[Stoves] Cuber densifying How to make the fuel to run "debate"

Thu Mar 6 12:27:39 CST 2014

Hi Willem and all, I love the looks of this eccoworxx machine and really would like to here more about it after you test it.This size unit and the amount of power it needs could easily be implemented in areas where they have a lot of biomass available.
No matter what machine you get to make a fuel there will be costs of producing it.  No matter if it is a cuber, slugger or pelletizer if you have to buy diesel fuel or electricity where they don't have it in remote areas none of these will be affordable and stop charcoal use or destruction of trees and environment. 
We believe the pellets are still the best option for the cook stoves and transportation of fuel.  We just have to use this fuel for making the pellets.  
If you think small and cannot except that poor people can do it.  There is little hope for improving there lives.  I know they can learn new technologies that are expensive to start up.  
I added the eccoworxx to our website  http://haitireconstruction.ning.com/page/permanent-pellet-factories

Michael E. MahowaldPresident
Haiti Reconstruction International952-220-6814

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:44:17 +0100
From: wk at tmgroup.nl
To: psanders at ilstu.edu; stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org; don at donlotter.net; michael.deutmeyer at greenresources.no
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Cuber and size of densifying machines. (no longer Re: The wood and char and fuel "debate" )

Re: [Stoves] Cuber and size of densifying machines. (no longer Re: The wood and char and fuel "debate" )

Dear all

I have done tests with HD briquettes made of hardwood sawdust in the Philips Stove. They burn excellent however  getting them started is difficult.  I have put the briquettes  on top of burning  pellets, which works excellent as the airflow is fine.   Adding pellets  on burning pellets does not work.

I have seen a Indian hydraulic press making 25 mm  briquettes, that might even be better ??

Good to share all this knowledge as we are firm believers of avoiding  wood and built up a sustainable renewable fuel business.  I am doing testing with the rose waste in two weeks  using the ecoworxx  pellet machine.  See http://ecoworxx.com/pm-22-e/  I have seen this machine working: perfect !!!

Please find attached a quote for a chinese  pellet  machine  which runs off the tractor  PTO.  The price is 1275 $  C+F Dar es Salam. At that price  not a big risk to test.

Rgds

Willem

Op 06-03-14 16:02, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> schreef:

Dear Stovers and other Friends,

 I am in agreement with Bjarne.   It appears (yet still to be totally proven) that the larger diameter (such as 60 mm = 2.3 inches) densified biomass is probably a better way to proceed into larger production with mechanization in the developing societies.   

 Note that "densified" is with higher compression (including the crushing of cell structures and the "melting" of lignin that gives the glossy outer coating on DENSIFIED pellets and "processed logs" or densified briquettes).       

 Note:   IMO, the term "briquette" is used differently by various people who do not distinguish between the high-density and the low-density briquettes and the processes to make them.

 Similarly, there can be high and low density "pucks" or disks or wedges.   Maybe HD and LD can be used to distinguish between the two main types.

 For example, LD briquettes and pucks are made with manual presses and jacks for lifting vehicles.  These LD processed fuels can also be great as fuel (especially for TLUD gasifiers) if that is what the budget and circumstances allow for production.    Bjarne and I are NOT commenting against the LD precessed fuels.    We are commenting about the HD processed fuels, and are stating that the larger (60mm) diameter fuels are probably the more practical (lower cost and less maintenance) way to make HD processed biomass fuels.    Clearly pellets (HD and about 6 to 8 mm diameter) have an important role and are commercially viable, but that is in the context of developed and affluent societies. 

 As I have commented before, when the HD processed biomass "log" is extruded by a ram press (not by an auger), the log is essentially a series of disks that are jammed together.   The disks come out hot and slide along a cooking rack perhaps 5 meters long.   And while still hot (meaning closer to the press), they can be gently tapped and they will break apart into very clean disks measuring about 60 mm diameter and 10 to 15 mm thick.   If the fuel user needs smaller pieces at the time to cooking the meal, the disks can be easily broken by hand or hit with a rock or piece of log to become halves and quarters.   For Awamu in Uganda, two different makers of HD "logs" have provided us with disks when requested.

 Also stated in earlier messages, inside a TLUD gasifier, the disks can be place vertically (on edge) and have a superior air flow than if they are placed horizontally.   

 Comments in support or contrary would be greatly appreciated.

 Paul 

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  

Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   

Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072

Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com> 

 On 3/6/2014 1:32 AM, Bjarne Laustsen wrote:

To Paul and others 

 Fuel supply can be big business but it does not need to be. 

 We have been making pellets for gasification stoves. 

 The pellets in itself work very well if they are in sizes from 6 mm or 8 mm in diameter, they have been burning very good in our gasification stoves. 

 The problems in relation with pellets for gasification stoves are how to find good and sustainable pellet presses for producing the pellets. 

 The slides from the presentation from Crane Wang MUYANG illustrate this very well. Because the pellet press they shows are big and expensive equipments that will do a good job, however they are outside the financial reach of most of us. 

 We have experiences with some of the smaller and cheaper pellets mills, and they are not able to produce pellets in a sustainable way. They are designed for feed pellet production, and they aretherefore not able to produce fuel pellets in an economical way. 

 I have noted that in China they are mainly working with pellets for fuel production while in India they are working with briquettes. 

 For me to see the cuber will still be an to expensive solution. 

 The solution for us will be to use the Indian type of mechanical piston briquette presses that can make briquettes with diameter of 60 mm and get attached a puck cutter on that so the briquettes are cut out in pucks. Such pucks will be a good fuel for gasification stoves. And the equipment is reasonable in price so it is possible for many to finance such a solution. 

 These briquette presses can work with most types of agricultural residues, so we at the same can shift to using renewable biomass for cooking and in this way also contribute to reducing the deforestation. 

 Bjarne Laustsen 

 On 3/5/2014 10:47 PM, Paul Anderson wrote: 

Stovers, 

 Slide #9 of the presentation at the site given below is interesting.   Those cubes should work very well in gasifiers of many different sizes. 

 I was impressed by the other slides that show the very large sizes of the pelletizers and cubers.   If supply of raw materials is sufficient, large machines seem so much more appropriate than 100 or 1000 small units.   Fuel supply is BIG business. 

 Paul 

 Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD 

 Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu 

 Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072 

 Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>  

 On 3/5/2014 9:58 AM, Energies Naturals C.B. wrote: 

Hello Michael, 

 ..... 

 We saw some examples of cubers in a Beijing(?) stove exposition some time ago. 

 Also check this: http://www.novator.se/bioint/BPUA12Pres/10_BPUA12_Crane_Wang_MUYANG.pdf 

 Hope this helps 

 Rolf 

 On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:36:47 -0600 

 Michael Mahowald <memahowald at hotmail.com> <mailto:memahowald at hotmail.com>  wrote: 

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 <http://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/ 

 _______________________________________________ 

 Stoves mailing list 

 to Send a Message to the list, use the email address 

 stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org 

 to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page 

 http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org 

 for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site: 

 http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ 

 _______________________________________________ 

 Stoves mailing list 

 to Send a Message to the list, use the email address 

 stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org 

 to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page 

 http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org 

 for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site: 

 http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ 

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

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

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

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140306/c2afc898/attachment.html>