[Stoves] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
larry winiarski
larryw at gotsky.com
Mon Apr 15 03:02:01 CDT 2013
dear Rebecca
straws and even corn stalks can be braided, twisted into a rope or even tied into bundles.the shape and size of fuel sticks. the idea is to reduce the exposed surface area so that they do not burn or gasifiy too fast. they do not need to be compressed by powerfull equipment. They need to be fed into a rocket stove more frequently. but the fuel tending is practical. rice husk has more silica and more ash so it is importatnt to remove the ash more often.
God Bless
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Rebecca A. Vermeer
To: M. Nurhuda ; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
Nurhuda,
Can rice straw and husk be pelleted into bigger chunks about the size of wood charcoal (1-inch cube or more)? or into sticks like firewood? I can use charcoal (from wood or coconut shell) or firewood (small branches), etc. in an eco-kalan in the Philippines.
Rebecca Vermeer
From: Paul Olivier
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:00 PM
To: M. Nurhuda ; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
Nurhuda,
I really am delighted to read what you have written in this email. I wholeheartedly support your approach. If we tap into the enormous amount of biomass available in the form of agricultural residues, we can go a long way in meeting the cooking needs of most of the people in Asia. Just imagine the tonnage of rice hulls and rice straw available in China alone. Just imagine the colossal amount of wheat straw available in Europe and the USA that could serve as fuel for gasifiers situated in modern kitchens. No one, rich or poor, should be relying exclusively on fossil fuels to cook a meal.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Presentations/Gasification.ppsx
Many thanks.
Paul Olivier
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 6:57 AM, M. Nurhuda <mnurhuda at ub.ac.id> wrote:
Dear all stovers,
I am from Java, but not central Java as Crispin and World Bank team are
mostly visiting.
Dense forest in Java is now just a story. We do not have anymore dense,
big rainfall forest. Not only in Java, even in other island like Borneo or
Sumatra. Probably in Papua there are still big forest, but I am very
skeptic if in the next 5 or 10 years these dense forests still do exist.
There are currently massive deforestation due to palm plantation.
We propose, regarding the clean cookstove initiative phase I, which
targeting 10 million stove users between 2014-2020, not to use woods as
fuel, but the agriculture and plantation residues. We have provided simple
calculation, that rice straw alone can be feedstock for pellets sufficient
for 164 Million house holds in Indonesia. How does this number come?
The rice grain production in year in all Indonesia is 70.4 Million tons.
The ration between dry rice straw to dry rice grain is always between
1.1-2, but mostly 1.44. The total dry rice straw as byproduct of rice
farming will be around 100 million tons in year. When the straw is
converted to pellet, around 10% of mass will be lost. Thus, from 100
Million tons of rice straw we can get 90 million tons pellets. Assuming
that each house hold needs only 1,5 kg pellet daily, the pellet will
suffice for 164 millions house holds.
The agriculture and plantation residues are not only rice straw, but also
rice husks, cornstalk, sugar cane, grass and still a lot. All can be used
as pellet feedstock. There are many big companies in Indonesia ready to
produce the pellet, if the governments give supports and the market for
pellet is open.
All we have to do is introducing the change. We have to make the people
aware that they can not rely at all to log woods as well as to subsidized
LPG and kerosene.
Kind regards
M. Nurhuda
> Crispin,Thanks for your quick reply.
> Like allways, you have an answer to everything and enjoy your stay in the
> dense forest of Java or Canada.Replacing trees is not a new idea on the
> planet, only linked to Canada.In the jungle the forest are dense, but not
> so heavily populated, that I know of.If you are still using charcoal for
> cooking (not grilling) in Canda, I wish you good luck.
> Pellet have been on the marked in Sweden for almost three decades.
> I was mainly commenting Paul M, but anyway you are of the same part and
> parcel.
> I am not here to entertain you and your fellow followers, but here to
> pinpoint that there are other options than charcoal.There is no need of
> reporting, what we allready know.
> We are not forcing matters on anybody, just trying to give them an option,
> linked to stoves and FUEL.
> If I should check all your previous posts, I would be busy into the next
> century and I have better ways to spend my time.
> We dont need to be told obvious facts, again and again, when we know of
> the mountains of vaste materials through out the planet.The most important
> issue is to find ways to utilize it in a smart an rational way.
> To keep on pushing the old fashion metodes dont direct us in the right
> direction, as far as I know.People tend to stick to old and "secure"
> metodes, known for decades, but does it create inventions and progress?
> Have you ever tested a ND gasifier and the heat transfer to the pot?To
> boil water in Norway, we need only 100 C at sea level, less at higher
> altitudes.We do not need tempertures at the melting point of the pot.The
> gasifier produces heat around 550 - 750C to the pot stand, depending on
> which type of biomass used.
> I do not consider a charcoal producer, as you say, "a good or bad guy".i
> have met several of them during my time as a forest officer in Zambia.
> They are hard working people, struggeling to feed their families with some
> "cash crop" from the forest, "free of charge".They do not do it because
> they, "like it", but because it is the only option they have for some
> income.
> Either way, they normaly get 150 kg of charcoal out of 1 tonne of
> wood.Thats the fact of to day in Zambia and many other African countries.
> This should also be reflected in your calculation on MJ/kg.Most of the
> energy content to produce the charcoal on the truck has been consumed in
> the forest and into the thin air, dont you see?I consider that vaste of
> energy, so your calculation is bit more complex than you seems to know.
> The prices are very much linked to the marked and you cant compare
> firewood and charcoal, as woodchips and charcoal, because of the fact that
> woochips will last longer and be more fuel efficient in a gasifier, than a
> treestone fire or an improved woodstove.On the other hand we do not need
> to use wooden biomass in a gasifier.You cant compare apples and oranges,
> either by taste or price. They are fruits, yes, but still totally
> different.
> Why do you think Phiilps have started producing gasifiers in Maseru?Do you
> feel they are stupied or commented?
> Everbody on this list know about the energy chain of charcoal, I belive,
> and do not need to be highlighted every now and then.
> To use residues from platations, like in Rwanda, to produce charcoal is of
> course a better option than using indigionus forest.But if you dont forsee
> an unefficient and harmfull industry, before it is to late, you are in
> trouble".
> Enjoy the dense forest of Java, whilest you can.I have heard stories about
> heavy logging to create palmoil platations and utilize the char as
> biochar.
> Trees are renewable, IF you LEAVE them for a while, that is the big
> question and bushfires will come and go wheter we like it or not.
> Otto
>
> From: crispinpigott at gmail.com
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:54:30 +0700
> Subject: Re: [] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
>
> 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. RegardsCrispin in Central Java where they are drowning in biomass
> and burn it to get rid of it.
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
--
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam
Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130415/16257aa7/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list