[Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Kevin
kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Sat Apr 27 13:22:23 CDT 2013
Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ; jetter jim ; Kevin
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Kevin, List +2 ccs
Kevin:
Thank for proving my point.
# What point? Please be more specific so that I can address it.
Let me try again. This chain started this week with Jim Jetter, describing what he will be reporting on ALL stoves.
# I have no problem with that, except as follows:
1: The more that is included in the report, the more costly, complex and potentially confusing the report may become.
2: Greater cost of the more complex tests and reports may discourage independent testing
3: If "Testing and Reporting" of "Char Making Stoves" costs more than "Testing and Reporting for Full Combustion Stoves", it is not fair or sensible to burden Full Combustion stoves with the extra cost and complexity associated with the complexity and confusion of the "Char Making Stove Report." Separate Reports for Char Producing and Full Combustion Stoves would be more fair, and would reduce testing costs for the Full Combustion stoves.
He will reporting new efficiency quantities E2 (no char value) and E3 (only char value), to go with the previous E1(both). I approved. You produced a chart only dealing with E2 (no char value). I corrected your chart and wondered why you left out E1 and E3.
# OK... I show a copy of my original Table (1), followed by a copy of the new Table (2) showing results reported as E1, E2, and E3.
Table 2
STOVE A STOVE B STOVE C STOVE D
Nature of Fuel Ag. Waste Ag. Waste Stickwood Stickwood
Fuel Energy Supplied, MJ 10 15 10 15
Energy to Cooking Pot, MJ 5 5 5 5
Energy in Char, MJ 0 5 0 5
E1 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00%
E2 50.00% 33.33% 50.00% 33.33%
E3 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33%
# Which Table is likely to be more helpful, transparent, and meaningful to the Customer? Note also that E3 is meaningless. It is not "Charcoal Production efficiency", and the concept of "Charcoal Production Efficiency" as calculated by the proposed method is inherently wrong. What we thus have is as follows:
E1 says all the stoves have the same efficiency and it doesn't matter what stove the Customer selects.
E2 says stoves A and C are more efficient than stoves B and D
E3 says that Stoves B and D are more efficient than Stoves A and D.
# Including E1, E2, and E3 in one table is an enlightening expose.... What it conclusively proves is that:
"Figures never lie, but liars often figure."
You continue to prove my supposition that is because you are a climate denier.
# Since you refuse to define a "Climate Denier", as requested below, I categorically state that you are wrong, and additionally, I state for the record that "I believe there is a climate, and I am therefore a climate believer."
Yes, it is true that I push this E3 issue because I am a "climate believer".
# Well, I am a "Climate Believer" also, but that has nothing to do with "Stove Testing Science". E3 is termed "Char Production efficiency", and is an absolutely faulty concept as calculated in Table 2 above. If you support this calculation, you are Believing in an inherently wrong, misleading, and meaningless calculation.
But also because of the soil improvement value of char becoming biochar.
# What is "Biochar"? The IBI definition of "Biochar" is:
" Biochar is a solid material obtained from the carbonisation of biomass. " (First line at http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar
From http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V1.1.pdf , we get a different definition of "Biochar":
" 6 Biochar is a solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an
7 oxygen-limited environment. "
Even the International Biochar Initiative is reluctant to make a solid connection between "char", "charcoal" and "soil".
#We have an opportunity here to elevate "Stove Testing" to a clear, accurate and transparent Science".
Why pervert "Stove Science" to support a product ("Biochar") that even it's major supporter (IBI) will not define clearly? With the broad and different definitions of "Biochar" given above, how do we know if the char from char producing stoves will get used for soil improvement? How do we even know that the char produced by "char producing stoves" that you and others want to use for "biochar" is economically valuable to the Farmer?
So you are harming the Paul Olivier (soil) position, when you admire his ppt and approach, but want to (apparently) only report E2.
# The Tables above are neutral. They are neither harmful nor helpful to any stove system. They simply report on the facts of the stove. The second Table, however, is likely to be extremely confusing to all but the most sophisticated reader. Although Paul Oliver wrote a posting primarily directed to Crispin, I will take the liberty of replying to it, expanding on my views of his excellent project.
To repeat, there is no atmosphere-soil conflict with wanting a stove report to include E3 (E1 already being there). I also like reporting E2, since it supports the need for E3.
# This is your first use of the concept "atmosphere-soil conflict". Where was it used before? Could you please explain it, and its relevance to the present discussion?
I still have no idea what you and Crispin (also a climate denier)
# It is "bad form" to badmouth people. You appear to be hiding behind loosey goosey concepts, rather than to come out into the Clear Light of Science.
want to modify in what Jim Jetter proposes. My suspicion remains on motivations when you say below:
"Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues... "
# I wish to confirm the correctness of your suspicion that "Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues. The "AGW Believer Folks" seem to be bent on "Building a Carbon Credit Bridge" or a "Climate Bridge" that connects "AGW" and "Stoves". This then opens the door to "proving" virtually anything they want to prove. This is well illustrated by Table 2, which I would call "The Pick Your Favourite Efficiency Report". That is not very helpful for the Stove Buying Customer, who has his own specific stove requirements and circumstances.
I ask again, what do you and Crispin want to see reported by Jim?
# My views are my views, and I cannot speak for either Crispin or Jim Jetter. What I would like to see in "Stove Test Reports" is a true, valid and scientific report on the "True and Relevant Facts About Stoves." I want to see "Stove Tests that Test Stoves" and which do not "muddy the water" with external agendas and considerations. Lets start with a definition as a "Stove" as follows:
===> 1: A Stove is a device or system whose purpose is cooking and/or heating.
There are thus three basic types of stoves:
a: Stoves whose primary purpose is cooking
b: Stoves with a dual purpose of cooking AND heating
c: Stoves whose primary purpose is space heating through warming of air in the living space.
Stoves that heat water for space heating or process requirements are considered "boilers" and established test procedures are already in place.
Then I would deal with the issues of greatest importance to most "real world people." The fundamental issue of greatest concern to most "Real World Stove people" is:
===> 2: "How much fuel must be supplied to the stove being tested , in order to "get the desired job, or jobs, done"?
This "Fundamental Efficiency" is the "Fuel Efficiency", and it would be defined as
"The percentage of fuel energy supplied that is used to accomplish the desired task, or tasks."
#Now, if the stove being tested is intended to be PRIMARILY a "Cooking Stove", then I would test for, and report on, the energy required to accomplish the desired "cooking task". I would consider "water heating in a pot" as the equivalent to "cooking water"
===> 3:1 For such "Cooking stoves" I would define Fuel Efficiency as
("Energy into the Cooking Task") divided by ("Energy in the Fuel Supplied")
Note also that there are different cooking tasks, and different stove configurations, such as grills, griddles, "directly heated pot cookers", indirectly heated pot cookers, oven cookers, etc.
# Some stoves are required to do a "Dual Function", to cook AND to heat the living space.
===> 3:2 For "Dual function Stoves", I would define fuel efficiency as
("Energy into the Cooking Task" + "Energy into the Living Space") divided by ("Energy in the Fuel Supplied")
# Some stoves are intended for "Space Heating Only", and have no Cooking Function.
===> 3:3 For Space Heating Stoves, I would define fuel efficiency as
("Energy into the Living space") divided by (Energy in the Fuel supplied")
# The competent "Stove Testing People", like Crispin and Jim, know all about "Mass and Energy Balances", Siegert Combustion Testing, pollution measurement, etc. They are quite capable of configuring tests and reports that truthfully, meaningfully, clearly and repeatably report on the performance of specific stoves. Such methods "Digitize the generalities, and eliminate the loosey-gooseys". They enable the Stove Buyer to buy a stove to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Some stove systems will require electric power, for fans, feeders, controls, conveyors, etc. A "Mass and Energy Balance" would capture these energy inputs and show them appropriately. Stack Gas Outputs would be measured for at least for CO2, temperature, and particulate matter.
# Now, some people may want to buy a stove that produces Char. That is fine, if that is what they want. They are the Customer, and if they want a stove that produces char, they should be able to buy a stove that produces the char they want. There should be a Test Protocol that shows how much charcoal it produces when a given amount of input biomass is supplied to it. Now, since "all chars are not equal", the tests that test a stove that produces char as a prime purpose should incorporate additional tests that enable the Char Stove Customer to select the best such stove from a selection. For example, some Customers may wish to produce "Fuel Grade Char", or perhaps 'Smokeless Char" or perhaps "Char for Subsequent Activation" or perhaps "char for Water Treatment' or perhaps "Medicinal Grade Char", or perhaps "Char for Agricultural Purposes", or perhaps "Carbon Credit Char for Climate Amelioration Purposes". Since such stoves are intended primarily for char production, I feel they should be in a class of their own. We define such a "stove" as follows:
===> 4: A "Char Making Stove" is a device or system whose purpose is the production of Char and/or to provide a cooking and/or heating functions.
# Parameters that should be noted, measured and tested for could include:
* Fuel Type
* Fuel Burn Rate
* Productively used energy, such as for cooking, space heating, water heating, process heat, etc
* Gas sent to pipeline for use in a secondary system... external stove, kiln, furnace, boiler, engine, etc
* Energy sent to Flare stack
* Stack Loss energy
* Shell loss
* Fuel Efficiency Calculation
* Char Yield Calculation
* Liquids yield, and energy content of liquids
* Grade of char produced,
* Power consumption for fans, blowers, pumps, conveyors etc, if relevant.
* Etc.
# My interest, in the context of "Stove Testing", is in stoves intended primarily for cooking and/or heating, having maximum fuel efficiency. This means "full combustion stoves", in that char production is an energy loss, and a char producing stove cannot have as high a fuel efficiency as a "full combustion stove" that utilizes the supplied fuel more effectively. I am also interested, in other arenas, in:
* Char Producing Stoves, whose primary purpose is Char Production and/or cooking and/or heating
* Gasifier stoves whose primary purpose is the production or "Heating grade Gas" or "engine grade Gas" with or without the production of char.
* Retort systems, whose primary purpose is the production of char, with/without productive utilization of pryolysis gases.
In summary then, there are many "Stove Systems" and many Customer Requirements for utilizing various biomass products as a source of energy or a source of char. Because of the differing factors of importance in various "classes of stove systems", it is not sensible to attempt to assemble a single "One Test Protocol Fits All" approach to stove testing.
# Ron, you did not respond to my request for a Public Retraction as requested below. Please retract your erroneous statements about my views and lack of thoroughness. I consider your statements to be irresponsible Professional Insults. Alternatively, please show where I made the stated oversights. I would ask you to be more professional with expression of your alternative views in the future.
Kevin Chisholm
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>, "jetter jim" <jetter.jim at epa.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:44:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves ; Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
List. Cc Kevin
Sorry, no apologies on this one.
# I did not ask for an apology. I was simply commenting on what I feel is your inappropriate approach to dealing with issues.
The issue on the table is whether char-making stoves have an important connection to AGW.
# No. This is the Stoves List, and the issues is how biochar relates to stoves.
Since you and a few others disagree and continue to try to distance the two topics,
# "Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues, and there may, or may not, be an overlap. If there was no AGW Issue, there would still be Stoves. I feel it is very important to understand the issues of each separately, so that "areas of overlap" can be discovered and used most advantageously. "Stoves" and "AGW" should rise or fall on their own merits. It is very wrong to evaluate Stoves only INSIDE the context of AGW, in that the results of such evaluations may, and probably will be, be misleading or incorrect OUTSIDE the context of AGW. Please do not lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of Stoves is cooking and/or heating.
I think it valid to ask if it is because you/they are a climate denier?
# Firstly, please define specifically what you mean by "climate denier". Secondly, if "True Science" is employed in "Stove Testing", then a "Climate Denier"(?) and a "Climate Believer"(?) should get identical results. Alternatively, should there perhaps be two Stove Testing Protocols... one for "Climate Believers"(?) and one for "Climate Deniers"(?)?
( Kevin and I have had off- list discussions, but he is free to say otherwise anytime on his AGW views.)
# We may have had off-list discussions, but when I searched my files, I could not find them. Would you be kind enough to reference them by date, and by relevance to the issue at hand? Additionally, while you are searching your files, I would kindly ask you to find evidence to justify your statements, or issue a public retraction as called for in my posting to the Stoves List on 4/24/2013 at 11:31 AM ADT, as follows:
===>(RWL) 3. Many of us have been promoting char-making stoves for individual (not societal) non-energy reasons that you also state need not be considered
- able to save money through sale or use of the char
- save time and money by using closer non-wood fuels
- cleaner kitchen (and neighborhood outdoor-air) environment, so lower health-related costs
- save time by less fire tending
# I think it is about time for you to make a Public Retraction. Please show the List where I said that the above factors do not need to be considered, or retract your erroneous statement.
I would comment that I have supported Paul Oliver with his Proposal to utilize char making stoves in Vietnam. I am 100% supportive of the use of char making stoves where they are appropriate and where the Customer wants them. Equally, I am 100% against char making stoves where they are inappropriate and when they do not best serve the Customer's needs.
I await your Public Retraction of your erroneous statement.. <===
To me it is important to try to educate deniers, and analyze their reasons for denial. I just can't comprehend such a view in 2013.
# Perhaps you, as a "believer"(?) cannot understand the concerns of "deniers"(?) because you have a fixed belief that you your beliefs are the only ones that are correct. If your "beliefs" are based on "Consensus Science", rather than "Real Science", your "beliefs" may be faulted. The late Margaret Thatcher had a strong view about consensus. She called it:
"The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects."
# Scientific Truth has no need for "consensus."
Kevin
Ron
On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:05 AM, "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
Dear Ron
I would suggest that your approach, as presented below, is some combination of an Ad Hominum Attack, and an un-scientific witch hunt. The Bioenergy lists should be a source of Truth and Fact, based on Science, but you persist in tainting Stove and Agricultural issues involving char with AGW, Carbon Credit, Climate Change, and "Denier" considerations.
You could become a "Friend of Biochar" if you worked toward understanding how biochar can be used to advantage by Farmers and Growers, in that if Farmers and Growers find out how to use biochar economically, it will be used on a widespread basis in Agriculture. Your AGW interests will then be advanced by "Market Pull".
If you disagree with the views of List Members, please do so by refuting their views with palpable evidence showing why you feel they are wrong, and not with ad hominum attacks.
Thank you.
Kevin Chisholm
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves ; Paul Olivier
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Paul and list:
Thanks for a very complete response. This is to hope Crispin will respond fully.
If so, I ask him three more to add to yours
a. why he has chosen to NOT join the sister biochar lists, given the heavy emphasis there as well in char-making stoves.
b. whether much of his knowledge on biochar has come from WUWT. If not what source (i am asking for a few specifics -not generalities) has he for his statement below
There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read and hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to close scrutiny.
c. Does he see the connection I do between his being a "climate denier" and being a skeptic on biochar?
Ron
On Apr 21, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com> wrote:
See comments below.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Jeff
Thanks for that contribution.
The point of Paul’s description is that in the circumstances where he is, it works. It works on several levels and it will probably continue to work for a long time.
The scenario was discussed on this list several times before, going back years, but there was nowhere that all the ingredients were present. One of the things that makes the rice hull char attractive is the existence, on a big scale apparently, of land that benefits from the addition of the char, and growing of crops that benefit from it.
There have been many claims made for biochar which, based on what I read and hear from people who read much more broadly, that don’t stand up to close scrutiny.
Crispin, I take issue with this statement. The biochar research that I have been involved with (that is, biochar from my gasifiers) has been done in three different countries, and it involved seven universities. More than 20 experiments have been carried out, and in none of these experiments did biochar have negative effects. Contrary to what you might believe, this research does stand up to close scrutiny. These people are not just reading about biochar, but they are actually doing biochar research. I know many of these researchers, and they are not engaged in deceit. They are trying to help poor farmers understand the benefits of biochar.
The same holds for permaculture
What's wrong with permaculture?
and improved stove and lots of things, so there is nothing ‘special’ about char, it is just that people get enthusiastic about something and wish it were universally true.
Crispin, it is hard for me to believe that you actually wrote this!
How do you know that that there is nothing special about biochar?
Is this your field of expertise?
Have you actually been involved in biochar research?
I strongly suggest that you read the following:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Agronomy_Carter%20et%20al%202013%2002%2017.pdf
http://www.lrrd.org/public-lrrd/proofs/lrrd2501/chha25008.htm
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/2/siso23032.htm
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24026.htm
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24039.htm
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/2/siso24034.htm
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Biochar%20utilization%20in%20Rice%20crop%20on%20Tuk%20Vil%20Luvisol.pdf
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/leng24199.htm
If you really want to understand the benefits of biochar, please read this book:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Biochar/Johannes%20Lehmann%2C%20Stephen%20Joseph-Biochar%20for%20environmental%20management_%20science%20and%20technology.pdf
The people who wrote and edited this book are not charlatans. They are not deceitful. They are as good in their science as anyone could possibly be.
Crispin, the moment you start doing biochar research of your own, then you might have something serious to say in this regard.
No problem, we can live with filters on information to sift out what is beneficial and in what circumstances the claims how true. Independent investigation will support it if it is.
Then do the independent investigation yourself.
As I understand if, the Japanese have being doing this the longest and they are very circumscribed about what claims are made for biochar.
Some of the best biochar research was done by the Japanese (Ogawa et al) back in the early 90's. They showed how biochar positively impacts the growth of AM fungi. This is explained in the book by Lehmann and Joseph.
It is particular soils, particular crops and particular treatment of the char (temperature, species) that are in combination, what gives improved results. This theme constantly appears in the literature. As has been pointed out, just randomly putting char into soil can have negative consequences – it depends on the soil conditions. The last thing we need is a case of the char causing more harm than good while claims are made that it is improving things. The stove community should be working with agricultural trials experts.
I read in the past that adding rice hull ash to rice fields is beneficial – maybe because the silica is extra-available, don’t know. Not my field.
If this is not your field, then on what authority do you base your statements about rice hull biochar or rice hull ash?
Again, I challenge you: do the research, as Preston, Leng and Shackley have done.
What upsets me here is that I know well some of the people who have been conducting research with rice hull biochar.
They know agriculture quite well, they have impeccable scientific credentials, and they, unlike you, are experts in this field.
Then you come along, without any basis in fact, and question their research as not being scientific.
Wow!
I am just glad we have a working example of using gas and char that makes economic sense.
It only makes economic sense, Crispin, if biochar plays a positive role in promoting plant and animal growth. If biochar does not play a positive role, we might as well burn it.
Thanks.
Paul Olivier
Regards
Crispin
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/20130427/ec8b5a81/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ScreenHunter_01 Apr. 26 16.25.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130427/ec8b5a81/attachment.gif>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list