[Stoves] Advancement of "better" stoves

Wed May 29 18:29:29 CDT 2013

Jock,

You write:
*A pyrolytic stove, if the char works well in the garden or has a high
enough price, has the possibility, in theory, of actually turning cooking
into a profit center. Converting cooking from an expense to an income
generator is the fundamental argument for pyrolysis as far as most will be
concerned.   Is it not? If not, what am I missing?*

You've got it! Precisely.

Here in Dalat where I live, rice hull biochar is commonly used as a potting
soil amendment. This biochar is made in crude retorts that generate a lot
of pollution. All of the syngas is wasted, and the quality of the biochar
is highly uneven. Yet it still commands a substantial price.

Now we can replace these dirty retorts with biomass stoves, and every time
someone cooks a meal, one earns money.

Thanks.
Paul

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Jonathan P Gill <jg45 at icloud.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Let's see if this can be reduced to a very simple proposition.
>
> Generally speaking, cooking fuel is an expense.
>
> Assume all stoves are a significant improvement over traditional three
> stone stoves with respect to air quality.
>
> A combustion stove could, in theory, possibly reduce this to zero cost.
>  But no further.
>
> A pyrolytic stove, if the char works well in the garden or has a high
> enough price, has the possibility, in theory, of actually turning cooking
> into a profit center.
>
> Converting cooking from an expense to an income generator is the
> fundamental argument for pyrolysis as far as most will be concerned.   Is
> it not?
>
> If not, what am I missing?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jock
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2013, at 12:56 PM, rongretlarson at comcast.net wrote:
>
> Art, Jock, etal
>
>   I think the comparison should also be against charcoal-using stoves -
> with a start of the computations when the char is produced often illegally
> in the bush.  The charcoal-making stove then comes out way ahead.
>
> Ron
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Art Donnelly" <art.donnelly at seachar.org>
> *To: *"Jonathan P Gill" <jg45 at icloud.com>
> *Cc: *"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:40:58 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Advancement of "better" stoves
>
> Hi all,
> It would be helpful in comparing the merits of biochar producing stoves
> with other biomass cooking methods, to remember that a statement such as:
> "Holding back carbon from combustion will increase the feedstock demand."
> Is completely relative to the comparison being made. Compared to a
> rocket-elbow based stove with a good operator: no doubt. Compared to the
> baseline of an traditional open cooking fire: not true. I base only this on
> the results that Aprovecho produced on the Estufa Finca, using the WBT, the
> controlled cooking test we conducted as part of the 2010-2011 : Estufa
> Finca-Santos pilot project and several years of observation and surveying
> cooks. In a wood to wood comparison we consistently see approx. 40%
> savings. In the no one is paying for the type of fuel that does best in the
> Estufa Fincas. Even in a fuel rich area like the Talamanca many people are
> paying for "stove wood" : cut to length/bundled.
> best,
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Jonathan P Gill <jg45 at icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Crispin,
>>
>> On May 29, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  The viability of cooking while making char pivots on two things: the
>> conversion of fuel to char without increasing the raw fuel demand, and the
>> rate of positive return on char placed in the soil. The data that addresses
>> these issues is of great interest to me.
>>
>>
>> Holding back carbon from combustion will increase the feedstock demand.
>>  This is a non issue if the feedstock is free, or, even better, a waste
>> stream with a disposal cost that can now be avoided.  Of course an
>>  increase in garden productivity, or a sufficient market value for the
>> charcoal,  could eliminate any extra cost even if the feedstock has to be
>> purchased.  And all this with no credit for sequestering carbon.
>>
>> In sum, the entire value chain has to be taken into account, not simply a
>> few cherry picked data points such as the increase in feedstock required.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jock
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Donnelly
> President SeaChar.Org
> US Director, The Farm Stove Project
> Proyecto Estufa Finca
>
> <http://email2.globalgiving.org/wf/click?c=1Oy%2FmZbgIyjS5WI580KXwShvfKBcF2eaJvtN7Pi6p7Jl%2FiR4938EMMCBwY%2FuYALeA%2BQYUWN4RpvnxBsBC7e2%2BGIHcONTozBmvsUU5LTL%2FTNk4Q3vxE%2BKdXTV2cxIsFplSPh%2F9nMG3bQMQf4bz9ZK9SHMy46Z8OPLAtMAnPG9SKkPuLCWvofBTLC%2BImqax%2BZTkkF2RvDri5UdgH19NHjHOBj5WMUrS4L62Z2xxUJbBsJdDUOfeifheNFXH546Xm0yul4P2stm%2FTUOJxYnI0nFjXEaYfzxDSc%2FwgqVkR1t0USDHk30%2Fgt9UpDpyzLj37HWtnNQ0q8Jh1gZCkB4Y1Fgbg394gYFkyNqFN4MchxO2Js%3D&rp=wrhiOr2wAxUyDMDlMSqbOkKa0FpPoiCSHffb%2ByfHGClRxIFjEIrUDwAF%2BFD%2BpAPuvam9BDwvSMcadhFv7aFwKoyAXYrFk00%2B92xPIeMHXaTDJ3x0VIj6ZYwjm1win65o&up=YDTqBOjidbCUo%2Far1oAtZjp5ji73zPEvmoO14mevuXzIDUdb6Ac9W13SPOXmzL5NflZkH0HxLp0v4dT9UwEHDV0wSZ1qusv09bIKkUliWs4%3D&u=LHuflw_1TAib_lgCu2JvQw%2Fh0>
> "SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130530/6cbe9ef6/attachment.html>