[Stoves] The wood and char and fuel "debate" (was a long time ago called Re: Request for technology proposals - Clean Stove Initiative, Indonesia)

[Michael Mahowald]

You are absolutely correct Paul !
Deforestation happens all over the world with the lack of fire wood.
There simply is not enough dry sources of trees or waste from them even for TLUD's to keep even poor consumers interested in them.
We know vetiver grass has the highest photosynthetic activity of any plant, making it the most renewable energy source on the planet.   We just have to densify the grass into pellets at a cost that people can afford.  The only way we can do this is to eliminate the cost of diesel fuel to run the generator to make the pellets.
We are planning on using a downdraft gasifier for gas to accomplish this.  We just have to perfect this process and size it for a portable pelleting plant that can be taken to the fields they grow it.
When we perfect this it will be capable to work everywhere in the world that needs clean cook stoves. 
If you want to see what we are doing check out 
http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/grass-energy
and http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/sustainable-path-on-how-to

Michael E. MahowaldPresident
Haiti Reconstruction International952-220-6814

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:43:31 -0600
From: psanders at ilstu.edu
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org; biochar at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Stoves] The wood and char and fuel "debate" (was a long time ago called Re: Request for technology proposals - Clean Stove Initiative, Indonesia)


  
    
  
  
    Dear Crispin, Ron and all, 

      

      It is interesting reading the back and forth between Ron and
      Crispin.   I emphasize two paragraphs from Crispin,

      

      On 2/24/2014 10:10 AM, Crispin Pembert-Pigott wrote:

    
    
      
      
      
      
      
         
        There
            is no dispute between us whatsoever as to the energy
            consumption: the energy remaining in the char represents
            energy not liberated from the fuel consumed. 
         
        The
            important question is not what we want, but what the
            customer of the test result wants. They are not asking how
            much energy was used when cooking, they asked how much fuel
            was consumed. The answer is of course different if there is
            char remaining and that char is not ‘fuel’ to the same stove
            for the next fire.
         
      
    
    For the vast majority of "customers" (including governments that
    want to reduce or reverse deforestation), the important question is
    "how much wood is burned."    The interests are highly related to
    WOOD, specifically related to TREES, not even counting sawdust that
    goes into pellets.

    

    So, because TLUD stoves are VERY GOOD at burning NON-wood biomass,
    the wood saved can be 100%.   And we still get the char.

    

    Concerning fuel and wood and non-wood and char and other such
    measurements, the real problems can come from rankings and Tiers and
    o
ther reports that could give excellent stoves some poor results
    because the "authorities" are defining fuel as being exclusively
    wood, as in trees and woodlands that need to be protected.

    

    If we could get past that "imposed intellectual construct" of fuel
    being wood, we could make more progress about some types of biomass
    stoves being even better than good for the environment.    

    

    Rest assured that the advocates of alcohol and kerosene and other
    NON-biomass fuels are pointing out that their stoves help minimize
    deforestation/enviromental degradation.   

    

    Biomass that is NOT WOOD needs to be recognized as being favorable
    for saving trees, and credit given to the stoves that can use those
    non-wood biomass fuels.      

    

    AND that recognition and credit needs to be EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE
    REPORTS ABOUT FUEL CONSUMPTION.

    

    In some ways, this is all just another discussion about why the
    reported results of any stove testing need much explanation (which
    is usually not provided) and why the results are so easy to ignore
    as being poorly related to the realities of people and their stoves
    and their fuels.

    

    I hope we can do better in the future.

    

    Paul 
       (still another week to go on my vacation trip to Brazil,
    so I probably will not be sending replies.)

    Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com
  


_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140226/4734970e/attachment.html>