[Stoves] [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward

Wed Nov 25 22:06:18 CST 2015

Hi Ron

I would comment as follows:

1: You are certainly free to accept or reject my views on Efficiency. Any
definition of "Efficiency" that is clear, factual, helpful, and meaningful
is acceptable to me. Definitions that are tricky, deceptive, misleading  and
self-serving will not come into general use and acceptance. 

2: I would agree with the quote from Dr. Jain's work:

the energy stored in the charcoal should be considered     as a useful
energy. 

However I would disagree strongly if he said:

the energy stored in biochar should be considered     as a useful energy. 

Inherently, if charcoal is utilized as energy, it is consumed in the "energy
conversion process" and is unavailable for use as biochar. Conversion of
charcoal to energy destroys its potential for use as biochar.

It is inherently incorrect to calculate an "Energy Efficiency" for a char
making stove by giving "energy credit to the biochar", when by definition,
biochar does not have an "energy end use". 

Kevin

From: biochar at yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 12:53 PM
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>;
brian-dougherty at comcast.net; Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Cc: Biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>; biochar-stoves - Specific Listserv
<biocharstoves-7y82a at wiggiomail.com>; S. Jain <sureshjiitd at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological
development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward

Paul, Brian, and lists:

            1.  Thanks to both Paul and Brian (their messages below).
Brian's is a nice comparison to CHP.  The efficiency for CHP is always taken
as the sum of the separate power and heat.  Using the waste heat is clearly
to everyone's advantage (save companies selling less fuel).   Biochar
literature has tacked on a B to discuss combined heat, power and biochar as
CHPB.  There is a considerable difference from CHP in that the B = biochar
competes with the H and P.  More B means less of both H and P.  But the
terms are all (necessarily) measured in energy terms.  What other units
could be used?

            The same seems true for what Brian is calling CHC.  No reason
not to use this, but an alternative is obviously CHB.  If one was producing
char only for further combustion, then CHC would certainly be preferred.
The stoves list will probably use both CHC and CHB interchangeably.
Biochar (three sites receiving this) and climate (on which this first
started) lists will presumably mostly prefer CHB.

            I cannot accept Frank Shield's arguments below.  He is trying to
force a false preference between char-making or not - when such a choice is
not needed.  Both are wanted by many if not most stove users.  I again ask
Frank to express an opinion on which efficiency and inefficiency (presumably
always inversely related exactly) is best.  His reply to me was not used by
Brian - so readers will have to go back to a message close to mine on the
22nd.

            I similarly reject the arguments by Kevin Chisholm against the
use of both the third and fourth efficiencies.  Like Frank, he offers no
answers to my two basic ending questions, and (I find) no valid reasons for
those two rejections.

            I have added Prof.  Jain again - as it was his comment (below)
that I quoted in moving this climate thread to the stoves and biochar
arenas:

the energy stored in the charcoal should be considered     as a useful
energy. 

            I again urge readers new to this thread to read his lengthy
scholarly (free) article relating climate issues to stoves in numerous ways.

            To all - I hope we can hear more on especially the inefficiency
computations; forget efficiencies.  Also on what is the physics or chemistry
which causes char-making stoves to be more efficient?  Is the fuel
composition of either/both H2 and O2 important?   Another possibility is
that it is where the flame appears.  Burning char in a TLUD is obviously
inefficient because the main flame and energy release is as far from the
cook pot as possible - below the char, not above it.

To Paul - I hope this is what you wanted.

Ron

On Nov 25, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu
<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> > wrote:

Stovers,

The comment below from Brian to one Listserv merits being sent to the Stoves
Listserv and Biocharstoves Listserv.   Brian's comments make a lot of sense.
Let's discuss further and see if some "implementation" can result.  

I hope that Ron will filter and coordinate any such discussions because
there are numerous listservs to which the messages need to be circulated at
least occasionally.   There should be assistance from the rest of us,
especially if implementation is to occur.

Paul

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

On 11/24/2015 8:54 PM, 'Brian Dougherty'  [biochar] wrote:

Ron,

I don't see a problem with reporting the higher efficiency values as long as
it's made clear what is included in that number. As an example, combined
heat and power (CHP) plants typically report high efficiencies because they
are factoring in the energy from the heat plus the energy from the
electricity, but the name implies they are capturing both. A char making
stove that is also heating water is essentially a miniature CHP plant if you
think of the char as the "power'' output, but it would need to be labeled as
such. It's a matter of semantics, but if a unit is marketed as a char maker
or a stove then the higher efficiency numbers might be misleading. If it's
marketed as or intended to be a combined heat and char maker (CHC stove?)
then the higher number makes sense.

Brian 

From:  <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com> mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:38 AM

To:  <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> Discussion of biomass

Cc:  <mailto:sureshjiitd at gmail.com> S. Jain (Env. Engg.) ;
<mailto:biocharstoves-7xpll at wiggiomail.com> Entire Group ;
<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com> Biochar

Subject: Re: [Stoves] [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological
development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward

Frank et al

Those of us working on char-making stoves (a category bigger than TLUDs )
don't have the "don't know what to do with" problem. Even better is that
they seem cleaner and are apt to save time and money (maybe make money).
The issue is reporting -  if you feel such a stove (stove not char-maker)
has merit.  What is your answer to my two questions?

Ron

On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:36 AM, Frank Shields < <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
franke at cruzio.com> wrote:

Dear Ron,

If your task is to make char your calculations is dry weight of fuel IN and
weight of char (DAF) OUT. Boiling water is just something to do so you can
have a cup of tea while you wait. 

If your task is boiling water and you are left with char you have a
byproduct to add to your garden. 

If you want both I suggest you place an importance on each (percentage of
importance) for the span of a year or season. Then with each run you keep
track of the char produced and water boiled and try to achieve your
percentage ratio. At the end of the year you may need to just boil off some
water to get more char or have left over char you don't know what to do
with. 

Regards

Frank

Frank Shields

On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:36 PM, Ronal W. Larson <
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:

Lloyd et al:  Adding "stoves - as that is where we have had a similar dialog
in the past

I promised an example.  Use energy of wood and charcoal as measured to be 18
and 30 MJ/kg - both possible.)

Assume 1 kg of wood into the stove - or 18 MJ.  

Assume water boiling away calculates to 6 MJ;   Effic1 = 6/18  = 33%  (Some
say stop here; this is a typical number for many stoves including TLUDs)

Assume (to get easy numbers) 26.7% (a little high but a possible number) by
weight char production - gives .267* 30 = 8 MJ in the char.   Effic2 = 8/18
= .444 = 44%,  

Using the pyrolysis gases in the denominator -  Effic 3 = 6/(18-8) = 6/10 =
60%  (This use of the char energy in the denominator is the most common way
of handling char- added (60-33 =) 27% to the reported value of the stove - )

But  I think it more proper to add the first two efficiencies: Effic4 =
Effic1+ Effic 2 = .333+.444 = .777  (17.7% bigger than the 60% value - and I
think also an honest way to look at what is going on.  Last I saw,  EPA did
not add these together, but they did report Effic 1 and Effic 2.  Sales
people for biochar and TLUDs are apt to add them of course.   We obviously
want both numbers to be as high as possible.

The losses are 18-6-8 = 4 MJ  or 4/18= 22.2%  (mostly hot gases).  This is
what we should be concentrating on - not 100-60 = 40%.  In inefficiency
terms, I claim the losses we want to reduce are nowhere near 40% - if you
want both char and water boiled away.  40% is the portion of energy in the
pyrolysis gases that we failed to capture.  

If we burnt the wood (no resultant char) rather than pyrolyze it, we might
expect to have a 60% efficient stove - but no-one measures any wood stove
that high.  Why not?  I don't have a good answer, but suspect it might
relate to how hydrogen fits in.  That is - with little hydrogen in the char,
the hot gases are more hydrogen rich with a pyrolysis stove.  Better heat
transfer with more hydrogen?  A hotter flame?    Or is the effect due to
oxygen - which also is a lower percentage in char than in wood?   Or both?

Comments appreciated when we are striving to make char in a stove:

Q1: are the losses 22%, 40%, or 67%?

      Q2:  Is the efficiency 78%, 60%, or 33%?

Ron

On Nov 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Lloyd Helferty <
<mailto:lhelferty at sympatico.ca> lhelferty at sympatico.ca> wrote:

Thanks, Ron.

  I know nothing about the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation(s) that
"use the char's energy value".
Could you elaborate?
  Is the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation your preferred methodology
as a next step to the "WBT"?

(Yes, I am quite out of touch with the latest in "Stove testing"
methodologies. What "efficiency" methodology does the GACC currently endorse
when testing stoves that produce biochar? Is it still an open question?)

Regards,

  Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
  Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
   <http://www.biochar-consulting.ca/> www.biochar-consulting.ca
  Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI)
   <http://www.prsi.ca/> http://www.prsi.ca/
  Promotions Manager, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network (CSAYN)
   <http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com/>
http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com/
   <http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/>
http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/
   <https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6756248>
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6756248
  48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
  905-707-8754
  CELL: 647-886-8754
     Skype: lloyd.helferty
  Co-manager, Sustainable Agriculture Group
   <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458>
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458
  Steering Committee coordinator
  Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
  Community Sustainability (CoSWoG), A working group of Science for Peace
  was:  <http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/>
http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/
  President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
  Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
  Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
            <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475>
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
   Advisory Committee Member, IBI
   <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717>
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
   <http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675>
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
   <http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario>
http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
   <http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/>
http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
   <http://www.biocharontario.ca/> http://www.biocharontario.ca
    <http://www.biochar.ca/> www.biochar.ca

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get
better. It's not."
 - Dr. Seuss (The Lorax)

On 2015-11-22 3:13 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:

Lloyd etal

I am imagining a charcoal-making stove owner who has 2 clients to whom she
sells charcoal.  One client (A) burns the char; the other (B) uses it as
biochar.  How can one say the stove has two different efficiencies?

But another argument is that if all the produced char is used by C as
biochar - it must be that the char's soil value exceeded the energy value.
So perhaps the efficiency value for client C should be even better than for
case A.    This soil use for the char is where I think we are heading.

In sum, I see no reason to do other than use the char's energy value when
calculating a total efficiency - as is being done by Jetter/EPA/

Ron

On Nov 22, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Lloyd Helferty [biochar] <
<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com> biochar at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Ron,

  In reading that quoted/highlighted paragraph, my expectation is that the
term, "utilizing the charcoal" (..."should be considered as a useful
energy") is probably meant to assume that the leftover/residual charcoal
would subsequently be utilized as a fuel, and probably not asbiochar.  If
the resulting charcoal is used in a non-energy application (i.e. as biochar)
then one does not normally talk about or refer to, "theenergy stored in the
charcoal" as being "useful" anymore, if one considers the classical
[non-regenerative / linear] energy models.  (Of course if one understands
the use of biochar from a holistic** perspective, it can make sense to use
biochar in a non-fuel application if that application results in a boost to
the actual [biomass] fuel -- and food -- production capabilities of the soil
from which the original stove 'fuel' was derived... but of course those are
more complex calculations that must also consider time and a number of other
variables which are not normally taken into consideration.)

**Note: If considered in this holistic perspective / context, the use of
soil-health enhancing materials like biochar will very likely eventually be
aprerequisite of the very definition of "sustainable" biofuels /
biomaterials.

CC: Biochar group

Regards,

  Lloyd Helferty

On 2015-11-22 3:58 AM, Ron Larson wrote:

Professor Jain

1.   Thank you for a tremendously useful document.  Especially that you
(Elsevier?, TERI?) have made it available on a non-fee basis (for a SHORT
time).

2.    I am a little surprised (and delighted) that I received this on the
climate change list.   I am alerting four other lists who will also find
this most useful.

3.    To me, interested in both climate change (through biochar - not
mentioned) and stoves, the most important sentence in your exceedingly
thorough (161 cites) is this partial paragraph in Section 2.3.1 (emphases
added):

   "The energy expenditure in the form of fuel for boiling and evaporating
water is calculated by standardizing the amount of raw fuel with fuel
moisture content, ambient temperature, charcoal formed fuel and calorific
value of fuel and charcoal. This is called the 'equivalent dry wood
consumed'. Charcoal utilization after the cooking process in real households
has not been validated in any of the studies. If the charcoal disposed by
targeted population then the fuel consumption can be corrected.   If a
certain community has a habit of utilizing the charcoal then ...

the energy stored in the charcoal should be considered as a useful energy." 

4.  As I know you know, there is more than one way to report the impact of
charcoal production in stove comparisons.  Examples coming.

5.  I could not find an email address for Ms. (Dr?) Pooja Arora.  I intend
to look up other papers she and you have published.  Please congratulate her
as well.

Again, thanks for a very useful stove assessment document.  I am aware of
nothing like it.

Ron  (first/past "stove" and "biochar" lists coordinator)

On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:09 PM, S. Jain (Env. Engg.) wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

We are sharing with you an article on Chronological development in cookstove
assessment methods: Challenges and way forward. We hope to receive your
inputs and comments on the same. 

Abstract

This review intended to collect and collate the information related to
cookstove testing methodologies applied in lab and field conditions and
their output in the form of energy and emission parameters. The important
information related to progression of cookstove testing techniques was
segregated in order to understand the relationships in different indicators
of cookstove performance and to understand the sources of uncertainty in
emission data. The major research issue that has been dwelt upon in the
recent literature is the establishment of relationship between lab and field
results of cookstove performance. It is observed that controlled cooking
test and kitchen performance test are the two field based tests which
provide a better picture of a particular cookstove performance as it
involves the user perspective. Misrepresentation of actual cookstove
performance based on laboratory based testing puts the present standard
protocols in question. Solutions have been put forward by some research
studies; however a validation is needed through multiple scientific
investigations conducted at various temporal and spatial scales. It has been
observed that cookstove testing methodologies are still in their nascent
stage compared to the research that has already been conducted for other
sources where biomass combustion emissions have studied thoroughly. Still
the shift in focus of upcoming research studies towards field based
integrated cookstove testing methodologies has the potential to drive future
cookstove research in the new direction.

We are providing you with the following personal article link, which will
provide free access to your article, and is valid for 50 days, until January
10, 2016

 <http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u>
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

__._,_.___

  _____  

Posted by: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> > 

  _____  

<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/18767;_y
lc=X3oDMTJybmx2bW5kBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxO
DYxMgRtc2dJZAMxODc2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0NDg0NzAzNzc-?act=repl
y&messageNum=18767> Reply via web post 

.

<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net?subject=Re%3A%20%5BStoves%5D%20%5Bbiochar%
5D%20%5Bbiochar-stoves%5D%20A%20review%20of%20chronological%20development%20
in%20cookstove%20assessment%20methods%3A%20Challenges%20and%20way%20forward>
Reply to sender 

.

<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BStoves%5D%20%5Bbiochar%5D
%20%5Bbiochar-stoves%5D%20A%20review%20of%20chronological%20development%20in
%20cookstove%20assessment%20methods%3A%20Challenges%20and%20way%20forward>
Reply to group 

.

<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3o
DMTJmdW44bzRuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgR
zZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NDg0NzAzNzc-> Start a New Topic 

.

<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/topics/18764;_ylc
=X3oDMTM3aW05MTQxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODY
xMgRtc2dJZAMxODc2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NDg0NzAzNzcEdHBjSWQDMTg
3NjQ-> Messages in this topic (4) 

<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNG9hNzNuBF9TA
zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z
2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDg0NzAzNzc-> Visit Your Group 

<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2h1czhkBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA
zIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0ODQ3M
DM3Nw--> 

.  <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
<mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe
.  <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of Use 

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=22438052/grpspId=1707418612/msgI
d=18767/stime=1448470377> 

<http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
9&js=no&resp=img> 

__,_._,___

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151126/469898cc/attachment.html>