<div dir="ltr">Ron, in response to your questions from a few days ago: <div><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">"3. </span><span class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">Slide</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> 20: This is to ask Paul to help explain this </span><span class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">slide</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">. The obvious decrease in forest size is his (and my) main criterion. But I am not sure how to get numerical estimates here as the ordinate is in relative distance, not forest area units. Paul - Your help??"</span><br style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">
</div><div style><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">- The interesting thing here is that it doesn't matter what the biomass density is of the forest, the <u>relative cost</u> of hauling dried biomass to charcoal will remain the same. This is because transportation for both will be proportional to the same forest density (tons/hectare) number, AND, the area required for harvest (which is different for the different alternatives). If the wood to be harvested is from a densely forested area, then the transportation cost for both will be lower. If the wood to be harvested comes from a sparsely forested area, then the transportation cost for both charcoal and dried biomass will be high. In each case though, the relative cost will be the same.</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> </span></div>
<div><br style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"><img alt="" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px;"><br><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> 4. Paul is consuming the char, not using it as biochar. The latter will obviously initially require more land (probably almost twice as much) - but this disparity rapidly disappears if soil productivity improves. That discussion is beyond the scope of this message, but the Terra Preta soils in Brazil are now 2 and 3 times more annually productive. It will not take many years for the average response to make up for the placement of char in soil to overcome the apparent (but I believe incorrect) preference of some for combustion over pyrolysis alone.</span><br>
</div><div>- I do assume that the char from burning the dried biomass is burned as fuel at the same efficiency as the initial burning of the dried biomass. It greatly complicates the comparision of the residual char must make it's way back to the soil somewhere - especially since most of the charcoal is burned in urban and peri-urban areas. <br style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">
<br style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> 5. </span><span class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">Slide</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> 21 shows pellets having a </span><u style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"><b>transport cost</b></u><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> only slightly more for pellets over improved charcoal, but only 60% as much for traditional char production (Paul's distance assumed not known by me for this </span><span class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">slide</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">). This is the </span><span class="" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204);font-family:Arial;font-size:16px">slide</span><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:16px"> I said disproved Crispin's assertions on the relative cost of transport. To understand when this is true we need Paul's distance assumption.</span></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="3">- This is the same situation as the first question. You can plug in any number for a forest density and run the numbers. The relative difference between transporting charcoal, & dried woody biomass (pellets, dried crumbled wood, etc) will be the same as long as the area the alternatives are being harvested from are more or less contiguous with the point of use. In other words, if the if the harvest area for each alternative is a pie or circular shaped area (different in each case due to the different efficiencies of the different methods, then this will hold. The further it is between any harvesting and the point of use, the less this principle will hold. In each case one just has to run the numbers, considering the much larger harvest area required for charcoal because of it's very low conversion efficiency. Sorry that I don't have time for more of an explanation. </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="3"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="3">- Paul<br></font><div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Paul M. Means</div>Research & Testing Manager<div>Burn Design Lab </div><div>(253) 569-2976 (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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);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>
</div></div></div>