[Stoves] corn cobs and char
Anand Karve
adkarve at gmail.com
Sat Aug 17 21:55:55 CDT 2013
Dear Art Donelly,
I would not have been surprised if owing to cellulose in the shanks, they
were fed to ruminants, but feeding them to pigs was news to me.
Yours
A.D.Karve
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Art Donnelly <art.donnelly at seachar.org>wrote:
> 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"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130818/1b513462/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list