[Stoves] stoves and credits again
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Fri Sep 22 17:57:02 CDT 2017
Philip,
Good. Let's move this forward.
Please provide the equation that puts char (that is, the energy in the
char) above the line in a way that recognizes that it is not a loss of
energy, it is only a transformation of the energy that is in the fuel.
Or say it some different way and show it as being of value in the
equation that is to be provided.
Crispin and I have long ago come to agreement that energy efficiency is
not the same as fuel efficiency.
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 9/22/2017 12:28 PM, plloyd at mweb.co.za wrote:
> His continued fighting etc etc. What nonsense - the equation is wrong,
> spurious, faulty, unscientific. Efficency is the useful energy
> produced divided by the fuel input. Char is not an input but a
> PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency
> calculation. You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a
> product ( positive) and not a negative feed. Please stop trying to use
> bad science to justify an untenable position. It gives the whole of
> stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterati try to justify
> their abuses.
> Philip Lloyd
>
> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
> From: "Ronal W. Larson"
> To: Discussion of biomass ,Andrew Heggie
> CC:
>
>
> Andrew and list:
>
> I think we are in agreement on all but your last response, where I
> and you say:
>
> >> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.
> >
> > Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a different
> viewpoint
> > but his goal is the same in promoting clean cookstoves.
>
>
> RWL: Afraid I can’t agree.
>
> I can remember no Crispin statement ever in support of char-making
> TLUDs, which all data shows are the cleanest. Plenty of Crispin
> support for cleaner stoves using coal - which I claim can never be
> justified - for both health and climate reasons.
>
> His continued fighting against the equation e3 = e1/ (1-e2) is my
> major concern.
> Y t.v.
> Ron
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Andrew Heggie wrote:
> >
> > On 22 September 2017 at 03:54, Ronal W. Larson
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew wrote
> >> There might be a slight case for saying a
> >> gasifier stove can achieve a lower massflow (particularly lower N2)
> >> because the primary combustion doesn't go to completion so less
> >> primary air is used, the corollary may be that the secondary flame
> >> also can be burned with less excess air because the offgas has a
> >> higher calorific value but not enough to make up for using 50% less
> >> energy..
> >>
> >>
> >> [RWL2: Given my response in “1” - I need to address the term “50”
> >
> > Ronal I clarified this in my reply to Paul, obviously it is
> subject to
> > experimental measurements but from a desk study given that the
> char is
> > reacted at 600C AND 20% of the original biomass dry weight
> remains as
> > char then it looks like the energy remaining in the char is
> closer to
> > 1/3 than 1/2 of the original energy in the dry wood.
> >
> >> Andrew: I am not understanding your last 15 words.
> >
> >
> > Partially dealt with above but also what I was meaning was that the
> > offgas from a TLUD, with just sufficient primary are to maintain the
> > descending pyrolysis front, will be largely the pyrolysis offgas
> plus
> > the small amount of gases from the combustion that provides the heat
> > to drive the process. So it will be little diluted by CO2 and
> nitrogen
> > than from a traditional fire which supplies enough under grate
> > (primary) air to completely burn out the char. Hence the offgas from
> > TLUD is of a higher calorific value and as such needs less
> excess air
> > to maintain a clean flame. On a larger scale with lower heat
> losses in
> > the primary region this may not be the case.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Disagree with Crispin’s statement that a case with 25% char
> retention
> >> involves “50% of the original energy” (as did Paul Anderson).
> >
> > Also dealt with but we need corroboration from analysis of TLUD
> char.
> >
> >
> >> Agree with most by Andrew - but think the last sentence needs
> amplification.
> >> That is - lower temperature char can be a better economic
> choice, even if
> >> “fixed carbon retention” is less. This is better discussed on
> the biochar
> >> list. pH value is one criterion that could point toward lower T’s.
> >
> > ...and of course lower fuel input cost would make it more economic
> > even if the carbon credit paid to the producer were based solely on
> > the fixed carbon.
> >
> >>
> >> [RWL7: I have seen NO data to show that LPG stoves do not
> >> have lower emissions than any solid fuel stove.
> >
> > It seems unlikely to me that simple stoves could have lower
> emissions
> > than a LPG flame but Crispin did say as near as makes no difference
> > and good enough works for me.
> >
> >
> >> Andrew
> >> The trouble is I have a
> >> parochial view and not a good worldview of what types of persons
> >> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly
> growers?
> >>
> >>
> >> [RWL9: Yes to Andrew’s last question. I disagree with Andrew
> calling
> >> himself “parochial” - when he supports (as do I) the ethics of
> “a subsidy
> >> funded by the developed world”.
> >
> > I was referring more to my lack of experience of stoves in the real
> > developing world compared with yourself, Crispin, Nikhil and many
> > others.
> >>
> >>
> >> So my contention is that apart from the carbon credit there is
> a value
> >> to the land in not having to export a cash crop.
> >>
> >>
> >> [RWL10: Agree totally.
> >
> > It still means the grower needs to recognise that exporting a
> > conventional cash crop is removing mineral wealth from the
> holding, in
> > many soils with high initial fertility this may not be
> significant. So
> > whilst the cash that the grower/stove user might receive will be
> > linked to the carbon credit paid for using the resultant char as a
> > soil amendment he might also value not having to use the land for a
> > cash crop and possibly growing stove fuel.
> >>
> >> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.
> >
> > Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a different
> viewpoint
> > but his goal is the same in promoting clean cookstoves.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170922/88996939/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list