[Stoves] Solar City business model

[Paul Olivier]

Crispin,

You write:

*I am not so sure how the broad translation of agriwastes into fuel is going
to be viewed by the people who promote agriculture. The biodynamic and
permaculture people would not like to see all the mulch and humus removed to
be turned into cooked food - or char for that matter. I think they tend to
see biogas as a way forward because they retain access to the minerals in a
digestible form, as it were.*

Please take a look at this paper:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Summaries/Food%20Crisis.pdf
The same is summarized in a PowerPoint presentation:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Presentations/Sustainable%20Agriculture.ppsx

In this paper I distinguish four type of waste in descending order of
nutrient content.The first two types of waste are putrescent, the last two
types of waste are non-putrescent. The main idea here is that each type of
waste should be transformed and returned to agriculture by means of the
most appropriate technology. This gives the highest economic return. Type 1
waste should not be processed as if it were type 2 waste, type 2 waste
should not be processed as if it were type 3 or 4 waste, and type 3 waste
should not be processed as if it were type 4 waste.

In applying these technologies, we  produce vermi-compost, mesophilic
compost, thermophilic compost and biochar. These different soil enhancers
do not compete with one another. Instead they all complement one another in
a powerful way. I was compelled to write this paper because I so often saw
(and still see) funding agencies lining behind a particular technology in a
very narrow manner. Look, for example, at all of the money poured into
biogas plants. But does this make sense? I question the wisdom of making
fuel out of pig waste (type 2 waste), since there are other technologies
that allow us to derive far more income out of this type of waste. If its
fuel we need, let us turn to type 4 waste.

Many thanks.
Paul



On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Andrew P
>
> Good points. The stove community projects are not threatened by failure of
> the PV subsidies but they are certainly affected by the (looming?) collapse
> of the carbon trading market. A number of castles have been built in the
> air. Recent emphasis on the health aspects of smoke inhalation will
> probably
> provide a more grounded source of development revenue. The recent doubling
> of the estimated number of people who die from cooking fire smoke will
> probably enhance interest.
>
> The programmatic problem I have encountered with this is that cleaning up
> indoor air can be done without improving the stoves at all - just piping it
> outside where 'dilution is the solution to pollution', to quote and EBRD
> consultant. Inventors want to create stoves, not just clean up the air.
>
> The fuel saving aspect of stoves will always remain a strong contender in
> the funding cycle because it is an easy sell. Certainly easier than
> resource
> creation and management. Better to whine over how little there is than to
> create more.
>
> I am not so sure how the broad translation of agriwastes into fuel is going
> to be viewed by the people who promote agriculture. The biodynamic and
> permaculture people would not like to see all the mulch and humus removed
> to
> be turned into cooked food - or char for that matter. I think they tend to
> see biogas as a way forward because they retain access to the minerals in a
> digestible form, as it were.
>
> Economically viable solutions are going to dominate, no matter what the
> flavor of the month.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> ++++++++
> Paul,
>
> Solar City does not exactly provide solar installation for free.  They
> provide an option in which they will install a complete system with no
> money
> down, but it involves a long-term contract (purchase option after 5
> years) in which the customer buys the electricity generated by the panels
> at
> a set price (I am guessing that option requires the existence, beyond
> federal subsidies, of state, local and utility subsidies for solar panel
> installation and solar generated electricity).
>
> I am not poo-pooing the idea.  It is a sound model.  It would be sounder if
> it did not rely on subsidies.
>
> Where there is a strong market for rice husk char and ash, I agree that
> such
> a model could be used to market char-producing stoves to provide energy to
> the customer in exchange for char and ash, and a fee, if needed.  I truly
> hope you can convince someone to invest.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130423/68794fcb/attachment.html>