[Stoves] corn cobs and char
Art Donnelly
art.donnelly at seachar.org
Sat Aug 17 12:05:56 CDT 2013
Dear Dr. Karve,
I have only witnessed cobs without kernels being used as animal fodder. I
have often seen this in both Costa Rica and the US. We have not encountered
anyone in Costa Rica's indigenous reserves using corn cobs as a fuel
source, but there is no scarcity of woody biomass in these areas.
I did a quick look online and saw that using approximately 20% corn cobs in
the diet of pigs is a practice that has a long history and has often been
promoted by various extension services and researchers.
As I said, we know they work great in the TLUDs, but have not yet worked in
an area where they are widely enough available to make them a cooking fuel
option.
Art Donnelly
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:31 PM,
<stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org>wrote:
> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Saving the WBT (Frank Shields)
> 2. Webinar on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on Batch-Fueled
> Stoves (Jetter, James)
> 3. Re: VermiChar (Vuthisa Technologies)
> 4. Re: Saving the WBT (Ronal W. Larson)
> 5. Re: Saving the WBT (Frank Shields)
> 6. Re: "adam-retort" good feed back for biochar production in
> Cambodia (Ronal W. Larson)
> 7. ESD Special Issue Notes (Ronal W. Larson)
> 8. Re: Saving the WBT (Ronal W. Larson)
> 9. Re: Webinar on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on Batch-Fueled
> Stoves (Paul Anderson)
> 10. Re: corn cobs and char (Anand Karve)
> 11. Re: ESD Special Issue Notes - redd.ciga.unam.mx
> (revjcsd at juno.com)
> 12. Re: ESD Special Issue Notes (Ronal W. Larson)
> 13. Re: Saving the WBT (Paul Olivier)
> 14. Re: ESD Special Issue Notes (crispinpigott at gmail.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:12:20 -0700
> From: "Frank Shields" <frank at compostlab.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
> Message-ID: <008901ce9aac$26ecab20$74c60160$@compostlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Greetings Stovers,
>
>
>
> All this talk about the ocean water got me thinking about the Water Boiling
> Test.
>
> I would like to suggest a new way of testing and reporting results:
>
>
>
> 1) Procedure
>
> 2) Justification
>
> 3) Calculations
>
>
>
> Procedure: We take some oven dried wood and place in a pipe. Add both end
> caps, loosen one, weigh and place in an oven at ~450c. Then cool and weigh.
> The loss in weight is the volatile fraction of the fuel. This is the
> fraction that provides the energy to boil water. We determine the energy of
> this fraction and that is the energy of the fuel. Keeping track of the fuel
> weight we use we determine the total usable volatile-energy.
>
>
>
> We put the pot of water on the stove, measure the temperature of the water,
> start the fire and monitor the water temperature. We keep the fire going
> until the water is at 'simmer' then keep steady for 30 min. Adding no more
> fuel we then we manipulate the fire to keep the secondary burn going as
> long
> as possible. Soon as the secondary burn goes out we pull the pot off and
> measure the area under the temperature plot for energy that went into the
> pot. Energy in the pot / volatile-energy X 100 is the efficiency(?).
>
>
>
> Justification: When you are boiling water it is only good as long as the
> secondary burn is going. When that goes out, even with a glowing stove
> below, the water heating process slows way down because, as I learned in
> Stove Camp, we need the heat forced hitting the bottom of the pot to stick
> to it, go through the pot and heat the water.
>
>
>
> Biomass fuel has two types of energy; 1) the tars (C-H-O) that create the
> secondary burn and 2) the chars (C-C) that only heat the stove body.
> Important for the chars to heat the stove body but there is more than
> enough
> with a good insulated stove and all that extra heat is wasted - not used to
> heat the pot. When biomass is heated between 300c to 450c tars of massive
> C-H-O structures go to the secondary burn and ALL C > CO2, and all H > H2O
> releasing massive energy just at the pot bottom. The C-C bonds (chars) left
> need to go C (solid) - CO volatile) forms releasing energy only in the
> stove
> body. The CO (volatile) goes to the secondary burn (adding to the energy of
> the tars) to go CO > CO2 releasing a relatively small amount of energy.
> Under the best of conditions all the C goes to CO (not CO2) in the stove
> body but this is such a small amount of energy compared to the tars
> providing ALL their energy to heat the pot I suggest we can ignore (or
> estimate) the CO > CO2 added energy.
>
>
>
> This being the case if we use only the volatile fraction as the total
> energy
> then once the secondary burn stops all the rest of the material in the
> stove
> body can be ignored.
>
>
>
> Calculations: A block of 100 g dried wood contains 44g C, 50g O and 6g H.
> Let's say 22g C goes to the secondary as tars to heat the pot and 22g C
> left
> behind to heat the stove. This can be determined (if needed) in the lab
> measuring C and H in the biomass and C and H in the char left. The weight
> loss in the pipe contains 28.2 % carbon and 7.7 % hydrogen for the starting
> energy value figuring all H and all O are included in the tar fraction.
>
>
>
> Now we need to use Bond Energy (I need help) to determine the energy value
> we give for all the tar carbon going all the way to CO2 and the hydrogen
> going all the way to H2O. We sum the Bond Energies in the tars as the Total
> Energy of the fuel. Add to it (ignore or estimate) the Bond Energy of the
> CO
> to CO2 in the chars.
>
>
>
> Bond Energies:
>
> C - - O = 360 kj/mol
>
> H - - O = 366 kj/mol
>
> What is C>CO2 and H>H2O?
>
>
>
> I realize if one has H2 and O2 that nothing happens until you provide
> enough
> energy (light a match) to break the H-H and O-O bonds to re-create H2O in
> an
> explosion. In this stove case there might be enough of the extra heat in
> the
> stove body to break apart the tars into C and H and O so we can just
> calculate them going completely to their end components.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank Shields
>
> Control Laboratories; Inc.
>
> 42 Hangar Way
>
> Watsonville, CA 95076
>
> (831) 724-5422 tel
>
> (831) 724-3188 fax
>
> <mailto:frank at compostlab.com> frank at compostlab.com
>
> <http://www.compostlab.com/> www.compostlab.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/ffed629b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:30:15 +0000
> From: "Jetter, James" <Jetter.Jim at epa.gov>
> To: "stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Webinar on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on
> Batch-Fueled Stoves
> Message-ID:
> <
> f645b4372290413980cad7c99f2f7352 at BLUPR09MB005.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> To All,
>
>
>
> This is a reminder. Hope you will join us for the webinar on Tuesday,
> August 20. During the webinar, we will address some issues raised on this
> listserv, including data sharing, test methods, and batch-fueled,
> pyrolytic, charcoal-producing stoves.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:49:50 +0000
>
> From: Radha.Muthiah <radha.muthia at cleancookstoves.org<mailto:
> radha.muthia at cleancookstoves.org>>
>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
>
> Subject: [Stoves] Webinar on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on
>
> Batch-Fueled Stoves
>
>
>
> Dear Colleague,
>
>
>
> You are invited to a webinar hosted by the Global Alliance for Clean
> Cookstoves on August 20, 2013. Jim Jetter and Seth Ebersviller, U.S. EPA,
> will present an Update on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on Batch-Fueled
> Stoves. The purpose of the webinar is to:
>
>
>
> - Provide an update on the EPA cookstove testing project
>
>
>
> - Present a format (EPA spreadsheet) for sharing data
>
>
>
> - Discuss test methods
>
>
>
> - Focus on example testing results for a batch-fueled pyrolytic
> TLUD (top-lit up-draft) stove
>
>
>
> - Solicit further comments on methods, spreadsheet, and data
> sharing
>
>
>
> The focus of this webinar is on batch-fueled pyrolytic stoves, because EPA:
>
>
>
> - Previously tested a batch-fueled pyrolytic natural-draft TLUD
> stove with low-moisture wood pellet fuel - published results were very
> promising!
>
>
>
> - Received many comments on pyrolytic stoves
>
>
>
> - Finds batch-loaded stoves challenging to test because a
> widely-accepted testing protocol does not exist
>
>
>
> - Wants further discussion on test methods
>
>
>
> - Wants to participate in developing a test protocol for
> batch-fueled stoves
>
>
>
> This webinar will be part of a webinar series focused on data issues for
> testing. Upcoming webinar topics include:
>
>
>
> - Uncertainty calculations for testing protocols
>
>
>
> - Efficient and quality-controlled data management
>
>
>
> - Please suggest future topics for this webinar series
>
>
>
> The online registration form (
> https://unfoundation.conferencinghub.com/attendee/RegisterLogin.aspx?hubconfID=1632144&qtID=1&act=reg&cp=2861)
> includes a place to enter comments or questions you would like addressed
> during the webinar. The recorded webinar, presentation slides, and draft
> spreadsheet will be posted following the webinar. EPA will respond to
> comments and questions received before, during, and after the webinar.
>
>
>
> On August 20, 2013, the webinar will be presented ONE TIME at:
>
> 7:00 am US-PDT
>
> 10:00 am US-EDT
>
> 2:00 pm UTC
>
> 5:00 pm Nairobi, Kenya; Kampala, Uganda
>
> 7:30 pm Delhi, India
>
> 10:00 pm Beijing, China
>
>
>
> Please join us!
>
>
>
> Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/edc753f3/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:44:59 +0200
> From: Vuthisa Technologies <ventfory at iafrica.com>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] VermiChar
> Message-ID: <520E813B.4040409 at iafrica.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Crispin,
>
> I think Vermicasting or Vermicomposting may be more appropriate, but in
> this part of the woods everyone seems to be referring to it as a wormery or
> worm farm. I think the latter conjures up images of a kid and his worm
> farm enclosed in glass.
>
> >300/ton is a lousy price.
>
> Yes, but if I needed to sell 150 tons a day that would be good enough.
> The buyers still have to combine with their own compost mixes and add cost
> of packaging and other overheads. I sold bagged barbecue as late as April
> 2012 for $340/ton straight to retailers. The price has since shot up.
> Biochar in the US typically fetches $500 USD/metric ton? I would be happy
> paying 300 for my own vermichar trials.
>
> It does make me wonder perhaps there is something wrong with their char
> for fuel usage. They have had it tested and apparently its good for
> biochar. I would like to view those specs...dis wat ek dink.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:09:07 -0400
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott"<crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: VermiChar
> Message-ID:<00f901ce9aa3$522e8410$f68b8c30$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Kobus
>
> Isn't that a 'vermiery'? I had to laugh at the name 'wormery'. Is there
> really such a word? Delightful mental image. I must get one.
>
> 300/ton is a lousy price. It would be far better to make briquettes. Even
> for duff char I think you can get over 800/ton. That is a heck of an
> opportunity cost. Decent burnable char is well over a Rand and the duff
> goes for about 60%. The returns will have to be substantial for an aware
> farmer to bury it.
>
> Is there something that makes a viable biochar that is not good enough for
> fuel? Can't imagine what it is but maybe it exists. What about bagasse?
> Based on Alex English's moving grate burner I bet it would burn well and
> make a lot of char if the speed is right.
>
> Net te dink...
> Crispin
>
> +++++++
>
> Please check out our VermiChar poposal:http://bit.ly/FNBVermiChar Seems
> South Africans are not to sure about it, but would rather see remote
> control
> planes zooming around our beaches patrolling sharks. We're surprisingly
> well
> connected through social media, with some folks being to amass over 3000
> smiles by sharing our idea. That's a lot of votes.
> Just been on the phone with a local company that makes 150 tons of biochar
> a
> day and selling it to nurseries. They cannot source enough vermicast
> though
> for their own vermichar concept. Biochar seems to fetch
> $300 per ton over here, bulk rates. If I can't source enough biochar for
> my
> own trials at least I know who to contact. As far as producing vermicast
> is
> concerned that's another story and building up a wormery will be our
> highest
> priority.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:27:11 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
> Message-ID: <81026582-1C5D-4530-933E-BA3A40DEE6A8 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Frank and list:
>
> Abut 1.25 hours after yours was a message fem Jim Jeffords on a
> webinar. He is obviously going to talk on Tuesday about how to handle
> remaining char when calculating efficiency. It was not obvious to me how
> you are handling char in your example. Could you give an example where the
> remaining char by weight was 25% of the input biomass weight. Maybe 30%
> into the cook pot. Or any numbers you want. Then we can hopefully
> compare your approach with Jim's
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com> wrote:
>
> > Greetings Stovers,
> >
> > All this talk about the ocean water got me thinking about the Water
> Boiling Test.
> > I would like to suggest a new way of testing and reporting results:
> >
> > 1) Procedure
> > 2) Justification
> > 3) Calculations
> >
> > Procedure: We take some oven dried wood and place in a pipe. Add both
> end caps, loosen one, weigh and place in an oven at ~450c. Then cool and
> weigh. The loss in weight is the volatile fraction of the fuel. This is the
> fraction that provides the energy to boil water. We determine the energy of
> this fraction and that is the energy of the fuel. Keeping track of the fuel
> weight we use we determine the total usable volatile-energy.
> >
> > We put the pot of water on the stove, measure the temperature of the
> water, start the fire and monitor the water temperature. We keep the fire
> going until the water is at ?simmer? then keep steady for 30 min. Adding no
> more fuel we then we manipulate the fire to keep the secondary burn going
> as long as possible. Soon as the secondary burn goes out we pull the pot
> off and measure the area under the temperature plot for energy that went
> into the pot. Energy in the pot / volatile-energy X 100 is the
> efficiency(?).
> >
> > Justification: When you are boiling water it is only good as long as the
> secondary burn is going. When that goes out, even with a glowing stove
> below, the water heating process slows way down because, as I learned in
> Stove Camp, we need the heat forced hitting the bottom of the pot to stick
> to it, go through the pot and heat the water.
> >
> > Biomass fuel has two types of energy; 1) the tars (C-H-O) that create
> the secondary burn and 2) the chars (C-C) that only heat the stove body.
> Important for the chars to heat the stove body but there is more than
> enough with a good insulated stove and all that extra heat is wasted ? not
> used to heat the pot. When biomass is heated between 300c to 450c tars of
> massive C-H-O structures go to the secondary burn and ALL C > CO2, and all
> H > H2O releasing massive energy just at the pot bottom. The C-C bonds
> (chars) left need to go C (solid) ? CO volatile) forms releasing energy
> only in the stove body. The CO (volatile) goes to the secondary burn
> (adding to the energy of the tars) to go CO > CO2 releasing a relatively
> small amount of energy. Under the best of conditions all the C goes to CO
> (not CO2) in the stove body but this is such a small amount of energy
> compared to the tars providing ALL their energy to heat the pot I suggest
> we can ignore (or estimate) the CO > CO2 added energy.
> >
> > This being the case if we use only the volatile fraction as the total
> energy then once the secondary burn stops all the rest of the material in
> the stove body can be ignored.
> >
> > Calculations: A block of 100 g dried wood contains 44g C, 50g O and 6g
> H. Let?s say 22g C goes to the secondary as tars to heat the pot and 22g C
> left behind to heat the stove. This can be determined (if needed) in the
> lab measuring C and H in the biomass and C and H in the char left. The
> weight loss in the pipe contains 28.2 % carbon and 7.7 % hydrogen for the
> starting energy value figuring all H and all O are included in the tar
> fraction.
> >
> > Now we need to use Bond Energy (I need help) to determine the energy
> value we give for all the tar carbon going all the way to CO2 and the
> hydrogen going all the way to H2O. We sum the Bond Energies in the tars as
> the Total Energy of the fuel. Add to it (ignore or estimate) the Bond
> Energy of the CO to CO2 in the chars.
> >
> > Bond Energies:
> > C - - O = 360 kj/mol
> > H - - O = 366 kj/mol
> > What is C>CO2 and H>H2O?
> >
> > I realize if one has H2 and O2 that nothing happens until you provide
> enough energy (light a match) to break the H-H and O-O bonds to re-create
> H2O in an explosion. In this stove case there might be enough of the extra
> heat in the stove body to break apart the tars into C and H and O so we can
> just calculate them going completely to their end components.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Frank Shields
> > Control Laboratories; Inc.
> > 42 Hangar Way
> > Watsonville, CA 95076
> > (831) 724-5422 tel
> > (831) 724-3188 fax
> > frank at compostlab.com
> > www.compostlab.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/
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/9244bd61/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:52:27 -0700
> From: "Frank Shields" <frank at compostlab.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
> Message-ID: <00c501ce9aca$e6aef4e0$b40cdea0$@compostlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Ron,
>
>
>
> I look forward to hearing Jim's, or anyone else's approach to the difficult
> problem of accounting for the energy. Whoever comes out with a method there
> will be another right around the corner. This is non-ending so there is no
> need to wait. My suggested approach is not a comparison - just a different
> way of looking at it. Hopefully one that will work without all the errors
> regarding calculating the remaining chars.
>
>
>
> I am thinking of a new approach where we do not need to handle char at all.
> I noticed when using the GEK and Tom Reeds TLUD that when fresh biomass ran
> out the secondary flame went out, or very poor flame. Just add more biomass
> and you are in business. Hot coals several inches below the pot did a poor
> job of heating the pot - so why even consider them? Its only the fresh tars
> that heat the pot and all that other energy just heats the stove body.
> Important to heat the stove body and aid in breaking the bonds to release
> lumps of tars and complex organics free to head to the secondary. But IF
> (Big IF) they do not significantly heat the pot we can rule them out it
> saves that problem of all the difficult calculating. If you were to fill a
> rocket with char and blast air on the char would you get a secondary flame?
> The stove body would get red hot but the pot only a few inches away would
> heat up slowly without the flames licking the bottom. Lots of useless heat.
>
>
>
> The question is can we take a block of wood and determine the weight
> fraction that will contribute to the secondary? And the fraction that sits
> and combusts in the stove body? I think the pipe will do that.
>
>
>
>
>
> Something different to talk about.
>
>
>
> Thanks Ron for the reply.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Frank
>
> Frank Shields
>
> Control Laboratories; Inc.
>
> 42 Hangar Way
>
> Watsonville, CA 95076
>
> (831) 724-5422 tel
>
> (831) 724-3188 fax
>
> frank at biocharlab.com
>
> www.controllabs.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Ronal W. Larson
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:27 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
>
>
>
> Frank and list:
>
>
>
> Abut 1.25 hours after yours was a message fem Jim Jeffords on a
> webinar.
> He is obviously going to talk on Tuesday about how to handle remaining char
> when calculating efficiency. It was not obvious to me how you are handling
> char in your example. Could you give an example where the remaining char
> by
> weight was 25% of the input biomass weight. Maybe 30% into the cook pot.
> Or any numbers you want. Then we can hopefully compare your approach with
> Jim's
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Greetings Stovers,
>
>
>
> All this talk about the ocean water got me thinking about the Water Boiling
> Test.
>
> I would like to suggest a new way of testing and reporting results:
>
>
>
> 1) Procedure
>
> 2) Justification
>
> 3) Calculations
>
>
>
> Procedure: We take some oven dried wood and place in a pipe. Add both end
> caps, loosen one, weigh and place in an oven at ~450c. Then cool and weigh.
> The loss in weight is the volatile fraction of the fuel. This is the
> fraction that provides the energy to boil water. We determine the energy of
> this fraction and that is the energy of the fuel. Keeping track of the fuel
> weight we use we determine the total usable volatile-energy.
>
>
>
> We put the pot of water on the stove, measure the temperature of the water,
> start the fire and monitor the water temperature. We keep the fire going
> until the water is at 'simmer' then keep steady for 30 min. Adding no more
> fuel we then we manipulate the fire to keep the secondary burn going as
> long
> as possible. Soon as the secondary burn goes out we pull the pot off and
> measure the area under the temperature plot for energy that went into the
> pot. Energy in the pot / volatile-energy X 100 is the efficiency(?).
>
>
>
> Justification: When you are boiling water it is only good as long as the
> secondary burn is going. When that goes out, even with a glowing stove
> below, the water heating process slows way down because, as I learned in
> Stove Camp, we need the heat forced hitting the bottom of the pot to stick
> to it, go through the pot and heat the water.
>
>
>
> Biomass fuel has two types of energy; 1) the tars (C-H-O) that create the
> secondary burn and 2) the chars (C-C) that only heat the stove body.
> Important for the chars to heat the stove body but there is more than
> enough
> with a good insulated stove and all that extra heat is wasted - not used to
> heat the pot. When biomass is heated between 300c to 450c tars of massive
> C-H-O structures go to the secondary burn and ALL C > CO2, and all H > H2O
> releasing massive energy just at the pot bottom. The C-C bonds (chars) left
> need to go C (solid) - CO volatile) forms releasing energy only in the
> stove
> body. The CO (volatile) goes to the secondary burn (adding to the energy of
> the tars) to go CO > CO2 releasing a relatively small amount of energy.
> Under the best of conditions all the C goes to CO (not CO2) in the stove
> body but this is such a small amount of energy compared to the tars
> providing ALL their energy to heat the pot I suggest we can ignore (or
> estimate) the CO > CO2 added energy.
>
>
>
> This being the case if we use only the volatile fraction as the total
> energy
> then once the secondary burn stops all the rest of the material in the
> stove
> body can be ignored.
>
>
>
> Calculations: A block of 100 g dried wood contains 44g C, 50g O and 6g H.
> Let's say 22g C goes to the secondary as tars to heat the pot and 22g C
> left
> behind to heat the stove. This can be determined (if needed) in the lab
> measuring C and H in the biomass and C and H in the char left. The weight
> loss in the pipe contains 28.2 % carbon and 7.7 % hydrogen for the starting
> energy value figuring all H and all O are included in the tar fraction.
>
>
>
> Now we need to use Bond Energy (I need help) to determine the energy value
> we give for all the tar carbon going all the way to CO2 and the hydrogen
> going all the way to H2O. We sum the Bond Energies in the tars as the Total
> Energy of the fuel. Add to it (ignore or estimate) the Bond Energy of the
> CO
> to CO2 in the chars.
>
>
>
> Bond Energies:
>
> C - - O = 360 kj/mol
>
> H - - O = 366 kj/mol
>
> What is C>CO2 and H>H2O?
>
>
>
> I realize if one has H2 and O2 that nothing happens until you provide
> enough
> energy (light a match) to break the H-H and O-O bonds to re-create H2O in
> an
> explosion. In this stove case there might be enough of the extra heat in
> the
> stove body to break apart the tars into C and H and O so we can just
> calculate them going completely to their end components.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank Shields
>
> Control Laboratories; Inc.
>
> 42 Hangar Way
>
> Watsonville, CA 95076
>
> (831) 724-5422 tel
>
> (831) 724-3188 fax
>
> frank at compostlab.com
>
> www.compostlab.com <http://www.compostlab.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylist
> s.org>
>
> 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/> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/4e09c758/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:56:55 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "biochar at yahoogroups.com"
> <biochar at yahoogroups.com>, Rogerio carneiro de miranda
> <carneirodemiranda at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] "adam-retort" good feed back for biochar
> production in Cambodia
> Message-ID: <5CC17B82-AC11-43A9-8399-01CCC0071087 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Rogerio and (now 2) lists [The 14 papers certainly don't all apply to
> biochar - but in total they apply more to the biochar list than the stove
> list)
>
> 1. Thanks for the cite you gave below (with a free version of a nice
> paper). I enjoyed this (#12 below) and your article with Rob Bailis (#14).
> A few questions: A year or more has passed since you wrote this. Any
> cogeneration started yet in Brazil? (for others, Rogerio lives where
> charcoal-making is big business - the largest in the world). Any
> recommendations on stove or biochar ideas in the other dozen papers? For
> instance can you conceive that there may be more cooking with electricity
> as users trade in (barter) biomass for electrons? (and maybe getting some
> char back also) You are thinking more of the char going to steel mills,
> but could there be competition for using the char (as biochar) in soils
> (given future carbon credits?)
>
> 2. I remember hearing about this special issue on charcoal, but this was
> my first chance to see the wide range (below). A lot of good material here.
> Unfortunately all priced at $31.50 per paper. If any other authors are
> reading this, I hope they can do as did Rogerio and supply an early
> author's draft. Obviously, both lists would benefit from anything more
> that can be said about any of the papers. My impression is that biochar
> and char-making stoves were not major considerations for most papers, but
> most can have some bearing on both these lists
>
> Rogerio - how about giving a short summary of Paper #14 (Bailis - or a
> reprint). And anything else that might assist the stoves and biochar lists.
>
> 1
> What role will charcoal play in the coming decades? Insights from
> up-to-date findings and reviews
> Pages 73-74
> Adri?n Ghilardi, Tuyeni Mwampamba, Gautam Dutt
> 2
> Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes and policy outlook
> on charcoal in developing countries Review Article
> Pages 75-85
> Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Adri?n Ghilardi, Klas Sander, Kim Jean Chaix
>
>
> ? Charcoal data are distorted because they are lumped with those of other
> wood fuels. ? Misconceptions perpetuate five myths that harm perceptions
> about charcoal. ? Myths can misguide interventions and policy response to
> the charcoal sector. ? Myths narrow scope of charcoal discussions to an
> environmental niche. ? Debunking myths is necessary to appreciate true
> potential of charcoal.
> 3
> The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems of
> the world: A synthesisReview Article
> Pages 86-94
> Emmanuel N. Chidumayo, Davison J. Gumbo
> ? The contribution of charcoal to deforestation in the tropics is less
> than 7%. ? Charcoal production most frequently results in forest
> degradation. ? Most charcoal areas have the potential for rapid forest
> recovery. ? Enhancing charcoal policies' legitimacy and effective
> implementation is needed. ? Charcoal can contribute to poverty reduction
> and environmental sustainability.
> 4
> Formalisation of charcoal value chains and livelihood outcomes in Central-
> and West AfricaOriginal Research Article
> Pages 95-105
> Jolien Schure, Verina Ingram, Maam Suwadu Sakho-Jimbira, Patrice Levang,
> K. Freerk Wiersum
> ? Informal rules dominate charcoal chains in Central- and West Africa. ?
> ?Informal? means access to many, overexploitation and little tax revenues.
> ? West Africa has more cross-sectorial formal mechanisms. ? Formal charcoal
> institutions risk reinforcing unequal distribution of benefits. ? Successes
> build upon decentralised management, tax incentives and reinvestments.
> 5
> Forest management and economic rents: Evidence from the charcoal trade in
> MadagascarOriginal Research Article
> Pages 106-115
> Bart Minten, Klas Sander, David Stifel
>
>
> ? Margins are higher in regulated charcoal compared to unregulated
> agricultural trade. ? Charcoal traders with more government connections
> have greater access to rents. ? Efforts to reform policies through
> licensing must take rents into account.
> 6
> Enabling reforms: Analyzing the political economy of the charcoal sector
> in Tanzania Original Research Article
> Pages 116-126
> Klas Sander, Clemens Gros, Christian Peter
> ? Transformation of anecdotal evidence into documented facts and figures.
> ? Using established methodology for charcoal sector analysis. ?
> Verification that real political power lies with powerful groups outside
> government.
> 7
> Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan
> Africa Review Article
> Pages 127-137
> Leo C. Zulu, Robert B. Richardson
> ? We review charcoal impacts on poverty reduction in Africa on four
> dimensions. ? Charcoal is vital sector for energy, economy, poverty
> reduction; but is neglected. ? Benefits: vital rural-cash safety nets;
> urban income, affordable, reliable energy. ? Charcoal has negative
> environmental, health, social, livelihood, and power impacts. ? Needed:
> pluralistic policy, regulated sustained use, pro-poor, incentives, advocacy.
> 8
> Changing land management: A case study of charcoal production among a
> group of pastoral women in northern Tanzania Original Research Article
> Pages 138-145
> Ramona J. Butz
> ? Dependence on fuelwood for energy is placing pressure on forest
> resources. ? Charcoal serves as a cash crop for a growing number of women.
> ? Producers made up 4?6% of the village population in 2005. ? Production is
> unsustainable over the long term and may lead to forest degradation.
> 9
> Can there be energy policy in Sub-Saharan Africa without biomass? Review
> Article
> Pages 146-152
> Matthew Owen, Robert van der Plas, Steve Sepp
> ? Most energy policies in sub-Saharan Africa prioritise petroleum and
> electricity. ? Benefits and opportunities offered by solid biomass energy
> are being missed. ? Efforts to design more biomass-friendly policies
> encounter government resistance. ? Measures to formalise and modernise the
> sector could help improve energy policy.
> 10
> The influence of initial fuel load on Fuel to Cook for batch loaded
> charcoal cookstovesOriginal Research Article
> Pages 153-157
> Samuel Bentson, Dean Still, Ryan Thompson, Kelley Grabow
> ? Fourteen charcoal cook stoves were tested in the laboratory using a
> modified WBT4.1.2. ? Fuel to Cook was found to be dependent on the initial
> fuel load. ? All stoves were found to have similar Fuel to Cook when they
> were loaded with their minimum fuel loads.
> 11
> Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette
> industry in Sub-Saharan AfricaOriginal Research Article
> Pages 158-170
> Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Matthew Owen, Maurice Pigaht
> ? Briquette producers are struggling to stay productive despite existing
> opportunities. ? Slow uptake of briquettes stunts industry growth due to
> insufficient sales volumes. ? Misconceptions of briquettes' potential and
> non-conducive policies contribute. ? Expanding to non-traditional markets
> and applications is required for growth. ? Active role of government
> pressed on by an association of producers is direly needed.
> 12
> Cogenerating electricity from charcoaling: A promising new advanced
> technology Original Research Article
> Pages 171-176
> Rog?rio Carneiro de Miranda, Rob Bailis, Adriana de Oliveira Vilela
> ? Traditional charcoal making through batch pyrolysis loses 50% of
> feedstock energy. ? Losses occur because high-energy pyrolysis gases escape
> unutilized. ? Pyrolysis gases could be used to cogenerate heat and
> electricity. ? The technology reduces emissions of GHG, generates bio
> power, and boosts income.
> 13
> Estimating the spatial distribution of woody biomass suitable for charcoal
> making from remote sensing and geostatistics in central Mexico Original
> Research Article
> Pages 177-188
> Miguel ?ngel Castillo-Santiago, Adri?n Ghilardi, Ken Oyama, Jos? Luis
> Hern?ndez-Stefanoni, Ignacio Torres, Alejandro Flamenco-Sandoval, Ana
> Fern?ndez, Jean-Fran?ois Mas
> ? Satellite imagery and ground data were used to map biomass suitable for
> charcoal. ? The spatial autocorrelation helped improving the accuracy of
> estimations. ? Results are a key milestone in planning for sustainable
> charcoal.
> 14
> Innovation in charcoal production: A comparative life-cycle assessment of
> two kiln technologies in BrazilOriginal Research Article
> Pages 189-200
> Rob Bailis, Charissa Rujanavech, Puneet Dwivedi, Adriana de Oliveira
> Vilela, Howard Chang, Rog?rio Carneiro de Miranda
> ? Brazil is the largest charcoal producing nation using primarily hot-tail
> kilns. ? Metal ?container kilns? are being tested as a more efficient
> alternative. ? Container kilns allow the use of pyrolysis gases for
> production of heat and power. ? LCA shows container kilns perform better in
> energy, GHG emissions, and water use.
>
> 3. The cite below gives a $31.50 bargain.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 4:45 AM, Rogerio carneiro de miranda <
> carneirodemiranda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris, here is a clue
> >
> >
> http://www.prolenha.org.br/images/arquivos/esd_2012_miranda_etal_charcoal_cogen.pdf
> >
> > PROLENHA is planning to hold a workshop on charcoaling cogeneration in
> the near future.
> >
> > Rog?rio
> >
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/ef3715c0/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:50:01 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, biochar at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Stoves] ESD Special Issue Notes
> Message-ID: <46B30576-D117-4D41-9FAB-505A4F4A93A3 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Lists:
>
> 1. This is a new thread name continuing my last. My last one
> should have had this thread name also. This below is only on the first
> ("What role?.") paper shown below.. I think the short answer to the
> question in the title is "big".
>
> 2. I am impressed by the vast amount of new (to me) information on
> charcoal - a good bit of it being important to both the stoves and biochar
> lists.
>
> 3. This paper notes that they are following up on a 2011 conference on
> charcoal - found at
> edd.ciga.unam.mx
> Many good (free) papers there - all or mostly on this charcoal topic, by
> many of the later authors. There is one good free 2012 book chapter by
> Bailis for instance (with lots of freebie cites)
>
> 4. Most of this first paper is introduction to the other thirteen. But
> the first few paragraphs give some good cites, which are:
>
> Arnold JEM, Kohlin G, Persson R. Woodfuels, livelihoods, and policy
> interventions: changing perspectives. World Dev 2006;34:596?611.
>
> Bonino EE. Changes in carbon pools associated with a land-use gradient in
> the Dry Chaco, Argentina. For Ecol Manag 2006;223:183?9.
>
> Emrich W. Handbook of charcoal making: the traditional and industrial
> methods. Solar energy R&D in the European community, Series E: Volume 7:
> Energy from Biomass; 1985. p. 278.
>
> Estevez RA, Squeo FA, Arancio G, Erazo MB. Production of charcoal from
> native shrubs in the Atacama Region, Chile. Gayana Bot 2010;67:213?22.
>
> FAOStat. ForestStat ? forestry statistics. Rome: FAO; 2012 (
> http://faostat.fao.org/).
>
> Fisher B, Lewis SL, Burgess ND, Malimbwi RE, Munishi PK, Swetnam RD, et
> al. Imple- mentation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and
> forest degradation in Tanzania. Nat Clim Change 2011;1:161?4.
>
> IEA. World energy statistics and balances (database). International Energy
> Agency; 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00510-en (Accessed on 09
> October 2012).
>
> Jayakumar S, Ramachandran A, Bhaskaran G, Heo J. Forest dynamics in the
> Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Manag 2009;43:326?45.
>
> Larpkern P, Totland ?, Moe SR. Do disturbance and productivity influence
> evenness of seedling, sapling and adult tree species across a
> semi-deciduous tropical forest landscape? Oikos 2011;120:623?9.
>
> Maes WH, Verbist B. Increasing the sustainability of household cooking in
> developing countries: policy implications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
> 2012;16:4204?21.
>
> Masera O, Arias T, Ghilardi A, Guerrero G, Patin?o P. Estudio sobre la
> evolucio?n nacional del consumo de len?a y carbo?n vegetal en Me?xico
> 1990?2024. Reporte para la Secretari?a de Energi?a de Me?xico; 2010.
>
> Ribot JC. Forestry policy and charcoal production in Senegal. Energy
> Policy 1993;21:559?85.
>
> Zulu LC. The forbidden fuel: charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply
> dynamics,community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy
> Policy 2010;38:3717?30.
>
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:56 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Rogerio and (now 2) lists [The 14 papers certainly don't all apply
> to biochar - but in total they apply more to the biochar list than the
> stove list)
> >
> > 1. Thanks for the cite you gave below (with a free version of a nice
> paper). I enjoyed this (#12 below) and your article with Rob Bailis (#14).
> A few questions: A year or more has passed since you wrote this. Any
> cogeneration started yet in Brazil? (for others, Rogerio lives where
> charcoal-making is big business - the largest in the world). Any
> recommendations on stove or biochar ideas in the other dozen papers? For
> instance can you conceive that there may be more cooking with electricity
> as users trade in (barter) biomass for electrons? (and maybe getting some
> char back also) You are thinking more of the char going to steel mills,
> but could there be competition for using the char (as biochar) in soils
> (given future carbon credits?)
> >
> > 2. I remember hearing about this special issue on charcoal, but this
> was my first chance to see the wide range (below). A lot of good material
> here. Unfortunately all priced at $31.50 per paper. If any other authors
> are reading this, I hope they can do as did Rogerio and supply an early
> author's draft. Obviously, both lists would benefit from anything more
> that can be said about any of the papers. My impression is that biochar
> and char-making stoves were not major considerations for most papers, but
> most can have some bearing on both these lists
> >
> > Rogerio - how about giving a short summary of Paper #14 (Bailis - or
> a reprint). And anything else that might assist the stoves and biochar
> lists.
> >
> > 1
> > What role will charcoal play in the coming decades? Insights from
> up-to-date findings and reviews
> > Pages 73-74
> > Adri?n Ghilardi, Tuyeni Mwampamba, Gautam Dutt
> > 2
> > Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes and policy outlook
> on charcoal in developing countries Review Article
> > Pages 75-85
> > Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Adri?n Ghilardi, Klas Sander, Kim Jean Chaix
> >
> >
> > ? Charcoal data are distorted because they are lumped with those of
> other wood fuels. ? Misconceptions perpetuate five myths that harm
> perceptions about charcoal. ? Myths can misguide interventions and policy
> response to the charcoal sector. ? Myths narrow scope of charcoal
> discussions to an environmental niche. ? Debunking myths is necessary to
> appreciate true potential of charcoal.
> > 3
> > The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems
> of the world: A synthesisReview Article
> > Pages 86-94
> > Emmanuel N. Chidumayo, Davison J. Gumbo
> > ? The contribution of charcoal to deforestation in the tropics is less
> than 7%. ? Charcoal production most frequently results in forest
> degradation. ? Most charcoal areas have the potential for rapid forest
> recovery. ? Enhancing charcoal policies' legitimacy and effective
> implementation is needed. ? Charcoal can contribute to poverty reduction
> and environmental sustainability.
> > 4
> > Formalisation of charcoal value chains and livelihood outcomes in
> Central- and West AfricaOriginal Research Article
> > Pages 95-105
> > Jolien Schure, Verina Ingram, Maam Suwadu Sakho-Jimbira, Patrice Levang,
> K. Freerk Wiersum
> > ? Informal rules dominate charcoal chains in Central- and West Africa. ?
> ?Informal? means access to many, overexploitation and little tax revenues.
> ? West Africa has more cross-sectorial formal mechanisms. ? Formal charcoal
> institutions risk reinforcing unequal distribution of benefits. ? Successes
> build upon decentralised management, tax incentives and reinvestments.
> > 5
> > Forest management and economic rents: Evidence from the charcoal trade
> in MadagascarOriginal Research Article
> > Pages 106-115
> > Bart Minten, Klas Sander, David Stifel
> >
> >
> > ? Margins are higher in regulated charcoal compared to unregulated
> agricultural trade. ? Charcoal traders with more government connections
> have greater access to rents. ? Efforts to reform policies through
> licensing must take rents into account.
> > 6
> > Enabling reforms: Analyzing the political economy of the charcoal sector
> in Tanzania Original Research Article
> > Pages 116-126
> > Klas Sander, Clemens Gros, Christian Peter
> > ? Transformation of anecdotal evidence into documented facts and
> figures. ? Using established methodology for charcoal sector analysis. ?
> Verification that real political power lies with powerful groups outside
> government.
> > 7
> > Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan
> Africa Review Article
> > Pages 127-137
> > Leo C. Zulu, Robert B. Richardson
> > ? We review charcoal impacts on poverty reduction in Africa on four
> dimensions. ? Charcoal is vital sector for energy, economy, poverty
> reduction; but is neglected. ? Benefits: vital rural-cash safety nets;
> urban income, affordable, reliable energy. ? Charcoal has negative
> environmental, health, social, livelihood, and power impacts. ? Needed:
> pluralistic policy, regulated sustained use, pro-poor, incentives, advocacy.
> > 8
> > Changing land management: A case study of charcoal production among a
> group of pastoral women in northern Tanzania Original Research Article
> > Pages 138-145
> > Ramona J. Butz
> > ? Dependence on fuelwood for energy is placing pressure on forest
> resources. ? Charcoal serves as a cash crop for a growing number of women.
> ? Producers made up 4?6% of the village population in 2005. ? Production is
> unsustainable over the long term and may lead to forest degradation.
> > 9
> > Can there be energy policy in Sub-Saharan Africa without biomass? Review
> Article
> > Pages 146-152
> > Matthew Owen, Robert van der Plas, Steve Sepp
> > ? Most energy policies in sub-Saharan Africa prioritise petroleum and
> electricity. ? Benefits and opportunities offered by solid biomass energy
> are being missed. ? Efforts to design more biomass-friendly policies
> encounter government resistance. ? Measures to formalise and modernise the
> sector could help improve energy policy.
> > 10
> > The influence of initial fuel load on Fuel to Cook for batch loaded
> charcoal cookstovesOriginal Research Article
> > Pages 153-157
> > Samuel Bentson, Dean Still, Ryan Thompson, Kelley Grabow
> > ? Fourteen charcoal cook stoves were tested in the laboratory using a
> modified WBT4.1.2. ? Fuel to Cook was found to be dependent on the initial
> fuel load. ? All stoves were found to have similar Fuel to Cook when they
> were loaded with their minimum fuel loads.
> > 11
> > Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette
> industry in Sub-Saharan AfricaOriginal Research Article
> > Pages 158-170
> > Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Matthew Owen, Maurice Pigaht
> > ? Briquette producers are struggling to stay productive despite existing
> opportunities. ? Slow uptake of briquettes stunts industry growth due to
> insufficient sales volumes. ? Misconceptions of briquettes' potential and
> non-conducive policies contribute. ? Expanding to non-traditional markets
> and applications is required for growth. ? Active role of government
> pressed on by an association of producers is direly needed.
> > 12
> > Cogenerating electricity from charcoaling: A promising new advanced
> technology Original Research Article
> > Pages 171-176
> > Rog?rio Carneiro de Miranda, Rob Bailis, Adriana de Oliveira Vilela
> > ? Traditional charcoal making through batch pyrolysis loses 50% of
> feedstock energy. ? Losses occur because high-energy pyrolysis gases escape
> unutilized. ? Pyrolysis gases could be used to cogenerate heat and
> electricity. ? The technology reduces emissions of GHG, generates bio
> power, and boosts income.
> > 13
> > Estimating the spatial distribution of woody biomass suitable for
> charcoal making from remote sensing and geostatistics in central Mexico
> Original Research Article
> > Pages 177-188
> > Miguel ?ngel Castillo-Santiago, Adri?n Ghilardi, Ken Oyama, Jos? Luis
> Hern?ndez-Stefanoni, Ignacio Torres, Alejandro Flamenco-Sandoval, Ana
> Fern?ndez, Jean-Fran?ois Mas
> > ? Satellite imagery and ground data were used to map biomass suitable
> for charcoal. ? The spatial autocorrelation helped improving the accuracy
> of estimations. ? Results are a key milestone in planning for sustainable
> charcoal.
> > 14
> > Innovation in charcoal production: A comparative life-cycle assessment
> of two kiln technologies in BrazilOriginal Research Article
> > Pages 189-200
> > Rob Bailis, Charissa Rujanavech, Puneet Dwivedi, Adriana de Oliveira
> Vilela, Howard Chang, Rog?rio Carneiro de Miranda
> > ? Brazil is the largest charcoal producing nation using primarily
> hot-tail kilns. ? Metal ?container kilns? are being tested as a more
> efficient alternative. ? Container kilns allow the use of pyrolysis gases
> for production of heat and power. ? LCA shows container kilns perform
> better in energy, GHG emissions, and water use.
> >
> > 3. The cite below gives a $31.50 bargain.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2013, at 4:45 AM, Rogerio carneiro de miranda <
> carneirodemiranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Chris, here is a clue
> >>
> >>
> http://www.prolenha.org.br/images/arquivos/esd_2012_miranda_etal_charcoal_cogen.pdf
> >>
> >> PROLENHA is planning to hold a workshop on charcoaling cogeneration in
> the near future.
> >>
> >> Rog?rio
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/40e0d41f/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 18:07:44 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Frank Shields
> <frank at compostlab.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
> Message-ID: <487A4A1B-4EA9-411C-BB4D-30FF316B0565 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Frank - I am worried you haven't maybe been playing with TLUDs. True?
>
> See below.
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com> wrote:
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > I look forward to hearing Jim?s, or anyone else?s approach to the
> difficult problem of accounting for the energy. Whoever comes out with a
> method there will be another right around the corner. This is non-ending so
> there is no need to wait. My suggested approach is not a comparison ? just
> a different way of looking at it. Hopefully one that will work without all
> the errors regarding calculating the remaining chars.
> [RWL: One measures, not calculates the "remaining chars". Can be
> pretty accurate - especially with TLUDs.
> >
> > I am thinking of a new approach where we do not need to handle char at
> all. I noticed when using the GEK and Tom Reeds TLUD that when fresh
> biomass ran out the secondary flame went out, or very poor flame. Just add
> more biomass and you are in business.
> [RWL: This is not normally done at all with TLUDs. It is possible
> with BLDDs.
>
>
> > Hot coals several inches below the pot did a poor job of heating the pot
> ? so why even consider them?
> [RWL: Right. One of the main purposes of TLUds is to stop the
> operation when the pyrolysis front hits the bottom.
>
>
> > Its only the fresh tars that heat the pot and all that other energy just
> heats the stove body. Important to heat the stove body and aid in breaking
> the bonds to release lumps of tars and complex organics free to head to the
> secondary. But IF (Big IF) they do not significantly heat the pot we can
> rule them out it saves that problem of all the difficult calculating.
> [RWL: If one purpose of the char was to make char, the measurement
> and calculating is relatively trivial.
>
> > If you were to fill a rocket with char and blast air on the char would
> you get a secondary flame?
> [RWL: Yes. This was demonstrated nicely at Stove camp by Kirk
> Harris, who had a special set of "intermediate" holes - so as to burn the
> chars nicely - from the top down.
>
> > The stove body would get red hot but the pot only a few inches away
> would heat up slowly without the flames licking the bottom. Lots of useless
> heat.
> [RWL: Nope - Kirk had a nice flame. His was a camping stove and not
> interested in producing char. Very clever mod.
> >
> > The question is can we take a block of wood and determine the weight
> fraction that will contribute to the secondary? And the fraction that sits
> and combusts in the stove body? I think the pipe will do that.
> > [RWL: It might do it if you could reproduce all the stove operating
> temperature history. Running at high power will expose the biomass/char to
> higher temps (and less char) than if the run was all at low power.]
>
> Ron
> >
> > Something different to talk about.
> >
> > Thanks Ron for the reply.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Frank
> > Frank Shields
> > Control Laboratories; Inc.
> > 42 Hangar Way
> > Watsonville, CA 95076
> > (831) 724-5422 tel
> > (831) 724-3188 fax
> > frank at biocharlab.com
> > www.controllabs.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf
> Of Ronal W. Larson
> > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:27 PM
> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
> >
> > Frank and list:
> >
> > Abut 1.25 hours after yours was a message fem Jim Jeffords on a
> webinar. He is obviously going to talk on Tuesday about how to handle
> remaining char when calculating efficiency. It was not obvious to me how
> you are handling char in your example. Could you give an example where the
> remaining char by weight was 25% of the input biomass weight. Maybe 30%
> into the cook pot. Or any numbers you want. Then we can hopefully
> compare your approach with Jim's
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greetings Stovers,
> >
> > All this talk about the ocean water got me thinking about the Water
> Boiling Test.
> > I would like to suggest a new way of testing and reporting results:
> >
> > 1) Procedure
> > 2) Justification
> > 3) Calculations
> >
> > Procedure: We take some oven dried wood and place in a pipe. Add both
> end caps, loosen one, weigh and place in an oven at ~450c. Then cool and
> weigh. The loss in weight is the volatile fraction of the fuel. This is the
> fraction that provides the energy to boil water. We determine the energy of
> this fraction and that is the energy of the fuel. Keeping track of the fuel
> weight we use we determine the total usable volatile-energy.
> >
> > We put the pot of water on the stove, measure the temperature of the
> water, start the fire and monitor the water temperature. We keep the fire
> going until the water is at ?simmer? then keep steady for 30 min. Adding no
> more fuel we then we manipulate the fire to keep the secondary burn going
> as long as possible. Soon as the secondary burn goes out we pull the pot
> off and measure the area under the temperature plot for energy that went
> into the pot. Energy in the pot / volatile-energy X 100 is the
> efficiency(?).
> >
> > Justification: When you are boiling water it is only good as long as the
> secondary burn is going. When that goes out, even with a glowing stove
> below, the water heating process slows way down because, as I learned in
> Stove Camp, we need the heat forced hitting the bottom of the pot to stick
> to it, go through the pot and heat the water.
> >
> > Biomass fuel has two types of energy; 1) the tars (C-H-O) that create
> the secondary burn and 2) the chars (C-C) that only heat the stove body.
> Important for the chars to heat the stove body but there is more than
> enough with a good insulated stove and all that extra heat is wasted ? not
> used to heat the pot. When biomass is heated between 300c to 450c tars of
> massive C-H-O structures go to the secondary burn and ALL C > CO2, and all
> H > H2O releasing massive energy just at the pot bottom. The C-C bonds
> (chars) left need to go C (solid) ? CO volatile) forms releasing energy
> only in the stove body. The CO (volatile) goes to the secondary burn
> (adding to the energy of the tars) to go CO > CO2 releasing a relatively
> small amount of energy. Under the best of conditions all the C goes to CO
> (not CO2) in the stove body but this is such a small amount of energy
> compared to the tars providing ALL their energy to heat the pot I suggest
> we can ignore (or estimate) the CO > CO2 added energy.
> >
> > This being the case if we use only the volatile fraction as the total
> energy then once the secondary burn stops all the rest of the material in
> the stove body can be ignored.
> >
> > Calculations: A block of 100 g dried wood contains 44g C, 50g O and 6g
> H. Let?s say 22g C goes to the secondary as tars to heat the pot and 22g C
> left behind to heat the stove. This can be determined (if needed) in the
> lab measuring C and H in the biomass and C and H in the char left. The
> weight loss in the pipe contains 28.2 % carbon and 7.7 % hydrogen for the
> starting energy value figuring all H and all O are included in the tar
> fraction.
> >
> > Now we need to use Bond Energy (I need help) to determine the energy
> value we give for all the tar carbon going all the way to CO2 and the
> hydrogen going all the way to H2O. We sum the Bond Energies in the tars as
> the Total Energy of the fuel. Add to it (ignore or estimate) the Bond
> Energy of the CO to CO2 in the chars.
> >
> > Bond Energies:
> > C - - O = 360 kj/mol
> > H - - O = 366 kj/mol
> > What is C>CO2 and H>H2O?
> >
> > I realize if one has H2 and O2 that nothing happens until you provide
> enough energy (light a match) to break the H-H and O-O bonds to re-create
> H2O in an explosion. In this stove case there might be enough of the extra
> heat in the stove body to break apart the tars into C and H and O so we can
> just calculate them going completely to their end components.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Frank Shields
> > Control Laboratories; Inc.
> > 42 Hangar Way
> > Watsonville, CA 95076
> > (831) 724-5422 tel
> > (831) 724-3188 fax
> > frank at compostlab.com
> > www.compostlab.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/20130816/aa4c3be4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:34:23 -0500
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: "Jetter, James" <Jetter.Jim at epa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Webinar on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on
> Batch-Fueled Stoves
> Message-ID: <520EC50F.8020009 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Jim,
>
> Please inform us of how we can see / hear the recorded webinar after the
> event. Please be very specific. And maybe post a message when the
> recorded event is actually up and available for viewing.
>
> Very unfortunately, I will be in an airplane precisely during the time
> of the webinar and cannot possibly attend.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
> On 8/16/2013 2:30 PM, Jetter, James wrote:
> >
> > To All,
> >
> > This is a reminder. Hope you will join us for the webinar on Tuesday,
> > August 20. During the webinar, we will address some issues raised on
> > this listserv, including data sharing, test methods, and batch-fueled,
> > pyrolytic, charcoal-producing stoves.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:49:50 +0000
> >
> > From: Radha.Muthiah <radha.muthia at cleancookstoves.org
> > <mailto:radha.muthia at cleancookstoves.org>>
> >
> > To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> >
> > <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> >
> > Subject: [Stoves] Webinar on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on
> >
> > Batch-Fueled Stoves
> >
> > Dear Colleague,
> >
> > You are invited to a webinar hosted by the Global Alliance for Clean
> > Cookstoves on August 20, 2013. Jim Jetter and Seth Ebersviller, U.S.
> > EPA, will present an Update on EPA Stove Testing With a Focus on
> > Batch-Fueled Stoves. The purpose of the webinar is to:
> >
> > - Provide an update on the EPA cookstove testing project
> >
> > - Present a format (EPA spreadsheet) for sharing data
> >
> > - Discuss test methods
> >
> > - Focus on example testing results for a batch-fueled
> > pyrolytic TLUD (top-lit up-draft) stove
> >
> > - Solicit further comments on methods, spreadsheet, and data
> > sharing
> >
> > The focus of this webinar is on batch-fueled pyrolytic stoves, because
> > EPA:
> >
> > - Previously tested a batch-fueled pyrolytic natural-draft
> > TLUD stove with low-moisture wood pellet fuel - published results were
> > very promising!
> >
> > - Received many comments on pyrolytic stoves
> >
> > - Finds batch-loaded stoves challenging to test because a
> > widely-accepted testing protocol does not exist
> >
> > - Wants further discussion on test methods
> >
> > - Wants to participate in developing a test protocol for
> > batch-fueled stoves
> >
> > This webinar will be part of a webinar series focused on data issues
> > for testing. Upcoming webinar topics include:
> >
> > - Uncertainty calculations for testing protocols
> >
> > - Efficient and quality-controlled data management
> >
> > - Please suggest future topics for this webinar series
> >
> > The online registration form
> > (
> https://unfoundation.conferencinghub.com/attendee/RegisterLogin.aspx?hubconfID=1632144&qtID=1&act=reg&cp=2861
> )
> > includes a place to enter comments or questions you would like
> > addressed during the webinar. The recorded webinar, presentation
> > slides, and draft spreadsheet will be posted following the webinar.
> > EPA will respond to comments and questions received before, during,
> > and after the webinar.
> >
> > On August 20, 2013, the webinar will be presented ONE TIME at:
> >
> > 7:00 am US-PDT
> >
> > 10:00 am US-EDT
> >
> > 2:00 pm UTC
> >
> > 5:00 pm Nairobi, Kenya; Kampala, Uganda
> >
> > 7:30 pm Delhi, India
> >
> > 10:00 pm Beijing, China
> >
> > Please join us!
> >
> > Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20130816/ec11a3bb/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 06:22:23 +0530
> From: Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] corn cobs and char
> Message-ID:
> <
> CACPy7Sd9g6xszkuaxDUyd9Dinoq65nMTXTAt3GfWe7449UhzPA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Ron,
> corn (maize) is not grown on a large scale in the area where we live. Many
> farmers grow sweeet corn to be sold as whole cobs, which are sold in the
> vegetable market in lots of 6 or 12 cobs. In that case, the shanks go to
> the persons in town who just throw the shanks into the garbage. There are
> of course farmers who grow corn for the grain. In a semi-arid country like
> India, corn is generally irrigated. Since corn as grain is raised only to
> be sold as chicken feed, the price is not as high as grain eaten by
> humans. The corn growers use the shanks as domestic fuel. I do not know if
> the shanks are used throughout the season as fuel. As far as I
> know, firewood and dung cakes are regularly sold in the market, but I have
> never come across shanks (without the grain) being sold as a commodity.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ronal W. Larson
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net>wrote:
>
> > AD, Art, Tom (not shown below) and list
> >
> > Apologies for no-content message just sent by me. I don't know how it
> > got away (still learning new Apple language)
> >
> > Thanks again to all for more data. I am getting less certain with
> time
> > on the availability of corn cobs. Must have a lot of regional
> variability.
> > Also we need to note there have been a lot of kernels burnt in the US
> > instead of pellets - not very likely in Costa Rica or India. So you
> would
> > think cobs might have a place as well somewhere besides India.
> >
> > To AD> Are there places in India where cobs might be the "only" fuel
> > throughout a year? Anything on market value?
> >
> > To Art> AD.'s question to you is important. It wouldn't seem that
> > the pigs and chickens would be getting much nutrition from a cob. Might
> > char from them be more important to a farmer in Costa Rico?
> >
> > To Tom> Thanks for the lead on the Anderson's book. My library and
> > google say no copies anywhere in Colorado. If you or anyone think there
> is
> > something important on char from cobs, I'll try harder on an interlibrary
> > loan.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On Aug 15, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Art Donelly,
> > are the cobs fed to pigs whole cobs with the grain or the shanks left
> > after removing the grain? Here in India we regularly use the empty shanks
> > as fuel.
> > Yours
> > A.D.Karve
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Art Donnelly <art.donnelly at seachar.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >> It has been a busy few days, so forgive me if someone has already made
> >> these observations. We have used corn cobs with great success in the
> TLUDstyle
> >> Estufa Finca stoves. I love showing people our little tiny corn cob
> >> charcoal. We have also successfully made a lot of biochar from dried
> >> corn stover in our version of the 55-gal drum TLUd style J-Ros. MIT has
> >> also promoted both of these approaches in it's Field-to-fuel program in
> >> Haiti and Nicaragua.
> >>
> >> But there is a problem with thinking of corn cobs as a stove fuel: most
> >> cobs are used as animal feed (pigs/chickens) and needed for it.
> Applying a
> >> hierarchy or best use: the pigs win! However pelleted or briquetted corn
> >> stover mixed with paper waste seems like it has a lot of potential.
> >>
> >> Art
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, <stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists
> >> .org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
> >>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>>
> >>>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>> stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>> stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>>
> >>> hen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>> than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Re: corn cobs and char? (Ronal W. Larson)
> >>> 2. Re: LPG subsidy to be removed in Ecuador (Andrew C. Parker)
> >>> 3. Re: corn cobs and char? (revjcsd at juno.com)
> >>> 4. Re: corn cobs and char? (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
> >>> 5. Re: corn cobs and char? (revjcsd at juno.com)
> >>> 6. Re: corn cobs and char? (Ronal W. Larson)
> >>> 7. Re: LPG subsidy to be removed in Ecuador (Anand Karve)
> >>> 8. Re: LPG subsidy to be removed in Ecuador (Andrew C. Parker)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:08:04 -0600
> >>> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> >>> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ***
> Dr. A.D. Karve
> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130817/772435b7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:10:36 GMT
> From: "revjcsd at juno.com" <revjcsd at juno.com>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] ESD Special Issue Notes - redd.ciga.unam.mx
> Message-ID: <20130817.091036.7186.1 at webmail10.dca.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> Oops! Google Chrome could not find edd.ciga.unam.mx
>
> Did you mean: redd.?ciga.?unam.?mx
>
>
>
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>,
> biochar at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Stoves] ESD Special Issue Notes
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:50:01 -0600
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:50:19 -0600
> From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, biochar at yahoogroups.com,
> "biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com" <biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] ESD Special Issue Notes
> Message-ID: <C5067C3C-154F-49AD-9782-6ACF49AED40B at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all - adding "biochar-policy" for this one - as "policy" is in this
> paper's title. {Policy: I am keeping enough below (this time only, so
> you have ALL the background in this post)
>
> 1, The topic of this note is #2 (authors and title are:
> >> Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes and policy
> outlook on charcoal in developing countries Review Article
> >> Pages 75-85
> >> Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Adri?n Ghilardi, Klas Sander, Kim Jean Chaix
> >>
>
>
> 2. A few emphases I have added to the abstract:.
> The production, use and trade of charcoal for domestic cooking and heating
> are characterized by contradictions, stereotyping, and misconceptions.
> Partial information, over-generalizations, and the tendency to consolidate
> char- coal with other biomass fuels have contributed to gross
> misrepresentation of charcoal in terms of its actual impact on forests, its
> role in improving energy access, and in appropriate interventions. An
> underlying and often amplify- ing challenge that results from this
> situation is the lack of reliable, consistent, and comparable data on the
> charcoal sector which would form a necessary baseline for robust decision
> making. Further, clarifying misconceptions and debunking of myths is
> paramount for demonstrating the contribution that charcoal could have in
> addressing energy access and economic challenges in developing countries.
> We present five commonly held myths about charcoal that are perpetuated by
> different stakeholders and actors in the sector. Namely, that: 1) Charcoal
> is an en- ergy source for the poor; 2) charcoal use is decreasing; 3)
> charcoal causes deforestation; 4) the charcoal sector is economically
> irrelevant, and; 5) improved charcoal cook stoves reduce deforestation and
> GHG emissions. Using a review of the literature and our own experience with
> charcoal research and practice, we propose reasons for the existence of
> these myths, why they are highly disputable, and the consequences that the
> myths have had on policy and intervention responses to charcoal. Widespread
> beliefs of these myths have and continue to misguide policy response and
> intervention approaches relating to charcoal. We propose some policy and
> research recommenda- tions to curb further perpetuation of misconceptions
> that have been particularly harmful for charcoal.
>
>
> 3. I was disappointed here. No mention of either char-making stoves or
> biochar. Not one citation for either Not exactly a promotion of using
> char for cooking, but not far from that. Basic theme was that cooking
> with char is here to stay. I don't know how to rebut anything here, since
> topics of interest to me aren't even raised climate, soils, etc/ as well
> as making char in stoves for use as biochar.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2013, at 5:50 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Lists:
> >
> > 1. This is a new thread name continuing my last. My last one
> should have had this thread name also. This below is only on the first
> ("What role?.") paper shown below.. I think the short answer to the
> question in the title is "big".
> >
> > 2. I am impressed by the vast amount of new (to me) information on
> charcoal - a good bit of it being important to both the stoves and biochar
> lists.
> >
> > 3. This paper notes that they are following up on a 2011 conference on
> charcoal - found at
> > edd.ciga.unam.mx
> > Many good (free) papers there - all or mostly on this charcoal topic,
> by many of the later authors. There is one good free 2012 book chapter by
> Bailis for instance (with lots of freebie cites)
> >
> > 4. Most of this first paper is introduction to the other thirteen. But
> the first few paragraphs give some good cites, which are:
> >
> > Arnold JEM, Kohlin G, Persson R. Woodfuels, livelihoods, and policy
> interventions: changing perspectives. World Dev 2006;34:596?611.
> >
> > Bonino EE. Changes in carbon pools associated with a land-use gradient
> in the Dry Chaco, Argentina. For Ecol Manag 2006;223:183?9.
> >
> > Emrich W. Handbook of charcoal making: the traditional and industrial
> methods. Solar energy R&D in the European community, Series E: Volume 7:
> Energy from Biomass; 1985. p. 278.
> >
> > Estevez RA, Squeo FA, Arancio G, Erazo MB. Production of charcoal from
> native shrubs in the Atacama Region, Chile. Gayana Bot 2010;67:213?22.
> >
> > FAOStat. ForestStat ? forestry statistics. Rome: FAO; 2012 (
> http://faostat.fao.org/).
> >
> > Fisher B, Lewis SL, Burgess ND, Malimbwi RE, Munishi PK, Swetnam RD, et
> al. Imple- mentation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and
> forest degradation in Tanzania. Nat Clim Change 2011;1:161?4.
> >
> > IEA. World energy statistics and balances (database). International
> Energy Agency; 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00510-en (Accessed on
> 09 October 2012).
> >
> > Jayakumar S, Ramachandran A, Bhaskaran G, Heo J. Forest dynamics in the
> Eastern Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Manag 2009;43:326?45.
> >
> > Larpkern P, Totland ?, Moe SR. Do disturbance and productivity influence
> evenness of seedling, sapling and adult tree species across a
> semi-deciduous tropical forest landscape? Oikos 2011;120:623?9.
> >
> > Maes WH, Verbist B. Increasing the sustainability of household cooking
> in developing countries: policy implications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
> 2012;16:4204?21.
> >
> > Masera O, Arias T, Ghilardi A, Guerrero G, Patin?o P. Estudio sobre la
> evolucio?n nacional del consumo de len?a y carbo?n vegetal en Me?xico
> 1990?2024. Reporte para la Secretari?a de Energi?a de Me?xico; 2010.
> >
> > Ribot JC. Forestry policy and charcoal production in Senegal. Energy
> Policy 1993;21:559?85.
> >
> > Zulu LC. The forbidden fuel: charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply
> dynamics,community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi. Energy
> Policy 2010;38:3717?30.
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:56 PM, "Ronal W. Larson" <
> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Rogerio and (now 2) lists [The 14 papers certainly don't all apply
> to biochar - but in total they apply more to the biochar list than the
> stove list)
> >>
> >> 1. Thanks for the cite you gave below (with a free version of a nice
> paper). I enjoyed this (#12 below) and your article with Rob Bailis (#14).
> A few questions: A year or more has passed since you wrote this. Any
> cogeneration started yet in Brazil? (for others, Rogerio lives where
> charcoal-making is big business - the largest in the world). Any
> recommendations on stove or biochar ideas in the other dozen papers? For
> instance can you conceive that there may be more cooking with electricity
> as users trade in (barter) biomass for electrons? (and maybe getting some
> char back also) You are thinking more of the char going to steel mills,
> but could there be competition for using the char (as biochar) in soils
> (given future carbon credits?)
> >>
> >> 2. I remember hearing about this special issue on charcoal, but this
> was my first chance to see the wide range (below). A lot of good material
> here. Unfortunately all priced at $31.50 per paper. If any other authors
> are reading this, I hope they can do as did Rogerio and supply an early
> author's draft. Obviously, both lists would benefit from anything more
> that can be said about any of the papers. My impression is that biochar
> and char-making stoves were not major considerations for most papers, but
> most can have some bearing on both these lists
> >>
> >> Rogerio - how about giving a short summary of Paper #14 (Bailis - or
> a reprint). And anything else that might assist the stoves and biochar
> lists.
> >>
> >> 1
> >> What role will charcoal play in the coming decades? Insights from
> up-to-date findings and reviews
> >> Pages 73-74
> >> Adri?n Ghilardi, Tuyeni Mwampamba, Gautam Dutt
> >> 2
> >> Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes and policy
> outlook on charcoal in developing countries Review Article
> >> Pages 75-85
> >> Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Adri?n Ghilardi, Klas Sander, Kim Jean Chaix
> >>
> >>
> >> ? Charcoal data are distorted because they are lumped with those of
> other wood fuels. ? Misconceptions perpetuate five myths that harm
> perceptions about charcoal. ? Myths can misguide interventions and policy
> response to the charcoal sector. ? Myths narrow scope of charcoal
> discussions to an environmental niche. ? Debunking myths is necessary to
> appreciate true potential of charcoal.
> >> 3
> >> The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems
> of the world: A synthesisReview Article
> >> Pages 86-94
> >> Emmanuel N. Chidumayo, Davison J. Gumbo
> >> ? The contribution of charcoal to deforestation in the tropics is less
> than 7%. ? Charcoal production most frequently results in forest
> degradation. ? Most charcoal areas have the potential for rapid forest
> recovery. ? Enhancing charcoal policies' legitimacy and effective
> implementation is needed. ? Charcoal can contribute to poverty reduction
> and environmental sustainability.
> >> 4
> >> Formalisation of charcoal value chains and livelihood outcomes in
> Central- and West AfricaOriginal Research Article
> >> Pages 95-105
> >> Jolien Schure, Verina Ingram, Maam Suwadu Sakho-Jimbira, Patrice
> Levang, K. Freerk Wiersum
> >> ? Informal rules dominate charcoal chains in Central- and West Africa.
> ? ?Informal? means access to many, overexploitation and little tax
> revenues. ? West Africa has more cross-sectorial formal mechanisms. ?
> Formal charcoal institutions risk reinforcing unequal distribution of
> benefits. ? Successes build upon decentralised management, tax incentives
> and reinvestments.
> >> 5
> >> Forest management and economic rents: Evidence from the charcoal trade
> in MadagascarOriginal Research Article
> >> Pages 106-115
> >> Bart Minten, Klas Sander, David Stifel
> >>
> >>
> >> ? Margins are higher in regulated charcoal compared to unregulated
> agricultural trade. ? Charcoal traders with more government connections
> have greater access to rents. ? Efforts to reform policies through
> licensing must take rents into account.
> >> 6
> >> Enabling reforms: Analyzing the political economy of the charcoal
> sector in Tanzania Original Research Article
> >> Pages 116-126
> >> Klas Sander, Clemens Gros, Christian Peter
> >> ? Transformation of anecdotal evidence into documented facts and
> figures. ? Using established methodology for charcoal sector analysis. ?
> Verification that real political power lies with powerful groups outside
> government.
> >> 7
> >> Charcoal, livelihoods, and poverty reduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan
> Africa Review Article
> >> Pages 127-137
> >> Leo C. Zulu, Robert B. Richardson
> >> ? We review charcoal impacts on poverty reduction in Africa on four
> dimensions. ? Charcoal is vital sector for energy, economy, poverty
> reduction; but is neglected. ? Benefits: vital rural-cash safety nets;
> urban income, affordable, reliable energy. ? Charcoal has negative
> environmental, health, social, livelihood, and power impacts. ? Needed:
> pluralistic policy, regulated sustained use, pro-poor, incentives, advocacy.
> >> 8
> >> Changing land management: A case study of charcoal production among a
> group of pastoral women in northern Tanzania Original Research Article
> >> Pages 138-145
> >> Ramona J. Butz
> >> ? Dependence on fuelwood for energy is placing pressure on forest
> resources. ? Charcoal serves as a cash crop for a growing number of women.
> ? Producers made up 4?6% of the village population in 2005. ? Production is
> unsustainable over the long term and may lead to forest degradation.
> >> 9
> >> Can there be energy policy in Sub-Saharan Africa without biomass?
> Review Article
> >> Pages 146-152
> >> Matthew Owen, Robert van der Plas, Steve Sepp
> >> ? Most energy policies in sub-Saharan Africa prioritise petroleum and
> electricity. ? Benefits and opportunities offered by solid biomass energy
> are being missed. ? Efforts to design more biomass-friendly policies
> encounter government resistance. ? Measures to formalise and modernise the
> sector could help improve energy policy.
> >> 10
> >> The influence of initial fuel load on Fuel to Cook for batch loaded
> charcoal cookstovesOriginal Research Article
> >> Pages 153-157
> >> Samuel Bentson, Dean Still, Ryan Thompson, Kelley Grabow
> >> ? Fourteen charcoal cook stoves were tested in the laboratory using a
> modified WBT4.1.2. ? Fuel to Cook was found to be dependent on the initial
> fuel load. ? All stoves were found to have similar Fuel to Cook when they
> were loaded with their minimum fuel loads.
> >> 11
> >> Opportunities, challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette
> industry in Sub-Saharan AfricaOriginal Research Article
> >> Pages 158-170
> >> Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Matthew Owen, Maurice Pigaht
> >> ? Briquette producers are struggling to stay productive despite
> existing opportunities. ? Slow uptake of briquettes stunts industry growth
> due to insufficient sales volumes. ? Misconceptions of briquettes'
> potential and non-conducive policies contribute. ? Expanding to
> non-traditional markets and applications is required for growth. ? Active
> role of government pressed on by an association of producers is direly
> needed.
> >> 12
> >> Cogenerating electricity from charcoaling: A promising new advanced
> technology Original Research Article
> >> Pages 171-176
> >> Rog?rio Carneiro de Miranda, Rob Bailis, Adriana de Oliveira Vilela
> >> ? Traditional charcoal making through batch pyrolysis loses 50% of
> feedstock energy. ? Losses occur because high-energy pyrolysis gases escape
> unutilized. ? Pyrolysis gases could be used to cogenerate heat and
> electricity. ? The technology reduces emissions of GHG, generates bio
> power, and boosts income.
> >> 13
> >> Estimating the spatial distribution of woody biomass suitable for
> charcoal making from remote sensing and geostatistics in central Mexico
> Original Research Article
> >> Pages 177-188
> >> Miguel ?ngel Castillo-Santiago, Adri?n Ghilardi, Ken Oyama, Jos? Luis
> Hern?ndez-Stefanoni, Ignacio Torres, Alejandro Flamenco-Sandoval, Ana
> Fern?ndez, Jean-Fran?ois Mas
> >> ? Satellite imagery and ground data were used to map biomass suitable
> for charcoal. ? The spatial autocorrelation helped improving the accuracy
> of estimations. ? Results are a key milestone in planning for sustainable
> charcoal.
> >> 14
> >> Innovation in charcoal production: A comparative life-cycle assessment
> of two kiln technologies in BrazilOriginal Research Article
> >> Pages 189-200
> >> Rob Bailis, Charissa Rujanavech, Puneet Dwivedi, Adriana de Oliveira
> Vilela, Howard Chang, Rog?rio Carneiro de Miranda
> >> ? Brazil is the largest charcoal producing nation using primarily
> hot-tail kilns. ? Metal ?container kilns? are being tested as a more
> efficient alternative. ? Container kilns allow the use of pyrolysis gases
> for production of heat and power. ? LCA shows container kilns perform
> better in energy, GHG emissions, and water use.
> >>
> >> 3. The cite below gives a $31.50 bargain.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 16, 2013, at 4:45 AM, Rogerio carneiro de miranda <
> carneirodemiranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chris, here is a clue
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.prolenha.org.br/images/arquivos/esd_2012_miranda_etal_charcoal_cogen.pdf
> >>>
> >>> PROLENHA is planning to hold a workshop on charcoaling cogeneration in
> the near future.
> >>>
> >>> Rog?rio
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/49b7b279/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:02:16 +0700
> From: Paul Olivier <paul.olivier at esrla.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAOreFvbF_JS5MBX4b+57umOY-puHm7VE4k3SE8CXAFhd0p+W2A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Ron,
>
> One should look at a stove according to what it is designed to use as fuel.
> Let us look, for example, at stoves that process rice hulls.
>
> In a first instance, the stove might simply burn rice hulls. Here we are
> talking about direct combustion where an air equivalency ratio situates
> close to 1. Such a stove will produce a lot of CO2 and H2O as well as
> relatively high levels of CO. The fuel for such a stove is rice hulls.
>
> In a second instance, the air equivalency ratio might be 0.6, the process
> temperature might be below 500 C, the moisture of the biomass might be 20%
> or more, and too much secondary air might be applied to the combustion of a
> dirty syngas containing a lot of CO2 and H2O. Since the production of CO
> and H2 is suboptimal, it might make sense in this instance to burn the char
> in order to maximize the production of energy. But unfortunately burning
> the char has serious problems: a lot of CO is emitted by the stove, and
> heat is generated far below the pot. If the char is burned within this
> second stove, the fuel for such a stove is rice hulls.
>
> In a third instance, the air equivalency ratio situates close to 0.3, the
> process temperature rises above 800 C, the moisture content of the biomass
> situates at 10%, and the supply of secondary air is kept low, but still
> adequate, to achieve total combustion of the syngas. Here the production of
> CO and H2 is optimized, the temperature of the syngas prior to combustion
> at the burner reaches as high as 500 C, and not too much secondary air is
> mixed in with the syngas. In this instance, up to 30% of the weight of the
> rice hulls would still remain as biochar. But it would make no sense to
> burn this biochar, since the production and combustion of the syngas were
> optimized.
>
> In measuring the performance of this third stove, we should not consider
> rice hulls to be a fuel. This stove is designed to produce fuel from rice
> hulls. The char produced is a by-product of a syngas-making process.
> Therefore, the energy that remains within the char should be left out of
> the equation in the calculation of the efficiency of this stove.
>
> Propane (C3H8) is a by-product of natural gas processing and petroleum
> refining. Likewise butane (C4H10) must be processed at a refinery. Propane
> and butane can be mixed and burned in a stove. But in calculating the
> efficiency of such a stove, no one takes into account the inefficiencies of
> what takes place in the refining and bottling of these gases. Any
> by-products created in the refining of propane and butane are left out of
> the equation. Also one has to take into account the original hydrocarbons
> from which propane and butane are derived, and the huge inefficiencies
> associated with getting them out of the ground.
>
> But unlike a propane/butane stove, a biochar-producing stove produces,
> refines and burns gas all within the one process, and the by-product
> created in this process, biochar, should be left out of the equation in
> calculating stove efficiency.
>
> But this biochar is not a worthless by-product. It sells for as much as
> $500 per ton in the USA, and here where I live in Vietnam, it sells for up
> to $400 per ton. Why would a poor farmer in Vietnam bother to buy biochar
> and incorporate it into the soil season after season, if it did not have a
> positive effect on plant growth? The sale of biochar just about always
> covers the cost of buying and transporting the original biomass from which
> it was derived. If this were not the case, those kiln operator in Vietnam
> who simply make biochar while wasting all the gas would be out of business.
>
> The many reasons why biochar sells for such high prices are explained in a
> wonderful book by Lehmann and Joseph. A large number of scientists
> contributed to this book and are cited within this book. They cannot be
> dismissed as misguided in their understanding of the benefits of biochar.
> Their science is as good as any science can get. And finally, if the
> broader environmental concerns highlighted by the GACC relating to
> greenhouse gas emissions are taken seriously, the burying of biochar into
> the soil has an important contribution to make.
>
> Many thanks.
> Paul Olivier
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Ronal W. Larson
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net>wrote:
>
> > Frank - I am worried you haven't maybe been playing with TLUDs. True?
> >
> > See below.
> >
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com> wrote:
> >
> > *Ron,*
> > * *
> > *I look forward to hearing Jim?s, or anyone else?s approach to the
> > difficult problem of accounting for the energy. Whoever comes out with a
> > method there will be another right around the corner. This is non-ending
> so
> > there is no need to wait. My suggested approach is not a comparison ?
> just
> > a different way of looking at it. Hopefully one that will work without
> all
> > the errors regarding calculating the remaining chars.*
> >
> > [*RWL: One measures, not calculates the "remaining chars". Can
> > be pretty accurate - especially with TLUDs.*
> >
> > **
> > * *
> > *I am thinking of a new approach where we do not need to handle char at
> > all. I noticed when using the GEK and Tom Reeds TLUD that when fresh
> > biomass ran out the secondary flame went out, or very poor flame. Just
> add
> > more biomass and you are in business. *
> >
> > *[RWL: This is not normally done at all with TLUDs. It is possible
> > with BLDDs.*
> >
> >
> > *Hot coals several inches below the pot did a poor job of heating the pot
> > ? so why even consider them? *
> >
> > *[RWL: Right. One of the main purposes of TLUds is to stop the
> > operation when the pyrolysis front hits the bottom.*
> >
> >
> > *Its only the fresh tars that heat the pot and all that other energy just
> > heats the stove body. Important to heat the stove body and aid in
> breaking
> > the bonds to release lumps of tars and complex organics free to head to
> the
> > secondary. But IF (Big IF) they do not significantly heat the pot we can
> > rule them out it saves that problem of all the difficult calculating. *
> >
> > *[RWL: If one purpose of the char was to make char, the
> > measurement and calculating is relatively trivial.*
> >
> > * If you were to fill a rocket with char and blast air on the char would
> > you get a secondary flame?*
> >
> > *[RWL: Yes. This was demonstrated nicely at Stove camp by Kirk
> > Harris, who had a special set of "intermediate" holes - so as to burn the
> > chars nicely - from the top down.*
> >
> > * The stove body would get red hot but the pot only a few inches away
> > would heat up slowly without the flames licking the bottom. Lots of
> useless
> > heat.*
> >
> > *[RWL: Nope - Kirk had a nice flame. His was a camping stove
> > and not interested in producing char. Very clever mod.*
> >
> > **
> > * *
> > *The question is can we take a block of wood and determine the weight
> > fraction that will contribute to the secondary? And the fraction that
> sits
> > and combusts in the stove body? I think the pipe will do that.*
> > * **[RWL: It might do it if you could **reproduce all the stove
> > operating temperature history. Running at high power will expose the
> > biomass/char to higher temps (and less char) than if the run was all at
> low
> > power.]*
> >
> > *
> > *
> > * Ron*
> >
> > * *
> > *Something different to talk about.*
> > * *
> > *Thanks Ron for the reply.*
> > * *
> > *Regards*
> > * *
> > *Frank*
> > *Frank Shields*
> > *Control Laboratories; Inc.*
> > *42 Hangar Way*
> > *Watsonville, CA 95076*
> > *(831) 724-5422 tel*
> > *(831) 724-3188 fax*
> > *frank at biocharlab.com*
> > *www.controllabs.com*
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > * *
> > *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> > Behalf Of *Ronal W. Larson
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 16, 2013 1:27 PM
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Saving the WBT****
> > ** **
> > Frank and list:****
> > ** **
> > Abut 1.25 hours after yours was a message fem Jim Jeffords on a
> > webinar. He is obviously going to talk on Tuesday about how to handle
> > remaining char when calculating efficiency. It was not obvious to me how
> > you are handling char in your example. Could you give an example where
> the
> > remaining char by weight was 25% of the input biomass weight. Maybe 30%
> > into the cook pot. Or any numbers you want. Then we can hopefully
> > compare your approach with Jim's****
> > ** **
> > Ron****
> > ** **
> > ** **
> > On Aug 16, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Frank Shields <frank at compostlab.com>
> wrote:*
> > ***
> >
> >
> > ****
> > *Greetings Stovers,*****
> > * *****
> > *All this talk about the ocean water got me thinking about the Water
> > Boiling Test.*****
> > *I would like to suggest a new way of testing and reporting results:*****
> > * *****
> > *1)* *Procedure*****
> > *2)* *Justification*****
> > *3)* *Calculations*****
> > * *****
> > *Procedure: We take some oven dried wood and place in a pipe. Add both
> > end caps, loosen one, weigh and place in an oven at ~450c. Then cool and
> > weigh. The loss in weight is the volatile fraction of the fuel. This is
> the
> > fraction that provides the energy to boil water. We determine the energy
> of
> > this fraction and that is the energy of the fuel. Keeping track of the
> fuel
> > weight we use we determine the total usable volatile-energy.*****
> > * *****
> > *We put the pot of water on the stove, measure the temperature of the
> > water, start the fire and monitor the water temperature. We keep the fire
> > going until the water is at ?simmer? then keep steady for 30 min. Adding
> no
> > more fuel we then we manipulate the fire to keep the secondary burn going
> > as long as possible. Soon as the secondary burn goes out we pull the pot
> > off and measure the area under the temperature plot for energy that went
> > into the pot. Energy in the pot / volatile-energy X 100 is the
> > efficiency(?).*****
> > * *****
> > *Justification: When you are boiling water it is only good as long as the
> > secondary burn is going. When that goes out, even with a glowing stove
> > below, the water heating process slows way down because, as I learned in
> > Stove Camp, we need the heat forced hitting the bottom of the pot to
> stick
> > to it, go through the pot and heat the water.*****
> > * *****
> > *Biomass fuel has two types of energy; 1) the tars (C-H-O) that create
> > the secondary burn and 2) the chars (C-C) that only heat the stove body.
> > Important for the chars to heat the stove body but there is more than
> > enough with a good insulated stove and all that extra heat is wasted ?
> not
> > used to heat the pot. When biomass is heated between 300c to 450c tars of
> > massive C-H-O structures go to the secondary burn and ALL C > CO2, and
> all
> > H > H2O releasing massive energy just at the pot bottom. The C-C bonds
> > (chars) left need to go C (solid) ? CO volatile) forms releasing energy
> > only in the stove body. The CO (volatile) goes to the secondary burn
> > (adding to the energy of the tars) to go CO > CO2 releasing a relatively
> > small amount of energy. Under the best of conditions all the C goes to CO
> > (not CO2) in the stove body but this is such a small amount of energy
> > compared to the tars providing ALL their energy to heat the pot I suggest
> > we can ignore (or estimate) the CO > CO2 added energy.*****
> > * *****
> > *This being the case if we use only the volatile fraction as the total
> > energy then once the secondary burn stops all the rest of the material in
> > the stove body can be ignored.*****
> > * *****
> > *Calculations: A block of 100 g dried wood contains 44g C, 50g O and 6g
> > H. Let?s say 22g C goes to the secondary as tars to heat the pot and 22g
> C
> > left behind to heat the stove. This can be determined (if needed) in the
> > lab measuring C and H in the biomass and C and H in the char left. The
> > weight loss in the pipe contains 28.2 % carbon and 7.7 % hydrogen for the
> > starting energy value figuring all H and all O are included in the tar
> > fraction.*****
> > * *****
> > *Now we need to use Bond Energy (I need help) to determine the energy
> > value we give for all the tar carbon going all the way to CO2 and the
> > hydrogen going all the way to H2O. We sum the Bond Energies in the tars
> as
> > the Total Energy of the fuel. Add to it (ignore or estimate) the Bond
> > Energy of the CO to CO2 in the chars.*****
> > * *****
> > *Bond Energies:*****
> > *C - - O = 360 kj/mol*****
> > *H - - O = 366 kj/mol*****
> > *What is C>CO2 and H>H2O?*****
> > * *****
> > *I realize if one has H2 and O2 that nothing happens until you provide
> > enough energy (light a match) to break the H-H and O-O bonds to re-create
> > H2O in an explosion. In this stove case there might be enough of the
> extra
> > heat in the stove body to break apart the tars into C and H and O so we
> can
> > just calculate them going completely to their end components. *****
> > * *****
> > *Regards*****
> > * *****
> > *Frank*****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > * *****
> > *Frank Shields*****
> > *Control Laboratories; Inc.*****
> > *42 Hangar Way*****
> > *Watsonville, CA 95076*****
> > *(831) 724-5422 tel*****
> > *(831) 724-3188 fax*****
> > *frank at compostlab.com*****
> > *www.compostlab.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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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/20130817/c1821a68/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: crispinpigott at gmail.com
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] ESD Special Issue Notes
> Message-ID: <520efc85.41e1320a.0c58.229b at mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130816/28b3b62e/attachment.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Stoves Digest, Vol 36, Issue 25
> **************************************
>
--
Art Donnelly
President SeaChar.Org
US Director, The Farm Stove Project
Proyecto Estufa Finca
<http://email2.globalgiving.org/wf/click?c=1Oy%2FmZbgIyjS5WI580KXwShvfKBcF2eaJvtN7Pi6p7Jl%2FiR4938EMMCBwY%2FuYALeA%2BQYUWN4RpvnxBsBC7e2%2BGIHcONTozBmvsUU5LTL%2FTNk4Q3vxE%2BKdXTV2cxIsFplSPh%2F9nMG3bQMQf4bz9ZK9SHMy46Z8OPLAtMAnPG9SKkPuLCWvofBTLC%2BImqax%2BZTkkF2RvDri5UdgH19NHjHOBj5WMUrS4L62Z2xxUJbBsJdDUOfeifheNFXH546Xm0yul4P2stm%2FTUOJxYnI0nFjXEaYfzxDSc%2FwgqVkR1t0USDHk30%2Fgt9UpDpyzLj37HWtnNQ0q8Jh1gZCkB4Y1Fgbg394gYFkyNqFN4MchxO2Js%3D&rp=wrhiOr2wAxUyDMDlMSqbOkKa0FpPoiCSHffb%2ByfHGClRxIFjEIrUDwAF%2BFD%2BpAPuvam9BDwvSMcadhFv7aFwKoyAXYrFk00%2B92xPIeMHXaTDJ3x0VIj6ZYwjm1win65o&up=YDTqBOjidbCUo%2Far1oAtZjp5ji73zPEvmoO14mevuXzIDUdb6Ac9W13SPOXmzL5NflZkH0HxLp0v4dT9UwEHDV0wSZ1qusv09bIKkUliWs4%3D&u=LHuflw_1TAib_lgCu2JvQw%2Fh0>
"SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130817/1803fd1e/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list