[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Sun Sep 24 16:26:45 CDT 2017

Philip, Tom and all,

Philip is mostly correct.  Actually wood takes up (has) too much 
WEIGHT.  Wood has 3 times (or more, if the char is poorly made) the 
ENERGY value of charcoal that could come from that char.   But it has 
about 5 times the DRY weight of the char, plus there can be 20 to 50% 
moisture  content to make the wood even heavier.

And the charcoal has  almost double (30 vs. 16) the energy content by 
weight, but char is so much lighter per unit of volume.  So the trucks 
are buldging upward and sideways with the sacks of charcoal strapped to 
them.  Weight of charcoal is not a problem for most transport.

Apart from the transportation issue, I believe that the appeal of 
charcoal is that it does not smoke (not much).   CO is invisible and 
deadly, but the people learn to cook on the balcony or keep some air 
flowing.  And it does not turn the bottom of the pots black.

Charcoal is an attractive fuel.   Too bad it is made by processes that 
throw away 2/3rds of the energy.    (So, let's promote TLUD stroves and 
collect the char for sale to the urban folks.  Only one third of the 
cutting of wood/forest.)

  So, if 100,000 households (mainly in rural or peri-urban areas) would 
use TLUDs, the resultant char would equal to the energy needed for an 
approximately equal number of households (mainly urban) that would want 
to burn charcoal.

Now that would be FUEL efficiency measured by communities, not by single 
stoves.

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 9/24/2017 11:40 AM, Tom Miles wrote:
> That's probably why charcoal use is increasing 5% per year in SSA 
> compared with wood fuel at 1% per year.
>
> T R Miles Technical Consultants Inc.
> tmiles at trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>
> Sent from mobile.
>
> On Sep 24, 2017, at 8:50 AM, "plloyd at mweb.co.za 
> <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>" <plloyd at mweb.co.za 
> <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>> wrote:
>
>> Just a thought on Sub Saharan charcoal use. As Africa urbanizes, so 
>> it needs energy to cook. Wood takes up too much volume, and the roads 
>> are primitive. So it makes sense to use charcoal. A bicycle load will 
>> keep ten homes cooking for a week.
>> The use of char oal has everything to do with logistics and nothing 
>> to do with the environment.
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again
>> From: Nikhil Desai
>> To: Ron Larson
>> CC: Andrew Heggie ,Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ,Discussion of biomass 
>> cooking stoves
>>
>>
>>     Ron:
>>
>>     What makes you believe that users of biomass-fuelled stoves are
>>     predominantly growers (of biomass)?
>>
>>     Saw the figures for urban charcoal markets in Sub-Saharan Africa
>>     lately? Or looked at non-household cooking (in my view roughly
>>     50% of cooking energy consumption worldwide)?
>>
>>     Nikhil
>>
>>     On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ronal W. Larson
>>     <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         Andrew and list:
>>>
>>>         There appears to be a win win situation here and I gather
>>>         there is
>>>         still a vast part of equatorial Africa where annual burning
>>>          takes
>>>         place. However it brings me to another reason I like the
>>>         idea, though
>>>         not the practicalities, of a householder-subsistance farmer
>>>         being paid
>>>         a subsidy funded by the developed world. 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”./*
>>         *
>>         *
>>         **
>>         *[RWL10:   Agree totally.  And I think this is what will
>>         eventually kill the geoengineering technology that is often
>>         placed ahead of biochar - BECCS.  In BECCS, as with “clean
>>         coal”, the CO2 from combustion (never pyrolysis) is placed,
>>         as  liquid, deep underground.   Major expenses needed to
>>         protect the world’s soil are not needed for biochar.
>>         Soil quality is closely linked to carbon content - and
>>         biochar does this with no penalty - while apparently being
>>         the cleanest and most efficient of all possible solid-fuel
>>         stoves.*
>>
>>         *`Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to Crispin.*
>>         *
>>         *
>>         *Ron
>>         *
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> 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/20170924/229ceb42/attachment.html>