[Stoves] Charcoal from waste - home cooking or other markets? (Re: Anand Karve, Ken Boak, Tom Miles 5 October)

[Traveller]

Moderator: I notice there is more to this thread today. I am commenting on
the traffic as of yesterday.
------------

Thank you, all. Your "real world" examples help make a broader, more
sensible (to some) policy argument that biomass management ought to be seen
its entirety and specific to local contexts.

A strong case can be made for national, sub-national or regional (say, West
Asia or Central America and the Caribbean or different country groupings in
Africa) for "Biomass Energy Strategies" that promote improvements in the
supply sides as well as the end uses of all major types of biomass for
energy applications, direct or via power.

Why, I think such efforts have been going on under EU and also at the World
Bank, but they have failed to get traction, I think because there are too
many untenable claims (local environment, climate, gender) and questionable
technical promises (stoves, charcoaling). Advocacy has its limits; when the
rubber meets the road, theories and confusions generate smoke, not heat.

Yes, as Tom points out, capital is the main constraint (I might add human
capital in skills and institutions as well). Laws - on tree ownership or
land/water rights - are also problematic. Public lands - including
mangroves, other swamps - are also potentially useful. A biomass energy
strategy that can be financed on large scale and sustainable basis is yet
to be developed.

**

Power generation is a different matter.

Even as a non-engineer, I am inclined to accept Ken Boak's view that
charcoal gasifier is a more forgiving technology than wood gasifiers when
it comes to small-scale power generation.

I have mixed views on small grids and even more complicated views for
biomass - gas or liquid - small grids in new areas. Reliable - in quantity,
quality, and stable price - feedstock or charcoal supply is not easy in
most parts of the developing world, though emissions can be ignored
depending on the locale. However, the most serious issue is not technology
or capital cost but capacity factor, operating cost, tariffs, and skills to
maintain, manage, and grow the demand.

These observations on small grids are from many parts of the world and
apply to many "renewable energy" projects in greenfield areas (increasingly
the more remote and poorer populations). Years to go before such "green
grids" become viable, and perhaps only with "smart" technologies.

from Vanuatu a few years ago - where a wood gasifier had been installed
with a power generator in the 1980s but fell in disuse
<https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Vanuatu.pdf> and a
coconut oil-based generator in Port Olry (which I visited in 2009) also has had
significant problems
<http://dailypost.vu/news/port-olry-community-regains-electricity-supply/article_de39055c-2037-550e-a528-8006c9b55add.html>.
I think stand-alone PV is best for small battery use for all times, and
diesel-PV hybrids for new pico-grids might be better if they are easier to
operate.

Charcoal gasification in Vanuatu was discussed in Robert Simeon's A
Development Perspective for Biomass-fueled Electricity Generation (p. 236),
emphasizing the importance of utilization rate.

Immature technologies for widespread application; highly efficient battery
products are a better answer.

"Wood gas" stoves might be working in Vanuatu. There was a mention of "wood
gas" stoves from Australia to Vanuatu
<http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/node/3158> on this list back in 2013.

So long as the Empire Promotion A

Nikhil


****

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil,
> our charring and briquetting process can easily be scaled up to process
> municipal solid waste. In fact, a voluntary group uses it currently to
> produce charcoal briquettes from coconut shells that are left with vendors
> who sell green coconuts to people who want to drink coconut water. The
> group gets theses shells transported free of cost to their work place by
> the coconut vendors, because the municipality refused to accept the shells
> as garbage. The briquettes are currently used as cooking fuel but we are
> trying to find other uses for them. Charcoal generally has a higher
> calorific value than mineral coal and one can therefore use it in all
> processes, where one normally uses mineral coal. In my city and in villages
> around it, the blacksmiths regularly use charcoal to heat any piece of iron
> on which they are working.
> Yours
> A.D.Karve
>
> ***
> Dr. A.D. Karve
>
> Chairman, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com)
>
> Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Moderator: I changed the subject line. This is in response to Crispin's
>> comment about Anand Karve's work.
>> ---------------
>>
>> Crispin: "That is what is so inspiring about AD Karve?s work on charring
>> waste biomass to produce a high quality fuel. He even produced the
>> extruder and the Sarai stove to go with it. That is a museum quality
>> piece of work - to be studied... "
>>
>> I take your word for it, but I also had this suspicion a few years ago
>> that what Anand Karve was proposing in terms of converting waste biomass
>> for charcoal was worth more attention, not primarily as a fuel choice issue
>> but as a waste management issue. In dry regions such as much of India, leaf
>> and tree waste along with other open biomass waste is a major problem in
>> municipal waste management. Why, just driving by Gandhinagar - the capital
>> of Gujarat state where I lived - a few months ago I saw huge piles of leaf
>> waste in numerous parks that have been created by the state government to
>> make the city "green". All those leaves will be burned in the open,
>> contributing to air pollution (not reported in peer-reviewed literature so
>> it must not exist) that damages biota health here and now. On the other
>> hand, such burning will release organic aerosols that supposedly cool the
>> atmosphere, so it is most definitely "green" for the "global environment"
>> advocates.
>>
>> Open organic waste - including leaves, tree debris, food waste - is a
>> huge headache for local governments. On the other hand, urban trees have
>> multiple benefits including air filtering
>> <https://www.accessscience.com/content/urban-tree-leaves-remove-fine-particulate-air-pollution/BR0116141>,
>> favorable changes in ambient temperatures (thus impacting building energy
>> demand; I did some work for Cinncinnati Gas and Electric climate options
>> 20+ years ago), and I also happen to like urban forestry, gardening, food
>> production (if land, water, and air quality so permit).
>>
>> A new paradigm of urban/peri-urban biomass production, utilization, and
>> waste management needs to emerge, and energy analysts have much to offer.
>>
>> Unless they leave the field to WHO and EPA.
>>
>> The question is, do Indian customers care to advance to cleaner charcoal
>> or convenient LPG?
>>
>> As I mentioned in the previous post, the commercial potential may not lie
>> in household cooking but in water heating (peri-urban, rural) and
>> commercial/institutional cooking and heating (water/space).
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Crispin: "But he is promoting charcoal consumption -  very offensive to
>> some. Shall we forgive him too? :)"
>>
>> Asking forgiveness from sinners of cooked science? You must be joking,
>> Mr. Pemberton-Pigott.
>>
>> I note your emoticon, but this is no laughing matter. I think it's time
>> to stop blaming direct use of solid fuels for presumed envionmental ills.
>>
>> It's the process that matters. Converting primary solid fuels into an
>> energy service can be "dirty process" or "clean (or cleaner) process."
>>
>> Extending Kirk Smith et al (AREE 2000 on India) to all processes of solid
>> fuel transformation, not just final combustion, and counting all emissions,
>> could well show that investments at all steps of the fuel cycle can deliver
>> small-scale direct use of solid fuels at a lower emission rates than the
>> "traditional" processes (unprocessed solid fuels with relatively
>> uncontrolled combustion and no emissions capture or ventilation).
>>
>> I will send you and Ron an e-mail about solid fuels and "dirty fuels";
>> you decide if it would add rancor or value to this List. I too prefer gas,
>> electricity, and solar (thermal or soon enough, induction cooking via PV).
>> There are markets for those. But until the 3 billion people we bleed our
>> hearts and research funds on get to that nirvana, reducing the PICs and the
>> drudgery of cooking should be the prime goals of research on solid fuels
>> use. Banning solid fuels should be limited to some areas and some users.
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161006/ab5a7d00/attachment.html>