/attachment.html>