[Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 17 17:30:36 CDT 2017


Paul:

A belated comment on this exchange:

Kevin: 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.

Paul: 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) ???

and

Paul: "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. "


You (Paul) are confusing perception of cost and value with the reality. How
the cook perceives his cost is beside the point; the char remaining has a
non-zero value. That value may be reduced by the transaction cost of
realizing the value, or it has some use you have not considered.

It is possible that the cook is so short of reliable cash income that
making and selling char is better than alternative means of generating that
cash income. (Which is the same as your "perception of the value of a few
cents is greater than their perception of the expense of the cooking task",
except that the cooking task probably remains the same, with negligible
marginal labor in retaining charcoal.)

In the Deganga case, apparently there is no tradition of cooking with
charcoal at the household level. That could change.

However, it is more likely the case (my conjecture) that the commercial
cooking market can bear the cost of charcoal for the pricing of foods they
produce. In other words, the cook says, "Look, there are things cooked with
charcoal that have economies of scale, so I better buy them from the shop
instead of cooking at home.

I remember making, as a child, char from an "open" (metal, key shaped)
stove with fairly hard chopped wood. After dousing with water, the char
would be cut up and stored for a) indoor cooking on a charcoal stove (once
it was lit outside) and b) saving for rainy days, when dry wood was not
available or had a higher price.

There is an overall economy of fuel and food, with substitution
possibilities (and hence price elasticities) on both demand and supply
side. Spreadsheets are good for small, static situations where many other
assumptions also hold (as Kevin pointed out in another post about mealtimes
and meals).

Having wood at practically zero financial cost may not be difficult where
opportunities to earn wage income are extremely limited. Char as a business
may be a perfect seasonal employment activity.

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 <(309)%20452-7072>
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* biochar at yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com
> <biochar at yahoogroups.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2017 4:02 PM
> *To:* Hugh McLaughlin <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>
> <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 <(309)%20452-7072>
>
> 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]"
> <kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca[biochar]> <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170917/f0fc7395/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list