[Stoves] Fwd: "The effects of fuel type and stove design on ..." - new citations

Mon Dec 30 23:54:26 CST 2019

Hi Nikhil,

I've been hoping and waiting for one of these highly paid consultants or
think tank types to do a nice report on biomass cooking in business
settings in Kenya. From someone roasting maize on a street corner (outdoor
air pollution? inc. street grim landing on the food for sale?) to a lady
like this one in this short video, she not only grows her own trees to make
her own charcoal to roast 60 chickens in a day
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C5YcNksxGU> (she buys a live bird for 4$
and sells a 1/4 chicken for 6$! I some times think i'm in the wrong biz
selling stoves and not cooked food) but uses the oven for also baking sweet
potatoes for breakfast (buys them at $0.60c and sells one for 1$ for
breakfast tea) there is a huge industry around cooked food here. Even our
stove makers at our workshop dont cook their own lunch anymore but buy
something from a next door hoteli, they say they are too busy making
cookstoves to spend time cooking !

Anyway here is an interesting opinion piece that you might all find fun
reading over your holidays:

*“**However, the fire has far from disappeared. Thousands of individual
fires in households have been replaced by a few giant fires in central
power plants. And the fire also burns elsewhere. “In our economy of
abundance”, writes Stephen J. Pyne, “fire is at the heart of the magic – in
factories, automobiles, homes and power plants... Modern cities remain
fire-driven ecosystems... Shut down combustion and you shut down the city.
But open flame itself has vanished. Like a black hole in space, fire has
shaped everything around it without itself being visible.”*

*Industrialisation has only altered, not abolished burning. Most
importantly, fire started using another energy source: fossil fuels instead
of biomass. Until the twentieth century, almost all human-made fires were
the product of renewable energy sources: wood, grass, dung – peat and some
early uses of coal being the exceptions. Today in industrial societies,
almost all fire “at the heart of the magic” burns on gas, coal or oil.Fire
vs. ElectricityGlobally, a few billion people still live in households
built around an old-fashioned fire, often in the form of an open hearth.
Some people in the Western world consider this a backward and primitive
practice that needs to be abolished – even though it is based on the use of
renewable energy sources. For example, in 2011, the UN and the World Bank
launched the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, aiming to “ensure
universal access to modern energy services” by 2030. [5] The concept of
“modern energy services” is vague, but it essentially refers to the use of
electricity and gas – and thus, in practice, the use of fossil fuels. *
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/12/too-much-combustion-too-little-fire.html

I join you in your toast to wisdom on this quote " Finally, during
cookstove design attention should be focused on simplicity, reliability,
accessibility, economy and social culture. "

All the best to all you great stovers out there and happy new years!

Teddy

Teddy Kinyanjui
Sustainability Director

             <https://www.facebook.com/CookswellJikos>
<https://www.instagram.com/cookswelljikos>
<https://twitter.com/cookswelljikos?lang=en>

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:04 PM Nikhil Desai <ndesai at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Ron:
>
> I believe I did read and comment on Paul's 2016 report soon after it came
> out. I think I reacted favorably and asked Paul something about marketing
> the charcoal.
>
> I just did a quick review of Paul's paper and am cc'ing Sujoy and Sujatha
> to see if they have something to add to the price of $0.12/kg under the
> "charcoal buyback" scheme.
>
> My question to them all and you is whether using the stoves for cooking
> saleable food products has greater profit potential than selling mere
> charcoal. Might obviate the need for silly "carbon market" earnings that go
> to feeding consultants.
>
> Yes, earning a profit from cooking, not just from cookstoves.
>
> Cookstoves are not cooking. A simple fact that has been ignored in 50
> years of engineer tinkering with unreliable test protocols for standard
> fuels, standard task (boiling water), standard use pattern for standard
> humanoids.
>
> Yes, as Robert van der Plas pointed out about five years ago, "If we drop
> WBT, what is saved? Are we not junking all received knowledge?" (My
> paraphrasing of his words; I am writing from memory, and he was only
> raising a question which I answered in the affirmative.)
>
> Yes, too, in saving trees and climate, we have forgotten that food is
> cooked to please the eater and that cooked food is profitable, though the
> profit rates are as contextual as foods and ancillary technologies
> (delivery of animal products, say) and preferences for timing, temperature
> of service, and taste.
>
> I hope someone else on this list narrates observations from real life, not
> laboratories, about changes in the food economies of Third World (or for
> that matter the First and Second Worlds) in the last 50 years. In my
> traveling years, the only systematic trend I saw around the world, apart
> from loss of forests (which may or may not have had anything to do with
> cookstoves), was outsourcing the kitchen, preparation and sale of foods
> outside the home.
>
> Of course charcoal can be sold profitably. So can foods. Did you see Queen
> of Katwe? Or notice Teddy's posts about charcoal sales to eateries in
> Kenya? (I collected many such stories but just lost my hard drive and two
> years of data not backed up, but I could start again.)
>
> So here is a proposal to Paul and anybody else who has sold stoves that
> have expanded income earning opportunities -- CAN WE PLEASE look at the
> economy of cooking and foods, not just of fuels? In real life for real
> people in real geographies?
>
> I think this paper you cited - Samal, et al. (2019) - is a delightful
> overview. (Samal cc'd here.) It is from a " 1st International Conference on
> Manufacturing, Material Science and Engineering", which raises hopes that
> material scientists and product designers may take the field of stove
> design forward, past (I hope) the dead wood of what they have reviewed. (By
> "dead wood" I mean the obsession with lab tests for irrelevant and
> unreliable "performance metrics" like fuel efficiency, and instead focus on
> pleasing the cooks for the real job of stoves - COOKING. (And hearing space
> or water, for personal consumption or, again, for commercial
> opportunities.)
>
> As the authors conclude, " Finally, during cookstove design attention
> should be focussed on simplicity, reliability, accessibility, economy and
> social culture. "
>
> I raise a toast to wisdom.
>
> N
>
>
> ------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 2:40 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> List:    cc  Nikhil,  Dan, Paul,  Kevin
>>
>> The direct link that Dan refers to is:
>> http://www.drtlud.com/2016/09/30/deganga-tlud-project-2016/
>>
>> I have just re-read it, and find areas that both support Dan’s positives
>> and some of my concerns (such as needing a subsidized price - and little
>> char getting into the ground).
>>
>> Kevin’s name is here again (my only cc for my 24 Dec. message - still
>> below) because he has been emphasizing zero cost modifications for
>> cooking.  I know he can accept low cost if the units can make money.  How
>> low does low have to be?
>>
>> Dan’s remarks help me to respond to Nikhil’s comments to me (see below) -
>> who I am afraid didn’t discuss anything (at all) about TLUD interventions.
>>   Dan is too modest to say so - but he is producing a lot of char while
>> heating his (self-designed and self-built) home in Southern Colorado.  Char
>> used as biochar.  Those going to ETHOS would be well advised to seek out
>> Dan.
>>
>>  Nikhil - would you be good enough to speak (as an Economist) to a few of
>> the many parts of Paul’s 2016 report.
>>
>> Paul:  any (third-year) update that would help this particular thread?  I
>> am particularly impressed at the large potential annual income that can be
>> earned.  It looks like one can claim a payback time of only a few months.
>> Anything new on produced char becoming biochar?
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2019, at 5:41 PM, dan weinshenker <danweinshenker at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering about your evaluation of the project "Case Study of the
>> Acceptance of Champion  TLUD Gasifier Stoves in the Deganga Area, Ganges
>> Delta, India"  ?  Report available on Paul Anderson's DrTLUD website.
>> Project has expanded significantly even since this report.
>>
>> Seems like this is a high adoption program, thousands of stoves, numbers
>> increasing year by year, with year after year sustained success.  It also
>> has many related business components, from cooks earning money; charcoal
>> collectors; charcoal purchases; management and coordination services; stove
>> manufacturer; subsidized purchase finance, etc.
>>
>> All and everybody helping the whole; everybody making money.  Nobody
>> getting rich, but enough incentives all around.
>>
>> To me, seems like a great total business plan.  Works because it's
>> comprehensive.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 9:06 AM Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ron:
>>>
>>> You asked for thoughts, so I will offer mine. As an economist, I ought
>>> to know how money is made. (Raising grants. Administering grants. By
>>> publishing papers and holding fourth at conferences, performing "show and
>>> tell" before poor women, a form of poverty and climate tourism. Or taking a
>>> cut of the CDM or VER markets to ensure that the poor are properly
>>> penalized if their biomass is sourced renewably.)
>>>
>>> Stoves don't make money. People make money. That is a likely clue to why
>>> charcoal-making stoves don't sell themselves as much as you believe they
>>> should; there are too many cooks making sure that the broth is spoiled.
>>>
>>> And people "make money" when they do something financially profitable -
>>> earning a return on their investment in the stove, their feedstock, and
>>> their labor.
>>>
>>> It may well be that your favorite charcoal-making stoves are not
>>> profitable enough in all contexts.  Or that non-cooks are busy baking their
>>> own cake in the name of the poor. (EPA and Gates Foundation consultants, to
>>> be precise.)
>>>
>>> Nikhil
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Nikhil Desai
>>> (US +1) 202 568 5831
>>> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:52 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> List:  cc Kevin
>>>>
>>>> I recommend this (non-fee) overview article shown below.  The free pdf
>>>> version is at:
>>>> https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5141191?class=pdf.
>>>>
>>>> This is a nice stove-breakdown list - that they mostly cover:
>>>>
>>>> (a) According to technology used: Traditional and Improved cookstove
>>>> (b) According to draft or air supply: Natural draft and Forced draft
>>>> (c) According to combustion mechanism: Direct combustion and Gasifier
>>>> (d) According to fuel used: wood, Dung cake, charcoal, residue crops,
>>>> Multi-fuels
>>>> (e) According to material: Mud, Brick, Ceramic, Metal and Hybrid
>>>> (f) According to fuel feeding: Batch feeding or continuous feeding
>>>> (g) According to utility: Domestic size or Community size
>>>> (h) According to chimney used: Cookstove with chimney or cookstove
>>>> without chimney
>>>> (i) According to portability: Portable or fixed type
>>>> (j) According to pot used: Single pot or multiple pots
>>>>
>>>> I would add one more:
>>>> k). According to money flow:  Make money or spend money while cooking
>>>>
>>>> Obviously there should be some stove-user interest in money-making.
>>>> The only way I am aware of is making charcoal.   Others?
>>>>
>>>> So this k) option is already possible as a part of c) Gasifier (meaning
>>>> only TLUD in this paper).  But (unfortunately) not much of k) is now
>>>> happening as part of c).  Nor is marketing of char discussed in this
>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>> But there are many ways to make charcoal and some of the other ways are
>>>> potentially applicable to cooking tasks.   I’m working on a message on
>>>> these other non-TLUD ways - and would welcome on-list or off-list dialog if
>>>> anyone else is doing that.
>>>>
>>>> If we discuss k) seriously, it seems that k) can involve EVERY one of
>>>> the breakdowns a) through j).  I am concentrating now on modifications of
>>>> both the “Traditional” and “improved" parts of a).  This category can also
>>>> expand what is covered in a) through j).  For instance,  b) can include “no
>>>> draft”.   e) may have other options than those shown.  f) might have “and”
>>>> as well as “or”.
>>>>
>>>> This paper is a nice summary of much past work, but is essentially
>>>> silent on k) - the making of char/money while cooking.  No discussion of
>>>> how char influences efficiency computation.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Google Scholar Alerts <scholaralerts-noreply at google.com>
>>>> *Subject: **"The effects of fuel type and stove design on ..." - new
>>>> citations*
>>>> *Date: *December 24, 2019 at 6:47:33 AM MST
>>>> *To: *rongretlarson at comcast.net
>>>>
>>>> Evolution of high performance and low emission biomass cookstoves-an
>>>> overview
>>>> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5141191&hl=en&sa=X&d=17213963389128872961&scisig=AAGBfm0-waMeF4PChI8-x6xowjhFKrv5zg&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt>
>>>> C Samal, PC Mishra, S Mukherjee, D Das - AIP Conference Proceedings,
>>>> 2019
>>>> As a huge rural population worldwide is depending on open-fired or
>>>> traditional
>>>> cookstoves to meet daily domestic energy needs, improvement of thermal
>>>> efficiency
>>>> and reduction of harmful emissions are essential. Accordingly, many
>>>> researchers are …
>>>> [image: Twitter]
>>>> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_share?hl=en&oi=scholaralrt&ss=tw&url=https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5141191&rt=Evolution+of+high+performance+and+low+emission+biomass+cookstoves-an+overview&scisig=AAGBfm2ygNIluhutGJVItASU2b5RP-mSqA> [image:
>>>> Facebook]
>>>> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_share?hl=en&oi=scholaralrt&ss=fb&url=https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5141191&rt=Evolution+of+high+performance+and+low+emission+biomass+cookstoves-an+overview&scisig=AAGBfm2ygNIluhutGJVItASU2b5RP-mSqA>
>>>>
>>>> *"The effects of fuel type and stove design on emissions and efficiency
>>>> of natural-draft semi-gasifier biomass cookstoves" - new citations*
>>>>
>>>> CANCEL ALERT
>>>> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_alerts?view_op=cancel_alert_options&email_for_op=rongretlarson%40comcast.net&alert_id=YUsCvyJf17UJ&hl=en>
>>>>
>>>> This alert is sent by Google Scholar. Google Scholar is a service by
>>>> Google.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191231/034e4562/attachment.html>