<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">As a point of clarification for thinking about the process, I find the following useful when talking about char producing appliances:<div class=""><br class=""><div class="">- the biomass is a feedstock product; <div class="">- the smoke and char produced by pyrolysis are two separate products; </div><div class="">- for cooking or heating, the smoke becomes a fuel; </div><div class="">- the smoke could be condensed and made into other products;</div><div class="">- the char may also be a fuel if used for that purpose;</div><div class="">- the char may remain a product if used for other purposes.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Each condition has its own measurement and value, for which equations can be constructed to determine lifecycle value. Those values will be contingent upon some market context.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Gordon<br class=""><div class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 22, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" class="">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Philip,<br class="">
<br class="">
Good. Let's move this forward.<br class="">
<br class="">
Please provide the equation that puts char (that is, the energy in
the char) above the line in a way that recognizes that it is not a
loss of energy, it is only a transformation of the energy that is in
the fuel.<br class="">
<br class="">
Or say it some different way and show it as being of value in the
equation that is to be provided. <br class="">
<br class="">
Crispin and I have long ago come to agreement that energy efficiency
is not the same as fuel efficiency.<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul<br class="">
<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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/22/2017 12:28 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:plloyd@mweb.co.za">plloyd@mweb.co.za</a> wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:f0349d03-6465-41a1-813b-08705de4cb04@BL2NAM02FT022.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
His continued fighting etc etc. What nonsense - the equation is
wrong, spurious, faulty, unscientific. Efficency is the useful
energy produced divided by the fuel input. Char is not an input
but a PRODUCT. Therefore it goes above the line in any efficiency
calculation. You cannot subtract it from the feed, because it is a
product ( positive) and not a negative feed. Please stop trying to
use bad science to justify an untenable position. It gives the
whole of stove science a bad name when the scientific illiterati
try to justify their abuses.<br class="">
Philip Lloyd<br class="">
<br class="">
Sent from my Huawei Mobile
<div class="quote" style="line-height: 1.5"><br class="">
<br class="">
-------- Original Message --------<br class="">
Subject: Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<br class="">
From: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson@comcast.net class=""><br class="">
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org class="">,Andrew
Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com class=""><br class="">
CC: <br class="">
<br class="">
<br type="attribution" class="">
<blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrew
and list:<br class="">
<br class="">
I think we are in agreement on all but your last
response, where I and you say:<br class="">
<br class="">
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to
Crispin.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin has a
different viewpoint<br class="">
> but his goal is the same in promoting clean
cookstoves.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
RWL: Afraid I can’t agree. <br class="">
<br class="">
I can remember no Crispin statement ever in support of
char-making TLUDs, which all data shows are the
cleanest. Plenty of Crispin support for cleaner stoves
using coal - which I claim can never be justified - for
both health and climate reasons.<br class="">
<br class="">
His continued fighting against the equation e3 = e1/
(1-e2) is my major concern.<br class="">
Y t.v.<br class="">
Ron<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> On Sep 22, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie@gmail.com class="">
wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> On 22 September 2017 at 03:54, Ronal W. Larson<br class="">
> <rongretlarson@comcast.net class=""> wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Andrew wrote<br class="">
>> There might be a slight case for saying a<br class="">
>> gasifier stove can achieve a lower massflow
(particularly lower N2)<br class="">
>> because the primary combustion doesn't go
to completion so less<br class="">
>> primary air is used, the corollary may be
that the secondary flame<br class="">
>> also can be burned with less excess air
because the offgas has a<br class="">
>> higher calorific value but not enough to
make up for using 50% less<br class="">
>> energy..<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL2: Given my response in “1” - I need to
address the term “50”<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Ronal I clarified this in my reply to Paul,
obviously it is subject to<br class="">
> experimental measurements but from a desk study
given that the char is<br class="">
> reacted at 600C AND 20% of the original biomass
dry weight remains as<br class="">
> char then it looks like the energy remaining in
the char is closer to<br class="">
> 1/3 than 1/2 of the original energy in the dry
wood.<br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Andrew: I am not understanding your last 15
words.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> Partially dealt with above but also what I was
meaning was that the<br class="">
> offgas from a TLUD, with just sufficient
primary are to maintain the<br class="">
> descending pyrolysis front, will be largely the
pyrolysis offgas plus<br class="">
> the small amount of gases from the combustion
that provides the heat<br class="">
> to drive the process. So it will be little
diluted by CO2 and nitrogen<br class="">
> than from a traditional fire which supplies
enough under grate<br class="">
> (primary) air to completely burn out the char.
Hence the offgas from<br class="">
> TLUD is of a higher calorific value and as such
needs less excess air<br class="">
> to maintain a clean flame. On a larger scale
with lower heat losses in<br class="">
> the primary region this may not be the case.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> Disagree with Crispin’s statement that a
case with 25% char retention<br class="">
>> involves “50% of the original energy” (as
did Paul Anderson).<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Also dealt with but we need corroboration from
analysis of TLUD char.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Agree with most by Andrew - but think the
last sentence needs amplification.<br class="">
>> That is - lower temperature char can be a
better economic choice, even if<br class="">
>> “fixed carbon retention” is less. This is
better discussed on the biochar<br class="">
>> list. pH value is one criterion that could
point toward lower T’s.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> ...and of course lower fuel input cost would
make it more economic<br class="">
> even if the carbon credit paid to the producer
were based solely on<br class="">
> the fixed carbon.<br class="">
> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL7: I have seen NO data to show that LPG
stoves do not<br class="">
>> have lower emissions than any solid fuel
stove.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> It seems unlikely to me that simple stoves
could have lower emissions<br class="">
> than a LPG flame but Crispin did say as near as
makes no difference<br class="">
> and good enough works for me.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
>> Andrew<br class="">
>> The trouble is I have a<br class="">
>> parochial view and not a good worldview of
what types of persons<br class="">
>> depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they
also predominantly growers?<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL9: Yes to Andrew’s last question. I
disagree with Andrew calling<br class="">
>> himself “parochial” - when he supports (as
do I) the ethics of “a subsidy<br class="">
>> funded by the developed world”.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> I was referring more to my lack of experience
of stoves in the real<br class="">
> developing world compared with yourself,
Crispin, Nikhil and many<br class="">
> others.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> So my contention is that apart from the
carbon credit there is a value<br class="">
>> to the land in not having to export a cash
crop.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> [RWL10: Agree totally.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> It still means the grower needs to recognise
that exporting a<br class="">
> conventional cash crop is removing mineral
wealth from the holding, in<br class="">
> many soils with high initial fertility this may
not be significant. So<br class="">
> whilst the cash that the grower/stove user
might receive will be<br class="">
> linked to the carbon credit paid for using the
resultant char as a<br class="">
> soil amendment he might also value not having
to use the land for a<br class="">
> cash crop and possibly growing stove fuel.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> `Andrew - thanks for your above rebuttal to
Crispin.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Ronal I don't see it in those terms. Crispin
has a different viewpoint<br class="">
> but his goal is the same in promoting clean
cookstoves.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Andrew<br class="">
> <br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br class="">
> Stoves mailing list<br class="">
> <br class="">
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email
address<br class="">
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
> <br class="">
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use
the web page<br class="">
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
> <br class="">
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br class="">
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br class="">
> <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Stoves mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class="">
<br class="">
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br class="">
<br class="">
</rongretlarson@comcast.net></aj.heggie@gmail.com></blockquote>
</aj.heggie@gmail.com></stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></rongretlarson@comcast.net></div>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Stoves mailing list<br class=""><br class="">to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br class=""><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br class=""><br class="">to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br class="">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br class=""><br class="">for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br class="">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></body></html>