<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Resending only to the Stoves Listserv.<br>
Note that the additional recipients (listed below) of previous
messages in this thread are not included in this re-submission to
the Stoves Listserv because that list became to long. They did
receive this same message when sent yesterday.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [Stoves] Shields E450c as a way to test char-making
stoves (attn: GACC testers)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 20:59:49 -0500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
<td>Paul Anderson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><psanders@ilstu.edu></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
<td>Frank Shields <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:frank@compostlab.com"><frank@compostlab.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></a>, "'Jetter, James'"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Jetter.Jim@epa.gov"><Jetter.Jim@epa.gov></a>, 'Hugh McLaughlin'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wastemin1@verizon.net"><wastemin1@verizon.net></a>, 'Thomas Reed'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tombreed2010@gmail.com"><tombreed2010@gmail.com></a>, 'Ranyee Chiang'
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rchiang@cleancookstoves.org"><rchiang@cleancookstoves.org></a>, 'Thomas Reed - 2013
address' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tombreedxx@icloud.com"><tombreedxx@icloud.com></a>, 'David BERITAULT -
Geres Cambodia' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:d.beritault@geres.eu"><d.beritault@geres.eu></a>, 'KARSTEN
BECHTEL CREEC' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:karsten@tech.mak.ac.ug"><karsten@tech.mak.ac.ug></a>, "James S.
Schoner" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jss@bitmaxim.com"><jss@bitmaxim.com></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com">"biochar@yahoogroups.com"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:biochar@yahoogroups.com"><biochar@yahoogroups.com></a>,
Doc Anderson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><psanders@ilstu.edu></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<pre>Crispin and Stovers, (to JSS, please make this a post at
drtlud.com with note that discussion is only on the Stoves Listserv. )
IMO, the usefulness of the Shields E450c measurement is being overlooked
by those trying to relate it to testing of all stoves.
E450c is the energy released when essentially ONLY pyrolysis at 450c (or
reasonably above) occurs. That value is (can be) as reliable as saying
that wood has 16 MJ per kilo. If it needs to be more precise, then use
more precise measurements. But if a pyrolytic stove (a biochar
producer that is batch fed) is operated with the same fuel time and time
again, the number is quite constant.
[[ For some repeated efficiency testing of slight changes to the stove
structure such as skirts and pot dynamics, weighing the remaining char
might even only be done occasionally, but I do not want that to be a
point of discussion here.]]
NOTE: There is char remaining at the end of the batch. Crispin wants
the unburned char to be counted as fuel used. Others want the char to
be valued as fuel for other stoves or as biochar or as atmospheric CO2
removed. This debate is AN important question if discussing the amount
of original FUEL that is used. But it is not THE important question
concerning the stove efficiency of ENERGY released (with some amount
captured in the pot so that ENERGY efficiency can be calculated).
We really do need to differentiate between the FUEL and the ENERGY,
especially when a substantial amount of energy is not extracted from the
fuel, as is the case of the remaining charcoal.
This was not a problem when the only stoves available essentially took
all of the energy out of the fuel. But that is no longer the case and
we need better definitions of "efficiencies".
***** Think about the above separately from what comes next. ****
With fossil fuels, we calculate that we get all of the energy released
from the fuel. BUT those are PROCESSED fuels like LPG and kerosene or
even "fuel oil". If you consider all of the original fuel (such as
crude oil), then there is a great amount of ENERGY in the "other stuff"
that is not available via the stove. Should that be called "non-fuel"
and be counted against the processed fuel's efficiency? No, not
really. Other derivatives of the crude oil have their own uses and
values, of which some are not even for energy (such as asphalt).
Charcoal made from wood fuel is no longer wood. And therefore the FUEL
efficiency denotes the 100% disappearance of the wood. But in terms
for ENERGY efficiency, 100% of energy in wood = energy in charcoal +
E450c.
Crispin argues that Fuel efficiency needs to be reported. This can be
important in areas of severe deforestation. But that thinking is
deficient in three regards:
1. Tradition has used the term FUEL as if the amount of fuel could /
should / must be equated to the amount of ENERGY that is released. But
that equivalence is no longer the case when a significant "left-over"
(by-product or co-product) is created, as in the case of the charcoal.
2. Tradition has focused on wood as if it were the only biomass fuel
that truly matters in cookstoves. That is no longer the case now that
pyrolytic microgasifiers that use many other forms of biomass are
acknowledged to be serious candidates as clean cookstoves. [And that
acknowledgement is certainly less than 8 years old, and maybe not even
acknowledged by some still today. Sad but true.]
3. Therefore, if FUEL conservation (or efficient usage) is the battle
cry of the testers for fuel efficiency, then the use of NON-wood fuels
means that the micro-gasifier stoves need to be credited with using NO
wood from the forests and are therefore far superior than the
wood-burning stoves in regard to the saving of forests (and watersheds
and animal habitats and biodiversity, etc.).
Summary statement and plea: Let's get off of the "wood standard" and
get on the energy standard.
Chuckle: The controversy about the Cross of Gold concerning monetary /
currency policies base on the gold standard comes to mind, but that
would be off topic!! And any mention of the wooden cross becomes too
theological to be discussed here.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a>
</pre>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>