[Stoves] stoves and credits again
Ronal W. Larson
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Fri Sep 22 19:53:41 CDT 2017
List, Paul, Philip:
See inserts below.
Newcomers will need to also see my message (I’ll call it “A”) of yesterday in which this issue of e3=e1/(1-e2) was a big part. (same thread title)
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.
[RWL: Paul, thanks. I wonder if Philip will like the one I gave: e3’ = e1+ e2 (which was 2/3 in my “A” example). Both e1 and e2 have “1” (the input energy) in their denominator.
>
> 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.
[RWL: I do not know how to interpret this. Can you or Crispin express this statement in equation terms? In my example of e1 = e2 = 1/3 (and inefficiency (“ei”) necessarily = 1/3), I am willing to use either “energy efficiency” or “fuel efficiency” for the terms e3 or e3’. Or maybe you are using e3 and e3’ for this difference? If so, which is which?
More below, responding somewhat similarly to Philip.
>
> Paul
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> On 9/22/2017 12:28 PM, plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:
>> His continued fighting etc etc. What nonsense - the equation is wrong, spurious, faulty, unscientific.
[RWL1: I believe the equation (to repeat: e3=e1/(1-e2) ) is not wrong, not spurious, not faulty and is scientific. It has been used for centuries and I know of no other (repeat NO OTHER) way to get a correct statement of efficiencies in a char-making stove when talking of cooking and comparing stoves.
My main support is that it is currently used in the WBT in the ISO TC 2785 process. To have that status, this equation was recently endorsed by numerous experts from numerous countries (with South Africa in a small minority, I think).
I know of no peer-reviewed publication that argues against e3=e1/(1-e2). Please list all those such cites that you like.
>> Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the fuel input.
[RWL2: Disagree. This is fine if e2 is zero. I contend strongly that the term e2 is “useful”.
>> Char is not an input but a PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency calculation.
[RWL3 Yes and No. I have said that “above the line” is fine - in one overall sense. (giving e3’ = 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3). But e3’ is not a valid equation if the interest is cooking alone. And we need a cooking only computation - if we are to compare char-making stoves to non-char-making stoves. Or do you think one should never make that comparison?
>> You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a product ( positive) and not a negative feed.
[RWL4; Disagree. When looking at the cooking only situation (needed to compare rockets to TLUDs), the charcoal (e2) is indeed a “negative feed”.
>> Please stop trying to use bad science to justify an untenable position.
RWL5: I await your citations on comparing rockets and TLUDS. I reject the apparent South African official position that charcoal should ALWAYS be ignored. If e3 = e1 only is your position - please tell us how South Africa will be reporting its tests on TLUDS (with their sizable e2).
>> It gives the whole of stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterate try to justify their abuses.
[RWL: Hmm. Interesting way to conduct a dialog on something that has recently been officially approved by the ISO - I believe by a sizable majority.
Ron
>> 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 <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170922/85cd5ded/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list