<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Dale, Chrispen, Paul A, Ron, & All,</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Dale, thank you for getting this discussion going. I think we all would agree that the traditional charcoal production & use systems around the world have much to be improved upon. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
Some comments - many in response to Chrispen's comments:</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">1. I could not agree more about the social (& market) aspects of substituting dried woody biomass for charcoal. That is a big issue which has yet to be tackled. It could be a show stopper for some of the alternatives. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
2. In terms of transport economics, no doubt that charcoal has a substantially higher net (LHV) energy density than dry wood, not to mention wet wood. Consequently for the same amount of energy shipping the same distance charcoal wins hands down. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">For my analysis I used 10% moisture which assumes either aggressive solar drying or that some of the biomass is being burned to dry the remaining fuel. Even with this much drying, the hauling cost penalty of biomass over charcoal is about 67%. Where the analysis becomes interesting, at least to me, is when the whole system is considered. In this case we need to factor in the efficiency of the charcoal production vs. the woody biomass production and this effect on forest area required. Bottom line is that the charcoal must be hauled in from a much larger land area just because of the gross inefficiency of the charcoal making process. This has the potential to make the hauling cost on a per MJ basis actually 40% LESS for dried biomass. I say potential because it will all be specific to the forest area, it's density (tons of biomass / hectare) and it's distance from the point of fuel use. This collection hauling penalty for traditional charcoal, has not been discussed much from what I have seen. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">The other interesting point is that dried biomass is actually equivalent to charcoal on a MJ / m3 basis. Consequently, the truck will need to haul more weight per MJ with dried biomass, but not more volume. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
3. On the stove side, there is much work to do, from what I can tell, to make a TLUD burning dried biomass as attractive to the user as a charcoal stove burning charcoal. In fact it may never be. However, it seems to me that there is the potential. Given that this fuel is consumed in the city there should be an easy & efficient way to burn the residual charcoal. Also perhaps turn-down needs improvement in the gasification phase. And of course it needs to be simple to operate. Each one of these issues may represent substantial work to develop solutions for. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
4. Speaking of development, a low capital method for distributed drying of woody biomass is another area that will need substantial appropriate technological development for this to be successful. </div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
<br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">5. Final comment on Pellets: I am most familiar with pellets, and many know they are now a major energy commodity in the developed world. The downside is that they take much higher electrical or diesel energy input than simply chipping or splitting biomass. Also, they require more capital, and the plants are more complex to operate and maintain. Consequently they are less suited for a widely distributed system - like the existing charcoal production - especially in developing countries. If the pellet plants are large then the wet wood is hauled further to get to the plant and the benefit in comparison to charcoal is reduced. Still they are the most uniform, transportable, and appealing of the dried woody biomass options. It just remains to be seen which of these different approaches - pellets, chipped, crumbled, or split dry biomass will develop more over time. </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">
- Paul</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.727272033691406px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Paul M. Means</div>Research & Testing Manager<div>
Burn Design Lab </div><div><a href="tel:%28253%29%20569-2976" value="+12535692976" target="_blank">(253) 569-2976</a> (mobile)</div><div><a href="http://www.burndesignlab.org/" target="_blank">http://www.burndesignlab.org/</a></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial"><font size="1">“In the whole of world history there is always only one really significant hour – the present…If you want to find eternity, you must serve the times.”<i> - </i></font></span><font size="1"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';color:rgb(51,0,51)">Dietrich </span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';color:rgb(51,0,51)">Bonhoeffer</span></font><br>
<div><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(79,129,189)"><span style="color:rgb(79,129,189)"><a href="http://www.burndesignlab.org./" target="_blank">www.burndesignlab.org</a><b>.</b></span></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(79,129,189)"></span></p>
<p><i style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">This e-mail and any attachment contain information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorized to read, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it. </i>
</p></div></div>