[Stoves] Analysis of a two-stove cooking system

[Frank Shields]

Dear Stovers,

please see below


> On Nov 29, 2015, at 2:38 AM, ajheggie at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> [Default] On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:42:46 -0700,"Ronal W. Larson"
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> 	4.    A different reason for objecting to the computations is that way too much charcoal was thrown way (1.5 MJ worth) as valueless (and any fines would have great value as biochar anyway - and so should be considered). 
> 
> Just a quick comment, I too found this an unreasonable assumption, not
> only did I not find the results of a TLUD burn to contain discernable
> fines or ash (unless there was some recycling of the char into a
> second burn) but also char in ash still offers the opportunity to
> provide minerals and soil improvement *if* that is the reason for
> wanting to produce char in the first place.

Heat in the gasses coming out should have value heating a room and char produced should have value as biochar and ash should have value as nutrients. Where does it end? Again it goes back to somehow placing a value on each product produced where they all add up to 100%. And that is *not* energy based. Perhaps some having negative values like CO2 in the air (thats not piped into a greenhouse to help plants grow!). Value is based on what people want and could be obtained by sending out a questioner to the populous to what they want their stove to do. 

Moving forward: I think Crispin has done a great job of including char into the energy system as long as he can get other decision makers on board so it can be approved. At some point there will be lots of stoves the client can pick from and what they pick will be the Values giving to the products produced - as I see it.

 Thanks
Frank



> 
> BTW you and I did experiment with adding fuel to a tall (1 metre)
> forced draught TLUD burn in around 2002 though when you were there I
> suspect we only added small pieces of coal. I never did follow this
> through to conclusion but my thoughts were, assuming the added fuel
> was fine and dry, that it would continue to work until the offgas fell
> below about 400C as there would be some endothermy in raising the new
> material to pyrolysis temperature after which it should self sustain,
> though the char from the added material would be higher volatiles that
> than which the pyrolysis front had passed through.
> 
> Art I concur with your approach, I found the Anila to be a pretty poor
> stove from a usability point of view and the extra effort to produce
> the char in the outer section not worthwhile compared with a simple
> TLUD.
> 
> Finally fuel conversion efficiency, whilst valuable from a
> conservation point of view, is seldom what the market dictates, if the
> market wants a bigger car it will pay for the extra fuel, if it wants
> to produce char it will pay that cost too (not that I think TLUD is
> necessarily more costly in fuel because the lower pollution benefits
> offer the most value in my opinion).
> 
> AJH
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>