[Stoves] stoves and credits again

[Ronal W. Larson]

Paul:

	My interpretation of this is that the units of energy efficiency must be only in energy (MJ, Btu) terms;  no dollars.  If there is to be a distinction then fuel efficiency must be measured in $ per unit something (meal, day, week, month, year, lifetime, etc),  Energy might also come in, with units like $/MJ or MJ/$ or $/kgfuel, etc.


> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Ron,      (and to Frank regarding his comment presented at the end)
> 
> On 9/22/2017 7:53 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>>> [Anderson wrote:     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?  
> 
> No.  When dealing with two different concepts (energy viewed as MJ and fuel viewed as tree or piece of wood) that each have different parameters for being evaluated, writing an equation that reflects only one shared parameter or variabled (in this case it is units of energy) will not carry forward the other important parameters (such as the other uses of pieces of  wood or the need -- or not need -- to protect forests in different environments.)  One of those other parameters is the "value of charcoal" which canNOT be ONLY expressed in terms of energy content.  
	[RWL1:   I like your answer “No.”  I will refrain from using the term “fuel efficiency”.

	Agreed with the rest   We should not bring dollars and the $ value of char into the WBT.
> 
> $ value of MJ does NOT equal the $ value of wood (trees) with equivalent number of MJ.
	[RWL:  I interpret this to be a statement on the fuel efficiency side.  The WBT has zero relationship to dollars - it is all about energy efficiency and how to fairly bring char into a fair comparison with non-char-making stoves.  Saying the char has no energy place in the computation is value nonsense.
> 
> $ value of charcoal does NOT equal the $ value of MJ / 3 (assuming 2/3 of the MJ are being lost when the charcoal is made).
	[RWL:  I agree.  I interpret this as neither a fuel nor energy efficiency statement - maybe call this a process economic efficiency?

> 
> Crispin and I stopped agrueing  about this  a long time ago.   The concepst of fuel and energy are different.   And this becomes much more evident when discussing "char-making stoves" where there is a useful by-product (or co-product), and not just buring all the way to ashes.
	[RWL:  Yes.   I am arguing for bringing in moe than the two concepts of fuel and energy.  In this thread, the emphasis has to be on stoves and charcoal.
> 
> For eons of time, combustion science has as part of its mission the extraction of as much energy as possible from whatever might be the "fuel" (immediate source of the energy).   But it happens that the simple Migratory Pyrolytic Front (MPF) that occures in TLUD stoves makes charcoal  in a batch mode, mainly without consuming much of the created.   Regular fires are consuming the charcoal during the standard burning processes.  
	[RWL:  Agree with all - but doesn’t address the e3 = e1/(1-e2) equation - which IS putting emphasis on cooking not charcoal.
> 
> Energy in Wood fuel = the Energy in the Pyrolytic Gases  +  the Energy in Created charcoal.
	[RWL:  Agreed - but what is at issue is the useful energy from cooking, not the useful energy from the stove.
> 
> I like the comment from Frank earlier today:
>> 
>> The other side of the coin is the total carbon going to the secondary [combustion should be used when] determining the efficiency of that energy being used for the task.  
	[RWL:  I believe this is done now in the WBT.  That is,  the (energy in the) carbon NOT going on to the secondary air combustion site is what I have called e2.  So this can be thought of as a statement supporting (1-e2) in the denominator of the equation for e3.  Alternatively stated,  the Frank statement  says one should not use e3’ = e1 + e2.
	Taking a negative of Frank’s statement, would say the two products of a TLUD are better addressed as totally independent - favoring e3’ = e1 + e2.  This last is NOT in the WG2 version of the WBT, when establishing Tiers.  We should not use a negative version of Frank’s (above) statement.
 
> 
> I think Frank is saying that the "energy efficiency" of a TLUD stove should be measured in relation  to the energy in the pyrolytic gases.   And that means leaving aside the charcoal for separate discussion. 
	RWL:   I agree with the first sentence, but not the second.  In Tiers computation, the charcoal MUST be considered as part of the Tier computation - not separate from.

Ron

> 
> 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/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170923/559f237a/attachment.html>