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

[Frank Shields]

Dear Kevin,

I wasn’t Ron that made the ‘relationship’ from biochar to energy - it was me. 

And I agree that there is no use of the energy left in biochar when intended to place in soil and the energy units I gave to it really are not appropriate and had hoped I made that clear. But there is a use for biochar in the soil and how can that use be valued? The same is how do you value using char for cooking? or heating a house in summer vs winter, or any other End Use of a product? Its importance is based on needs. Often influenced by site, time and financially importance of the end products or tasks. 

So we are following energy. Energy from the biomass fuel through to the end tasks. Ron comes in and wants to include a by-product and place a use value on it. There is no energy value to biochar. So to compare to the other completed tasks and/or products (bowl of soup) we need to place use values on all the others to determine their importance for comparison. Well we are not going to do that! are we?

An idea!

The process of making Biochar (in the lab) and for making Char are exactly the same and use the same equipment (TGA TLUD). Its just how the end product is used that determine what it is called. The carbon content is determined using the same method (Leco CHN or estimated) to determine the concentration of carbon in the sample. The energy value given to graphite carbon is the same (~30kj/g). Because of this we can use all the energy NUMBERS as distribution units of the biomass fuel going into the combustion chamber to its different Products. Giving the importance of all the products are equal (until someone wants to give them priority)  we are now determining how the starting fuel is distributed (30% making biochar, 40% cooking soup, 10% as ash, 20% char for another stove etc.). Energy or Product value - its all the same until someone wants to give priory to importance and that will be determined by what the client purchases. It all adds up to 100% of the starting fuel. 

Regards

Frank

Frank Shields  





> On Nov 25, 2015, at 8:06 PM, kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca wrote:
> 
> 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
>  
> <snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151125/05e995c3/attachment.html>