[Stoves] ***SPAM*** An important biochar and stove paper from 2011

[Ronal Larson]

Stoves list:

	1.  This is the third and last mail on three quite separate topics.  This third topic only related to message number 2 to Joshua (Jed) Guinto who wrote very approvingly about the paper in 2013 and I missed until this week.

	2.   I said this about this “Carter paper” in my second note re Josh:

	      '4. Your above paper cites another stove design paper which greatly impressed you (and me and was new to me) - and I don’t believe has been seen much.  It does not seem to have been in a peer-reviewed technical journal (but should have been ; this is a first rate stove analysis)
		http://www.build-a-gasifier.com/PDF/BiocharStovesInnovation2011.pdf,  First author Sarah Carter
			My next message will be about that paper (keeping separate to keep the confusion down. Please don’t use this thread to talk about the Carter paper)

	5.  Appendix 2 from Joshua’s paper says this about the Carter paper:  (Repeated to show both Joshua’s thinking (which are all the right things).and a small part of what the Carter paper discussies (in 72 pp).


ANNEX 2
The following are excerpts from the Biochar Stoves: an Innovation Studies Perspective. Sarah Carter and Dr. Simon Shackley, UK Biochar Research Centre (UKBRC), School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh. 8th April 2011.

 More specific feedback about the stoves included the following points: 

• in some cases, the height of the stoves was inconvenient, e.g. for Indian women who prefer to sit on the ground to cook (the Anila is the tallest of the test stoves);

 • there was no easy way to add more wood into the stoves while the pot is on, since the gap between the pot and the stove restricts the size of wood which it is possible to add in;

 • this ‘batch’ approach compares unfavourably with the ‘continuous’ fuel feed of other conventional and improved stoves since the user does not know precisely how much fuel is required prior to the cooking process and can end up using toolittle or too much fuel, the first introducing inconvenience and time delay and the second ending up waste fuel (and increasing biomass extraction and wasting time in collecting fuel);

• gasification stoves require reasonably small and uniform pieces of biomass, hence limit the use of certain feedstocks such as larger sticks, reducing overall fuel use flexibility;

 • the ability to alter the intensity of the flame was limited, so reducing the flexibility that cooks value; 

• it was difficult to remove the ash / charcoal from the stove without turning the stove over, so a way of emptying the stove could be made (which is achieved in some stove designs by having a trap-door arrangement, [11]);

 • those with large families struggled to cook effectively with large pots on these particular stoves; 

• the two lids of the Champion TLUD made it more difficult to handle, so these could be joined together; 

• the EN stove needed a draft and a grate – alternatively, larger holes in the fuel chamber would help to keep the stoves lit. 

For those that would buy the stoves, the price they suggested they would be willing to pay for the stove ranged from 2.22 USD and 25 USD, with the averages given in Table 7. 

In summary, while the stoves tested do appear to meet some of the objectives of an improved stove (reduced fuel consumption, reduced smoke production), the users also noted some limitations in their functionality compared to their conventional primary stove. Better flame modulation, fuel flexibility and ease of fuel addition can all make women’s cooking tasks much easier on a daily basis and the ‘improved’ gasification cookstoves turn out not to be as adequate as conventional stoves in these regards.

 

	3.  Not captured in Joshua’s summary is that Ms. Carter and Dr.  Shackley covered many types of stoves - including the Rocket, Anila and TLUD.  I have seen very little on the Anila, so this paper fills an important gap for me.  Any more?

	4.  To get the gist of why this paper should be very important to this list, I repeat Joshua’s last line:

Better flame modulation, fuel flexibility and ease of fuel addition can all make women’s cooking tasks much easier on a daily basis and the ‘improved’ gasification cookstoves turn out not to be as adequate as conventional stoves in these regards.”

	5.  I’m afraid that quite negative observation from more than a decade ago is still true today.  There are probably more cooks using 3-stone fires now than when the Carter-Shackley team were doing the surveys that Guinto is reporting.   The only partial exception of which I am aware is Kevin McLean’s  Sun24 stove.  And that is much less than year old.  
	And that stove still doesn’t totally address "Better flame modulation, fuel flexibility and ease of fuel addition "

	6.  So this paper will give us a lot of topics to discuss.  I am sorry I/we just learned about it. And thanks to Joshua for his awareness a decade ago - and what he has been personally accomplishing since then.

Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20220703/68a8155c/attachment.html>