<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" data-blackberry-caret-color="#00a8df" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Dear Paul</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Just a couple of clarification notes. </div><br><div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div><span style="line-height: initial;">>1. A stove only needs to get one star (Indonesia system) to be
eligible to be included in the up-coming national program (first
with 2 pilot locations). </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">The stove has to get a star in all three categories: fuel saving, PM reduction and CO reduction. In order to get to 'be tested' it must first pass the Indonesian National Standard which is 'SNI'. It has different metrics and uses a SeTAR standard operating procedure for part of it. The CSI test is more difficult to pass. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br name="BB10" caretmarkerset="INVALID" class="markedForCaretMarkerRemoval"></span></div><div><br></div><div>The stars are 'paid for' individually although there has to be one for each category. It is not like the IWA tier system which basically requires compliance across a tier (I think). It also has 9 metrics, not three. </div><div><br>>The people, the customers, those who ultimately count, will
know that a stove makes charcoal. </div><div><br></div><div>There is one existing opportunity which is being exploited on a small scale.</div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br name="BB10" caretmarkerset="INVALID" class="markedForCaretMarkerRemoval"></span></div><div>>So, getting at least one star is crucial, and Crispin has said
that some TLUDs can accomplish that. </div><div><br></div><div>See above. The minimum is 3. After that there are 6 more available. <br>
<br>>It does the required cooking
task using 1174 grams of fuel which is Albasia Pellets at 7.2%
moisture content MC, which is 84.5 g of moisture, resulting in
1090 dry weight. <br>
<br>It is actually much more complicated than that. The stove is loaded with quite a lot of fuel left from a previous test, more raw fuel, and the mix loses 1174 g of fuel, net. The moisture is actually 5.21% but while making charcoal, it is dried and that moisture removal requires energy. While burning wood, and making char, and drying the raw fuel, the effective moisture level of what is burned is higher than the raw fuel moisture. I hope you can follow that. </div><div><br></div><div>Because the additional work of removing moisture and volatiles from raw fuel to make char, the effective heating power of a 'missing kg of fuel' is only 12 and a bit MJ. That is not the heating power of the pyrolysis gases because some of the carbon is burned. It is the net heat released with everything considered. </div><div><br name="BB10" caretmarkerset="INVALID" class="markedForCaretMarkerRemoval"></div><div>>370 divided
by 1090 is 34% charcoal yield (dry weight basis). </div><div><br></div><div>That is 1% less than the minimum yield for charcoal imported into the EU so I don't think it is particularly high. </div><div><br></div><div>However it could be partially charred - at least some of it. This method is not the ideal way to analyse charcoal or pellet stoves. The 'Burn Out Method' I designed for BP (described in an ETHOS presentation by Penn Taylor) is much better for pellet stoves because it doesn't require separation of char vs non-char. </div><div><br></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">> And if the household does one
additional but smaller cooking task with that stove, then at least
500 grams (at least half a kilogram, more than one pound) of char
can be produced per day per household. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">Some 80% of households use their domestic cooking stove to earn money. Far more fuel is burned per day than just the cooking needs. If the charcoal market existed (it doesn't) they could produce lots of it from biomass presently burned to get rid of it (like Kaliandra). </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br name="BB10" caretmarkerset="INVALID" class="markedForCaretMarkerRemoval"></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">>Each applicant
for testing was allowed to specify what fuel was to be used in the
testing. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">They can specify pellets or stick wood, and say how it is to be prepared (cut). All the wood is teak and all the pellets are Albasia. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">>So, to Ron I say that the decision to treat resultant charcoal as
"no longer being the original fuel" is okay. It is one
interpretation. Just as the WBT procedure that give credit to
the energy in the charcoal is also one interpretation. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">The IWA labels the energy 'fuel/energy consumption'. This is misleading. Not as bad as the WBT which called it 'fuel consumed'. Don't think people have not noticed this discrepancy. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"> >It will
be nice when BOTH interpretations are clearly stated in the rest
results of any tested stove. </span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">Well, one is the heat transfer efficiency and one is the equivalent of the fuel consumption. They are both valid numbers if correctly calculated, but they are very different metrics. </span></div><div>
<br>>Happy Thanksgiving Day to everyone!! </div><div><br></div><div>Ditto!</div><div><span style="line-height: initial;">Crispin </span></div>
<br><!--end of _originalContent --></div><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></body></html>