[Stoves] How to make smokeless coal?

Tue May 23 09:38:16 CDT 2017

Dear Mr Crispin

Power plants do not burn coal in anything like the manner in which domestic
users do it. They blow the entire mass of coal through the heat exchanger
and the ash is captured on the far side. Domestic combustors burn the coal
in situ and when properly constructed, have lower CO and PM emissions per
unit of delivered heat than even a $1bn power plant.

Emission factor for PM for residential stove is approximately 10 times to
that of a power plant with electrostatic precipitator (USEPA, 2007).  The
order of magnitude difference of Emission Factor (EF) of coal cook stoves
compared to LPG varies between 10-100 times (Venkatramanet al., 2010; Zhang
et al., 1999) for carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions.

Testing by Guenther Baumbach
<https://books.google.ca/books/about/Air_Quality_Control.html?hl=de&id=OCdSAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y>
who
literally wrote the book on air quality control and ambient particle
measurements tested the emissions using various fuels from traditional
Mongolian stoves in 2008, attended by Prof Tseyen-Oidov and myself. He
showed that putting semi-coked briquettes into the unmodified stove did not
reduce total emissions during a typical burn sequence. The emissions were
from 0-35% greater! The reason for this is unanticipated result was that
the semi-coked coal is much harder to light, the stove must be ignited with
a larger mass of fuel initially (or it will not light at all), must be
refuelled with a larger mass (or the fire goes out) and the stove must be
refuelled earlier in the burn than with a raw coal fire (or the fire dies).

It is unfair to compare emissions of raw coal and semicoke as mentioned
above. Were the conditions same? What about size of the samples? We do not
how much of heat and mass transfer is happening across the fixed bed for
the two conditions. Did they compare the EC-OC content of the final
emissions. I assume if they have measure that, they would have got a higher
value of the EC content in the semi-coke as the toxic components of the OC
were already removed during carbonization.

Regards
Darpan

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Darpan
>
>
>
> “I beg to differ on that. Commercial customers like power plants have
> control devices like electrostatic precipitator, fabric filters etc to
> control pollution, whereas emissions from coal cook stoves are
> uncontrolled.”
>
>
>
> Power plants do not burn coal in anything like the manner in which
> domestic users do it. They blow the entire mass of coal through the heat
> exchanger and the ash is captured on the far side. Domestic combustors burn
> the coal in situ and when properly constructed, have lower CO and PM
> emissions per unit of delivered heat than even a $1bn power plant.
>
>
>
> >It is thus a major contributor to the overall degrading air quality.’
> [referring to domestic scale combustion of coal]
>
>
>
> This is only true in places that do not use modern combustion devices. I
> too am mystified by what you have referred to as ‘uncontrolled combustion’.
> I know of no such device. Even a South Africa $5 *mbaula* has a degree of
> control over the cooking power and the air flow is regulated by the hole
> pattern.
>
>
>
> The result of a series of investigations into how to burn coal on a small
> scale for domestic use, both at the SeTAR Centre in Johannesburg and by
> other members of the South-Sough Sustainable Stoves Group (S4G) is that a
> number of products are hitting the market which are cleaner than anything
> yet witnessed in the small stove scene.
>
>
>
> The pollution you speak of is caused by the improper and incomplete
> burning of coal (or wood or anything else). Smoke is not a property of raw
> coal, it is a result of incomplete combustion. Smoke is not a property of
> sugar cane leaves or dung or wood or biomass pellets. It *is* a
> by-product of cooking but we don’t devote much time to discussion cooking
> pollution (from the food).
>
>
>
> A paper was presented at the Domestic Use of Energy conference 2017 by a
> group from North-West University, Potchefstroom on the subject of emissions
> from a standard, worn, old fashioned cast iron cooking and heat stove that
> was variously fueled with coal that had been roasted to several different
> temperatures starting at 450 C. They produced coal at different
> temperatures then measured the performance in terms of duration of the
> fire, maximum heating power, CO, PM2.5 and time needed to achieve
> ‘ignition’. They concluded that the ‘best performance’ was achieved with
> coal heated to 550 in an airless container.
>
>
>
> The caveat for the study is that the device was not designed to burn coal
> well – it is just a cast iron box surrounding a grate, with a chimney on
> one end and cooking plates on top. The same fuels placed into a variety of
> other stoves would produce a variety of other ratings.
>
>
>
> One of the curious things you will notice about the combustion of solid
> fuels in general is the oft-repeated claim that ‘fuels’ have a
> ‘performance’ (good, bad or otherwise). It is like saying gasoline has
> ‘good performance’ without referring to the device which burns the fuel.
> If I put 85 octane gasoline in a ’69 Super Stock Dodge Hemi will it give
> ‘good performance’?  What does ‘good’ mean? Nikhil goes farther, asking
> “What does ‘performance’ mean?” To a little old lady from Pasadena, that is
> a critical question.
>
>
>
> If you want to reduce the indoor and ambient emissions from coal stoves in
> India without changing the stove, then semi-coking the fuel will reduce the
> level of smoke. It will also create a toxic hydrocarbonaceous by-product
> for which there may not be a local market. It will also triple the cost of
> fuel. Will the fuel be subsidised? Would it be better to subsidise a better
> stove than fuel forever?
>
>
>
> Attached is a video of a clean burning coal fire. It is a domestic stove.
> It does not have uncontrolled combustion. The flame is distorted (made
> worse) by the removal of the pot hole cover plate, necessitated to make the
> video. When the plate is in place, the flame is even better and doesn’t
> move around as much.
>
>
>
> The fuel is raw bituminous coal. The PM2.5 emissions are not zero,
> because there is a little fly ash that gets into the heat exchanger. But
> there is *very* little BC or other unburned carbon forms. The processes
> taking place inside the stove are identical to that which takes place
> (separately) when coal is coked and then the coke is burned. The difference
> is that in this stove it happens continuously, provided there is fuel added
> from time to time (about per 12 hours). So, it is making a pyrolysed,
> semi-coked fuel, then coking it immediately, the burning the coke
> immediately, all in one continuous operation. There is no increase in fuel
> cost and no toxic liquid by-product.
>
>
>
> This method does not remove *inherent* emissions that are compositional
> properties of the fuel. Burning a coal containing fluorine would in this
> same stove *not* produce non-toxic emissions. Same for Laburnam of Yew in
> a wood stove.
>
>
>
> Tell me, are you interested in introducing very low smoke stoves in India
> or just an altered fuel? Both work for reducing smoke.
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>

-- 
Darpan Das
Research Scholar
IIT Bombay
India
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170523/f26cd0df/attachment.html>