<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18975">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Dear Otto</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=formo-o@online.no href="mailto:formo-o@online.no">Otto Formo</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> SV: [Stoves] MUST CHARCOAL BE A
CAUSE FOR CONCERN?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Kevin,<BR>what you actually are "saying" is that people in
developing countries have no common sense and knowledge about polution from
open fires.............</DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial># Not at all!! They work with what they have
to accomplish what they want.My comments were directed more at the FAO who put
prime focus on simply saving trees, rather than helping improving the
lifestyle and health of the people. </FONT>
<DIV><BR>Why do they use open fires for cooking?<BR>The most ovious reason is
that they have no choice or options.<BR>Secondly, this is how it has been done
for centuries.<BR>It "works", why change?<BR>The women do the collecting of
wood and the cooking, so why bather........</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial># It is certainly misdirected to put the focus on
saving trees at the expense of harming people. Hopefully, it will be a
"win-win-win" situation where more efficient (less wood) and more effective
(do a better job of cooking the way they want to cook) and cleaner (less
harmful pollution) stoves can be configured. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Kevin</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Inferring that "charcoal is bad" overlooks
part of the function of some cooking systems. Some cooking styles must have
the intense heat that charcoal can produce. The point of my posting was to
address the whole problem, not just part of it. </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR>There is also no question about that
even the best and most efficient charcoal stoves (without a chimmny) emitts
far more CO than any TLUD gasifier stove.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial># Charcoal stoves permit a unique cooking
capability that a TLUD cannot duplicate. There is probably a place for both
stove systems. Much work has been done on TLUD stoves in the past few
years, and they are working better now than ever. Less work has been done
on charcoal stoves... no doubt that they can also be greatly improved also.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial># TLUD's are a neat stove for some applications,
but they are far from being a cooking panacea. They require a highly prepared
fuel, that they don't burn to completion, and they are basically a "batch
stove". They are not really a "gasifier stove" but rather a "pyrolysis
gas stove", that wants to leave charcoal behind. </FONT> <FONT
size=2 face=Arial>For some applications, the production of charcoal can be a
disadvantage, while for others, it can be very advantageous.
</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr><FONT size=2 face=Arial># So, getting back to my basic point... just
what is the set of problems that need to be addressed? Why is charcoal a
problem? What can be done to reduce the problems with charcoal? What other
factors should be dealt with as part of the problem?</FONT>
<DIV><BR>The other fact is that CO also kills people in the "western" world as
well by "missuse" of gas for heating and cooking, but it does not mean that we
should stop using it!<BR>BUT we should be VERY carefull by using open flames
indoors without good ventilation.<BR>This is something we learn in school at
early age.<BR>If any positive progress should be "stoped" by missuse of just a
few there is no way the "World" are going to move "forward",
ever.<BR>Otto<BR><BR><BR>> From: Kevin [kchisholm@ca.inter.net]<BR>>
Sent: 2010-10-13 16:33:52 MEST<BR>> To: Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves [stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org]<BR>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] MUST
CHARCOAL BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN?<BR>> <BR>> Dear Rogerio<BR>>
<BR>> I think that the wrong question is being asked. One can also ask the
<BR>> question: "Must wood be a cause for concern?"<BR>> <BR>> 1: If
the ultimate concern is simply availability of fuel, then both <BR>>
primitive wood stoves and primitive charcoal systems are indeed a
concern.<BR>> <BR>> 2: If health, as a result of products of combustion
considerations is the <BR>> ultimate concern, then both primitive cooking
systems are a concern.<BR>> <BR>> 3: The good thing about 3 stone wood
fires is that they emit gross irritants <BR>> that minimize the potential
for users to be killed during the cooking <BR>> session from CO poisoning.
Good gharcoal stoves can be very efficient and <BR>> not emit apparent
poisons, but if used in a confined space, the much more <BR>> efficient
charcoal stove can kill the Family before the meal is finished.<BR>>
<BR>> 4: Charcoal gives a quality of cooking that cannot be duplicated by a
wood <BR>> fire.<BR>> <BR>> Obviously, a dreadfully inefficient "3
Stone Fire" can be much safer than an <BR>> "Improved Cooking Stove" that
has much higher efficiency. There is so much <BR>> smoke and poisons coming
off the 3 Stone Fire that people move upwind. An <BR>> "Improved Cooking
Stove" might be improved just enough that people move it <BR>> inside a
living space, and then they start dying from all sorts of <BR>> disorders.
Charcoal stoves could end up being superior, in that there might <BR>>
still be enough "residual irritants" emitted such that the Cook uses it in a
<BR>> well ventilated space.<BR>> <BR>> The "problem", whatever it
is, must be clearly defined before one can arrive <BR>> at a meaningful
answer to the "problem." A better question might be along <BR>> the lines
of: "What is the best way for people to accomplish their desired <BR>>
cooking task, with a given quantity of wood fuel, while improving the health
<BR>> of the people using a particular "cooking system?"<BR>> <BR>>
Perhaps someone else can formulate a better question that is more relevant
<BR>> to whatever issue is of concern. There is no point in promoting an
"improved <BR>> stove system" that cuts wood usage in half, but doesn't
cook the food the <BR>> way the people want it, and then kills them
afterward.<BR>> <BR>> Best wishes,<BR>> <BR>> Kevin<BR>>
<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "rogerio carneiro de
miranda" <carneirodemiranda@gmail.com><BR>> To: "Discussion of
biomass cooking stoves" <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><BR>> Sent:
Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:01 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] MUST
CHARCOAL BE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Dear Crispin and
others who has responded.<BR>> <BR>> Making a simple calculation (see
table below), I found the following<BR>> numbers based on 1 kg of
Eucalyptus grandis, with 4650 kcal/kg as<BR>> fuelwood, or 7600 kcal/kg as
charcoal.<BR>> <BR>> Considering the worst case scenarios, with
woodstoves efficiency of 10<BR>> to 15% one would get 450 to 698 kcal of
energy into the pot, and to<BR>> have the same amount of energy from
charcoal into the pot, one would<BR>> need to have either a relative medium
charcoaling efficiency of 20%<BR>> but with a charcoal stove with 30%
efficiency, or charcoal stoves of<BR>> normal efficiency around 20% but
with higher charcoaling efficiencies<BR>> of 30 or 40-%.<BR>>
<BR>> Based on that, shouldn't be logical to assume that under
"primitive"<BR>> existing general conditions as seeing in the field
today, that<BR>> cooking with wood is more energy efficient than cooking
with charcoal?<BR>> <BR>> Assuming that woodstoves can easily achieve
20% efficiency which<BR>> delivers 900 kcal into the pot, and to do the
same job with charcol<BR>> one would need a 30% energy efficiency charcoal
stove using charcoal<BR>> produced at 40% charcoaling process, what
is nearly impossible to<BR>> achieve.<BR>> <BR>> Unless charcoal
stoves of 40% are possible, so to use with charcoaling<BR>> kilns of high
30% efficiency?<BR>> <BR>> Rogerio<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>>
cooking with
charcoal<BR>>
efficiency(%)
10%-20%-30%<BR>>
(kcal)<BR>> charcoaling 10%
(760) (76) (152)
(22)<BR>>
20% (1520) (152) (304)
(456)<BR>>
30% (2280) (228) (456)
(684)<BR>>
40% (3040) (304) (608) (912)<BR>> <BR>> cooking with
fuelwood<BR>> efficiency(%) 10% 15% 20%
30%<BR>> (Kcal) (450)
(698) (900) (1350)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
2010/10/12 Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott@gmail.com>:<BR>>
> Dear Rogerio<BR>> ><BR>> > We discussed this a while back and
I forwarded some example of the energy<BR>> > balance.<BR>>
><BR>> > Yes, the fact is there is nearly no difference between the
amount of food<BR>> > cooked with wood or that same wood turned into
charcoal. The caveats are<BR>> > that I depends on the wood stove, the
charcoaling method and the charcoal<BR>> > stove.<BR>> ><BR>>
> Those are three huge variables, but for 'medium quality' on all
three<BR>> > counts, the answers are about the same.<BR>>
><BR>> > The overall difference that one might be inclined to ponder
is the amount <BR>> > of<BR>> > energy that is used to being the
fuel to the cook. In the case of <BR>> > charcoal,<BR>> > say in
Mozambique, the distance that one can profitably transport charcoal<BR>>
> is far greater than that for wood because it is so much more energy
dense.<BR>> > It is even better than coal because coal usually has a lot
of ash in it.<BR>> ><BR>> > So, when considering what to
criticise, replace and promote, one has to <BR>> > look<BR>> > at
the three main variables, what one could do to change them, and what <BR>>
> the<BR>> > transport implications are. It is pretty tempting to
think of charcoal<BR>> > making vehicles using wood gas for locomotion,
delivering charcoal to the<BR>> > cities. They would start off heavily
loaded and get lighter as they got<BR>> > closer to town!<BR>>
><BR>> > I recall Cecil Cook and I having fun with this equation some
time ago.<BR>> ><BR>> > What is always good (as Richard Stanley
recently point out) is to make <BR>> > sure<BR>> > that all the
chips and dust from the charcoal business end up in <BR>> >
briquettes<BR>> > of some form. Usually the review of charcoal is made
by a hostile agent <BR>> > and<BR>> > the 'waste' involved is
emphasized, not the methods by which it can easily<BR>> > be made very
efficient, all things considered.<BR>> ><BR>> > There is still a
lot of this story to be told by someone with a talent for<BR>> >
integrating technologies and stove ideas.<BR>> ><BR>> >
Regards<BR>> > Crispin<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
+++++++++++++++<BR>> ><BR>> >>I found the following quote on a
FAO publication<BR>> >
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4450e/y4450e10.htm), and I wonder if this
<BR>> > is<BR>> > a correct statement responding to the question
:<BR>> ><BR>> > "Must charcoal be a cause for concern?<BR>>
><BR>> > The shift from fuelwood to charcoal, even if it lasts only a
few decades,<BR>> > could have major ecological consequences if it is
not kept under control.<BR>> > However, since charcoal stoves are more
efficient than wood stoves, the<BR>> > ratio of primary energy to usable
energy is almost the same as with<BR>> > fuelwood. Thus with adequate
supervision, management and support, the <BR>> > shift<BR>> > does
not need to disrupt present levels of resource use."<BR>> ><BR>> >
What do you think? Can at the end, with actual stoves and charcoaling<BR>>
> efficiencies, be the wood consumption the same?<BR>> ><BR>> >
Rogerio<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> > Stoves mailing
list<BR>> > Stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR>> >
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR>>
><BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
Stoves mailing list<BR>> Stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR>>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylistsorg<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> -----<BR>> No virus found in this message.<BR>>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>> Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database:
422/3194 - Release Date: 10/13/10<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Stoves mailing
list<BR>> Stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org<BR>>
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<BR>>
<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<P class=avgcert align=left color="#000000">No virus found in this
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - <A
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</A><BR>Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus
Database: 422/3194 - Release Date: 10/13/10</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>