[Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw dataof cookstove tests.
Kevin
kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Mon Apr 22 22:16:18 CDT 2013
Dear Jock
You bring up some excellent points!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jock Gill
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw dataof cookstove tests.
Kevin,
If one type of device [technology] requires champagne fuel, stick wood for example, but another device can use 'waste', should that not be accounted for? If one device type promotes deforestation by consuming stick wood, but another technology reduces the risk of deforestation, should that not be in the plus column for the technology that reduces the risks of deforestation?
# Very good points! I would first make a distinction between "stickwood" and "split log wood". For example, a Rocket Stove can burn "stickwood" from shrubs or brush that will never turn into a forest, as well as "split logwood" from "forest trees." On the one hand, it would not contribute to deforestation, but when it burns split logwood, it could. In either case, the greater its efficiency and the less the char production, the less will be its stickwood or "split logwood requirements to "get a given cooking/heating job done." Obviously, the ability of a stove to burn "waste" is an advantage to the User, in terms of lower (or no) cost for fuel, and a probably reduced de-forestation benefit. If the stove will burn the "waste" to completion (ie, no residual char), then this would result in least input fuel consumption. However, there is a case where the production of residual char can be advantageous... the char may be able to be sold to others, or it may be used as a beneficial soil additive. I would suggest that it is up to the User to decide if he wants a stove that produces char or not.
Using twice a much champagne fuel is, of course, a real problem. But using twice as much previously discarded waste as feedstock is a real plus. ESP. If we factor in the economic value of increased crops - which pure combustion devices can not offer.
# In the case where: a: The User has access to such a "waste" fuel at low or no cost, and b: he has a valuable use for the char and ash, then I agree "the more he burns and the more the char and ash he produces, the better." On the other hand if the User had no use for the ash and char, he should get an efficient "full burn stove", simply to reduce the need to replenish his fuel bin, and to reduce the need "take out the waste ash and char."
Not all units on your list use the same fuels or are limited to a narrow range of fuels. How do we Give credit to TLUDs that can use a wide range of fuels, not just stick wood, which is a prime example of a champaign fuel?
# There is a place for the TLUD stove system... where the User wants cooking/heating and char production in one system. There are many different "full combustion", "char making" and TLUD stove systems. A test protocol that shows the input fuel requirements to accomplish a given cooking/heating task, and which measures and reports the amount of char produced will enable the Customer to decide which "stove system" fits best with his "site specific circumstances".
# One thing that concerns me about TLUD char is the recent revelation that "low temperature char" seems to be better for soil building than would the "medium" or "high temperature" char that could be produced by TLUD's. There may be a need to re-design TLUD's to produce a low temperature char that is optimal for use as biochar. It appears that much further work needs to be done to determine if TLUD's can produce a char that is optimal for soil building.
Do we not have to use systems thinking approaches that take ALL of the factors in the whole system into consideration, not merely some arbitrarily selected sub-set?
# Agreed 100% about the "systems approach" and "whole system considerations." However, I feel that there is no such thing as a "one stove fits all" systems. For example, in a location where it is highly advantageous to produce char for resale, the "Grandma" may want a stove that needs least fuel input and has least ashes and char to dispose of, while her Son may want a stove that maximizes char production in the course of cooking, as a "money maker." Enlightened Stove Producers would make a range of stoves to cover most of their potential Customer's requirements. Appropriate stove testing protocols would enable the Customer to select the stove system that was best for his "site specific needs."
It is not good science to arbitrarily select some sub-set of factors to tilt the outcome in favor of one particular technology.
# I would say "Definitely not." Rather, tell the truth, and give the Customer the right to decide what is best for him.
Frankly, combustion got us into the mess we are in and is unlikely to get us out. Pyrolysis might help get us out of the environmental mess we are in, but this is not a certainty.
# While some of us have AGW concerns, others don't have the luxury of thinking about the longer term. Their concern may be as fundamental as getting enough fuel to cook meals or sterilize water for today. Let the Customer decide what is important to him. It is not fair to burden the Third World with the cost of alleviating AGW problems caused by the first world.
Happy Earth Day!
# We all win with a better Earth!
Best wishes,
Kevin
Curious.
Jock Gill
P.O. Box 3
Peacham, VT 05862
Cell: (617) 449-8111
:> Extract CO2 from the atmosphere! <:
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
Dear Ron
1: Would you agree with the following statements?
a: A "Stove" is a device with the primary purpose of heating and/or cooking.
b: A "Retort" is a device with the primary purpose of producing char and pyrolysis gases
c: A "Gasifier" is a device with the primary purpose of converting a solid fuel into a fuel gas.
d: A "Mixed Function system" (such as a TLUD) is a device that provides both a heating and/or cooking function plus residual char.
2: If you agree with those basic definitions, would you not agree that a device attempting to do "2 jobs in one" cannot do either job as efficiently or effectively as if the device was designed to do "one job the best?"
3: Would you agree that the Customer who buys the "device" should have the benefit of "true science based tests" that are repeatable by others?
4: Would you agree that the Customer is the one who decided whether or not he should purchase a "mixed feature device" that produces char, but requires more fuel input, in contrast to a Stove that requires less fuel input for the same cooking and/or heating effect?
5: Would you agree that the testing protocols for the above "devices" should be such that the Customer should be able to compare the various devices and then select the "device" that best meets his wishes?
Kevin Chisholm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130423/65287542/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list