<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><base href="x-msg://3009/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">All,<div><br></div><div>Let's see if this can be reduced to a very simple proposition.<div><br></div><div>Generally speaking, cooking fuel is an expense. </div><div><br></div><div>Assume all stoves are a significant improvement over traditional three stone stoves with respect to air quality.</div><div><br></div><div>A combustion stove could, in theory, possibly reduce this to zero cost. But no further.</div><div><br></div><div>A pyrolytic stove, if the char works well in the garden or has a high enough price, has the possibility, in theory, of actually turning cooking into a profit center.</div><div><br></div><div>Converting cooking from an expense to an income generator is the fundamental argument for pyrolysis as far as most will be concerned. Is it not?</div><div><br></div><div>If not, what am I missing?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Jock</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On May 29, 2013, at 12:56 PM, <a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; ">Art, Jock, etal<br><br> I think the comparison should also be against charcoal-using stoves - with a start of the computations when the char is produced often illegally in the bush. The charcoal-making stove then comes out way ahead.<br><br>Ron<br><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>"Art Donnelly" <<a href="mailto:art.donnelly@seachar.org">art.donnelly@seachar.org</a>><br><b>To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>"Jonathan P Gill" <<a href="mailto:jg45@icloud.com">jg45@icloud.com</a>><br><b>Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>"Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>><br><b>Sent:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:40:58 AM<br><b>Subject:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Re: [Stoves] Advancement of "better" stoves<br><br><div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi all,<br></div>It would be helpful in comparing the merits of biochar producing stoves with other biomass cooking methods, to remember that a statement such as: "Holding back carbon from combustion will increase the feedstock demand." Is completely relative to the comparison being made. Compared to a rocket-elbow based stove with a good operator: no doubt. Compared to the baseline of an traditional open cooking fire: not true. I base only this on the results that Aprovecho produced on the Estufa Finca, using the WBT, the controlled cooking test we conducted as part of the 2010-2011 : Estufa Finca-Santos pilot project and several years of observation and surveying cooks. In a wood to wood comparison we consistently see approx. 40% savings. In the no one is paying for the type of fuel that does best in the Estufa Fincas. Even in a fuel rich area like the Talamanca many people are paying for "stove wood" : cut to length/bundled.<br></div>best,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Jonathan P Gill<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jg45@icloud.com" target="_blank">jg45@icloud.com</a>></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; ">Crispin,<div><br></div><div><div><div>On May 29, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@gmail.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; "><span> </span>The viability of cooking while making char pivots on two things: the conversion of fuel to char without increasing the raw fuel demand, and the rate of positive return on char placed in the soil. The data that addresses these issues is of great interest to me.</span></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Holding back carbon from combustion will increase the feedstock demand. This is a non issue if the feedstock is free, or, even better, a waste stream with a disposal cost that can now be avoided. Of course an increase in garden productivity, or a sufficient market value for the charcoal, could eliminate any extra cost even if the feedstock has to be purchased. And all this with no credit for sequestering carbon.</div><div><br></div><div>In sum, the entire value chain has to be taken into account, not simply a few cherry picked data points such as the increase in feedstock required.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Jock</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Art Donnelly<br>President <a href="http://SeaChar.Org">SeaChar.Org</a><br>US Director, The Farm Stove Project<br>Proyecto Estufa Finca<br><a href="http://email2.globalgiving.org/wf/click?c=1Oy%2FmZbgIyjS5WI580KXwShvfKBcF2eaJvtN7Pi6p7Jl%2FiR4938EMMCBwY%2FuYALeA%2BQYUWN4RpvnxBsBC7e2%2BGIHcONTozBmvsUU5LTL%2FTNk4Q3vxE%2BKdXTV2cxIsFplSPh%2F9nMG3bQMQf4bz9ZK9SHMy46Z8OPLAtMAnPG9SKkPuLCWvofBTLC%2BImqax%2BZTkkF2RvDri5UdgH19NHjHOBj5WMUrS4L62Z2xxUJbBsJdDUOfeifheNFXH546Xm0yul4P2stm%2FTUOJxYnI0nFjXEaYfzxDSc%2FwgqVkR1t0USDHk30%2Fgt9UpDpyzLj37HWtnNQ0q8Jh1gZCkB4Y1Fgbg394gYFkyNqFN4MchxO2Js%3D&rp=wrhiOr2wAxUyDMDlMSqbOkKa0FpPoiCSHffb%2ByfHGClRxIFjEIrUDwAF%2BFD%2BpAPuvam9BDwvSMcadhFv7aFwKoyAXYrFk00%2B92xPIeMHXaTDJ3x0VIj6ZYwjm1win65o&up=YDTqBOjidbCUo%2Far1oAtZjp5ji73zPEvmoO14mevuXzIDUdb6Ac9W13SPOXmzL5NflZkH0HxLp0v4dT9UwEHDV0wSZ1qusv09bIKkUliWs4%3D&u=LHuflw_1TAib_lgCu2JvQw%2Fh0" target="_blank"></a><br>"<a href="http://SeaChar.Org">SeaChar.Org</a>...positive tools for carbon negative living"<br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>