[Stoves] cook stoves for Cameroon
Philip Lloyd
plloyd at mweb.co.za
Sat Sep 20 16:46:12 CDT 2014
Dear Ron,
Herewith just a few pictures to indicate the transport of charcoal; no
problem in showing that this is more efficient IF you don’t have modern
transport systems and industrial-level wood harvesting – which most of the
Third World lacks
http://www.itswild.org/sites/default/files/Charcoal_bicycle_0.JPG
http://www.ultrarob.com/blog/uploaded_images/9480_ChongweCharcoalBike-769811
.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ05Q69RbWH09X-kQitLa0G
p9puzifn04Zfs4sz6D-jxcXz9jcE
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/congolesecha.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-j34devPQ48Q/UlU0MqQ-tVI/AAAAAAAAAUo/busCn0i7hdc/s1
600/sm+big+charcoal+load+on+bike.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-koMsFsGmzeY/U1QQKBnMjuI/AAAAAAAAAls/LLqXx_9XyI0/s1
600/Ndola+044.JPG
But sometimes - - -
http://samandchristine.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/charcoal-plus.jpg
I really am not listening to Crispin. I am talking to people on the ground,
trying to understand their problems in order to formulate solutions that are
acceptable to them. First understand what your customers want – it is the
age-old rule of marketing.
Prof Philip Lloyd
Energy Institute
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
PO Box 652, Cape Town 8000
Tel:021 460 4216
Fax:021 460 3828
Cell: 083 441 5247
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Ronal W. Larson
Sent: 20 September 2014 06:02
To: Discussion of biomass; plloyd at mweb.co.za
Subject: Re: [Stoves] cook stoves for Cameroon
Dr. Lloyd and list
You have provided answers to all your own questions. But with
a few logical errors in between, so your conclusions are wrong. See below.
On Sep 20, 2014, at 5:54 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
Dear Ron and list,
I think it helps to understand why people use charcoal for cooking. They
use it because transport of wood is too expensive and/or the transport
networks are inefficient.
[RWL: Clearly charcoal fires are easier to use and take care
of. Less time for the cook. Seemingly cleaner; little smoke usually (but
people die from CO poisoning regularly). But much of this apparent
advantage is removed with the use of char-making stoves. The main
disadvantage of these is they are batch. The choice will come down to
balancing benefits vs costs.
But you are listening too much to Crispin on the cost of
transporting wood vs char. There was a long dialog on this between Crispin
and Dr. Paul Means of the Burn Design Labs group (Seattle area) - and I for
one came away believing Dr. Means. When I did this Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Means+Crispin+transport+wood+charcoal+s
toves
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Means+Crispin+transport+wood+charcoal+
stoves&oq=Paul+Means+Crispin+transport+wood+charcoal+stoves&aqs=chrome..69i5
7.27307j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8>
&oq=Paul+Means+Crispin+transport+wood+charcoal+stoves&aqs=chrome..69i57.2730
7j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8
these are the first seven items that popped up - mostly in this list
archives in the April 2013 timeframe. I don’t have the time nor inclination
to revisit this topic, but I assume you or someone will tell me where the
truth lies on the cost of transporting energy for cooking.
·
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2
013-April/005504.html> [Stoves] Alternative to charcoal - BioEnergy Lists
lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists...org/2013.../005504.html
·
·
Apr 8, 2013 - At Ethos, I was unfortunately giving a talk when Paul Means
gave his talk (the ... transport of charcoal (MJ per ton-mile) is much
cheaper than transporting wood ... by Crispin - that charcoal use is
superior to cooking with wood.
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2
013-April/005737.html> Gathering data on TLUD stoves was Re: Last ...
Apr 27, 2013
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2
013-April/005612.html> Alternatives to charcoal - transportation & biochar
Apr 18, 2013
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2
013-April/005564.html> More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
Apr 13, 2013
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/2
011-August/001719.html> Replies re illegalities and benefits of char.
Aug 17, 2011
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Means+Crispin+transport+wood+charcoal+
stoves+site:lists.bioenergylists.org&es_sm=91&sa=X&ei=CpIdVO-zENaeyASs0oC4Bg
&ved=0CCwQrQIwAA> More results from lists.bioenergylists.org
·
<https://www.mail-archive.com/stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org/msg05087.html>
Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
https://www.mail-archive.com/stoves@lists.bioenergylists.../msg05087.ht...
·
Apr 20, 2013 - On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Paul Means
<p... at burndesignlab.org> wrote: > Hi Crispin, > In answer to your questions.
I assumed that the cost oftransportation, > for bulk products like this will
primarily be based on ... I aim higher > than that but let's stick to
average mediocre wood and charcoal stoves.
·
<https://www.mail-archive.com/stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org/msg05000.html>
Re: [Stoves] Alternative to charcoal "adam-retort" 39 ...
https://www.mail-archive.com/stoves@lists.bioenergylists.../msg05000.ht...
·
·
Apr 10, 2013 - If we look at the "continuum" between wood as a fuel, and
charcoal as ...Crispin's Proposed Stove testing Protocols are perhaps best
for "Full Combustion Biomass Stoves. ... At the recent ETHOS conference Paul
Means and Chris Lanning ... When fairly dry, transport the wood to the users
as with charcoal.
·
<https://www.mail-archive.com/stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org/msg05191.html>
Re [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal - The Mail Archive
https://www.mail-archive.com/stoves@lists.bioenergylists.../msg05191.ht...
·
·
Apr 27, 2013 - There is also Paul M. - Paul Means of Burn Labs, and also
Paul O. in Vietnam ... burndesignlab.org>> wrote: Hi Crispin, In answer to
your questions. I assumed that the cost of transportation, for bulk products
like this will ... I aim higher than that but let's stick to average
mediocre wood and charcoal stoves.
·
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/14956>
Biochar - Groups - Yahoo
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/.../14956
·
·
Yahoo! Groups
Apr 20, 2013 - There is also Paul M. - Paul Means of Burn Labs, and also
Paul O. in ... I assumed that the cost of transportation, for bulk products
like this will ... I aim higher than that but let's stick to average
mediocre wood and charcoal stoves. ... re the processed v.s. unprocessed
fuels (char vs wood). Thanks Crispin
· [PDF]
<http://seachar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-03_Micro-gasification_ma
nual_GIZ_HERA_Roth_med.pdf> Micro-gasification: cooking with gas from dry
biomass
seachar.org/.../2014-03_Micro-gasification_manual_GIZ_HERA_Roth_...
·
Apr 2, 2014 - 1.2 Developing cleaner cookstoves for solid biomass? ... 2.0
Cooking onwood-gas from dry biomass – how it works . ..... Fuchs, Pam
Jagger, Dr Agnes Klingshirn, Gregor Kraft, Paul Means, Kevin Mortimer,.
Crispin Pemberton-Piggott, Dr André Seidel, and Paal Wendelbo for their
assistance in reviewing ...
· <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soil-age/bg3K-sn162A> Fwd: [biochar]
Third report from Phnom Penh (both stoves ...
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soil-age/bg3K-sn162A
·
·
Mar 21, 2013 - To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <sto. ... The key
disposable parts are compressed charcoal "chips" of about 2 sq in size. ...
Great talk by Paul Means of Burn Lab (Seattle) on the (mostly
transportation) reasons NOT to ... will add more are Priya Karve, Paul
Anderson and Crispin Pemberton-Piggott.
Thus, for instance, many towns in East Africa are supplied by charcoal
carried in by bicycle from charcoal burners miles from the town. A
bicycle-load of charcoal has the energy equivalent of the branches that can
be piled into a three-ton truck.
[RWL: Based on all the work by Dr. Means, I conclude this
statement is flat out wrong. I assume you will provide numbers to back this
up or retract.
The level of deforestation that results is impressive.
[RWL: Thanks for this: Even if your previous statement was
true (and I strongly believe it isn’t), we should be doing everything
possible to stamp out the horrible deforestation that is occurring in many
countries through in-the-bush horribly inefficient and highly polluting
(venting not flaring) production of char.
There is a hugely curious contradiction here - I am advocating
as strongly as I can to kill the use of all char for cooking - while at the
same time advocating as strongly as I can for making char while cooking.
My reasoning has changed over the years - my char-making stove development
started in the early 1990s strictly to save forests - for the exact reason
you gave - deforestation. It started after working for USAID in Sudan -
which country has been ruined by its huge use of char (said to be 90% at one
time for all energy consumption - certainly a lower percentage now but
probably even larger in tonnes per year).
Now I am driven by a climate rationale. We now have to not only
get to zero added annual CO2, we have to take some out. My analyses says
that biochar is the cheapest means of doing that. Not free, but cheapest.
Crispin, maybe you, sees no climate issue at all. He, maybe you, probably
still believes global temperatures are going to decline. I react strongly
to this nonsense belief because there are never any back-up citations - only
assertions. Your example of a bicycle vs a 3-ton truck is a good example.
Apologies for this rant. Please tell me you believe in
anthropogenic warming. Deforestation (the topic in this part of my rant) is
definitely a big part of the cause of anthropogenic warming - but
deforestation is horrible for many other reasons - as you agree.
The lesson from this is that wood- and charcoal-burning communities do not
co-exist – or, if they do, I have yet to identify one.
[RWL: On this list we have had numerous reports on the relative
wholesale and retail prices of wood and char. Clearly many communities are
doing both - with the more affluent using the more expensive char (being
more convenient in cooking). “Affluent” here is relative; the really
wealthy are of course using propane or even electricity. In a while, many
of those more affluent will be switching to char-making stoves as the prices
of all warming fuels (including char) are taxed (as should be anything
causing harm to the environment).
I hope others who see communities where both wood and char are
being used will report that to Dr. Lloyd and this list. My guess is that
of the three categories of using either or both, the latter is the largest
number.
The other lesson is that making charcoal is energy-inefficient.
[RWL: Absolutely - and thanks for the comment. GACC and many
others are causing increased use of char for cooking by only reporting the
efficiency of getting useful energy out of the char - and not including the
inefficiencies in the making of char. I read numbers of 10-15% efficiency
in making char (on average - it can be made more efficiently in the bush,
but a good many loads are lost). Any TLUD can double these numbers - and
some are even better. Char-making stoves fall into both the carbon-neutral
and carbon-negative camps. There are very few technologies that can make
that claim. We should also be talking of combining char-making stoves with
solar cookers.
For these reasons no, I can’t imagine people wanting to make money by
making char while cooking.
[RWL: Since I have disagreed with all your reasons, it must be
obvious that I will disagree here as well. But you have also given no
reason why a family making $1 - $2 per day (and not being able to find work
many days) wouldn’t want to add even as little as 10 or 20% to that number
from planting their own trees and harvesting regularly and making char,
while saving time while cooking. I am not advocating that they go further
to find the wood, I am advocating that they raise their own energy - exactly
as they raise their own food. That they use smaller and waste biomass that
can’t be used efficiently in three-stone or Rocket-type stoves. And with
char being placed in soil (i.e. biochar), they raise more food (maybe double
per square meter?) and they avoid the tedium of slash and burn agriculture.
The slash and char Terra Preta phenomenon is real. Char in the soil allows
much greater density of bacteria, fungi, etc - achieved with no (repeat
“zero”) extra effort. If a cook can make $0.20 per day through cooking,
most stoves will be paid off in a lot less than 1 year.
It seems that you and Crispin are not reading anything on the
sister biochar lists. There are many examples listed there of people
placing char in soil and in the first year getting double productivity.
Authors who come to mind who read this list and who are also on the biochar
lists are Art Donnelly, Sam Craigs, Erich Knight, Kelpie Wilson, Tom Miles,
Albert Bates and many more. If you can’t find any such report - ask and I
will supply many. They are all over the biochar space. I am especially
anxious to hear of published reports (peer reviewed or not) that claim the
opposite; I see very few of those.
I am not saying that every char placement will do this
“doubling” - but the success ratio keeps getting better every year (due to
advice such as using urine additions, right portion of inocculants, compost,
etc).
Last admission - I am writing this in part to offer guidance (as
requested) to Huck and his project in the Cameroons. I repeat that the
guidance from Crispin and yourself I find wanting - mainly because I see no
citations. Please note the number of citations I have given above - and my
promise to provide more if you can’t find them on the sister biochar lists.
I will be greatly disappointed if I receive no anything on anything I have
said above. Much progress can be made through dialog over disputes over
facts. This especially includes the issue of anthropogenic warming, on
which I am trying to spend 100% of my time.
Ron
Prof Philip Lloyd
Energy Institute
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
PO Box 652, Cape Town 8000
Tel:021 460 4216
Fax:021 460 3828
Cell: 083 441 5247
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Ronal W. Larson
Sent: 20 September 2014 04:43
To: Discussion of biomass
Subject: Re: [Stoves] cook stoves for Cameroon
Crispin and list
Very peculiar to me that you can’t imagine people wanting to
make money by making char while cooking and then selling it. Perhaps you
have a citation for this view?
It would be most helpful if you could send something (anything)
on this CSI calculation methodology - which I have requested two or three
times already and your promised once.
Ron
On Sep 17, 2014, at 9:38 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
Dear Huck
The last question first:
How much ‘tree’ do you need to cook?
That is the question. If you are cooking on multiple stoves one that makes
charcoal and one that burns it, you can analyse that as a ‘system’ but
remember that to evaluate them you have to do them separately. A lot of
conflict, actually, has emerged over this question because those who want to
make charcoal-making stoves don’t want them penalised for being inefficient,
even if they are. They bring a lot of arguments in favour of this or that
aspect of a system of which the stove is a port. No problem – such arguments
are reasonable when discussing systems, however your question is strictly
about stove performance.
The way you phrased the question is the same as the way the UNFCCC phrases
it – how much tree for how much cooking. The assumption is that less trees
used for the same amount of cooking is more efficient.
When calculations are made, however, people frequently calculate the energy
released, not the amount of fuel consumed and the two numbers are nearly
always different. We are not burning gasoline. Cars do not make charcoal.
‘Leftovers’ can be a significant portion of the energy available,
As Prof Lloyd just remarked a couple of days ago, it takes a lot of work to
get fuel and people are not crazy – they want to burn it before going out to
get more.
It is for these reasons that het Clean Stove Initiative Indonesia
(CSI-Indonesia) uses a calculation method that captures the amount of raw
fuel needed to complete another test burn cycle. The energy in that ‘fuel
consumed’ is determined. That is the energy available. The energy gained by
the pot (including the heat gained by the pot material as it can be
substantial) is determined over a cooking simulation. In the case of the
CSI-Indonesia pilot the determination is made using the CSI-WHT (‘Water
Heating Test’). This is an accurate measure of the energy gained by the pot
– to within a few Joules.
Energy applied divided by energy drawn from the forest is the system
efficiency, or ‘overall efficiency’.
Regards
Crispin
Hi All,
I found myself a little confused by the discussion.
Not being expert in the field, this is how I would pose my questions:
1. There is a certain amount of energy per kilogram of wood (I’m going
to stick with wood for the moment rather than all biomass).
2. When burned, some of that energy is realized and some is not, i.e.
there is not complete combustion. How complete is the combustion? How much
energy is released? That would be the first measure. I want this because
it tells me about one component of the system and is useful for design. It
does not tell me the net result for the user.
3. How much of the released energy goes into cooking? That would be my
next measure. That should tell me what weight of wood people have to
collect to cook their food. It is worth noting that the amount of energy
that goes into cooking is also affected by the pots and lids used as well as
how they fit onto the stove.
4. It is also important to know how much energy was expended to get the
fuel and prepare it for use. Some of that energy is human energy so it gets
treated a bit differently and has a different impact. For example, it
doesn’t convert simply to climate impact (are humans low global warming gas
emitters?). If you cut up the fuel a lot and process it a lot there is a
cost there. I don’t know how that stacks up for gasifiers vs other stoves.
5. Regarding charcoal. I am presuming you can still use the charcoal.
I was, apparently erroneously, under the impression that gasifier stoves
could continue to receive primary air and therefore burn the charcoal. I
actually liked that idea because it was simple and used most of the energy
in the stove. If you take the charcoal out of the stove you then have a
couple of options for using it. You can burn it in another stove, which has
some appeal as you can do a different kind of cooking with it (e.g. BBQ, or
?). But also seems like quite a bit of work and complication for a small
amount of charcoal. Or, you can use it in the soil. So another question:
6. Is a gasifier stove with charcoal (biochar) buried actually carbon
negative?
7. Then the other important measure: what are the emissions?
And, a kind of crude question: with the ins and outs of this discussion is
it the case that rocket stoves or some other stove is more efficient than
the gasifiers? In my question by efficiency I mean kg of wood required for
a Cameroonian to cook their meals?
Which stove do they have to carry more wood for and do more fuel preparation
for? (I’m not sure how you measure the combined work for those tasks).
Huck
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylist
s.org>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylist
s.org>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 48084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39085 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 24800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment-0003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 61092 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140920/cdd501d5/attachment-0006.jpg>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list