[Stoves] TLUDs at ETHOS
Art Donnelly
art.donnelly at seachar.org
Mon Jan 21 08:18:19 CST 2013
Hi Dean,
Checking in from the Talamanca... we are definitely interested in taking
advantage of your offer. T*his to others interested in "TLUDish" ND stove
development:*
This opportunity will only be significant if it gives *us* a chance to
interact. Price and distance have been big barriers for me, but if I know I
will have a group of very focused* practitioners* to interact with. I will
be there.
chao
Art
Proyecto Estufa Finca
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:45 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. Re: TLUDs at ETHOS Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? - and possible
> action (Dean Still)
> 2. Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
> (Paul Anderson)
> 3. Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project (Otto Formo)
> 4. Re: New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon (Alex English)
> 5. Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? - and possible action
> (B.C. Romero Orellana)
> 6. Re: TLUDs at ETHOS Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? - and possible
> action (Paul Anderson)
> 7. Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
> (Paul Anderson)
> 8. Re: Need help in designing a small refrigerator for rural
> huts. (Paul Anderson)
> 9. Re: New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon (Kevin)
> 10. Handy boiling point calculator (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
> 11. Re: New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
> 12. Re: New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon (Dean Still)
> 13. Re: is this new? (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
> 14. Re: New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon (Carefreeland at aol.com)
> 15. Re: is this new? (Marc Pare)
> 16. Re: is this new? (Alex English)
> 17. Re: New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon (Kevin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:13:46 -0800
> From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>, Discussion of biomass
> cooking
> stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] TLUDs at ETHOS Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? - and
> possible action
> Message-ID:
> <CA+tShZuW96gtVBf-EkQVG-CqL33-aHMNp3o9S8o=5yq=p=
> FvaA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> You asked about my reporting on ARC experiments with TLUDs at ETHOS.
>
> Christa, Dale, and I are doing an "Introduction to Stove Design" class
> Friday 4pm to 5:30pm at the hotel before the movies are shown.
>
> I'm also doing a "How to Make Tier 3/4 Stoves" presentation at ETHOS that
> summarizes work we have done at Aprovecho on optimizing heat transfer
> efficiency, Charcoal, Fan stoves, TLUDs, and improved Rockets.
>
> Paul, I am thinking that Aprovecho could make a week (or maybe two one week
> sessions per year) available to the TLUD community at a low, low cost to
> use the emission hoods in the lab and the emission set up in the Test
> Kitchen. Do you think that there would be interest?
>
> Natural draft TLUDs are a great invention and if Aprovecho could help all
> of you amazing TLUD inventors we want to do it.
>
> Best,
>
> Dean
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/09d78ebe/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:25:04 -0600
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: Nathan Puffer <nathan at grotontimberworks.com>, David Otto
> <davidpotto at gmail.com>, Hugh McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net>,
> Bob
> Fairchild <solarbobky at yahoo.com>, david covert
> <dcovert at u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
> Message-ID: <50FC60B0.1050104 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Jonathan,
>
> You wrote:
> > we too have had the experience of getting smoke and incomplete
> > gasification from very dry seed that was stored too long in arid
> > conditions.
> I suspect you meant to say "incomplete combustion of the gases". I
> suspect that your very dry fuel did get pyrolyzed all the way to
> charcoal. (and I suspect that you are not referring to the
> gasification of the char, which should not be allowed to occur inside
> of TLUD stoves because the high heat of char-gasification is detrimental
> to the metal of the stoves.).
>
> There seem to be enough Jatropha seeds for both pressing them for oil
> AND for using some directly as seed-fuels. Advantages of seed fuels
> include:
> 1. Already packaged with a natural protective coating (seed coat, not
> referring to the outer husk/shell)
> a. to prevent entry of water (until conditions exist for
> sprouting). Moisture content (MC) is reasonably consistent in intact
> seeds if you give them a little protection from the rain.
> b. clean to the touch when handling the fuel. They
> scoop well, and make no dust.
> c. giving curved sides that allow passage of the needed
> Up-Draft primary air in TLUDs
> d. (minor negative) prevent quick ignition, so we solve
> that by breaking up a few seeds to be at the top for ignition. But no
> need to crack them all.
>
> 2. Packed with energy in the form of carbohydrates (and other "stuff"
> like oils that burn).
> a. That is why we do not burn most seeds, because they
> have value as food.
> b. But Jatropha seeds are inedible, so we can burn them.
> c. The oils can be vaporized by the heat, meaning the
> pyrolysis does not occur for the oils.
> d. Therefore, per unit of energy ultimately in the
> combustion flame, there is LESS charcoal produced per unit of weight
> than is the case of wood and maize cobs, etc.
>
> 3. And specifically Jatropha seeds are about the right size for
> collection, storage, handling, air passage. And do not forget that the
> outer husk/hull can also be collected and used as fuel.
>
> 4. About the press-cake after oil extraction. What I have seen
> (Mozambique and Uganda) does not appeal much to me as a fuel. It needs
> further handling, is oily, and oil that does not dry remains slippery
> and therefore is not naturally great for making pellets or briquettes
> stick together. IF the press cake is being produced, then certainly
> consider using it as a fuel. But do not expect it to be easy or clean
> or even cheap. Certainly not as inexpensive as the intact seeds.
>
> Again, I will sing the praises of Jet City Stoveworks (Otto brothers Jon
> and David and Prof. David Covert) and of Nathan Puffer (Vermont, not NH)
> for their work with whole Jatropha seeds in TLUD-ND (Jiko Safi) and
> TLUD-FA stoves, respectively. And also Hugh McLaughlin who has done
> experimental work with oil seeds as fuels in TLUDS (used sunflower seeds
> as a substitute).
>
> We hope to see the Jiko Safi at ETHOS next week. Maybe there will be
> sufficient interest and attendance that we can build with and upon the
> Safi work.
>
> 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 1/20/2013 12:16 PM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > You and Ron Larson have the memory of an elephant. Yes, I did make
> > early postings to this list seeking help as we tried to develop
> > a stove to burn liquid Jatropha oil many years ago. As our German
> > colleagues at Siemens demonstrated over sevearl years of interesting
> > failures, a cheap, easy-to-maintain stove fueled by plant oils is very
> > difficult or maybe impossible. Then, for our efforts in Tanzania, Paul
> > Anderson came along, preaching the gospel of TLUD, and we realized
> > that extracting J oil as a liquid fuel was both unnecessary and
> > inappropriate, when we can gasify these oils from within the seed.
> >
> > Moisture level. We've not done any systematic testing of seed
> > moisture levels, but it's rarely an issue since people only harvest J
> > seeds when they're completely dry on the vine. Some sun drying helps
> > if they get wet. Going back to a comment Dean made recently about
> > fuel being too dry to gasify well, we too have had the experience of
> > getting smoke and incomplete gasification from very dry seed that was
> > stored too long in arid conditions. We need more field experience to
> > say anything more useful about this.
> >
> > Carl Beilenberg and J oil for electrical generation. I have fallen
> > out of touch with Carl in recent years, so I don't know what my fellow
> > Vermonter is up to these days, but you can bet it's highly inventive.
> > I do know that he used to run his diesel VW on J oil -- quite a trick
> > for such a viscous fuel in our northern climate. Since J seed is
> > still not a traded commodity in most places, the economics of using it
> > as fuel -- solid or liquid -- can't be definitively determined, or I
> > should say, will be highly site-specific. The on-farm price range for
> > J seed, excepting ridiculous spikes that occurred during the Jatropha
> > silly period of the biofuel bubble after 2005, runs from around
> > US$0.12 to $0.25 per-kilo in my experience. Depending on efficiency of
> > extraction methods, quality of seed, etc., one can get 1 liter from
> > 3.5 kg - 5 kg of seed. Of course, feedstock is only one part of the
> > cost equation.
> >
> > Thanks for yoiur interest,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:14:42 -0500
> > From: english at kingston.net
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Hi Jonathan,
> > Its good to hear about the progress you have made. I can remember your
> > early missives to this list, was it a decade ago?
> > A few questions... about the stove;
> >
> > At what moisture level (in the whole seed) do you see a drop off in
> > emissions performance when burned in the Jiko Safi?
> > Is it easy for the users to tell when the seeds are dry enough?
> >
> > ...about biofuel;
> > Part of the idea was to provide electricity or shaft power to
> > communities or business with a Lister engine on Jatropha oil.
> > I remember visiting Carl Bielenberg's workshop where he was doing the
> > testing.
> > Any success stories there or is diesel always cheaper without a carbon
> > consideration?
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > On 20/01/2013 9:23 AM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
> >
> > Hey Richard,
> >
> > Not sure why you feel my briquetting education has been neglected,
> > since that kind of fuel is not mentioned in any of my postings;
> > but I certainly subscribe to Dean's comment: we all have a lot to
> > learn about such alternative fuels. I would add: and the stoves
> > that burn them in a truly clean way. Which brings up the
> > question: if a briquette or pellet is burned in an open charcoal
> > brazier, do we have a clean energy source? To put in another way,
> > there are no 'clean' or 'dirty' fuels; it's combination of fuel
> > and stove that must be evaluated together for emissions and other
> > performance parameters.
> >
> > My densified fuels question to Otto the Senior or anyone else who
> > can enlighten me concerning the logic of pelletizing Jatropha
> > presscake. If farmers grow their own energy-dense, uniform-sized
> > fuel, i.e., whole Jatropha seed, why complicate matters by
> > processing that ready-to-use fuel into another fuel? No matter
> > how efficient the pelletizing process, it must require time and
> > energy. Why not burn these seeds directly in a micro gasifier
> > stove, such as our jiko safi?
> >
> > Let me try to head off some likely comments. I know that there are
> > companies in many African and Asian countries engaged in
> > commercial scale production of Jatropha (and other biofuel
> > crops) for export of biodeisel. Land grabbing and other nefarious
> > activities of some of these players are obscene, as once again the
> > global north exploits tropical countries for cheap/free land and
> > cheap labor to meet its own needs.
> >
> > Yes, those Jatropha oil export ventures produce presscake as a
> > by-product which they pelletize and market for fuel. And yes, some
> > smaller operations in a few countries like Uganda, are trying to
> > make a go of producing Jatropha-based biofuels for local and
> > regional energy markets. But for all the publicity, most of it
> > appropriately negative, in the 'food vs. fuel' analysis, there's a
> > lot more to Jatropha than current attempts to put the oil in
> > European cars and jet engines.
> >
> > Far apart from all these recent commercial Jatropha ventures, many
> > of which are unprofitable for reasons we can discuss another time
> > if anyone's interested, are many millions of farmers in over 110
> > countries who use Jatropha as a living hedge and for medicianl
> > uses. Seems it's grown in every frost-free area of the world. I've
> > found it from Cuba -- it's native to the neo-tropics -- to Mali,
> > which has thousands of kilometers of hedges, to Bhutan where
> > villagers were obliged to pay a Jatropha tax to monks for lighting
> > in floating wick lamps.
> >
> > My guess is that over 99% of all Jatropha seed fall to the ground
> > and rot, unused. (One study in a district of Tanzania where
> > Jatropha seed is a traded commodity found that only 6% of seed is
> > harvested.) As we all search for renewable, sustainably harvested
> > biomass to fuel our favorite stoves, can we afford to overlook
> > seeds of this ubiquitous, multi-use species?
> >
> > The point of importuning my stove list colleagues on a fine Sunday
> > morning is to interest other stove makers to look at Jatropha and
> > other energy-rich seeds as a category of fuel worth consideration
> > for new stove designs. We are modestly pleased with the
> > performance of the jiko safi, but we also know that some of you
> > with far deeper understanding of gasification and far more
> > experience in stove design could produce a much better model.
> > Anyone want to take up this challenge?
> >
> > Over to you,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: rstanley at legacyfound.org <mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:46:53 -0600
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Dear Ottos,
> > Seems you both need training in briquettemaking . Jon you know
> > where to go in nchi yeti but Otto, where are you based? Seriously,
> > the blends you are finding smelly smokey etc suggests that you get
> > in touch with any of hundreds of others who can train you.
> > Richard Stanley
> > Monte Rico,
> > Guatemala
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2013, at 18:10, Otto Formo <terra-matricula at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:terra-matricula at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Josh and Jonathan (Otto),
> >
> > Yes, we are talking about the presscake of Jatropha and it was
> > processed into pellets localy in Zambia, quite easily and with
> > "simple" tools - (no waste of energy)
> >
> > We had the same experience as your colleagues using briquettes
> > made out of ricehusks and sawdust.
> > They even started to glow like charcoal early in the
> > gasification process and produced smoky and smouldery combustion.
> >
> > Thast why we prefer to use pellets of best possible quality.
> >
> > I hope you are correct about the gasification of jatropha
> > pellets will destroy the phorbol esters and other problematic
> > compounds instead of emitting them.
> > Iam a bit worried about the forced draft units, while they
> > seems to blow some parts of the ash and gases into the open
> > air or room.
> >
> > May be the char from Jatropha could have a pestecide effect as
> > well?
> >
> > Otto
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:23:35 -0500
> > From: yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com
> > <mailto:yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Otto - FYI jatropha presscake (the mealy material left over
> > once oil has been pressed out of the seeds) can be directly
> > pelletized without further processing. It's pretty easy to
> > pelletize, even with a small, cheaper (e.g. benchtop) pellet
> > press. The mealy presscake still contains some of the oil
> > (think coffee grounds) and it pelletizes well without worry
> > over moisture content or having to use a binder.
> >
> > The pellets burn in a TLUD similar to wood or other pellets,
> > at least by visual observation and temperature recording. I
> > have colleagues that have tried to make cooking briquettes
> > with jatropha seedcake and had a very smoky, smouldery
> > combustion. I believe there are concerns of some potentially
> > toxic emissions (phorbol esters, other compounds?). I have not
> > tested the emissions from TLUD charring jatropha pellets, but
> > there was no visible smoke and the gasifier seemed to operate
> > fine as it does with other types of pellets. It would be
> > interesting to know if firing jatropha pellets in a TLUD
> > destroys the phorbol esters and other problematic compounds
> > instead of emitting them.
> >
> > I first tried to char un-pelletized jatropha seedcake in the
> > TLUD - because it is mealy like coffee grounds no draft could
> > get through and it was a total fail - lots of smoke poured
> > out! This brought the fire department to our Colorado backyard
> > during a fire ban. Whoops.
> >
> > Also FYI char made from TLUD jatropha pellets performed
> > similar for herbicide uptake from simulated natural water as
> > chars made in the same way from pine pellets, bagasse pellets,
> > and bamboo pieces.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Otto
> > <ottojonathan at hotmail.com <mailto:ottojonathan at hotmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Otto,
> >
> > Whole Jatropha seeds can be picked from hedges on-farm and
> > used directly in our jiko safi gasification stove without
> > any further effort (except maybe for some sun drying if
> > harvested during a damp season) ... the most
> > decentralized, efficient sustainable fuel system I can
> > imagine.
> >
> > Sure, urban jiko safi users will need to buy their fuel
> > seeds, so a commercial system for transport and retail
> > sale of seed will be needed eventually, likely mimicking
> > some aspects of the charcoal trade. But it's just whole,
> > unprocessed seed.
> >
> > Concerning pelletized Jatropha fuel, I would like to
> > understand the advantages you find in going through the
> > costs and effort (including energy losses) of processing
> > seeds to expel the oil, then probably milling the press
> > cake and shells (?) to uniform size/texture, then
> > extruding or otherwise forming the mixture into pellets,
> > and finally distribute the fuel, some of which will go
> > back to the same farmers that grew the Jatropha seed in
> > the first place?
> >
> > I know there are technical advantages to gasification of
> > uniform-sized pellets, but it seems to me that round or
> > ovoid shaped seeds like Jatropha, castor (I know, more
> > poisons!), shea or croton megalocarpus provide this same
> > advantage, without going through the pelletization
> > process.What am I missing?
> >
> > Otto, the minor
> >
> > P.S. It's too late for me to retire 'on time'
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: terra-matricula at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:23:37 +0100
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > We have got some samples of pelletized jatropha shells and
> > seeds from Zambia, after the oil has been extracted and we
> > feel that is the way forward.
> >
> > We will update you on the progress, so you will be albe to
> > retire "on time".................:)
> > We are not so worried about PM in natural draft gasifiers,
> > but thanks for the concern.
> >
> > Otto........................
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: ottojonathan at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:ottojonathan at hotmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:03:35 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Otto-
> >
> > You 'would guess' wrong.
> >
> > 'We should be very careful advising people' about such
> > unsupported conclusions.
> >
> > The challenges of gasifying oils found in seeds, notably
> > the oils of Jatropha seed, in a cookstove are far
> > different from working with most pellets formulations.
> >
> > I keenly look forward to news of your all-fuel stoves that
> > will handle J seeds, and the results of your tests. I
> > sincerely hope you develop this soon, so I can finally
> > retire in peace.
> >
> > Oh, and when you do tests, please include particulates in
> > your emissions testing, so we can finally end all this
> > hand wringing about 'these types of fuel'.
> >
> > >From the cheeky other Otto,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: terra-matricula at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:23:48 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Dear stovers,
> >
> > I would guess that "any" gasifier will burn jatropha seeds
> > or pellets cleanly and efficient, as long as the moisture
> > content are less than 10%.
> >
> > We have in the pipeline to test a new design of natural
> > draft gasifiers, using jatropha seeds and pellets, for
> > emmissions and toxcic fumes.
> >
> > We should be very carefull adviceing people using these
> > types of fuel, before it has been carefully tested by
> > independent institutions.
> >
> > Have a nice weekend.
> >
> > Otto (not the famous one..........:)
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: crispinpigott at gmail.com <mailto:
> crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:19:11 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Dear Jonathan
> >
> > I am interested in the general layout and dimensions of a
> > stove that will burn the seeds well. Are you sharing at
> > this time anything regarding the design?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin
> > ++++++++
> >
> > Dear Joyce and stovers all,
> >
> > My regrets for not responding to this request 6 months
> > ago. I admit that it got lost in my messy inbox which I
> > have now reduced from 6000 messages to a mere 2400, and in
> > the process uncovered Joyce's email.
> >
> > Burning Jatropha seeds whole or in briquettes in open
> > cooking arrangements is a bad idea. It produces a smoky,
> > smelly fire and probably exposes cooks to toxic
> > emissions. I even question burning Jatropha oil in lamps
> > in enclosed areas for the same reason. Maybe others know
> > of emissions studies.
> > [snip]
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email
> > address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email
> > address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email
> > address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email
> > address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Josh Kearns
> > PhD Candidate, Environmental Engineering
> > University of Colorado-Boulder
> > Visiting Researcher, North Carolina State University
> >
> > Director of Science
> > Aqueous Solutions
> > www.aqsolutions.org <http://www.aqsolutions.org/>
> >
> > Mobile: 720 989 3959begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 720 989
> > 3959end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> > Skype: joshkearns
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing
> > list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing
> > list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ 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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/bf6aa5ca/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:47:32 +0100
> From: Otto Formo <terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
> To: Stoves Bioenergylist <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: nathan at grotontimberworks.com, dcovert at u.washington.edu,
> davidpotto at gmail.com, Huge McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net>,
> Bob
> Fairchild <solarbobky at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
> Message-ID: <BAY162-W9645340E688726665A91AEA100 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> Dear all,
> I dont know to much about the presscake of Jatropha from Mosambique or
> Uganda, but the pellets we were introduced to in Zambia, does not remind me
> about any of the discription given by Paul.The pellets are dry and easy to
> handle and far from sticky.
> May be we have discovered the "secret" combination .................:)
> Have any of you considered to mix it with sawdust, a well known metode to
> "control" oil spill, or any other suitable biomass?
> Otto
>
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:25:04 -0600
> From: psanders at ilstu.edu
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> CC: nathan at grotontimberworks.com; davidpotto at gmail.com;
> wastemin1 at verizon.net; solarbobky at yahoo.com; dcovert at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> we too have had the experience of getting
> smoke and incomplete gasification from very dry seed that was
> stored too long in arid conditions.
>
>
> I suspect you meant to say "incomplete combustion of the gases".
> I suspect that your very dry fuel did get pyrolyzed all the way to
> charcoal. (and I suspect that you are not referring to the
> gasification of the char, which should not be allowed to occur
> inside of TLUD stoves because the high heat of char-gasification
> is detrimental to the metal of the stoves.).
>
>
>
> There seem to be enough Jatropha seeds for both pressing them for
> oil AND for using some directly as seed-fuels. Advantages of seed
> fuels include:
>
> 1. Already packaged with a natural protective coating (seed coat,
> not referring to the outer husk/shell)
>
> a. to prevent entry of water (until conditions exist
> for sprouting). Moisture content (MC) is reasonably consistent in
> intact seeds if you give them a little protection from the rain.
>
> b. clean to the touch when handling the fuel. They
> scoop well, and make no dust.
>
> c. giving curved sides that allow passage of the
> needed Up-Draft primary air in TLUDs
>
> d. (minor negative) prevent quick ignition, so we
> solve that by breaking up a few seeds to be at the top for
> ignition. But no need to crack them all.
>
>
>
> 2. Packed with energy in the form of carbohydrates (and other
> "stuff" like oils that burn).
>
> a. That is why we do not burn most seeds, because
> they have value as food.
>
> b. But Jatropha seeds are inedible, so we can burn
> them.
>
> c. The oils can be vaporized by the heat, meaning the
> pyrolysis does not occur for the oils.
>
> d. Therefore, per unit of energy ultimately in the
> combustion flame, there is LESS charcoal produced per unit of
> weight than is the case of wood and maize cobs, etc.
>
>
>
> 3. And specifically Jatropha seeds are about the right size for
> collection, storage, handling, air passage. And do not forget
> that the outer husk/hull can also be collected and used as fuel.
>
>
>
> 4. About the press-cake after oil extraction. What I have seen
> (Mozambique and Uganda) does not appeal much to me as a fuel. It
> needs further handling, is oily, and oil that does not dry remains
> slippery and therefore is not naturally great for making pellets
> or briquettes stick together. IF the press cake is being
> produced, then certainly consider using it as a fuel. But do not
> expect it to be easy or clean or even cheap. Certainly not as
> inexpensive as the intact seeds.
>
>
>
> Again, I will sing the praises of Jet City Stoveworks (Otto
> brothers Jon and David and Prof. David Covert) and of Nathan
> Puffer (Vermont, not NH) for their work with whole Jatropha seeds
> in TLUD-ND (Jiko Safi) and TLUD-FA stoves, respectively. And also
> Hugh McLaughlin who has done experimental work with oil seeds as
> fuels in TLUDS (used sunflower seeds as a substitute).
>
>
>
> We hope to see the Jiko Safi at ETHOS next week. Maybe there will
> be sufficient interest and attendance that we can build with and
> upon the Safi work.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1-309-452-7072
> end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> Website: www.drtlud.com
> On 1/20/2013 12:16 PM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Alex,
>
>
>
> You and Ron Larson have the memory of an elephant. Yes, I
> did make early postings to this list seeking help as we tried to
> develop a stove to burn liquid Jatropha oil many years ago.
> As our German colleagues at Siemens demonstrated over sevearl
> years of interesting failures, a cheap, easy-to-maintain stove
> fueled by plant oils is very difficult or maybe impossible.
> Then, for our efforts in Tanzania, Paul Anderson came along,
> preaching the gospel of TLUD, and we realized that extracting J
> oil as a liquid fuel was both unnecessary and inappropriate,
> when we can gasify these oils from within the seed.
>
>
>
> Moisture level. We've not done any systematic testing of seed
> moisture levels, but it's rarely an issue since people only
> harvest J seeds when they're completely dry on the vine. Some
> sun drying helps if they get wet. Going back to a comment Dean
> made recently about fuel being too dry to gasify well, we too
> have had the experience of getting smoke and incomplete
> gasification from very dry seed that was stored too long in arid
> conditions. We need more field experience to say anything more
> useful about this.
>
>
>
> Carl Beilenberg and J oil for electrical generation. I have
> fallen out of touch with Carl in recent years, so I don't know
> what my fellow Vermonter is up to these days, but you can bet
> it's highly inventive. I do know that he used to run his
> diesel VW on J oil -- quite a trick for such a viscous fuel in
> our northern climate. Since J seed is still not a traded
> commodity in most places, the economics of using it as fuel --
> solid or liquid -- can't be definitively determined, or I should
> say, will be highly site-specific. The on-farm price range for
> J seed, excepting ridiculous spikes that occurred during the
> Jatropha silly period of the biofuel bubble after 2005, runs
> from around US$0.12 to $0.25 per-kilo in my experience.
> Depending on efficiency of extraction methods, quality of seed,
> etc., one can get 1 liter from 3.5 kg - 5 kg of seed. Of course,
> feedstock is only one part of the cost equation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for yoiur interest,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:14:42 -0500
>
> From: english at kingston.net
>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
>
>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Its good to hear about the progress you have made. I can
> remember your early missives to this list, was it a decade
> ago?
>
> A few questions... about the stove;
>
>
>
> At what moisture level (in the whole seed) do you see a drop
> off in emissions performance when burned in the Jiko Safi?
>
> Is it easy for the users to tell when the seeds are dry
> enough?
>
>
>
> ...about biofuel;
>
> Part of the idea was to provide electricity or shaft power
> to communities or business with a Lister engine on Jatropha
> oil.
>
> I remember visiting Carl Bielenberg's workshop where he was
> doing the testing.
>
> Any success stories there or is diesel always cheaper
> without a carbon consideration?
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> On 20/01/2013 9:23 AM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hey Richard,
>
>
>
> Not sure why you feel my briquetting education has been
> neglected, since that kind of fuel is not mentioned in any
> of my postings; but I certainly subscribe to Dean's
> comment: we all have a lot to learn about such alternative
> fuels. I would add: and the stoves that burn them in a
> truly clean way. Which brings up the question: if a
> briquette or pellet is burned in an open charcoal brazier,
> do we have a clean energy source? To put in another way,
> there are no 'clean' or 'dirty' fuels; it's combination of
> fuel and stove that must be evaluated together for
> emissions and other performance parameters.
>
>
>
> My densified fuels question to Otto the Senior or anyone
> else who can enlighten me concerning the logic
> of pelletizing Jatropha presscake. If farmers grow their
> own energy-dense, uniform-sized fuel, i.e., whole Jatropha
> seed, why complicate matters by processing that
> ready-to-use fuel into another fuel? No matter
> how efficient the pelletizing process, it must require
> time and energy. Why not burn these seeds directly in a
> micro gasifier stove, such as our jiko safi?
>
>
>
> Let me try to head off some likely comments. I know that
> there are companies in many African and Asian countries
> engaged in commercial scale production of Jatropha (and
> other biofuel crops) for export of biodeisel. Land
> grabbing and other nefarious activities of some of these
> players are obscene, as once again the global
> north exploits tropical countries for cheap/free land and
> cheap labor to meet its own needs.
>
>
>
> Yes, those Jatropha oil export ventures produce presscake
> as a by-product which they pelletize and market for fuel.
> And yes, some smaller operations in a few countries
> like Uganda, are trying to make a go of producing
> Jatropha-based biofuels for local and regional energy
> markets. But for all the publicity, most of it
> appropriately negative, in the 'food vs. fuel'
> analysis, there's a lot more to Jatropha than current
> attempts to put the oil in European cars and jet engines.
>
>
>
> Far apart from all these recent commercial Jatropha
> ventures, many of which are unprofitable for reasons we
> can discuss another time if anyone's interested, are many
> millions of farmers in over 110 countries who use
> Jatropha as a living hedge and for medicianl uses. Seems
> it's grown in every frost-free area of the world. I've
> found it from Cuba -- it's native to the neo-tropics -- to
> Mali, which has thousands of kilometers of hedges, to
> Bhutan where villagers were obliged to pay a Jatropha tax
> to monks for lighting in floating wick lamps.
>
>
>
> My guess is that over 99% of all Jatropha seed fall to the
> ground and rot, unused. (One study in a district of
> Tanzania where Jatropha seed is a traded commodity found
> that only 6% of seed is harvested.) As we all search for
> renewable, sustainably harvested biomass to fuel our
> favorite stoves, can we afford to overlook seeds of this
> ubiquitous, multi-use species?
>
>
>
> The point of importuning my stove list colleagues on a
> fine Sunday morning is to interest other stove makers to
> look at Jatropha and other energy-rich seeds as a category
> of fuel worth consideration for new stove designs. We are
> modestly pleased with the performance of the jiko safi,
> but we also know that some of you with far deeper
> understanding of gasification and far more experience in
> stove design could produce a much better model. Anyone
> want to take up this challenge?
>
>
>
> Over to you,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: rstanley at legacyfound.org
>
> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:46:53 -0600
>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
>
>
>
> Dear Ottos,
> Seems you both need training in briquettemaking .
> Jon you know where to go in nchi yeti but Otto, where
> are you based? Seriously, the blends you are finding
> smelly smokey etc suggests that you get in touch with
> any of hundreds of others who can train you.
> Richard Stanley
> Monte Rico,
> Guatemala
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2013, at 18:10, Otto Formo <
> terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Josh and Jonathan (Otto),
>
>
>
> Yes, we are talking about the presscake of
> Jatropha and it was processed into pellets
> localy in Zambia, quite easily and with "simple"
> tools - (no waste of energy)
>
>
> We had the same experience as your colleagues
> using briquettes made out of ricehusks and
> sawdust.
> They even started to glow like charcoal early
> in the gasification process and produced smoky
> and smouldery combustion.
>
>
>
> Thast why we prefer to use pellets of best
> possible quality.
>
>
>
> I hope you are correct about the gasification of
> jatropha pellets will destroy the phorbol
> esters and other problematic compounds instead
> of emitting them.
> Iam a bit
> worried about the forced draft units, while
> they seems to blow some parts of the ash and
> gases into the open air or room.
>
>
>
> May be the char from Jatropha could have a
> pestecide effect as well?
>
>
>
> Otto
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:23:35 -0500
>
> From: yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com
>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
>
>
>
> Otto - FYI jatropha presscake (the mealy
> material left over once oil has been pressed
> out of the seeds) can be directly pelletized
> without further processing. It's pretty easy
> to pelletize, even with a small, cheaper (e.g.
> benchtop) pellet press. The mealy presscake
> still contains some of the oil (think coffee
> grounds) and it pelletizes well without worry
> over moisture content or having to use a
> binder.
>
>
>
> The pellets burn in a TLUD similar to
> wood or other pellets, at least by visual
> observation and temperature recording. I
> have colleagues that have tried to make
> cooking briquettes with jatropha seedcake
> and had a very smoky, smouldery combustion.
> I believe there are concerns of some
> potentially toxic emissions (phorbol esters,
> other compounds?). I have not tested the
> emissions from TLUD charring jatropha
> pellets, but there was no visible smoke and
> the gasifier seemed to operate fine as it
> does with other types of pellets. It would
> be interesting to know if firing jatropha
> pellets in a TLUD destroys the phorbol
> esters and other problematic compounds
> instead of emitting them.
>
>
>
> I first tried to char un-pelletized
> jatropha seedcake in the TLUD - because it
> is mealy like coffee grounds no draft could
> get through and it was a total fail - lots
> of smoke poured out! This brought the fire
> department to our Colorado backyard during a
> fire ban. Whoops.
>
>
>
> Also FYI char made from TLUD jatropha
> pellets performed similar for herbicide
> uptake from simulated natural water as chars
> made in the same way from pine pellets,
> bagasse pellets, and bamboo pieces.
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 19,
> 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Otto <
> ottojonathan at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Otto,
>
> Whole
> Jatropha seeds can be picked
> from hedges on-farm and used
> directly in our jiko safi
> gasification stove without any
> further effort (except maybe for
> some sun drying if
> harvested during a damp season)
> ? the most decentralized,
> efficient sustainable fuel
> system I can imagine.
>
> Sure,
> urban jiko safi users will need
> to buy their fuel seeds, so a
> commercial system for transport
> and retail sale of seed will be
> needed eventually, likely
> mimicking some aspects of the
> charcoal trade. But it?s just
> whole, unprocessed seed.
>
> Concerning
> pelletized Jatropha fuel, I
> would like to understand the
> advantages you find in going
> through the costs and effort
> (including energy losses) of
> processing seeds to expel the
> oil, then probably milling the
> press cake and shells (?) to
> uniform size/texture, then
> extruding or otherwise forming
> the mixture into pellets, and
> finally distribute the fuel,
> some of which will go back to
> the same farmers that grew the
> Jatropha seed in the first
> place?
>
> I
> know there are technical
> advantages to gasification of
> uniform-sized pellets, but it
> seems to me that round or
> ovoid shaped seeds like
> Jatropha, castor (I know, more
> poisons!), shea or croton
> megalocarpus provide this
> same advantage, without
> going through the
> pelletization process.
> What am I missing?
>
> Otto,
> the minor
>
> P.S.
> It's too late for me to retire
> 'on time'
>
>
>
> From: terra-matricula at hotmail.com
>
> To:
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
>
> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:23:37
> +0100
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha
> fruit as fuel?
>
>
>
> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> We have got some
> samples of pelletized
> jatropha shells and seeds
> from Zambia, after the oil
> has been extracted and we
> feel that is the way
> forward.
>
>
>
> We will update you on
> the progress, so you will
> be albe to retire "on
> time".................:)
>
> We are not so worried
> about PM in natural draft
> gasifiers, but thanks for
> the concern.
>
>
>
> Otto........................
>
>
>
> From:
> ottojonathan at hotmail.com
>
> To:
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013
> 09:03:35 -0500
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves]
> Jatropha fruit as fuel?
>
>
>
> Otto-
>
>
>
> You 'would guess'
> wrong.
>
>
>
> 'We should be very
> careful advising
> people' about such
> unsupported
> conclusions.
>
>
>
> The challenges of
> gasifying oils found
> in seeds, notably the
> oils of Jatropha seed,
> in a cookstove are far
> different from working
> with most pellets
> formulations.
>
>
>
> I keenly look forward
> to news of your
> all-fuel stoves that
> will handle J
> seeds, and the results
> of your tests. I
> sincerely hope
> you develop this soon,
> so I can finally
> retire in peace.
>
>
>
> Oh, and when you do
> tests, please include
> particulates in your
> emissions testing, so
> we can finally end all
> this hand wringing
> about 'these types of
> fuel'.
>
>
>
> >From the cheeky
> other Otto,
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> From:
> terra-matricula at hotmail.com
>
> To:
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jan
> 2013 23:23:48 +0100
>
> Subject: Re:
> [Stoves] Jatropha
> fruit as fuel?
>
>
>
> Dear
> stovers,
>
>
>
> I would guess
> that "any"
> gasifier will
> burn jatropha
> seeds or pellets
> cleanly and
> efficient, as
> long as the
> moisture content
> are less than
> 10%.
>
>
>
> We have in
> the pipeline to
> test a new
> design of
> natural draft
> gasifiers, using
> jatropha seeds
> and pellets, for
> emmissions and
> toxcic fumes.
>
>
>
> We should be
> very carefull
> adviceing people
> using these
> types of fuel,
> before it has
> been carefully
> tested by
> independent
> institutions.
>
>
>
> Have a nice
> weekend.
>
>
>
> Otto (not the
> famous
> one..........:)
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> crispinpigott at gmail.com
>
> To:
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> Date: Fri, 18
> Jan 2013
> 10:19:11 -0500
>
> Subject: Re:
> [Stoves]
> Jatropha fruit
> as fuel?
>
>
>
> Dear
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> I am
> interested in
> the general
> layout and
> dimensions of
> a stove that
> will burn the
> seeds well.
> Are you
> sharing at
> this time
> anything
> regarding the
> design?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Crispin
>
>
> ++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear
> Joyce and
> stovers all,
>
>
>
> My regrets for
> not responding
> to this
> request 6
> months ago.
> I admit that
> it got lost in
> my messy inbox
> which I have
> now reduced
> from 6000
> messages to a
> mere 2400, and
> in the process
> uncovered Joyce's
> email.
>
>
>
> Burning
> Jatropha seeds
> whole or in
> briquettes in
> open cooking
> arrangements
> is a bad
> idea. It
> produces a
> smoky, smelly
> fire and
> probably
> exposes cooks
> to toxic
> emissions. I
> even question
> burning
> Jatropha oil
> in lamps in
> enclosed areas
> for the same
> reason. Maybe
> others know of
> emissions
> studies.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Josh Kearns
>
> PhD Candidate, Environmental Engineering
>
> University of Colorado-Boulder
> Visiting Researcher, North Carolina
> State University
>
>
> Director of Science
> Aqueous Solutions
> www.aqsolutions.org
>
>
>
> Mobile: 720
> 989 3959
> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
> 720
> 989 3959
> end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>
> Skype: joshkearns
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fc1a9eb4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:32:57 -0500
> From: Alex English <english at kingston.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> Message-ID: <50FC7099.6090403 at kingston.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dan,
> It is being studied widely. Everything from pesticides, PCB's and
> miscelaneous hydrocarbons to specific heavy metals. Biochar gets
> compared straight up with Granular Activated Carbons, with some added
> agronomic benefits. That is where it could scale up in the near term.
> Alex
>
> On 20/01/2013 12:12 AM, Carefreeland at aol.com wrote:
> > I wonder if anyone has tried to clean up contaminated land with
> > biochar? What effect would it have on heavy metals or oil based
> > contaminants? Lots of prime real estate worthless because of trace
> > contaminants.
> > Dan Dimiduk
> > In a message dated 1/18/2013 5:34:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > rongretlarson at comcast.net writes:
> >
> > Kevin, Crispin and list:
> >
> > This is to also answer the two following messages from
> > yourselves. I did not find them helpful - as they assume the only
> > economics relate to the carbon credit. They assume nothing
> > (repeat nothing) about the value to the user in outyear ag
> > benefits. Tell me how farmers in the world will react to news
> > that (for example) land worth zero today can be brought up to a
> > productivity level the same as other existing ag land nearby (same
> > rainfall etc.) Let's say that land can, after applying biochar
> > be worth $500/ha rather than $0/ha. If those farmers have a
> > discount rate of 5% or 50% will make a big difference on how much
> > they will be willing to spend per tonne of biochar and how many
> > tonnes per ha (which could be in rows or holes - not uniformly
> > scattered). Which discount rate are you using for these out-year
> > benefit computations?
> > You can't prove biochar is worthless by talking to this list
> > only about credits of $6/tonne CO2.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/19321e30/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:38:02 -0600
> From: "B.C. Romero Orellana" <bcromero at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel? - and possible action
> Message-ID:
> <CALBRRfUw6yNx=pV5=
> Ehodsq5Pte_VT5b62e_WTizhQxD49Y4bA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear all: can be used the by product of jathropha oil production waste to
> made briquets and use a hood to remove the smoke.?
>
> It can be possible if the women do not move the stove from room to room
> every other day Is that the case in the places that you are trying to use
> it?
>
> 2013/1/20 Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm finding that Tier 3 performance is very demanding, hard to achieve.
> > The TLUD and the prepared fuel (I find that only small pellets burn
> cleanly
> > enough) have to be in harmony to meet the Tier 3 level at high and low
> > power. It's all possible but exacting.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Stovers,
> >>
> >> Excellent discussion. Jon's message below puts it into perspective. I
> >> oversimplify what Crispin has said in the past: There are no bad fuels,
> >> just bad stoves. (Exaggeration has its impact!! Basically, I agree
> with
> >> Crispin.)
> >>
> >> And Paal Wendelbo always says: Start with the fuel. And Jon points
> >> out the abundant Jatropha seeds. I add that "abundance" in nature is
> not
> >> the same as abundant in supply, meaning that it fuel needs to be
> >> collected. So we have the chicken and egg problem of which comes
> first.
> >> Leaving that aside, please note.
> >>
> >> 1. Jatropha and other oil-seeds not only yield pyrolytic gases and char
> >> and heat, they also yield great amounts of vaporized oils that are
> >> combustible. That difference is vastly important for the TLUD gasifier
> >> (all micro-gasifiers) operations. That means, MUCH MORE SECONDARY AIR
> is
> >> needed. It is not sufficient to simply turn down the primary air.
> And on
> >> this basis, I believe that ONLY gasifier stoves are viable candidates to
> >> have sufficiently clean combustion for Jatropha-seed fuel.
> >>
> >> 2. We cannot ignore the need for some chemical analysis of the
> emissions
> >> from the stoves AFTER the good combustion of the gases. Can any bad
> stuff
> >> survive the high heat of the combustion stage in a gasifier stove?
> >>
> >> 3. Two known and proven and accomplished ways of successfully using
> >> Jatropha (oil-seed) seed fuel in a TLUD stove. Natural draft
> (TLUD-ND) is
> >> accomplished by the Jiko Safi by Jet City Stoveworks. It has a central
> >> pipe for additional secondary air. More holes for secondary air to mix
> >> into (with less distance to move horiziontally) the volume of fuel rich
> >> gases. Someone suggested removing that central pipe. That does not
> >> work. That was tried before the success came with the central pipe.
> >> Step back for actual success, repeat what was not successful earlier,
> and
> >> make no progress. Anyone is welcome to try it again.
> >>
> >> 4. TLUD-FA (forced air or fan-asssisted) with Jatropha seed fuel has
> >> also been successful. It was done by Nathan Puffer and seen as
> >> Gasifier/CHAB stove camp in 2010 at NESFI in MA. Done. It can be
> >> improved. But there are no funds to undertake its refinement. And
> then
> >> it has the higher price factor that puts these stoves out of purchasing
> >> reach of those who need them. AND you have to get the fuel supply
> chain
> >> functioning. Nathan (of New Hampshire) is active for a couple of
> decades
> >> in Kenya, and his latest work is with the natural draft TChar TLUD-ND in
> >> Kenya. Financial assistance would be appreciated and appropriate. (I
> will
> >> be mentioning more about his TChar work in my presentation at ETHOS next
> >> week. I might entitle my presentation: "Unsung Heros of TLUD Stoves",
> >> but I cannot find many who have been "Sung").
> >>
> >> Jonathan concluded:
> >>
> >> The point of importuning my stove list colleagues on a fine Sunday
> >> morning is to interest other stove makers to look at Jatropha and other
> >> energy-rich seeds as a category of fuel worth consideration for new
> stove
> >> designs. We are modestly pleased with the performance of the jiko safi,
> >> but we also know that some of you with far deeper understanding of
> >> gasification and far more experience in stove design could produce a
> much
> >> better model. Anyone want to take up this challenge?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, but there needs to be some financial support. Personally, I am
> >> pressed too thinly for money and time to undertake anything without
> serious
> >> co-workers/partners/associates/backers. Solutions that are needed do
> not
> >> grow on trees (although the fuels do). So far I have not seen any GACC
> >> funding that can be directed to the R&D efforts for stoves such as
> >> Jatropha-seed TLUDs. That is NOT the mission of the GACC. Other
> sources,
> >> maybe exist. On the other hand, GACC support for an EXISTING product
> >> (the Jiko Safi) could stimulate sufficient business that the owners can
> >> also do some refinements that would soon be evident in the second wave
> of
> >> production. If we are going to get the NEEDED stoves, we must
> acknowledge
> >> that there will be improvements on the existing stoves. If that means
> R&D,
> >> then that must happen. But we just need to have it done by companies
> that
> >> are sufficiently funded to be successful enough to study, learn, and
> >> improve their stoves.
> >>
> >> Summary: This topic keeps coming up, and it is time to do something
> >> about it.
> >> 1. Support for Jiko Safi stove (Jet City Stoveworks -- the Otto
> brothers
> >> plus)(Tanzania base)
> >> 2. I will assist, and can bring Awamu Biomass Energy Ltd (Uganda) into
> >> participation
> >> 3. Nathan Puffer (focus on Kenya efforts)
> >> 4. Others (self-nominate here)
> >> 5. Some sources of funding (we do not know who you are, so please speak
> >> up)
> >> 6. Others (who will gladly join when some funding is available.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> >> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> >> Website: www.drtlud.com
> >>
> >> On 1/20/2013 8:23 AM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Richard,
> >>
> >> Not sure why you feel my briquetting education has been neglected, since
> >> that kind of fuel is not mentioned in any of my postings; but I
> certainly
> >> subscribe to Dean's comment: we all have a lot to learn about such
> >> alternative fuels. I would add: and the stoves that burn them in a truly
> >> clean way. Which brings up the question: if a briquette or pellet is
> >> burned in an open charcoal brazier, do we have a clean energy source? To
> >> put in another way, there are no 'clean' or 'dirty' fuels; it's
> combination
> >> of fuel and stove that must be evaluated together for emissions and
> other
> >> performance parameters.
> >>
> >> My densified fuels question to Otto the Senior or anyone else who can
> >> enlighten me concerning the logic of pelletizing Jatropha presscake. If
> >> farmers grow their own energy-dense, uniform-sized fuel, i.e., whole
> >> Jatropha seed, why complicate matters by processing that ready-to-use
> fuel
> >> into another fuel? No matter how efficient the pelletizing process,
> >> it must require time and energy. Why not burn these seeds directly in a
> >> micro gasifier stove, such as our jiko safi?
> >>
> >> Let me try to head off some likely comments. I know that there are
> >> companies in many African and Asian countries engaged in commercial
> >> scale production of Jatropha (and other biofuel crops) for export
> >> of biodeisel. Land grabbing and other nefarious activities of some of
> these
> >> players are obscene, as once again the global north exploits tropical
> >> countries for cheap/free land and cheap labor to meet its own needs.
> >>
> >> Yes, those Jatropha oil export ventures produce presscake as a
> by-product
> >> which they pelletize and market for fuel. And yes, some smaller
> operations
> >> in a few countries like Uganda, are trying to make a go of producing
> >> Jatropha-based biofuels for local and regional energy markets. But for
> all
> >> the publicity, most of it appropriately negative, in the 'food vs. fuel'
> >> analysis, there's a lot more to Jatropha than current attempts to put
> the
> >> oil in European cars and jet engines.
> >>
> >> Far apart from all these recent commercial Jatropha ventures, many
> >> of which are unprofitable for reasons we can discuss another time if
> >> anyone's interested, are many millions of farmers in over 110
> >> countries who use Jatropha as a living hedge and for medicianl uses.
> Seems
> >> it's grown in every frost-free area of the world. I've found it from
> >> Cuba -- it's native to the neo-tropics -- to Mali, which has thousands
> of
> >> kilometers of hedges, to Bhutan where villagers were obliged to pay a
> >> Jatropha tax to monks for lighting in floating wick lamps.
> >>
> >> My guess is that over 99% of all Jatropha seed fall to the ground and
> >> rot, unused. (One study in a district of Tanzania where Jatropha seed
> is a
> >> traded commodity found that only 6% of seed is harvested.) As we all
> >> search for renewable, sustainably harvested biomass to fuel our favorite
> >> stoves, can we afford to overlook seeds of this ubiquitous, multi-use
> >> species?
> >>
> >> The point of importuning my stove list colleagues on a fine Sunday
> >> morning is to interest other stove makers to look at Jatropha and other
> >> energy-rich seeds as a category of fuel worth consideration for new
> stove
> >> designs. We are modestly pleased with the performance of the jiko safi,
> >> but we also know that some of you with far deeper understanding of
> >> gasification and far more experience in stove design could produce a
> much
> >> better model. Anyone want to take up this challenge?
> >>
> >> Over to you,
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carolina Romero
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/e904d61b/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:53:42 -0600
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] TLUDs at ETHOS Re: Jatropha fruit as fuel? - and
> possible action
> Message-ID: <50FC7576.6030901 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Dean,
>
> I look forward to hearing your results. Let's hope that your session
> does not get scheduled for the same time as mine. But such problems
> happen.
>
> We can discuss options on having camps. Sounds interesting. Be sure
> to bring some numbers about the costs and all that stuff.
>
> Looking ahead in 2013, there will probably be another Gasifier/Biochar
> stove camp in Tennessee (dates not yet even discussed), but not at NESFI
> in MA this summer because the large North American Biochar Conference
> will be in that area in October.
>
> See you in Seattle.
>
> 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 1/20/2013 2:13 PM, Dean Still wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > You asked about my reporting on ARC experiments with TLUDs at ETHOS.
> >
> > Christa, Dale, and I are doing an "Introduction to Stove Design" class
> > Friday 4pm to 5:30pm at the hotel before the movies are shown.
> >
> > I'm also doing a "How to Make Tier 3/4 Stoves" presentation at ETHOS
> > that summarizes work we have done at Aprovecho on optimizing heat
> > transfer efficiency, Charcoal, Fan stoves, TLUDs, and improved Rockets.
> >
> > Paul, I am thinking that Aprovecho could make a week (or maybe two one
> > week sessions per year) available to the TLUD community at a low, low
> > cost to use the emission hoods in the lab and the emission set up in
> > the Test Kitchen. Do you think that there would be interest?
> >
> > Natural draft TLUDs are a great invention and if Aprovecho could help
> > all of you amazing TLUD inventors we want to do it.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:00:10 -0600
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: nathan at grotontimberworks.com, davidpotto at gmail.com, Huge
> McLaughlin <wastemin1 at verizon.net>, Bob Fairchild
> <solarbobky at yahoo.com>, Otto Formo <terra-matricula at hotmail.com>,
> dcovert at u.washington.edu
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
> Message-ID: <50FC76FA.70009 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Otto,
>
> Sounds like you have a formula for those pellets. Maybe others can
> replicate it. (I was not making pellets, I just had contact with the
> press-cake). Or is it possible to get any of those pellets?
>
> How can we proceed with this?
>
> 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 1/20/2013 3:47 PM, Otto Formo wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I dont know to much about the presscake of Jatropha from Mosambique or
> > Uganda, but the pellets we were introduced to in Zambia, does not
> > remind me about any of the discription given by Paul.
> > The pellets are dry and easy to handle and far from sticky.
> >
> > May be we have discovered the "secret" combination .................:)
> >
> > Have any of you considered to mix it with sawdust, a well known metode
> > to "control" oil spill, or any other suitable biomass?
> >
> > Otto
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:25:04 -0600
> > From: psanders at ilstu.edu
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > CC: nathan at grotontimberworks.com; davidpotto at gmail.com;
> > wastemin1 at verizon.net; solarbobky at yahoo.com; dcovert at u.washington.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel? -- and possible project
> >
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > we too have had the experience of getting smoke and incomplete
> > gasification from very dry seed that was stored too long in arid
> > conditions.
> >
> > I suspect you meant to say "incomplete combustion of the gases". I
> > suspect that your very dry fuel did get pyrolyzed all the way to
> > charcoal. (and I suspect that you are not referring to the
> > gasification of the char, which should not be allowed to occur inside
> > of TLUD stoves because the high heat of char-gasification is
> > detrimental to the metal of the stoves.).
> >
> > There seem to be enough Jatropha seeds for both pressing them for oil
> > AND for using some directly as seed-fuels. Advantages of seed fuels
> > include:
> > 1. Already packaged with a natural protective coating (seed coat, not
> > referring to the outer husk/shell)
> > a. to prevent entry of water (until conditions exist for
> > sprouting). Moisture content (MC) is reasonably consistent in intact
> > seeds if you give them a little protection from the rain.
> > b. clean to the touch when handling the fuel. They
> > scoop well, and make no dust.
> > c. giving curved sides that allow passage of the needed
> > Up-Draft primary air in TLUDs
> > d. (minor negative) prevent quick ignition, so we solve
> > that by breaking up a few seeds to be at the top for ignition. But
> > no need to crack them all.
> >
> > 2. Packed with energy in the form of carbohydrates (and other "stuff"
> > like oils that burn).
> > a. That is why we do not burn most seeds, because they
> > have value as food.
> > b. But Jatropha seeds are inedible, so we can burn them.
> > c. The oils can be vaporized by the heat, meaning the
> > pyrolysis does not occur for the oils.
> > d. Therefore, per unit of energy ultimately in the
> > combustion flame, there is LESS charcoal produced per unit of weight
> > than is the case of wood and maize cobs, etc.
> >
> > 3. And specifically Jatropha seeds are about the right size for
> > collection, storage, handling, air passage. And do not forget that
> > the outer husk/hull can also be collected and used as fuel.
> >
> > 4. About the press-cake after oil extraction. What I have seen
> > (Mozambique and Uganda) does not appeal much to me as a fuel. It
> > needs further handling, is oily, and oil that does not dry remains
> > slippery and therefore is not naturally great for making pellets or
> > briquettes stick together. IF the press cake is being produced, then
> > certainly consider using it as a fuel. But do not expect it to be
> > easy or clean or even cheap. Certainly not as inexpensive as the
> > intact seeds.
> >
> > Again, I will sing the praises of Jet City Stoveworks (Otto brothers
> > Jon and David and Prof. David Covert) and of Nathan Puffer (Vermont,
> > not NH) for their work with whole Jatropha seeds in TLUD-ND (Jiko
> > Safi) and TLUD-FA stoves, respectively. And also Hugh McLaughlin who
> > has done experimental work with oil seeds as fuels in TLUDS (used
> > sunflower seeds as a substitute).
> >
> > We hope to see the Jiko Safi at ETHOS next week. Maybe there will be
> > sufficient interest and attendance that we can build with and upon the
> > Safi work.
> >
> > Paul
> > Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> > Email:psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> Skype:
> paultlud Phone:+1-309-452-7072 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
> +1-309-452-7072 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> > Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
> > On 1/20/2013 12:16 PM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
> >
> > Alex,
> >
> > You and Ron Larson have the memory of an elephant. Yes, I did make
> > early postings to this list seeking help as we tried to develop
> > a stove to burn liquid Jatropha oil many years ago. As our German
> > colleagues at Siemens demonstrated over sevearl years of
> > interesting failures, a cheap, easy-to-maintain stove fueled
> > by plant oils is very difficult or maybe impossible. Then, for our
> > efforts in Tanzania, Paul Anderson came along, preaching the
> > gospel of TLUD, and we realized that extracting J oil as a liquid
> > fuel was both unnecessary and inappropriate, when we can gasify
> > these oils from within the seed.
> >
> > Moisture level. We've not done any systematic testing of seed
> > moisture levels, but it's rarely an issue since people only
> > harvest J seeds when they're completely dry on the vine. Some sun
> > drying helps if they get wet. Going back to a comment Dean made
> > recently about fuel being too dry to gasify well, we too have had
> > the experience of getting smoke and incomplete gasification from
> > very dry seed that was stored too long in arid conditions. We
> > need more field experience to say anything more useful about this.
> >
> > Carl Beilenberg and J oil for electrical generation. I have
> > fallen out of touch with Carl in recent years, so I don't know
> > what my fellow Vermonter is up to these days, but you can bet it's
> > highly inventive. I do know that he used to run his diesel VW on
> > J oil -- quite a trick for such a viscous fuel in our northern
> > climate. Since J seed is still not a traded commodity in most
> > places, the economics of using it as fuel -- solid or liquid --
> > can't be definitively determined, or I should say, will be highly
> > site-specific. The on-farm price range for J seed, excepting
> > ridiculous spikes that occurred during the Jatropha silly period
> > of the biofuel bubble after 2005, runs from around US$0.12 to
> > $0.25 per-kilo in my experience. Depending on efficiency of
> > extraction methods, quality of seed, etc., one can get 1 liter
> > from 3.5 kg - 5 kg of seed. Of course, feedstock is only one part
> > of the cost equation.
> >
> > Thanks for yoiur interest,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:14:42 -0500
> > From: english at kingston.net <mailto:english at kingston.net>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Hi Jonathan,
> > Its good to hear about the progress you have made. I can remember
> > your early missives to this list, was it a decade ago?
> > A few questions... about the stove;
> >
> > At what moisture level (in the whole seed) do you see a drop off
> > in emissions performance when burned in the Jiko Safi?
> > Is it easy for the users to tell when the seeds are dry enough?
> >
> > ...about biofuel;
> > Part of the idea was to provide electricity or shaft power to
> > communities or business with a Lister engine on Jatropha oil.
> > I remember visiting Carl Bielenberg's workshop where he was doing
> > the testing.
> > Any success stories there or is diesel always cheaper without a
> > carbon consideration?
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> > On 20/01/2013 9:23 AM, Jonathan Otto wrote:
> >
> > Hey Richard,
> >
> > Not sure why you feel my briquetting education has been
> > neglected, since that kind of fuel is not mentioned in any of
> > my postings; but I certainly subscribe to Dean's comment: we
> > all have a lot to learn about such alternative fuels. I would
> > add: and the stoves that burn them in a truly clean
> > way. Which brings up the question: if a briquette or
> > pellet is burned in an open charcoal brazier, do we have a
> > clean energy source? To put in another way, there are no
> > 'clean' or 'dirty' fuels; it's combination of fuel and stove
> > that must be evaluated together for emissions and other
> > performance parameters.
> >
> > My densified fuels question to Otto the Senior or anyone else
> > who can enlighten me concerning the logic of pelletizing
> > Jatropha presscake. If farmers grow their
> > own energy-dense, uniform-sized fuel, i.e., whole Jatropha
> > seed, why complicate matters by processing that ready-to-use
> > fuel into another fuel? No matter how efficient the
> > pelletizing process, it must require time and energy. Why not
> > burn these seeds directly in a micro gasifier stove, such as
> > our jiko safi?
> >
> > Let me try to head off some likely comments. I know that there
> > are companies in many African and Asian countries engaged in
> > commercial scale production of Jatropha (and other biofuel
> > crops) for export of biodeisel. Land grabbing and other
> > nefarious activities of some of these players are obscene, as
> > once again the global north exploits tropical countries for
> > cheap/free land and cheap labor to meet its own needs.
> >
> > Yes, those Jatropha oil export ventures produce presscake as a
> > by-product which they pelletize and market for fuel. And yes,
> > some smaller operations in a few countries like Uganda, are
> > trying to make a go of producing Jatropha-based biofuels for
> > local and regional energy markets. But for all the publicity,
> > most of it appropriately negative, in the 'food vs. fuel'
> > analysis, there's a lot more to Jatropha than current attempts
> > to put the oil in European cars and jet engines.
> >
> > Far apart from all these recent commercial Jatropha ventures,
> > many of which are unprofitable for reasons we can discuss
> > another time if anyone's interested, are many millions of
> > farmers in over 110 countries who use Jatropha as a living
> > hedge and for medicianl uses. Seems it's grown in every
> > frost-free area of the world. I've found it from Cuba --
> > it's native to the neo-tropics -- to Mali, which has thousands
> > of kilometers of hedges, to Bhutan where villagers were
> > obliged to pay a Jatropha tax to monks for lighting in
> > floating wick lamps.
> >
> > My guess is that over 99% of all Jatropha seed fall to the
> > ground and rot, unused. (One study in a district of Tanzania
> > where Jatropha seed is a traded commodity found that only 6%
> > of seed is harvested.) As we all search for renewable,
> > sustainably harvested biomass to fuel our favorite stoves, can
> > we afford to overlook seeds of this ubiquitous, multi-use
> > species?
> >
> > The point of importuning my stove list colleagues on a fine
> > Sunday morning is to interest other stove makers to look at
> > Jatropha and other energy-rich seeds as a category of
> > fuel worth consideration for new stove designs. We are
> > modestly pleased with the performance of the jiko safi, but we
> > also know that some of you with far deeper understanding of
> > gasification and far more experience in stove design could
> > produce a much better model. Anyone want to take up this
> > challenge?
> >
> > Over to you,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: rstanley at legacyfound.org <mailto:rstanley at legacyfound.org>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:46:53 -0600
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Dear Ottos,
> > Seems you both need training in briquettemaking . Jon you know
> > where to go in nchi yeti but Otto, where are you based?
> > Seriously, the blends you are finding smelly smokey etc
> > suggests that you get in touch with any of hundreds of others
> > who can train you.
> > Richard Stanley
> > Monte Rico,
> > Guatemala
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jan 19, 2013, at 18:10, Otto Formo
> > <terra-matricula at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:terra-matricula at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Josh and Jonathan (Otto),
> >
> > Yes, we are talking about the presscake of Jatropha and it
> > was processed into pellets localy in Zambia, quite easily
> > and with "simple" tools - (no waste of energy)
> >
> > We had the same experience as your colleagues using
> > briquettes made out of ricehusks and sawdust.
> > They even started to glow like charcoal early in the
> > gasification process and produced smoky and smouldery
> > combustion.
> >
> > Thast why we prefer to use pellets of best possible quality.
> >
> > I hope you are correct about the gasification of jatropha
> > pellets will destroy the phorbol esters and other
> > problematic compounds instead of emitting them.
> > Iam a bit worried about the forced draft units, while they
> > seems to blow some parts of the ash and gases into the
> > open air or room.
> >
> > May be the char from Jatropha could have a pestecide
> > effect as well?
> >
> > Otto
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:23:35 -0500
> > From: yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com
> > <mailto:yeah.yeah.right.on at gmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Otto - FYI jatropha presscake (the mealy material left
> > over once oil has been pressed out of the seeds) can be
> > directly pelletized without further processing. It's
> > pretty easy to pelletize, even with a small, cheaper (e.g.
> > benchtop) pellet press. The mealy presscake still contains
> > some of the oil (think coffee grounds) and it pelletizes
> > well without worry over moisture content or having to use
> > a binder.
> >
> > The pellets burn in a TLUD similar to wood or other
> > pellets, at least by visual observation and temperature
> > recording. I have colleagues that have tried to make
> > cooking briquettes with jatropha seedcake and had a very
> > smoky, smouldery combustion. I believe there are concerns
> > of some potentially toxic emissions (phorbol esters, other
> > compounds?). I have not tested the emissions from TLUD
> > charring jatropha pellets, but there was no visible smoke
> > and the gasifier seemed to operate fine as it does with
> > other types of pellets. It would be interesting to know if
> > firing jatropha pellets in a TLUD destroys the phorbol
> > esters and other problematic compounds instead of emitting
> > them.
> >
> > I first tried to char un-pelletized jatropha seedcake in
> > the TLUD - because it is mealy like coffee grounds no
> > draft could get through and it was a total fail - lots of
> > smoke poured out! This brought the fire department to our
> > Colorado backyard during a fire ban. Whoops.
> >
> > Also FYI char made from TLUD jatropha pellets performed
> > similar for herbicide uptake from simulated natural water
> > as chars made in the same way from pine pellets, bagasse
> > pellets, and bamboo pieces.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Jonathan Otto
> > <ottojonathan at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:ottojonathan at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Otto,
> >
> > Whole Jatropha seeds can be picked from hedges on-farm
> > and used directly in our jiko safi gasification stove
> > without any further effort (except maybe for some sun
> > drying if harvested during a damp season) ... the most
> > decentralized, efficient sustainable fuel system I can
> > imagine.
> >
> > Sure, urban jiko safi users will need to buy their
> > fuel seeds, so a commercial system for transport and
> > retail sale of seed will be needed eventually, likely
> > mimicking some aspects of the charcoal trade. But it's
> > just whole, unprocessed seed.
> >
> > Concerning pelletized Jatropha fuel, I would like to
> > understand the advantages you find in going through
> > the costs and effort (including energy losses) of
> > processing seeds to expel the oil, then probably
> > milling the press cake and shells (?) to uniform
> > size/texture, then extruding or otherwise forming the
> > mixture into pellets, and finally distribute the fuel,
> > some of which will go back to the same farmers that
> > grew the Jatropha seed in the first place?
> >
> > I know there are technical advantages to gasification
> > of uniform-sized pellets, but it seems to me that
> > round or ovoid shaped seeds like Jatropha, castor (I
> > know, more poisons!), shea or croton megalocarpus
> > provide this same advantage, without going through the
> > pelletization process.What am I missing?
> >
> > Otto, the minor
> >
> > P.S. It's too late for me to retire 'on time'
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: terra-matricula at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:23:37 +0100
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > We have got some samples of pelletized jatropha shells
> > and seeds from Zambia, after the oil has been
> > extracted and we feel that is the way forward.
> >
> > We will update you on the progress, so you will be
> > albe to retire "on time".................:)
> > We are not so worried about PM in natural draft
> > gasifiers, but thanks for the concern.
> >
> > Otto........................
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: ottojonathan at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:ottojonathan at hotmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:03:35 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Otto-
> >
> > You 'would guess' wrong.
> >
> > 'We should be very careful advising people' about such
> > unsupported conclusions.
> >
> > The challenges of gasifying oils found in
> > seeds, notably the oils of Jatropha seed, in a
> > cookstove are far different from working with
> > most pellets formulations.
> >
> > I keenly look forward to news of your all-fuel stoves
> > that will handle J seeds, and the results of your
> > tests. I sincerely hope you develop this soon, so I
> > can finally retire in peace.
> >
> > Oh, and when you do tests, please include particulates
> > in your emissions testing, so we can finally end all
> > this hand wringing about 'these types of fuel'.
> >
> > >From the cheeky other Otto,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: terra-matricula at hotmail.com
> > <mailto:terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:23:48 +0100
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Dear stovers,
> >
> > I would guess that "any" gasifier will burn jatropha
> > seeds or pellets cleanly and efficient, as long as the
> > moisture content are less than 10%.
> >
> > We have in the pipeline to test a new design of
> > natural draft gasifiers, using jatropha seeds and
> > pellets, for emmissions and toxcic fumes.
> >
> > We should be very carefull adviceing people using
> > these types of fuel, before it has been carefully
> > tested by independent institutions.
> >
> > Have a nice weekend.
> >
> > Otto (not the famous one..........:)
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: crispinpigott at gmail.com
> > <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:19:11 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [Stoves] Jatropha fruit as fuel?
> >
> > Dear Jonathan
> >
> > I am interested in the general layout and dimensions
> > of a stove that will burn the seeds well. Are you
> > sharing at this time anything regarding the design?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Crispin
> > ++++++++
> >
> > Dear Joyce and stovers all,
> >
> > My regrets for not responding to this request 6 months
> > ago. I admit that it got lost in my messy inbox
> > which I have now reduced from 6000 messages to a mere
> > 2400, and in the process uncovered Joyce's email.
> >
> > Burning Jatropha seeds whole or in briquettes in open
> > cooking arrangements is a bad idea. It produces a
> > smoky, smelly fire and probably exposes cooks to toxic
> > emissions. I even question burning Jatropha oil in
> > lamps in enclosed areas for the same reason. Maybe
> > others know of emissions studies.
> > [snip]
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the
> > email address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the
> > email address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the
> > email address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the
> > email address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Josh Kearns
> > PhD Candidate, Environmental Engineering
> > University of Colorado-Boulder
> > Visiting Researcher, North Carolina State University
> >
> > Director of Science
> > Aqueous Solutions
> > www.aqsolutions.org <http://www.aqsolutions.org/>
> >
> > Mobile: 720 989 3959begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 720
> > 989 3959end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> > Skype: joshkearns
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves
> > mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email
> > address stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing
> > list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing
> > list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> > <mailto: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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ 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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/2780ee00/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:19:29 -0600
> From: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Need help in designing a small refrigerator for
> rural huts.
> Message-ID: <50FC7B81.3010106 at ilstu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Anil,
>
> On 1/17/2013 10:19 PM, nari phaltan wrote:
> >
> > We would like to explore the possibility of using the heat of lanstove
> > (1500 W, flue gas temperature ~ 350degrees Celsius) to also run a
> > batchwise absorption refrigerator unit which can cool a box of 1.5' X
> > 1.5' X 1.5' to about 10^0 C for 10-15 hours. In the old times there
> > were Icyballs but they used Ammonia/water mixture which is hazardous.
> > I believe many new mixtures may have come now.
> >
> The issue is the cooling unit. There are a variety of ways to provide
> the heat.
>
> Will you proceed with this refrigeration R&D? I am interested also.
> And want a unit that can cool the milk from the evening milking of
> cows. That milk is often not suitable for pick-up (spoils) the next
> morning along with the milk from the morning milking of cows.
>
> But what we need is refrigeration assistance, not heat assistance.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website: www.drtlud.com
>
>
> > We would like to explore the possibility of using the heat of lanstove
> > (1500 W, flue gas temperature ~ 350degrees Celsius) to also run a
> > batchwise absorption refrigerator unit which can cool a box of 1.5' X
> > 1.5' X 1.5' to about 10^0 C for 10-15 hours. In the old times there
> > were Icyballs but they used Ammonia/water mixture which is hazardous.
> > I believe many new mixtures may have come now.
> >
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/428f3fd8/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:35:31 -0400
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Ron Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> Cc: biochar-production at yahoogroups.com,
> biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com, stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> Message-ID: <1FB4ED3D06844CC28B858A5302DEB6D1 at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Kevin
> Cc: biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org ;
> biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; Kevin Chisholm ; Crispin
> Pemberton-Pigott
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Kevin, Crispin and list:
>
> This is to also answer the two following messages from yourselves. I
> did not find them helpful - as they assume the only economics relate to the
> carbon credit.
>
> # Exactly!! The question was about the cost of carbon credits. That was
> the purpose of the question... to get some insight into the cost of Carbon
> Credits. It was you, in your 16 Jan posting, who introduced the Carbon
> Credit sub-thread.
>
> They assume nothing (repeat nothing) about the value to the user in
> outyear ag benefits.
>
> # EXACTLY!! They assume nothing beyond the question. However, it is an
> attempt to start somewhere and determine if there is any chance that Carbon
> Credits will be helpful in encouraging the use of TLUD or other char making
> stoves, and if the carbon credits will influence people to use biochar. As
> I see it now, the value of carbon credits, at the very best is trivial, but
> in reality, is insignificant. The Carbon Credits seem to sell for about $6
> per tonne CO2 equivalent (trivial) but after the middlemen, brokers and
> field inspectors and speculators make their money, there would be an
> insignificant payment per tonne CO2 equivalent actually reaching the Farmer
> (ie, the Golden Goose who is supposed to lay the eggs that hatch into
> carbon credits :-)
>
> Tell me how farmers in the world will react to news that (for example)
> land worth zero today can be brought up to a productivity level the same as
> other existing ag land nearby (same rainfall etc.) Let's say that land
> can, after applying biochar be worth $500/ha rather than $0/ha. If those
> farmers have a discount rate of 5% or 50% will make a big difference on how
> much they will be willing to spend per tonne of biochar and how many tonnes
> per ha (which could be in rows or holes - not uniformly scattered).
> Which discount rate are you using for these out-year benefit computations?
> You can't prove biochar is worthless by talking to this list only
> about credits of $6/tonne CO2.
>
> # I am not trying to prove that biochar is worthless. I was simply
> trying to find out what Carbon Credits were worth. Thanks to Crispin, I
> found out. Those interested in determining the worth of biochar can apply
> whatever evaluation concepts are important to them. Large multinational
> agribusiness corporations with Accountants and MBA on their Staff will look
> at discount rates and IRR's, while the small Farmer will probably say "If I
> spend $100 on biochar, how long before I will get my money back?"
>
> More below.
> # Yes, indeed!! :-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: rongretlarson at comcast.net, biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com,
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org, biochar-production at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:29:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
> ?
> Dear Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Cc: Kevin Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Kevin and list: See below
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:34:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
> ?
> Dear Ron
>
> You mention $16 and $27 per tonne CO2 equivalent. I presume you are
> referring to a payment that one would receive when showing that one has
> earned a tonne of CO2 equivalent.
> [RWL: Yup - examples only - hopefully larger.]
> # Prices seem to vary all over the place to purchase carbon credits.
> What is the present price that a biochar producer could expect to receive
> as a carbon Credit for the biochar he produced? It is one thing to hope for
> future price increases for Carbon Credits, but is that realistic? Would you
> perhaps have a graph that shows the price trend for CarbonCrdits that you
> could share with the Lists?
>
> [RWL2a: See my opening remarks. The price trend for credits
> has nothing to do with anything under discussion - especially about black
> carbon.]
> # KC2a: I am not talking about Black Carbon. I am simply talking about
> the value to the Farmer of carbon Credits. You feel that CC prices will
> increase... I was trying to see if you had any rational basis for stating
> that you hope the price of CC's will increase. A graph showing an "uptrend"
> from a low price would suggest further CC increases, and would certainly
> suggest that your hope had a rational basis.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1: Where would one apply to get such payments? [RWL: Anywhere one
> can. Numerous stove promoters on this list already getting some.]
>
> # OK!! Can you tell the Stoves and Biochar Lists where they could
> apply to get Carbon Credit payments for the biochar they produce?
> [RWL2b: I am not in that business. If I were them I probably
> would keep that answer to myself - but feel free to ask stove sellers
> (which are maybe only for displaced CO2 - not char.]
> # KC2b: You quoted prices, and "hoped for prices" for CC's. I know you
> are not in that business. However, you make frequent reference and allusion
> to the potential for CC's to support the use of biochar. You should not
> offer such encouragement unless you are able to point to sources where
> biochar users can actually apply for such credits. As a strong promoter of
> CC's as being a support to the widespread introduction of biochar, you
> should be telling the List where they can go to get CC support for their
> proposed biochar projects, rather than keeping such information secret. Now
> you introduce the bombshell that maybe CC's will not be available to char!!
>
>
>
>
> 2: Who would be eligible to receive such payments? [RWL: Anyone
> who can prove they deserve them.]
> # That makes sense.
>
>
> 3: What conditions must be met, before the payments would actually be
> made? [RWL: Whatever is acceptable to the presumably willing buyer of
> the credits.]
> # That does not make sense at all! Surely there must be some rules or
> standards that must be met to ensure that the Carbon Credits are real. If
> not, then the entire system is open to fraud.
> [RWL2c: I have made no comments about an open market - and
> those don't yet exist. Of course, when we have organized markets accepting
> char as a vehicle, there will then be stringent rules. IBI and others are
> developing them now. The point in this dialog (referring back to $16 and
> $11) is that biochar from stoves can have a higher value (because of black
> carbon improvements) than biochar from some other sources.]
>
> # KC2c1: If there is no open market for Carbon Credits now, then the
> only "sure thing" for stove and biochar interests to focus on is making
> better stoves that rise on their own merits, and to show Farmers how they
> can make more money with biochar, rather than counting on something that
> may, or may not, be real in the future (CC's) to make stoves and biochar
> economic.
>
> # KC2c2 Note that it is not the biochar from stoves that yields black
> carbon improvements, but stove design and operation. Crispin has designed
> and developed stoves with excellent combustion characteristics that have
> remarkably low BC emissions, and they do not produce biochar. Black Carbon
> is controlled by good combustion, not by the production of biochar. Black
> Carbon, biochar production and Carbon Credits are three very different and
> separate and distinct issues.
>
>
>
> I am concerned that with the state of the World Economy, Governments
> will lose their interest in longer term Climate Change Concerns, and would
> put their priorities on addressing short term and more immediate concerns.
> [RWL: We disagree.]
> # What is your basis for disagreement? Kyoto seems to be dead in the
> water. At the last meeting, I believe that most Governments said "We will
> do something about controlling CO2 emissions sometime after 2020, but we
> will not say what we will do, and when we will do it." Is this a reasonable
> summation? If you feel not, what would you feel is?
> [RWL2d: I am more of an optimist than you. Arctic ice
> totally disappearing in a year or two could be the wake-up call.
> No yours is not a reasonable summation from my perspective. A lot of
> people are working to promote a meaningful price, And we don't need all
> governments to agree; I have hopes for a number of EU countries. And you
> didn't do more than repeat an opinion- which happens to differ from mine.
> Obviously I can't give proof of anything happening in the next few years -
> and that is why we should agree to disagree.]
>
> # KC2d: I am not looking for either optimism or pessimism, but rather,
> the simple reality of the matter. Total disappearance of Arctic Ice in a
> year or two is a gross exaggeration. Do you know how cold it gets up there
> over teh winter? :-) The Governments of the world have already had their
> wake-up call with respect to increased open water in the Arctic Summer, and
> they appear to have decided to do little or nothing about it until sometime
> after 2020. You flatly state that my summation is not reasonable, but you
> refuse to be helpful by providing a summation which you feel is reasonable.
> Of course, we do not need all Governments to agree to support Kyoto... just
> enough to make a difference. Without the US, Canada and China, it is hard
> for the others to make a significant difference. My summation of Kyoto is
> not an "opinion"... it is a statement of observed facts. I strongly
> disagree with your proposal that "... we should agree to disagree..." I
> would propose that we seek to determin
> e the reality of the situation.
>
>
> What are your views on the future of Carbon Credit payments? [RWL:
> They will slowly creep up in price (maybe in time to do some good).
> Biochar credits from char-making stoves look like the easiest to sell of
> any.
> # The recent report on the important impact of Black Carbon on climate
> change would seem to reduce the relative importance of the CO2 parameter.
> As I understand it, most "generally accepted Climate Change Models" were
> calibrated under the assumption that BC was a minor or insignificant
> factor, and the model factors were adjusted to relate observed temperature
> rise to anthropogenic CO2. Now that BC could have a "forcing effect"
> perhaps 2/3 as great as the present forcing effect attributed to CO2,
> recalibrating the models to reflect the increased importance of BC will
> inherently diminish the importance of CO2 as a factor in CAGW (Catastrophic
> Anthropogenic Global Warming). Accordingly, it would seem reasonable to
> project a significant decline in "Carbon Credit Revenue" to biochar
> producers. Does this seem reasonable? If not, why not?
> [RWL2e: Re sentence #1: Tami Bond, in the quoted article
> (which this started out to be about) put major emphasis on CO2.
>
> #KC2e1: And well she might! The fundamental thrust of the Report was to
> show that BC was a significant factor in GW or Climate Change. She (and her
> co-Authors) certainly do this. They were not investing the importance of
> CO2... they were investigating the importance of BC, and they simply acced
> what the IPCC said about CO2 importance.
>
> Re your second sentence, all the models lump effects together under
> CO2e, not simply CO2.
>
> #KC2e2: This is where Tami's work can have a very disturbing effect on
> Climate Change Modeling. Very disturbing. It throws a huge monkey wrench
> into the works. More specifically, since the effects that were all lumped
> together as CO2e (ie, CO2 equivalent), without giving proper weight to the
> importance of BC, then all such modelling will have to be "re-visited", to
> include the effects of BC. More specifically still, all such models were
> "trained" without significant recognition of the importance of BC, and
> various factors were developed to make the models fit the observations. BC,
> as "the new kid on the Climate Change Modeling BBlock", is a real "game
> changer." The BC data presently has a large degree of uncertainty... when
> further research reduces present uncertainty, instead of being merely "the
> New Kid on the Block", BC might actually be "The Elephant in the Room."
> Also of possibly great significance is the potential that this BC work may
> lend significant support to the Svendmar
> k Hypothesis. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Svensmark_hypothesis
> and
> http://drtimball.com/2011/svensmark%E2%80%99s-cosmic-theory-confirmed-explains-more-than-solar-role-in-climate-change/for further elaboration.
>
> Re the last "reasonable" - You have it all wrong. I presume because you
> are still a climate denier and are looking for every way possible to make
> your denier view seem more reasonable.
> # KC2e3: Rather than playing "The Denier card", I would suggest that you
> could advance your position more if you provided palpable fact that showed
> where my views are wrong.
>
>
>
> # Concerning carbon credits for biochar from char-making stoves, would
> you have an approximate idea of the value of the carbon credits per tonne
> for such biochar? Would you have an approximate idea of the annual tonnage
> of biochar that is sold in connection with a carbon credit payment.
> [RWL2f: Re #1, See my opening remarks. To repeat - there is
> no single value appropriate to all buyers and sellers of credits.
>
> # KC2f1: Of course not!!
> 1: There is the price that the "End User" pays "The Retailer" for Carbon
> Credits
> 2: There is the price that "The Retailer" buys the CC's from the
> "manufacturer or generator or producer of CC's"
> 3: There is the "net price" that the producer of CC's receives, after
> deduction of required inspection, testing, and approval costs.
> In addition, there are are probably "volume discounts" the reflect the
> cost of conducting the transaction. Clearly, the unit cost of carbon
> credits to offset a single trip in an airplane will be greater than the
> unit cost of a large CC purchase by a coal fired power plant.
>
> This is a voluntary market - not a tax. If we were talking a subsidy,
> I think $100/tonne char ($35/tonne CO2) would make a huge difference -
> and is totally justified on strictly moral/ethical grounds (thinking of
> all our obligations to our children and grand-children and to developing
> countries. The US will benefit a lot more from paying such a subsidy
>
> # KC2f2: Given the state of the US Economy, such a subsidy is very
> unlikely. The US is already more than $44 billion over its permissable debt
> ceiling. See: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
>
> - as the economy will suffer much worse from ocean rise, varied
> rainfall, size of storms, etc.
>
> # KC2f3: The US Agricultural Economy suffered seriously from drought
> last year, and is likely to suffer greatly during this coming crop year.
> See:
> http://nidis1.ncdc.noaa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought_gov/202
> Are you saying that CarbonCredits, (and greatly increased use of
> biochar) could reverse this drought situation and bring things back to
> "normal"? If the US had been using biochar in the 1920's, could this have
> prevented the "Dust Bowl of the 1930's"?
>
> Re #2 sentence - I have no idea and doubt anyone does. I do hear
> people saying that char is in short supply. Such data will be partly
> available with an open market.
>
> # KC2f4: Is it possible that char is in short supply simply because
> there is insufficient information to justify its widespread use, and
> potential producers are (sensibly) cautious about getting into production
> because of lack of evidence of an adequate market? Or, perhaps the biochar
> producers are selling most oftheir biochar into "niche markets", where they
> can get more for it, than the "Farm level" potential Customer can afford to
> pay?
>
> Your whole line of questioning has nothing to do with BC from stoves
> and whether BC should be an important reason for near term action to
> promote cleaner char-making stoves.]
>
> # KC2f5: No. My entire line of questioning was around the cost of carbon
> credits. Remember, of course, that it was you who introduced Carbon Credits
> into this thread.
>
>
> # As we all know, "adequate carbon credit payments" could lead to a
> huge increase in biochar production and use. However, if it is unreasonable
> to believe that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon,
> then stoves and biochar must rise on their own inherent merits, without
> such support. Holding onto a false hope can only result in disappointment.
> [RWL2g: Re #1 - We agree. The reason that this is not
> happening is that too many do not see the ethics and morality of moving
> faster (on this I presume we disagree)
>
> # KC2g1: Another, more likely, explanation is that the direct economics
> of biochar are not apparent to the Farmer.
> Re#2 - Agree with last part of sentence - and not with the
> first on timing.
>
> # KC2g2: Perhaps you are right. If you have a rational basis for your
> belief that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon,
> please share with the List. That "good news" could very well precipitate a
> rush into biochar.
>
> Re #3 - Disagree. Assuming failure, as you seem to be
> doing, is a self-fulfilling prophecy - to stop all progress and accept
> ocean rise, etc with costs much greater than the costs of credits.
> Ron]
>
> # KC2g3: I do not assume failure... all I warn of is that if "adequate
> CC payments will not be available, then biochar, and stove systems that
> depended on them for their financial success, will have to find another
> justification to assure viability. "
>
> # KC2g4: I remind you that it is totally impossible for CC's to prevent
> ocean rise. Totally, absolutely, and utterly impossible.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Ron]
>
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Dean and list:
>
> Tami's is one huge report (232 pages in a major journal sounds
> like a world record). I spent quite a few hours today trying to grasp the
> topic - and know now I had better give up. The Black Carbon problem is
> going to take experts like Tami to bring its importance into the world of
> stoves. There may be an argument that if a stove can prove $16/.tonne CO2,
> you might have a chance at proving up to (or even more than?) $27/tonne
> CO2e, if you are in the right place on the globe. (These numbers based on
> numbers given in terms of W/sqm.) I recommend casual readers getting
> quickly to the figures at the extreme end of the report/paper. There is a
> lot of useful numercal geographic and sources comparisons there.
>
> As Crispin has indicated the intentional large scale annual
> burning of large parts of Africa look like a good place to instead harvest
> and get useful energy and biiochar instead (through stoves and more).
>
> Congratulations on arranging to have Tami be the ETHOS
> key-noter. I think she may have been at the first!
>
> Ron
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dean Still" <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
> Tami is the keynote speaker at ETHOS this year and it will be
> interesting to hear what she's been learning!
>
>
> All Best,
>
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends
>
>
>
> A new and I would say major major paper on the atmospheric impact
> of black carbon particles is available for download. We know at least two
> of the authors here on ?Stoves?. Profs Tami Bond and Philip Hopke (the
> aethalometer builder who said he was a minor contributor) are frequent
> contributors on the subject of emissions testing.
>
>
>
> The paper is important because it is the first really detailed
> examination of the effects of atmospheric heating by Black Carbon (BC).
>
>
>
> The abstract is at
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract and the
> paper is at
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf
>
>
>
> It is not behind a paywall but it is large (40 MB). Times to get
> your hands dirty with BC!
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
> site:
> http://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/afcddaa5/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:18:25 -0500
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: [Stoves] Handy boiling point calculator
> Message-ID: <035e01cdf77d$9a9a5270$cfcef750$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Friends
>
>
>
> This is very useful.
>
>
>
> Save it!
>
>
>
> y = 4-08x2 - 0.0036x + 99.996
>
>
>
> X = your altitude in meters.
>
> Y = the local boiling point (at standard air pressure)
>
>
>
> If you know your altitude, it will give you the 'standard' boiling
> temperature.
>
> If you know the local boiling point, you can work backwards to get the
> altitude where you are standing.
>
>
>
> Excel cell contents:
>
>
>
> =99.996-0.0036*Altitude+4*10^-8*Altitude
>
>
>
> where 'Altitude' is the cell in which the altitude is located.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/4becfd84/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:24:26 -0500
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "Stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> Message-ID: <03a001cdf77e$70175650$504602f0$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Kevin?n?All
>
>
>
> A short message from Cecil about the price of charcoal in Indonesia and
> Cambodia (very low income countries).
>
>
>
> This does not help tilt the equation towards doings something other than
> selling it as fuel (if it will burn).
>
>
>
> I hold out hope however that water purification with small amounts of char
> from stoves will produce a health benefit that is appreciated by rural and
> urban families alike. Not much is needed and filtering is cheaper than
> boiling (if it can be shown to work just as well).
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> Firewood sells in the villages of Yagyakarta Province for 400 R per kg.
> In town it sells for about 1000 per kg. Charcoal sells for about 2,500 R
> per kg or +/- 25 cents up to 2,500,000 R/ 10 000 R per $ = $250 per ton
>
> In Battambang [Cambodia] charcoal sells for 800 to 1200 Riels per kg -
> say 1000 Riels which comes to +/- 25 cents per kg or $250 per ton. In
> Phnom Penh charcoal sells for up to 1,400 Riels per kg in 1 kg bags or
> 1,400,000 Reils per ton / 4,000 Reils per $ = $350.
>
> [Cecil]
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/26c70b48/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:26:00 -0800
> From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Cc: biochar-production at yahoogroups.com, biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> Message-ID:
> <CA+tShZsUu5qxd7UuOJY+EsPE334Bkrv2ZuUi5TdrJ1Ls=a==
> dw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Hi All,
>
> The involuntary market can pay higher amounts per ton of avoided carbon. A
> stove project I admire in Central America just sold credits at around $15
> per ton. When saving tons per year the earnings are meaningful and provide
> a support for the endeavor.
>
> Dean
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> > **
> > Dear Ron
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net
> > *To:* Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> > *Cc:* biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org ;
> > biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; Kevin Chisholm<
> kchisholm at ca.inter.net>; Crispin
> > Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Friday, January 18, 2013 6:34 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> >
> > Kevin, Crispin and list:
> >
> > This is to also answer the two following messages from yourselves. I
> > did not find them helpful - as they assume the only economics relate to
> the
> > carbon credit.
> >
> > # Exactly!! The question was about the cost of carbon credits. That was
> > the purpose of the question... to get some insight into the cost of
> Carbon
> > Credits. It was you, in your 16 Jan posting, who introduced the Carbon
> > Credit sub-thread.
> >
> > They assume nothing (repeat nothing) about the value to the user in
> > outyear ag benefits.
> >
> > # EXACTLY!! They assume nothing beyond the question. However, it is an
> > attempt to start somewhere and determine if there is any chance that
> Carbon
> > Credits will be helpful in encouraging the use of TLUD or other char
> making
> > stoves, and if the carbon credits will influence people to use biochar.
> As
> > I see it now, the value of carbon credits, at the very best is trivial,
> but
> > in reality, is insignificant. The Carbon Credits seem to sell for about
> $6
> > per tonne CO2 equivalent (trivial) but after the middlemen, brokers and
> > field inspectors and speculators make their money, there would be an
> > insignificant payment per tonne CO2 equivalent actually reaching the
> Farmer
> > (ie, the Golden Goose who is supposed to lay the eggs that
> > hatch into carbon credits :-)
> >
> > Tell me how farmers in the world will react to news that (for example)
> > land worth zero today can be brought up to a productivity level the same
> as
> > other existing ag land nearby (same rainfall etc.) Let's say that land
> > can, after applying biochar be worth $500/ha rather than $0/ha. If
> those
> > farmers have a discount rate of 5% or 50% will make a big difference on
> how
> > much they will be willing to spend per tonne of biochar and how many
> tonnes
> > per ha (which could be in rows or holes - not uniformly scattered).
> > Which discount rate are you using for these out-year benefit
> computations?
> > You can't prove biochar is worthless by talking to this list only
> > about credits of $6/tonne CO2.
> >
> > # I am not trying to prove that biochar is worthless. I was simply trying
> > to find out what Carbon Credits were worth. Thanks to Crispin, I found
> out.
> > Those interested in determining the worth of biochar can apply whatever
> > evaluation concepts are important to them. Large multinational
> agribusiness
> > corporations with Accountants and MBA on their Staff will look at
> discount
> > rates and IRR's, while the small Farmer will probably say "If I spend
> $100
> > on biochar, how long before I will get my money back?"
> >
> > More below.
> > # Yes, indeed!! :-)
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From: *"Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> > *To: *rongretlarson at comcast.net, biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com,
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org, biochar-production at yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent: *Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:29:17 PM
> > *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> >
> >
> > Dear Ron
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > *Cc:* Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:16 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> >
> > Kevin and list: See below
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From: *"Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> > *To: *"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > *Sent: *Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:34:01 PM
> > *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> >
> >
> > Dear Ron
> >
> > You mention $16 and $27 per tonne CO2 equivalent. I presume you are
> > referring to a payment that one would receive when showing that one has
> > earned a tonne of CO2 equivalent.
> > *[RWL: Yup - examples only - hopefully larger.]*
> > **
> >
> > *# Prices seem to vary all over the place to purchase carbon credits.
> > What is the present price that a biochar producer could expect to receive
> > as a carbon Credit for the biochar he produced? It is one thing to hope
> for
> > future price increases for Carbon Credits, but is that realistic? Would
> you
> > perhaps have a graph that shows the price trend for CarbonCrdits that you
> > could share with the Lists?*
> >
> >
> > * [RWL2a: See my opening remarks. The price trend for credits
> > has nothing to do with anything under discussion - especially about
> black
> > carbon.]*
> > **
> >
> > *# KC2a: I am not talking about Black Carbon. I am simply talking about
> > the value to the Farmer of carbon Credits. You feel that CC prices will
> > increase... I was trying to see if you had any rational basis for stating
> > that you hope the price of CC's will increase. A graph showing an
> "uptrend"
> > from a low price would suggest further CC increases, and would certainly
> > suggest that your hope had a rational basis.*
> >
> >
> >
> > 1: Where would one apply to get such payments? *[RWL: Anywhere one
> > can. Numerous stove promoters on this list already getting some.]*
> > **
> > *# OK!! Can you tell the Stoves and Biochar Lists where they could apply
> > to get Carbon Credit payments for the biochar they produce?*
> >
> > *[RWL2b: I am not in that business. If I were them I probably
> > would keep that answer to myself - but feel free to ask stove sellers
> > (which are maybe only for displaced CO2 - not char.]*
> > **
> >
> > *# KC2b: You quoted prices, and "hoped for prices" for CC's. I know you
> > are not in that business. However, you make frequent reference and
> allusion
> > to the potential for CC's to support the use of biochar. You should not
> > offer such encouragement unless you are able to point to sources where
> > biochar users can actually apply for such credits. As a strong promoter
> of
> > CC's as being a support to the widespread introduction of biochar, you
> > should be telling the List where they can go to get CC support for their
> > proposed biochar projects, rather than keeping such information secret.
> Now
> > you introduce the bombshell that maybe CC's will not be available to
> char!!
> > *
> >
> > **
> > **
> >
> >
> > 2: Who would be eligible to receive such payments? *[RWL: Anyone who
> > can prove they deserve them.]*
> > **
> >
> > *# That makes sense. *
> >
> > 3: What conditions must be met, before the payments would actually be
> > made? *[RWL: Whatever is acceptable to the presumably willing buyer of
> > the credits.]*
> > **
> >
> > *# That does not make sense at all! Surely there must be some rules or
> > standards that must be met to ensure that the Carbon Credits are real. If
> > not, then the entire system is open to fraud.*
> >
> > *[RWL2c: I have made no comments about an open market - and
> > those don't yet exist. Of course, when we have organized markets
> accepting
> > char as a vehicle, there will then be stringent rules. IBI and others
> are
> > developing them now. The point in this dialog (referring back to $16
> and
> > $11) is that biochar from stoves can have a higher value (because of
> black
> > carbon improvements) than biochar from some other sources.]*
> > **
> > *# KC2c1: If there is no open market for Carbon Credits now, then the
> > only "sure thing" for stove and biochar interests to focus on is making
> > better stoves that rise on their own merits, and to show Farmers how they
> > can make more money with biochar, rather than counting on something that
> > may, or may not, be real in the future (CC's) to make stoves and biochar
> > economic. *
> > **
> > *# KC2c2 Note that it is not the biochar from stoves that yields black
> > carbon improvements, but stove design and operation. Crispin has
> designed
> > and developed stoves with excellent combustion characteristics that have
> > remarkably low BC emissions, and they do not produce biochar. Black
> Carbon
> > is controlled by good combustion, not by the production of biochar. Black
> > Carbon, biochar production and Carbon Credits are three very different
> and
> > separate and distinct issues.*
> >
> >
> >
> > I am concerned that with the state of the World Economy, Governments will
> > lose their interest in longer term Climate Change Concerns, and would put
> > their priorities on addressing short term and more immediate concerns.
> *[RWL:
> > We disagree.]*
> > **
> >
> > *# What is your basis for disagreement? Kyoto seems to be dead in the
> > water. At the last meeting, I believe that most Governments said "We will
> > do something about controlling CO2 emissions sometime after 2020, but we
> > will not say what we will do, and when we will do it." Is this a
> reasonable
> > summation? If you feel not, what would you feel is?*
> >
> > *[RWL2d: I am more of an optimist than you. Arctic ice
> > totally disappearing in a year or two could be the wake-up call.
> > No yours is not a reasonable summation from my perspective. A lot of
> > people are working to promote a meaningful price, And we don't need all
> > governments to agree; I have hopes for a number of EU countries. And
> you
> > didn't do more than repeat an opinion- which happens to differ from mine.
> > Obviously I can't give proof of anything happening in the next few years
> -
> > and that is why we should agree to disagree.*]
> >
> > *# KC2d*:* I am not looking for either optimism or pessimism, but rather,
> > the simple reality of the matter. Total disappearance of Arctic Ice in a
> > year or two is a gross exaggeration. Do you know how cold it gets up
> there
> > over teh winter? :-) The Governments of the world have already had their
> > wake-up call with respect to increased open water in the Arctic Summer,
> and
> > they appear to have decided to do little or nothing about it until
> sometime
> > after 2020. You flatly state that my summation is not reasonable, but you
> > refuse to be helpful by providing a summation which you feel is
> reasonable.
> > Of course, we do not need all Governments to agree to support Kyoto...
> just
> > enough to make a difference. Without the US, Canada and China, it is hard
> > for the others to make a significant difference. My summation of Kyoto is
> > not an "opinion"... it is a statement of observed facts.** I strongly
> > disagree with your proposal that "... we should agree to disagree..." I
> > would propose that we seek to determine the reality of the situation.
> > *
> >
> > **
> >
> > What are your views on the future of Carbon Credit payments? *[RWL:
> > They will slowly creep up in price (maybe in time to do some good).
> > Biochar credits from char-making stoves look like the easiest to sell of
> > any.*
> > **
> >
> > *# The recent report on the important impact of Black Carbon on climate
> > change would seem to reduce the relative importance of the CO2 parameter.
> > As I understand it, most "generally accepted Climate Change Models" were
> > calibrated under the assumption that BC was a minor or insignificant
> > factor, and the model factors were adjusted to relate observed
> temperature
> > rise to anthropogenic CO2. Now that BC could have a "forcing effect"
> > perhaps 2/3 as great as the present forcing effect attributed to CO2,
> > recalibrating the models to reflect the increased importance of BC will
> > inherently diminish the importance of CO2 as a factor in CAGW
> (Catastrophic
> > Anthropogenic Global Warming). Accordingly, it would seem reasonable to
> > project a significant decline in "Carbon Credit Revenue" to biochar
> > producers. Does this seem reasonable? If not, why not?*
> >
> > *[RWL2e: Re sentence #1: Tami Bond, in the quoted article
> > (which this started out to be about) put major emphasis on CO2.*
> > **
> > *#KC2e1: And well she might! The fundamental thrust of the Report was to
> > show that BC was a significant factor in GW or Climate Change. She (and
> her
> > co-Authors) certainly do this. They were not investing the importance of
> > CO2... they were investigating the importance of BC, and they simply
> acced
> > what the IPCC said about CO2 importance.*
> > **
> > * Re your second sentence, all the models lump effects together under
> > CO2e, not simply CO2. *
> > **
> > *#KC2e2: This is where Tami's work can have a very disturbing effect on
> > Climate Change Modeling. Very disturbing. It throws a huge monkey wrench
> > into the works. More specifically, since the effects that were all lumped
> > together as CO2e (ie, CO2 equivalent), without giving proper weight to
> the
> > importance of BC, then all such modelling will have to be "re-visited",
> to
> > include the effects of BC. More specifically still, all such models were
> > "trained" without significant recognition of the importance of BC, and
> > various factors were developed to make the models fit the observations.
> BC,
> > as "the new kid on the Climate Change Modeling BBlock", is a real "game
> > changer." The BC data presently has a large degree of uncertainty... when
> > further research reduces present uncertainty, instead of being merely
> "the
> > New Kid on the Block", BC might actually be "The Elephant in the Room."
> > Also of possibly great significance is the potential that this BC work
> may
> > lend significant support to the Svendmark Hypothesis. See:
> > http://www.conservapedia.com/Svensmark_hypothesis *
> > *and
> >
> http://drtimball.com/2011/svensmark%E2%80%99s-cosmic-theory-confirmed-explains-more-than-solar-role-in-climate-change/for
> > further elaboration.*
> > **
> > *Re the last "reasonable" - You have it all wrong. I presume because you
> > are still a climate denier and are looking for every way possible to make
> > your denier view seem more reasonable.*
> > **
> >
> > *# KC2e3: Rather than playing "The Denier card", I would suggest that you
> > could advance your position more if you provided palpable fact that
> showed
> > where my views are wrong.*
> >
> > **
> > **
> > *# Concerning carbon credits for biochar from char-making stoves, would
> > you have an approximate idea of the value of the carbon credits per tonne
> > for such biochar? Would you have an approximate idea of the annual
> tonnage
> > of biochar that is sold in connection with a carbon credit payment.*
> >
> > * [RWL2f: Re #1, See my opening remarks. To repeat - there is
> > no single value appropriate to all buyers and sellers of credits. *
> > **
> > *# KC2f1: Of course not!! *
> > *1: There is the price that the "End User"* *pays "The Retailer" for
> > Carbon Credits*
> > *2: There is the price that "The Retailer" buys the CC's from the
> > "manufacturer or generator or producer of CC's"*
> > *3: There is the "net price" that the producer of CC's receives, after
> > deduction of required inspection, testing, and approval costs.*
> > *In addition, there are are probably "volume discounts" the reflect the
> > cost of conducting the transaction. Clearly, the unit cost of carbon
> > credits to offset a single trip in an airplane will be greater than the
> > unit cost of a large CC purchase by a coal fired power plant.*
> > **
> > * This is a voluntary market - not a tax. If we were talking a subsidy,
> > I think $100/tonne char ($35/tonne CO2) would make a huge difference -
> and
> > is totally justified on strictly moral/ethical grounds (thinking of all
> > our obligations to our children and grand-children and to developing
> > countries. ** The US will benefit a lot more from paying such a subsidy*
> > **
> > *# KC2f2: Given the state of the US Economy, such a subsidy is very
> > unlikely. The US is already more than $44 billion over its permissable
> debt
> > ceiling. See: http://www.usdebtclock.org/*
> > **
> > * - as the economy will suffer much worse from ocean rise, varied
> > rainfall, size of storms, etc.**
> > *
> > *# KC2f3: The US Agricultural Economy suffered seriously from drought
> > last year, and is likely to suffer greatly during this coming crop year.
> > See:
> > http://nidis1.ncdc.noaa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought_gov/202*
> > *Are you saying that CarbonCredits, (and greatly increased use of
> > biochar) could reverse this drought situation and bring things back to
> > "normal"? If the US had been using biochar in the 1920's, could this have
> > prevented the "Dust Bowl of the 1930's"?*
> > * *
> > * Re #2 sentence - I have no idea and doubt anyone does. I do hear
> > people saying that char is in short supply. Such data will be partly
> > available with an open market.*
> > **
> > *# KC2f4: Is it possible that char is in short supply simply because
> > there is insufficient information to justify its widespread use, and
> > potential producers are (sensibly) cautious about getting into production
> > because of lack of evidence of an adequate market? Or, perhaps the
> biochar
> > producers are selling most oftheir biochar into "niche markets", where
> they
> > can get more for it, than the "Farm level" potential Customer can afford
> to
> > pay? *
> >
> > * Your whole line of questioning has nothing to do with BC from stoves
> > and whether BC should be an important reason for near term action to
> > promote cleaner char-making stoves.*]
> >
> > *# KC2f5: No. My entire line of questioning was around the cost of carbon
> > credits. Remember, of course, that it was you who introduced Carbon
> Credits
> > into this thread.
> > *
> >
> > **
> > **
> > *# As we all know, "adequate carbon credit payments" could lead to a
> > huge increase in biochar production and use. However, if it is
> unreasonable
> > to believe that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon,
> > then stoves and biochar must rise on their own inherent merits, without
> > such support. Holding onto a false hope can only result in
> disappointment.
> > *
> >
> > *[RWL2g: Re #1 - We agree. The reason that this is not
> > happening is that too many do not see the ethics and morality of moving
> > faster (on this I presume we disagree)*
> > **
> > *# KC2g1: Another, more likely, explanation is that the direct economics
> > of biochar are not apparent to the Farmer.
> > Re#2 - Agree with last part of sentence - and not with the
> > first on timing.*
> >
> > *# KC2g2: Perhaps you are right. If you have a rational basis for your
> > belief that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon,
> > please share with the List. That "good news" could very well precipitate
> a
> > rush into biochar.*
> >
> > * Re #3 - Disagree. Assuming failure, as you seem to be
> > doing, is a self-fulfilling prophecy - to stop all progress and accept
> > ocean rise, etc with costs much greater than the costs of credits.
> > Ron]
> > *
> > *# KC2g3: I do not assume failure... all I warn of is that if "adequate
> > CC payments will not be available, then biochar, and stove systems that
> > depended on them for their financial success, will have to find another
> > justification to assure viability. "*
> > **
> > *# KC2g4: I remind you that it is totally impossible for CC's to prevent
> > ocean rise. Totally, absolutely, and utterly impossible.*
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > **
> > **
> > *Best wishes,*
> > **
> > *Kevin*
> >
> >
> > *Ron]*
> >
> > Thanks very much.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* rongretlarson at comcast.net
> > *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:02 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> >
> > Dean and list:
> >
> > Tami's is one huge report (232 pages in a major journal sounds like
> a
> > world record). I spent quite a few hours today trying to grasp the
> topic -
> > and know now I had better give up. The Black Carbon problem is going to
> > take experts like Tami to bring its importance into the world of stoves.
> > There may be an argument that if a stove can prove $16/.tonne CO2, you
> > might have a chance at proving up to (or even more than?) $27/tonne CO2e,
> > if you are in the right place on the globe. (These numbers based on
> > numbers given in terms of W/sqm.) I recommend casual readers getting
> > quickly to the figures at the extreme end of the report/paper. There is
> a
> > lot of useful numercal geographic and sources comparisons there.
> >
> > As Crispin has indicated the intentional large scale annual burning
> of
> > large parts of Africa look like a good place to instead harvest and get
> > useful energy and biiochar instead (through stoves and more).
> >
> > Congratulations on arranging to have Tami be the ETHOS key-noter. I
> > think she may have been at the first!
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From: *"Dean Still" <deankstill at gmail.com>
> > *To: *"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > *Sent: *Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05:27 PM
> > *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Tami is the keynote speaker at ETHOS this year and it will be interesting
> > to hear what she's been learning!
> >
> > All Best,
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> > crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Friends****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> A new and I would say major major paper on the atmospheric impact of
> >> black carbon particles is available for download. We know at least two
> of
> >> the authors here on ?Stoves?. Profs Tami Bond and Philip Hopke (the
> >> aethalometer builder who said he was a minor contributor) are frequent
> >> contributors on the subject of emissions testing.****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> The paper is important because it is the first really detailed
> >> examination of the effects of atmospheric heating by Black Carbon (BC).
> *
> >> ***
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> The abstract is at
> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract and the
> >> paper is at ****
> >>
> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> It is not behind a paywall but it is large (40 MB). Times to get your
> >> hands dirty with BC!****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> Regards****
> >>
> >> Crispin****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> ****
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Stoves mailing list
> >>
> >> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >>
> >>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> >> http://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/0b3f5d68/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:42:51 -0500
> From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] is this new?
> Message-ID: <03a501cdf781$041d66d0$0c583470$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Marc and Ron and All interested in air flows
>
>
>
> This is a response to questions about air and Marc's tube.
>
>
>
> Here is an old photo of secondary air entering the combustion chamber of a
> Vesto pushing the flame to the centre. This accomplishes the following:
>
>
>
> Keeps the fire away from the wall, reducing the temperature it has to
> survive (a lot)
>
> Keeps the flame going
>
> Not allowing it to spread to one side away from the smoke on the other side
> that might otherwise 'get away'.
>
> Provides turbulent mixing of flame, hot secondary air and smoke
>
> Allows for preheating to a significant degree (250-500 C)
>
>
>
> cid:image001.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310
>
>
>
> Here is an example (hard to see of course because it is a still taken from
> a
> video) of the spinning of the flame caused by the shaped grate at the
> bottom.
>
>
>
> cid:image006.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310
>
>
>
> The fire is circular because it is spinning rapidly, though pushed to the
> side by the way the fuel happened to be sitting. The spin adds turbulence
> without a fan and assists in keeping the flame away from the combustion
> chamber wall.
>
>
>
> Here is a Vesto burning switchgrass pellets operating as TLUD, showing that
> there is nothing special about a TLUD in the sense of it having to operate
> in a particular fashion. The air flow through the fuel is reduced by the
> fuel and it operates as a TLUD. The secondary air is send across the
> surface
> to keep a deck of flame going at the height of the holes. This obviates the
> need for adding a circular disk at the top to 'keep the flame going'.
> Adding
> a 'concentrator' as Paul calls it takes more material and moves the fire
> too
> far away from the heat of the pyrolysis bed leading to unwanted flame-outs
> from time to time. A major issue with all pyrolysing TLUD's. It is simply
> not necessary. Just keep the fire near the fuel. This also provides
> additional vertical space for the flame to finish burning before getting to
> a cold pot surface.
>
>
>
> Here is a really cool picture of a Vesto burning walnut shells in TLUD
> mode.
>
>
>
> cid:image009.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310
>
>
>
> Finally, here is a photo of a Vesto cutaway showing the inside parts in
> their correct positons.
>
>
>
> cid:image010.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310
>
>
>
> The primary air controller is the ring with holes in it. When the handle is
> moved to the side the holes are closed.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fd75b537/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 15308 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fd75b537/attachment-0004.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image006.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 16883 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fd75b537/attachment-0005.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image009.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 19506 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fd75b537/attachment-0006.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image010.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 31008 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fd75b537/attachment-0007.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:49:58 -0500 (EST)
> From: Carefreeland at aol.com
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> Message-ID: <35f7e.1299b5b8.3e2e06d6 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Alex,
> I know a piece of property well that would benefit from this
> treatment. It would have been a city park by now if not for a trace of
> arsenic,
> crankcase oil and diesel fuel. It was the old clean hard filled gravel
> pit I
> used to work off of. I think much of the contamination is leaching in from
> the neighbors property which was not filled so clean. The property is for
> sale in prime territory.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> In a message dated 1/20/2013 5:33:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> english at kingston.net writes:
>
> Dan,
> It is being studied widely. Everything from pesticides, PCB's and
> miscelaneous hydrocarbons to specific heavy metals. Biochar gets compared
> straight
> up with Granular Activated Carbons, with some added agronomic benefits.
> That is where it could scale up in the near term.
> Alex
>
> On 20/01/2013 12:12 AM, _Carefreeland at aol.com_
> (mailto:Carefreeland at aol.com) wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if anyone has tried to clean up contaminated land with biochar?
> What effect would it have on heavy metals or oil based contaminants? Lots
> of prime real estate worthless because of trace contaminants.
>
> Dan Dimiduk
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/82ceb115/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:06:31 +0700
> From: Marc Pare <mpare at gatech.edu>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] is this new?
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAPJQZbwAP4K3w4mvJOFGKDR34kO0bM1J_KTdCL8b7UB-bx7egg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> That cutaway is beautiful! Great example of "let the product speak for
> itself"
>
> Since seeing counterflow in action, I understand exactly what you're
> describing with the air flows.
>
> I didn't understand your emphasis on keeping the flame near the bed with a
> "descending burner" until this paragraph:
>
> The secondary air is send across the surface to keep a deck of flame going
> at the height of the holes. This obviates the need for adding a circular
> disk at the top to ?keep the flame going?. Adding a ?concentrator? as Paul
> calls it takes more material and moves the fire too far away from the heat
> of the pyrolysis bed leading to unwanted flame-outs from time to time.
>
>
> I've seen these instabilities quite often in small-scale pyrolyzers. Great
> to see a practical measure to prevent their tendency to "smoke bomb".
>
> What's on the "to-do" list for this class of design, Crispin? Are you
> looking to push it into other applications? Apply the principles to improve
> existing design? (like you mentioned with advancing the Anglo SupraNova)
>
> Marc Par?
> B.S. Mechanical Engineering
> Georgia Institute of Technology | Universit? de Technologie de Compi?gne
>
> my cv, etc. | http://notwandering.com
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Marc and Ron and All interested in air flows****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > This is a response to questions about air and Marc?s tube.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Here is an old photo of secondary air entering the combustion chamber of
> a
> > Vesto pushing the flame to the centre. This accomplishes the
> following:***
> > *
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Keeps the fire away from the wall, reducing the temperature it has to
> > survive (a lot)****
> >
> > Keeps the flame going****
> >
> > Not allowing it to spread to one side away from the smoke on the other
> > side that might otherwise ?get away?.****
> >
> > Provides turbulent mixing of flame, hot secondary air and smoke****
> >
> > Allows for preheating to a significant degree (250-500 C)****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > [image: cid:image001.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310]****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Here is an example (hard to see of course because it is a still taken
> from
> > a video) of the spinning of the flame caused by the shaped grate at the
> > bottom.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > [image: cid:image006.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310]****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The fire is circular because it is spinning rapidly, though pushed to the
> > side by the way the fuel happened to be sitting. The spin adds turbulence
> > without a fan and assists in keeping the flame away from the combustion
> > chamber wall.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Here is a Vesto burning switchgrass pellets operating as TLUD, showing
> > that there is nothing special about a TLUD in the sense of it having to
> > operate in a particular fashion. The air flow through the fuel is reduced
> > by the fuel and it operates as a TLUD. The secondary air is send across
> the
> > surface to keep a deck of flame going at the height of the holes. This
> > obviates the need for adding a circular disk at the top to ?keep the
> flame
> > going?. Adding a ?concentrator? as Paul calls it takes more material and
> > moves the fire too far away from the heat of the pyrolysis bed leading to
> > unwanted flame-outs from time to time. A major issue with all pyrolysing
> > TLUD?s. It is simply not necessary. Just keep the fire near the fuel.
> This
> > also provides additional vertical space for the flame to finish burning
> > before getting to a cold pot surface.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Here is a really cool picture of a Vesto burning walnut shells in TLUD
> > mode.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > [image: cid:image009.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310]****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Finally, here is a photo of a Vesto cutaway showing the inside parts in
> > their correct positons.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > [image: cid:image010.jpg at 01CDF756.FE0F8310]****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > The primary air controller is the ring with holes in it. When the handle
> > is moved to the side the holes are closed.****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > Regards****
> >
> > Crispin****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stoves mailing list
> >
> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> >
> >
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> >
> > for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> > http://www.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130121/f2ead961/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image009.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 19506 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130121/f2ead961/attachment-0004.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image006.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 16883 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130121/f2ead961/attachment-0005.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image010.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 31008 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130121/f2ead961/attachment-0006.jpg
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.jpg
> Type: image/jpeg
> Size: 15308 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130121/f2ead961/attachment-0007.jpg
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:23:02 -0500
> From: Alex English <english at kingston.net>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] is this new?
> Message-ID: <50FCB496.4030702 at kingston.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Crispin,
> Its been a while since I saw the Vesto. It looks from the pictures like
> there are secondary air holes all the way up the central tube. Is that
> current?
> Seems like the top rows would just be adding tramp air (unemployed air).
>
> Alex
>
> On 20/01/2013 9:42 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> >
> > Dear Marc and Ron and All interested in air flows
> >
> > This is a response to questions about air and Marc's tube.
> >
> > Here is an old photo of secondary air entering the combustion chamber
> > of a Vesto pushing the flame to the centre. This accomplishes the
> > following:
> >
> > Keeps the fire away from the wall, reducing the temperature it has to
> > survive (a lot)
> >
> > Keeps the flame going
> >
> > Not allowing it to spread to one side away from the smoke on the other
> > side that might otherwise 'get away'.
> >
> > Provides turbulent mixing of flame, hot secondary air and smoke
> >
> > Allows for preheating to a significant degree (250-500 C)
> >
> >
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/87e2ff0a/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:45:58 -0400
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
> Message-ID: <EE0684DE3F5E4240B63873223AA1F15C at usera594fda0bf>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear Dean
>
> Could you please confirm if the $15 carbon credit is per ton of CO2
> avoided, OR if it is per ton of C avoided.
>
> Also, could you please elaborate a bit on the difference between the
> "Involuntary" and the "Voluntary" market? Am I correct in assuming that the
> "involuntary" market happens when there is legislation in place requiring
> CO2 emitters to purchase Carbon Credits, while the "Voluntary" market
> happens when people (such as Air Travellers) voluntarily purchase carbon
> credits?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dean Still
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Cc: biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
> The involuntary market can pay higher amounts per ton of avoided carbon.
> A stove project I admire in Central America just sold credits at around $15
> per ton. When saving tons per year the earnings are meaningful and provide
> a support for the endeavor.
>
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Kevin <kchisholm at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Kevin
> Cc: biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com ; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org;
> biochar-production at yahoogroups.com ; Kevin Chisholm ; Crispin
> Pemberton-Pigott
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Kevin, Crispin and list:
>
> This is to also answer the two following messages from
> yourselves. I did not find them helpful - as they assume the only
> economics relate to the carbon credit.
>
> # Exactly!! The question was about the cost of carbon credits. That
> was the purpose of the question... to get some insight into the cost of
> Carbon Credits. It was you, in your 16 Jan posting, who introduced the
> Carbon Credit sub-thread.
>
> They assume nothing (repeat nothing) about the value to the user in
> outyear ag benefits.
>
> # EXACTLY!! They assume nothing beyond the question. However, it is
> an attempt to start somewhere and determine if there is any chance that
> Carbon Credits will be helpful in encouraging the use of TLUD or other char
> making stoves, and if the carbon credits will influence people to use
> biochar. As I see it now, the value of carbon credits, at the very best is
> trivial, but in reality, is insignificant. The Carbon Credits seem to sell
> for about $6 per tonne CO2 equivalent (trivial) but after the middlemen,
> brokers and field inspectors and speculators make their money, there would
> be an insignificant payment per tonne CO2 equivalent actually reaching the
> Farmer (ie, the Golden Goose who is supposed to lay the eggs that hatch
> into carbon credits :-)
>
> Tell me how farmers in the world will react to news that (for
> example) land worth zero today can be brought up to a productivity level
> the same as other existing ag land nearby (same rainfall etc.) Let's say
> that land can, after applying biochar be worth $500/ha rather than $0/ha.
> If those farmers have a discount rate of 5% or 50% will make a big
> difference on how much they will be willing to spend per tonne of biochar
> and how many tonnes per ha (which could be in rows or holes - not
> uniformly scattered). Which discount rate are you using for these
> out-year benefit computations?
> You can't prove biochar is worthless by talking to this list
> only about credits of $6/tonne CO2.
>
> # I am not trying to prove that biochar is worthless. I was simply
> trying to find out what Carbon Credits were worth. Thanks to Crispin, I
> found out. Those interested in determining the worth of biochar can apply
> whatever evaluation concepts are important to them. Large multinational
> agribusiness corporations with Accountants and MBA on their Staff will look
> at discount rates and IRR's, while the small Farmer will probably say "If I
> spend $100 on biochar, how long before I will get my money back?"
>
> More below.
> # Yes, indeed!! :-)
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: rongretlarson at comcast.net, biochar-policy at yahoogroups.com,
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org, biochar-production at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:29:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Dear Ron
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Cc: Kevin Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Kevin and list: See below
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:34:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Dear Ron
>
> You mention $16 and $27 per tonne CO2 equivalent. I presume you
> are referring to a payment that one would receive when showing that one has
> earned a tonne of CO2 equivalent.
> [RWL: Yup - examples only - hopefully larger.]
> # Prices seem to vary all over the place to purchase carbon
> credits. What is the present price that a biochar producer could expect to
> receive as a carbon Credit for the biochar he produced? It is one thing to
> hope for future price increases for Carbon Credits, but is that realistic?
> Would you perhaps have a graph that shows the price trend for CarbonCrdits
> that you could share with the Lists?
>
> [RWL2a: See my opening remarks. The price trend for
> credits has nothing to do with anything under discussion - especially
> about black carbon.]
> # KC2a: I am not talking about Black Carbon. I am simply talking
> about the value to the Farmer of carbon Credits. You feel that CC prices
> will increase... I was trying to see if you had any rational basis for
> stating that you hope the price of CC's will increase. A graph showing an
> "uptrend" from a low price would suggest further CC increases, and would
> certainly suggest that your hope had a rational basis.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1: Where would one apply to get such payments? [RWL: Anywhere
> one can. Numerous stove promoters on this list already getting some.]
>
> # OK!! Can you tell the Stoves and Biochar Lists where they could
> apply to get Carbon Credit payments for the biochar they produce?
> [RWL2b: I am not in that business. If I were them I
> probably would keep that answer to myself - but feel free to ask stove
> sellers (which are maybe only for displaced CO2 - not char.]
> # KC2b: You quoted prices, and "hoped for prices" for CC's. I know
> you are not in that business. However, you make frequent reference and
> allusion to the potential for CC's to support the use of biochar. You
> should not offer such encouragement unless you are able to point to sources
> where biochar users can actually apply for such credits. As a strong
> promoter of CC's as being a support to the widespread introduction of
> biochar, you should be telling the List where they can go to get CC support
> for their proposed biochar projects, rather than keeping such information
> secret. Now you introduce the bombshell that maybe CC's will not be
> available to char!!
>
>
>
>
> 2: Who would be eligible to receive such payments? [RWL:
> Anyone who can prove they deserve them.]
> # That makes sense.
>
>
> 3: What conditions must be met, before the payments would actually
> be made? [RWL: Whatever is acceptable to the presumably willing buyer of
> the credits.]
> # That does not make sense at all! Surely there must be some rules
> or standards that must be met to ensure that the Carbon Credits are real.
> If not, then the entire system is open to fraud.
> [RWL2c: I have made no comments about an open market - and
> those don't yet exist. Of course, when we have organized markets accepting
> char as a vehicle, there will then be stringent rules. IBI and others are
> developing them now. The point in this dialog (referring back to $16 and
> $11) is that biochar from stoves can have a higher value (because of black
> carbon improvements) than biochar from some other sources.]
>
> # KC2c1: If there is no open market for Carbon Credits now, then the
> only "sure thing" for stove and biochar interests to focus on is making
> better stoves that rise on their own merits, and to show Farmers how they
> can make more money with biochar, rather than counting on something that
> may, or may not, be real in the future (CC's) to make stoves and biochar
> economic.
>
> # KC2c2 Note that it is not the biochar from stoves that yields
> black carbon improvements, but stove design and operation. Crispin has
> designed and developed stoves with excellent combustion characteristics
> that have remarkably low BC emissions, and they do not produce biochar.
> Black Carbon is controlled by good combustion, not by the production of
> biochar. Black Carbon, biochar production and Carbon Credits are three very
> different and separate and distinct issues.
>
>
>
> I am concerned that with the state of the World Economy,
> Governments will lose their interest in longer term Climate Change
> Concerns, and would put their priorities on addressing short term and more
> immediate concerns. [RWL: We disagree.]
> # What is your basis for disagreement? Kyoto seems to be dead in
> the water. At the last meeting, I believe that most Governments said "We
> will do something about controlling CO2 emissions sometime after 2020, but
> we will not say what we will do, and when we will do it." Is this a
> reasonable summation? If you feel not, what would you feel is?
> [RWL2d: I am more of an optimist than you. Arctic ice
> totally disappearing in a year or two could be the wake-up call.
> No yours is not a reasonable summation from my perspective. A lot
> of people are working to promote a meaningful price, And we don't need
> all governments to agree; I have hopes for a number of EU countries. And
> you didn't do more than repeat an opinion- which happens to differ from
> mine. Obviously I can't give proof of anything happening in the next few
> years - and that is why we should agree to disagree.]
>
> # KC2d: I am not looking for either optimism or pessimism, but
> rather, the simple reality of the matter. Total disappearance of Arctic Ice
> in a year or two is a gross exaggeration. Do you know how cold it gets up
> there over teh winter? :-) The Governments of the world have already had
> their wake-up call with respect to increased open water in the Arctic
> Summer, and they appear to have decided to do little or nothing about it
> until sometime after 2020. You flatly state that my summation is not
> reasonable, but you refuse to be helpful by providing a summation which you
> feel is reasonable. Of course, we do not need all Governments to agree to
> support Kyoto... just enough to make a difference. Without the US, Canada
> and China, it is hard for the others to make a significant difference. My
> summation of Kyoto is not an "opinion"... it is a statement of observed
> facts. I strongly disagree with your proposal that "... we should agree to
> disagree..." I would propose that we seek to dete
> rmine the reality of the situation.
>
>
> What are your views on the future of Carbon Credit payments?
> [RWL: They will slowly creep up in price (maybe in time to do some
> good). Biochar credits from char-making stoves look like the easiest to
> sell of any.
> # The recent report on the important impact of Black Carbon on
> climate change would seem to reduce the relative importance of the CO2
> parameter. As I understand it, most "generally accepted Climate Change
> Models" were calibrated under the assumption that BC was a minor or
> insignificant factor, and the model factors were adjusted to relate
> observed temperature rise to anthropogenic CO2. Now that BC could have a
> "forcing effect" perhaps 2/3 as great as the present forcing effect
> attributed to CO2, recalibrating the models to reflect the increased
> importance of BC will inherently diminish the importance of CO2 as a factor
> in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Accordingly, it would
> seem reasonable to project a significant decline in "Carbon Credit Revenue"
> to biochar producers. Does this seem reasonable? If not, why not?
> [RWL2e: Re sentence #1: Tami Bond, in the quoted article
> (which this started out to be about) put major emphasis on CO2.
>
> #KC2e1: And well she might! The fundamental thrust of the Report was
> to show that BC was a significant factor in GW or Climate Change. She (and
> her co-Authors) certainly do this. They were not investing the importance
> of CO2... they were investigating the importance of BC, and they simply
> acced what the IPCC said about CO2 importance.
>
> Re your second sentence, all the models lump effects together
> under CO2e, not simply CO2.
>
> #KC2e2: This is where Tami's work can have a very disturbing effect
> on Climate Change Modeling. Very disturbing. It throws a huge monkey wrench
> into the works. More specifically, since the effects that were all lumped
> together as CO2e (ie, CO2 equivalent), without giving proper weight to the
> importance of BC, then all such modelling will have to be "re-visited", to
> include the effects of BC. More specifically still, all such models were
> "trained" without significant recognition of the importance of BC, and
> various factors were developed to make the models fit the observations. BC,
> as "the new kid on the Climate Change Modeling BBlock", is a real "game
> changer." The BC data presently has a large degree of uncertainty... when
> further research reduces present uncertainty, instead of being merely "the
> New Kid on the Block", BC might actually be "The Elephant in the Room."
> Also of possibly great significance is the potential that this BC work may
> lend significant support to the Sven
> dmark Hypothesis. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Svensmark_hypothesis
> and
> http://drtimball.com/2011/svensmark%E2%80%99s-cosmic-theory-confirmed-explains-more-than-solar-role-in-climate-change/for further elaboration.
>
> Re the last "reasonable" - You have it all wrong. I presume because
> you are still a climate denier and are looking for every way possible to
> make your denier view seem more reasonable.
> # KC2e3: Rather than playing "The Denier card", I would suggest that
> you could advance your position more if you provided palpable fact that
> showed where my views are wrong.
>
>
>
> # Concerning carbon credits for biochar from char-making stoves,
> would you have an approximate idea of the value of the carbon credits per
> tonne for such biochar? Would you have an approximate idea of the annual
> tonnage of biochar that is sold in connection with a carbon credit payment.
> [RWL2f: Re #1, See my opening remarks. To repeat - there
> is no single value appropriate to all buyers and sellers of credits.
>
> # KC2f1: Of course not!!
> 1: There is the price that the "End User" pays "The Retailer" for
> Carbon Credits
> 2: There is the price that "The Retailer" buys the CC's from the
> "manufacturer or generator or producer of CC's"
> 3: There is the "net price" that the producer of CC's receives,
> after deduction of required inspection, testing, and approval costs.
> In addition, there are are probably "volume discounts" the reflect
> the cost of conducting the transaction. Clearly, the unit cost of carbon
> credits to offset a single trip in an airplane will be greater than the
> unit cost of a large CC purchase by a coal fired power plant.
>
> This is a voluntary market - not a tax. If we were talking a
> subsidy, I think $100/tonne char ($35/tonne CO2) would make a huge
> difference - and is totally justified on strictly moral/ethical grounds
> (thinking of all our obligations to our children and grand-children and to
> developing countries. The US will benefit a lot more from paying such a
> subsidy
>
> # KC2f2: Given the state of the US Economy, such a subsidy is very
> unlikely. The US is already more than $44 billion over its permissable debt
> ceiling. See: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
>
> - as the economy will suffer much worse from ocean rise, varied
> rainfall, size of storms, etc.
>
> # KC2f3: The US Agricultural Economy suffered seriously from drought
> last year, and is likely to suffer greatly during this coming crop year.
> See:
> http://nidis1.ncdc.noaa.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought_gov/202
> Are you saying that CarbonCredits, (and greatly increased use of
> biochar) could reverse this drought situation and bring things back to
> "normal"? If the US had been using biochar in the 1920's, could this have
> prevented the "Dust Bowl of the 1930's"?
>
> Re #2 sentence - I have no idea and doubt anyone does. I do
> hear people saying that char is in short supply. Such data will be partly
> available with an open market.
>
> # KC2f4: Is it possible that char is in short supply simply because
> there is insufficient information to justify its widespread use, and
> potential producers are (sensibly) cautious about getting into production
> because of lack of evidence of an adequate market? Or, perhaps the biochar
> producers are selling most oftheir biochar into "niche markets", where they
> can get more for it, than the "Farm level" potential Customer can afford to
> pay?
>
> Your whole line of questioning has nothing to do with BC from
> stoves and whether BC should be an important reason for near term action to
> promote cleaner char-making stoves.]
>
> # KC2f5: No. My entire line of questioning was around the cost of
> carbon credits. Remember, of course, that it was you who introduced Carbon
> Credits into this thread.
>
>
> # As we all know, "adequate carbon credit payments" could lead to
> a huge increase in biochar production and use. However, if it is
> unreasonable to believe that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be
> available soon, then stoves and biochar must rise on their own inherent
> merits, without such support. Holding onto a false hope can only result in
> disappointment.
> [RWL2g: Re #1 - We agree. The reason that this is not
> happening is that too many do not see the ethics and morality of moving
> faster (on this I presume we disagree)
>
> # KC2g1: Another, more likely, explanation is that the direct
> economics of biochar are not apparent to the Farmer.
> Re#2 - Agree with last part of sentence - and not with
> the first on timing.
>
> # KC2g2: Perhaps you are right. If you have a rational basis for
> your belief that "adequate carbon credit payments" will be available soon,
> please share with the List. That "good news" could very well precipitate a
> rush into biochar.
>
> Re #3 - Disagree. Assuming failure, as you seem to be
> doing, is a self-fulfilling prophecy - to stop all progress and accept
> ocean rise, etc with costs much greater than the costs of credits.
> Ron]
>
> # KC2g3: I do not assume failure... all I warn of is that if
> "adequate CC payments will not be available, then biochar, and stove
> systems that depended on them for their financial success, will have to
> find another justification to assure viability. "
>
> # KC2g4: I remind you that it is totally impossible for CC's to
> prevent ocean rise. Totally, absolutely, and utterly impossible.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Ron]
>
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Kevin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
>
> Dean and list:
>
> Tami's is one huge report (232 pages in a major journal
> sounds like a world record). I spent quite a few hours today trying to
> grasp the topic - and know now I had better give up. The Black Carbon
> problem is going to take experts like Tami to bring its importance into the
> world of stoves. There may be an argument that if a stove can prove
> $16/.tonne CO2, you might have a chance at proving up to (or even more
> than?) $27/tonne CO2e, if you are in the right place on the globe. (These
> numbers based on numbers given in terms of W/sqm.) I recommend casual
> readers getting quickly to the figures at the extreme end of the
> report/paper. There is a lot of useful numercal geographic and sources
> comparisons there.
>
> As Crispin has indicated the intentional large scale annual
> burning of large parts of Africa look like a good place to instead harvest
> and get useful energy and biiochar instead (through stoves and more).
>
> Congratulations on arranging to have Tami be the ETHOS
> key-noter. I think she may have been at the first!
>
> Ron
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Dean Still" <deankstill at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:05:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] New paper on atmospheric Black Carbon
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
> Tami is the keynote speaker at ETHOS this year and it will be
> interesting to hear what she's been learning!
>
>
> All Best,
>
>
> Dean
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends
>
>
>
> A new and I would say major major paper on the atmospheric
> impact of black carbon particles is available for download. We know at
> least two of the authors here on ?Stoves?. Profs Tami Bond and Philip Hopke
> (the aethalometer builder who said he was a minor contributor) are frequent
> contributors on the subject of emissions testing.
>
>
>
> The paper is important because it is the first really detailed
> examination of the effects of atmospheric heating by Black Carbon (BC).
>
>
>
> The abstract is at
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract and the
> paper is at
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/pdf
>
>
>
> It is not behind a paywall but it is large (40 MB). Times to
> get your hands dirty with BC!
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our
> web site:
> http://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.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://www.bioenergylists.org/
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130120/fdd1b323/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 29, Issue 23
> **************************************
>
--
Art Donnelly
President SeaChar.Org
US Director, The Farm Stove Project
Proyecto Estufa Finca
<http://email2.globalgiving.org/wf/click?c=1Oy%2FmZbgIyjS5WI580KXwShvfKBcF2eaJvtN7Pi6p7Jl%2FiR4938EMMCBwY%2FuYALeA%2BQYUWN4RpvnxBsBC7e2%2BGIHcONTozBmvsUU5LTL%2FTNk4Q3vxE%2BKdXTV2cxIsFplSPh%2F9nMG3bQMQf4bz9ZK9SHMy46Z8OPLAtMAnPG9SKkPuLCWvofBTLC%2BImqax%2BZTkkF2RvDri5UdgH19NHjHOBj5WMUrS4L62Z2xxUJbBsJdDUOfeifheNFXH546Xm0yul4P2stm%2FTUOJxYnI0nFjXEaYfzxDSc%2FwgqVkR1t0USDHk30%2Fgt9UpDpyzLj37HWtnNQ0q8Jh1gZCkB4Y1Fgbg394gYFkyNqFN4MchxO2Js%3D&rp=wrhiOr2wAxUyDMDlMSqbOkKa0FpPoiCSHffb%2ByfHGClRxIFjEIrUDwAF%2BFD%2BpAPuvam9BDwvSMcadhFv7aFwKoyAXYrFk00%2B92xPIeMHXaTDJ3x0VIj6ZYwjm1win65o&up=YDTqBOjidbCUo%2Far1oAtZjp5ji73zPEvmoO14mevuXzIDUdb6Ac9W13SPOXmzL5NflZkH0HxLp0v4dT9UwEHDV0wSZ1qusv09bIKkUliWs4%3D&u=LHuflw_1TAib_lgCu2JvQw%2Fh0>
"SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130121/f8ee4574/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list