[Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
Mark E. Ludlow
mark at ludlow.com
Sat Sep 16 21:31:29 CDT 2017
That's an acute observation, Paul, because so much of any productive process is the prime importance of Recovery. Simply citing an earlier paper in something so essential as throughput efficiency, is a little disappointing. Are CO2 and CO part of that 47%?
-------- Original message --------
From: "Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu [biochar]" <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
Date: 2017/09/16 15:49 (GMT-08:00)
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com, 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: hsmclaughlin at verizon.net
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
tom,
This quote is from Pam Jagger's article, and cites Ryan.
We
assume that dry mass can be converted to carbon mass using 47%C
(Ryan et al., 2011),
What does " 47%C " actually mean? That is not the same as "%
yield of charcoal compared to dry-weight of biomass"
Who can explain such a process with such a high yield of
charcoal? I did not think that it is possible, unless it is a bit
beyond torrified wood.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 9/16/2017 12:05 PM,
tmiles at trmiles.com [biochar] wrote:
We
could estimate the potential carbon products and
benefits (or costs) from TLUDs using known data from
TLUD efficiency tests and real examples. For example,
what impact could a TLUD have on the scenario tested
in the work in Malawi that was posted yesterday by Pam
Jagger?
“Similarly,
the average amount of fuelwood collected was estimated
at 1878 kg per year per household, or 187,800 kg of
fuelwood per year per village. We relate the fuelwood
use in kilograms to hectares to better quantify the
regional forest impact. From the rural exposure
monitoring data set, we find the average moisture
content of the fuel (woody miombo biomass) to be 10%.
Beginning with the baseline fuelwood use of 187,800 kg
of fuelwood per year per village, if we assume a 10%
moisture content, the baseline fuelwood is equivalent
to 170,700 kg of dry fuelwood. We assume that dry mass
can be converted to carbon mass using 47%C (Ryan et
al., 2011), resulting in 80,240 kgC per year per
village. A study of carbon stocks in miombo woodland
in Mozambique found that woody biomass totaled 33.3
tC/ha (Ryan et al., 2011). If we assume similar
composition of woodland, we find that the baseline
case results in a miombo woodland deforestation rate
of approximately 2.41 ha per year per village.”
What
impact could a TLUD have on 1878 kg/household per
year? How much biochar/charcoal would be produced and
at what value?
Health
Alert: Reading Pam’s paper could raise Nikhil’s blood
pressure. : - )
Tom
From:
Stoves
[mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On
Behalf Of kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:00 PM
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com;
ndesai at alum.mit.edu; 'Discussion of biomass'
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: hsmclaughlin at verizon.net
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking
costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to
discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
Hi
Paul
From: biochar at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 11:03 PM
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com;
ndesai at alum.mit.edu;
'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: 'Hugh McLaughlin' <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking
costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to
discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
Kevin,
Note
also that the purpose of this particular
Spread Sheet was to give an approximate value
to char produced by TLUD’s.
In that regard, char value is a
function of char yield and biomass fuel cost.
#
Yes.
The number of meals cooked
would not then an issue, and the spreadsheet
contains cells that are derived but are not part
of the "solution." Too much "extra" that is not
needed in the spreadsheet.
#
The way the spread sheet really works is to
determine net available energy, (after drying
losses) and then proportions the fuel cost
between the energy in the TLUD fuel gas, and the
energy in the char. I added the “number of
meals” so that the Cook would see the cost
consequences of burning the char as an
additional source of energy, to reduce the need
to purchase additional fuel. However, you are
quite right… it is not really necessary to know
the number of meals cooked per unit of fuel, to
determine the value of char.
#
The way the spread sheet is set up now, all the
energy loss associated with water in the
incoming fuel is credited to the TLUD gas
stream. The result is a (slightly) overstated
cost for the energy content of the TLUD gas, and
a (slightly) understated cost of the char. The
error could be significant with significantly
higher moisture content of the incoming wood
fuel.
If the purpose is to bring in also the number of
meals, then there is more work to be done.
Forexample, it is not as simple as the assumption
that energy needed per meal served would be the
same for cooking with the pyrolytic gases as for
cooking with the charcoal fuel.
#
Agreed. However, the spread sheet does appear to
give a good “initial value for char” in relation
to the value of carbon credit payments. If wood
fuel costs were much lower, and/or carbon credit
payments were much higher, then a more rigorous
treatment would be required to determine the
“Break Even Carbon Credit Payment more
accurately.
Therefore the spreadsheet
contains too few actual "variables", most of
which could be strongly impacted by the
socio-cultural context. This would be not enough
"extra" that should be put into the spreadsheet.
#
A more rigorous spread sheet could indeed be
built, but it would require a number of
additional inputs. Such additional inputs would
include:
*
Wood analysis
*
Calorific value
*
Moisture content
*
Energy content of the pyrolytic gas stream
*
Pyrolytic gas combustion efficiency
*
Pyrolytic gas stove efficiency
*
Accurate charcoal yield
*
Calorific value of charcoal
*
Charcoal combustion efficiency
*
Charcoal stove efficiency
*
Etc.
You have made your point that it is possible that
the value of the char from a TLUD stove might be
greater if burned than if sequestered into soil
as biochar. This can be discussed in general
terms. It will not be resolved with a refined
quantitative / financial analysis. The question
remains open: How is the value of char from a
more efficient cookstove (TLUD vs 3-stone) to be
judged?
#
Actually, I would suggest that the present
spread sheet would be an excellent tool for
determining the value of char from a TLUD, a
3-Stone Fire, or other cooking system. You could
set up a very simple test cooking rice
sufficient for say 4 meals, and measure the wood
required, and the charcoal recovered. Knowing
the cost of the fuel per unit, the data could be
entered into the spread sheet to give a value
for the char produced from various stove
systems.
Best
wishes,
Kevin
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 9/15/2017 5:35 PM, kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
[biochar] wrote:
Hi
Nikhil
I
used the term “mealtime” more in the
context of a “cooking session”. Clearly, a
number of meals would be required at
“mealtime.”
Knowing
the number of meals prepared at the
“mealtime”, one can then determine the
wood consumption per meal, and ultimately,
the “energy per meal.”
Note
also that the “energy per meal” must be
used with caution, in that it will vary
with the nature of the meal. For example,
a meal of rice and fish could require a
different cooking time than when simmering
a stew or boiling eggs.
Note
also that the purpose of this particular
Spread Sheet was to give an approximate
value to char produced by TLUD’s. Would
you have any further comments or
suggestions in how to improve it in this
regard?
Thanks,
and Best wishes,
Kevin
From:
Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017
6:09 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca;
biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>;
Hugh McLaughlin <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Calculating
cooking costs and char costs ----Re:
[biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND
CARBON offsets and drawdown
Paul:
Two comments:
1. If "mealtime" refers to a day (and 3
cooked meals per day), 1 kg wood per day
seems to be on the low side, unless it is
per capita. I remember that a "rule of
thumb" (or "expert estimate") back when
people prepared national energy balances,
was "1-2 kg wood per capita per
day". Of course, the gross input per
family depends on many factors including
efficiency, types of cooking tasks,
age/sex composition, ambient temperature
and wind patterns, and cook's whims;
however, if the per family net energy per
mealtime is 3.7 kWht or 5,750 Btu, I
suspect the family may be too poor to
afford enough food from scratch - relying
on more fresh vegetables or uncooked
materials or on partially prepared
purchased food.
This single number -- how much useful
(net) energy per family per year is
"required" on average in a given context -
would seem to be very useful, with some
assumed efficiencies, for computations of
emissions and deforestation or loads
carried on heads or backs. But I have seen
very few such attempts. Any thoughts? I
will dig up some GACC studies.
2. The way the spreadsheet is set up, the
financial cost of fuelwood is the most
critical assumed parameter for the
breakeven carbon credit value (CCV). Only
at $0.02/kg cost of high-quality wood does
the CCV come close to today's price in the
EU ETS. Since the supply curves for both
wood and labor are likely to at least
somewhat upward sloping, the question
becomes, what is the potential - in global
terms - for biochar to compete with other
CDR options?
It would seem that biochar for CDR and
charmaking for local sales (as fuel) are
two entirely separate markets and will
probably remain that way for a long
while.
Does anybody have a good number for useful
cooking energy per household per year?
Nikhil
On Wed, Sep 13,
2017 at 10:53 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
wrote:
Kevin,
Thanks for the spreadsheet. This
is an interesting situation where
calculated numbers are not
matching with some human
activities about the value of
charcoal.
This discussion is only with the
Biochar group, so I am adding the
Stoves Listserv and attaching the
spreadsheet.
Notes;
The use of BTU/LB in columns H and
I should be in the green
(calculated) values and the
corresponding metric units (which
you provide) should be the yellow
variables that can be entered.
Please.
I notice that changes in the Value
of unburned char/kg (C23 ) is
essentially linked to the cost of
fuel wood (C5) , and therefore
virtually dictate the conclusion
of carbon credit pricing needed
(C28 ). So, the price stays
quite high.
****************
A. Consider the case of the cook
who has no real use for the char,
which means that the cost of fuel
is 100% allocated to the cooking,
and the resultant char has zero
value. To that cook there is no
trade-off about char being used
for cooking other meals.
Selling the char is "pure profit",
whether it is a calculated value
of $0.16/kg (as in C26) or merely
$0.12/kg as in Deganga, India, or
only $0.08/kg which is still
better than nothing.
B. Current "traditional" cooking
with charcoal that is produced by
generally inefficient
"traditional" char-making methods
would have a char yield (C6) of
between 10% (burning too much to
ash) and 25% (leaving volatiles in
the char, or even some incomplete
pyrolysis/torrification).
C. But for those people who
produce traditional char, the
"cost of fuel wood" (C5) could be
as low as zero (illegal cutting or
destructive cutting) or some
notional value of the time spent
to make the charcoal.
Others need to comment also.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Pa
From: biochar at yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
Sent:
Monday,
September 11,
2017 4:02 PM
To:
Hugh
McLaughlin <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>; biochar at yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Re: [biochar]
Where to
discuss STOVES
AND CARBON
offsets and
drawdown
Hugh and
Kevin,
First to
Hugh: Why do
you write
$0.10/kg
is a more
reasonable
assumption.
when
that is what
Kevin actually
said.
Then to
Kevin:
Actually, it
the char yield
is 20% per kg
of fuel
(closer to
actual than is
25% or 30%),
then the
number becomes
$US
250 per tonne
of char =
$US250/3.42 =
$US 73.10 per
tonne of CO2
equivalent.
To all: As
reported in
the Deganga
Case Study
(page 4, 3rd
paragraph), in
that case
study the
people were
actually
paying
US$0.075 per
kg of
firewood.
And they burn
3 to 4 kg per
day (which is
less than half
of baseline
fuel
consumption).
Note: 4 kg of
firewood at
20% char yield
would be about
0.8 kg of char
per day
(matches the
measured
quantities of
char purchased
from the
households).
And they were
receiving
payment of
$0.12 per kg
of char via
the "Earn
while you
cook"
arrangements
(page 4,
second
paragraph from
the bottom of
the page),
which would be
$0.04 per 0.3
kg (just
citing Kevin's
initial number
for some
comparison) or
$0.024 per 0.2
kg (the
approximate
actual char
production per
day of
cooking.).
Can we use
some of these
above numbers
and send a
revised
statement,
please?
And if the
point is still
it is more advantageous for the Cook to burn
it [the char]
for another
meal.
then why are the people so delighted with
the charcoal
buyback? (
?? cultural
reasons???
such as not
having a
tradition of
cooking with
charcoal at
the household
level (true)
... or their
perception of
the value of a
few cents is
greater than
their
perception of
the expense of
the cooking
task? ... or
some other
reason(s) ???
All are
welcome to
comment,
please.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On
9/11/2017 1:22
PM, Hugh
McLaughlin
wrote:
ERRATA:
$10/tonne is
$0.01/kg.
If
there is any
transportation,
$100/tonne or
the basis used
for the
calculation:
$0.10/kg is a
more
reasonable
assumption.
Hugh
McLaughlin,
PhD, PE
CTO
- NextChar.com
On
Monday,
September 11,
2017 2:03 PM,
"kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
[biochar]"
<biochar at yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Hi Paul
Assume that
such fuelwood
costs $US10
per tonne, or
$US.10 per kg.
Assume that 1
kg of such
wood is
“burned” in a
TLUD, to cook
a meal, and
that there is
.25 kg char
yield.
Assume also
that the char
could be used
to cook a
second meal.
The cost of
fuel per meal
is thus
$US.10, if the
char is not
used for
cooking, OR,
it is $US.05
if the char is
subsequently
used to cook a
second meal.
Thus, if
somebody gave
the Cook
$US.05 for the
.3 kg of char,
the Cook could
be “revenue
neutral”.
Thus, the cost
of “Carbon
Credits” that
reaches the
actual Cook
should be a
minimum of
$US.05/.3 kg
char = $US.167
per kg char,
or $US167 per
tonne char =
$US167/3.42 =
approximately
$US48.80 per
tonne of CO2
equivalent.
CONCLUSION:
With the
costing and
performance
assumptions
shown above,
unless the
Cook gets more
than the
equivalent of
$US48.80 per
tonne CO2
carbon
credits, it is
not
advantageous
for the Cook
to “sell” the
char… it is
more
advantageous
for the Cook
to burn it for
another meal.
Does this make
sense to you?
Best wishes,
Kevin
From: biochar at yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
Sent:
Monday,
September 11,
2017 11:53 AM
To: biochar at yahoogroups.com;
Doc Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Subject:
Re: [biochar]
Where to
discuss STOVES
AND CARBON
offsets and
drawdown
Dear Shengar,
Thank you for
the input.
World figures
are that about
3 billion
persons have
meals prepared
on solid fuel
(mostly
biomass).
Family size
(especially
HOUSEHOLD
size,
referring to
the number of
people who eat
together)
should be 5 or
6, which
would put the
number of
households
between 600
million and
500 million.
Those are the
numbers that I
prefer to use.
I agree with
nearly a kilo
of char
produced per
day per TLUD
stove
(confirmed in
Deganga,
India,
study). 365
days would
yield about a
third of on
ton of char
per
household. 3
household
become a
ton/yr.
30,000 HH
would be
10,000 tons.
300,000,000 HH
(about half of
the needed
cookstoves)
would be
100,000,000
tons.
So it would
take 10 years
to reach one
GIGA ton,
which is
1,000,000,000
tons.
(Please check
my math.)
In the
Drawdown
project, the
time period is
2020 to2050,
which is 3
decade, or
"potentially"
3 gigatons of
char
sequestration.
3 GT is only
1/5th of the
GT calculated
for ALL
cookstoves,
and over 3
times more
that what was
calcualted for
ALL biochar by
2050. Clearly
there is more
to the
drawdown
calculations
than the
simple numbers
above.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 9/11/2017 1:27 AM, shengar shengar at aol.com [biochar]
wrote:
The ballpark numbers I think Albert Bates has
crunched but I
play with
these numbers:
About 1 billion households cook with biomass,
so if all had
TLUDs,
producing
about a kilo
per day of
biochar that
would be some
one million
tons per day,
365 million
tons per year,
a gigaton of
CO2 every 3
years.
(accounting
for other
greenhouse gas
reductions
when biochar
is put in
soil)
And increased
rates of soil
carbon
sequestration
On Sep 10, 2017 at 9:29 AM, <Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
[biochar]>
wrote:
Dear Stovers and Biochar folk,
The financial
part of
advancing the
TLUD stove
situation
(IMO) keeps
coming back to
the value of
carbon offsets
generated.
But that topic
is too thinly
related to the
purpose of the
Stoves
Listserv or
the Biochar
Listserve.
So I will
sending this
message.
The stoves-related
carbon-issues
discussion (generating
carbon
credits,
global
drawdown, etc)
need
discussion.
So I request
some
assistance to
find where
this can be
discussed.
Does such a
place already
exist?
Also, who
among us want
to be into
that OTHER
discussion?
Paul, Ron, and
who else?
Paul
--
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
_______________________________________________
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/
__._,_.___
Posted by: Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Reply via web post
•
Reply to sender
•
Reply to group
•
Start a New Topic
•
Messages in this topic
(5)
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
Visit Your Group
New Members
1
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170916/c9308d14/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list