[Stoves] Solar City business model

Tue Apr 23 17:17:46 CDT 2013

Crispin,

This listing of the types of waste, as well as the means to transform them,
should not be viewed in a rigid and definitive manner. What needs to be
emphasized, above all else, is that there should not be a single approach
to waste transformation that overrides all other approaches. Imagine the
incredible short-sightedness of those who promote the incineration of
biodegradable waste. It is precisely the integration of many waste
transformation technologies that results in the most beneficial
environmental impact and the highest economic return. We must remain open
to multiple approaches and to whatever works best in a particular
situation. For example, certain agricultural residues, such as wheat and
rice straw, defy easy categorization and can lead us in many exciting
directions.

There’s money to be made in growing mushrooms on straw. Nothing could be
better than this, for the main product of this fungal transformation is
food for humans, while the mycelial residue can be fed to red worms.
There’s a limit of course on growing mushrooms for human consumption, and
when this limit is reached in a particular area, one might forget the
fruiting body and focus only on the rapid cultivation of mycelial biomass
as a substrate for larvae and red worms. Here fairly “worthless” straw is
converted into two living creatures of exceptional value.

When rice straw is harvested at full-ripening stage, it is relatively moist
and contains more nutrients than straw that has been fully dried in the
sun. This green straw can be chopped, fermented by means of lactic acid
bacteria and transformed into cattle feed of substantial value.

Dry straw can be shredded and pelletized. Pelletizing increases the bulk
density of loose straw at least ten-fold, and into this pellet, we might
add a small percentage of biochar. The pellet could then serve as cattle
feed. The shredding and pelletizing make the straw more palatable to the
cow, and hopefully with the addition of biochar, the feed conversion ratio
of the straw should improve substantially, as the Inthapanya/Preston
research indicates. Adding urine to this pellet should also improve
palatability.

Pelleted straw can be used as bedding for cows, pigs and other animals. A
small percentage of biochar can be incorporated into the pellet to prevent
the volatilization of ammonia. This urine-soaked bedding of a high bulk
density is easy to handle. It can be used to fertilize plants. It can serve
as a substrate for red worms. Pelleted straw that served as bedding for
pigs could, perhaps, be pelleted a second time along with a bit of molasses
to serve as cattle feed.

Straw can be shredded and composted thermophilically along with materials
of a low C:N ratio.

And finally straw can be pelleted to serve as gasifier fuel. The compost,
vermicompost and biochar from all of the above processes can be mixed
together in the right proportions to form an exceptional growing medium for
plants. Each of these products contributes something unique to the soil.

>From this one agricultural residue we can produce food, fuel, feed and
fertilizer. The tonnage of straw produced globally each year is phenomenal.
China alone produces annually 340 million tons of straw. The transformation
of straw could become a global business worth hundreds of billions of
dollars US each year. It seems that the agricultural community has yet to
learn the value of the many types of waste it generates.

One notable exception in this regard is Shangqiu Sanli New Energy Ltd of
China. But unfortunately this company sees itself as faced with the
“daunting challenge” of trying to scale up its transport, pelletizing and
gasification operations. The real challenge here, of course, lies not in
scaling up but in scaling down, and in adopting a multifaceted approach
that integrates and combines all of the value chains that straw represents.

I have yet to find a funding agency that adopts a holistic and integrated
approach. One funding agency might line up behind thermophilic composting,
another behind vermi-composting, another behind improved cook stoves, and
so forth. Rarely does one find a funding agency that has the flexibility
and insight to work with and promote several waste transformation
technologies at the same time.

Thanks.
Paul

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Paul O****
>
> ** **
>
> I completely agree with your characterisation of the resources and the
> sensible application of them within the local paradigm.****
>
> ** **
>
> It is holistic approaches that underlie all good economics.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> Crispin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130424/0901cb1c/attachment.html>