[Stoves] Money matters. (Re: A debate about "efficiencies")

[Traveller]

Paul:

I don't think you want to add the energy value of char if it is going to
end up as addition to soil for purported climate benefits or soil
productivity benefits.

This is where the lunacy of reducing everything to CO2e -- the "footprint"
blather -- is clearly exposed. There is more to life than fossil CO2
(including respiration and photosynthesis, far far bigger processes than
fossil combustion).

I agree with you - dispense with mass and energy balances and use economic
values instead, with "useful thermal energy" valued as the residual.

Say a $ worth of fuel is ignited, and the value of unburnt fuel is zero or
$0.50. Then "useful thermal energy" is a dollar's or 50 cents worth
respectively. If someone else pays 50 cents for the latter - if char - then
the consumer is made whole. If that revenue is more, then the intervention
is "cost-negative".

One can statistically assign values for non-measurable benefits, and then
there is always the key importance of "consumer surplus". If the consumer
is willing to spend more - including investment in device or kitchen layout
or whatever else - then obviously the benefit is positive.

Yes, "special values of charcoal" are as important as "special values of
good wood". That paper in 1909 Journal of Home Economics did say something
like, "Wood has so much better uses than using as fuel."

But when "renewable biomass" becomes a cult, like CO2e cult, all the
nuances are lost.

Nikhil



---------
(US +1) 202-568-5831


On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Dear Ron and Crispin,   (your two messages are below).   Subject line
> changed to reflect the content.
>
> All is in reference to:
>
> an important stove reporting equation of the form e3 = e1 / (1- e2).
>
>
> I am not great at such equations.   But it seems to me that the letter
> e    is used both as   efficiency   and as    energy.     Whatever.  That
> is not my key point.   Rather,
>
> Both sides have their appropriate strong points.
> 1.  Biomass fuel is consumed, and any remaining charcoal is NOT the same
> as the original fuel.  So, 100% of the original fuel is gone.  --Crispin is
> correct about FUEL efficiency.
>
> 2.  The charcoal is different from the biomass fuel, but it is still a
> viable, usable form of energy that came directly from the original
> biomass.  So there needs to be some recognition of its ENERGY value.   (If
> the char has other, non-energy value (such as being good for filters), and
> may or may not be eventually consumed as energy, that is NOT part of this
> discussion.)
>
> 3.  On an ENERGY basis (not fuel basis), only the actual released energy
> in the biomass (after subtracting the energy that is still in the charcoal)
> should be used to calculate the heat transfer efficiency of the stove.   So
> the formula (and Ron's second table) can be considered correct, but it
> should be perhaps emphasized that the column heading should be:
> EE-stove   (ENERGY Efficiency of stove)    and is not     FE-stove  (Fuel
> efficiency of stove).
>
> ************
> I want to pick up on what Crispin wrote:
>
> * Char produced as a co-benefit goes in the top line, not deducted from
> the bottom.*
>
> That realization might have great merit.   Can the math-competent people
> please do that, and we can see the result.
>
> Basically it says that ALL of the fuel (in the denominator) is used, but
> there are two products in the nominator.     I do not know how to add
> "Energy captured in the pot" AND "charcoal created (as weight or volume)".
> Maybe convert the charcoal into units of energy.  And then add them.   And
> that sum is divided by the energy of the fuel that is consumed and is no
> longer in its original biomass form.
>
> Does this work?   Ron,  please put another column or two into your second
> table and send us the results.
>
> Another way to look at "efficiency" of fuel and of energy is to convert
> everything into monetary amounts.
>
> $ value of having heated the pot       PLUS      $ value of the created
> char    / divided by     $ value of the biomass fuel.
>
> For use in this monetary equation, there can be multiple different values
> for each of the 3 variables.
>
> Extreme values are possible, such as "if the pot does not get hot, the
> food is not cooked, and the baby dies" (a very high value for the heat to
> the pot.)      Also, biomass fuel that is actually expensive wooden
> furniture would command a high dollar value.
>
> On the low side, some biomass fuel could be invasive species that must be
> burned, so burning has no cost, and the act of doing the burning could
> receive payment.
>
> But just sticking to common, defendable values, we can find ways to
> COMPARE the economic value of using one stove type (that makes char, for
> example) with another type that does not.
>
> This will become increasingly important if and when the world recognizes
> special values of charcoal, as in water filters or fo carbon sequestration
> (without being biochar into soils) or as biochar with increased food
> production (with sequestration as an added benefit.).
>
> Stove stuff.   I find it interesting.
>
> Paul
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170113/b03d6fc6/attachment.html>