Crispin, and others following this thread of messages.
Referring to your message earlier today: There is a big difference
between the pyrolysis in a retort (anoxic) like the Adam retort and a
gasifier (oxic) like TLUDs. That is discussed in the biochar
listserv. And at the size of an Adam retort, the "stove" would need
to be an industrial bakery or other large application.
Also, our language lacks words that differentiate the different types
of charcoal. But the word "biochar" is explicit about chacoal that is
headed for spreading into soils. TLUDs and some other stoves make
charcoal, some of it could be for burning as charcoal, and some could
be for spreading in soil as biochar.
Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <[email protected]>:
Anderson wrote:
Each household produces about 1/3 kg of biochar each day. If the biochar
yield by weight of the raw fuel is 20%, the biomass needed is 1.66 kg per
day. If 25%, then the biomass is only 1.33 kg/day.
Reply by Crispin:
I am not completely clear on your calculation. Are you showing the amount of
biomass input needed for a yield of 20 and 25%?
I am showing the biomass input that will yield 1/3 kg of biochar when
the yields are 20% and 25%.
Less than 2 kg/day represents fuel savings compared with the inefficient
3-stone and other fires. AND they are getting the biochar. This correctly
contradicts the people who say
Change the word "say" to read "ask the question" > that making biochar
leads to > increased
cutting of the forests.
I am not sure who says it leads to an increase, I do read a number of people
asking the question about that possibility which is perfectly legitimate. I
have, myself, asked this question and did not get clear answers for a long
time. It may be that it was assumed the answer 'was obvious' and therefore
unnecessary to be quantified.
I hope I have answered your question. I have attempted a quantitative
answer with the very limited data that is available. I hope that the
Wendelbo Zambia study can quantify it better.
Well, that is not how science works.
Science works in incremental steps. And the data gathering is
on-going on this topic of the impact of saving biochar upon the amount
of trees being cut.
I did NOT say that TLUDs are THE solution. But it is major. This
needs to be recognized and implemented in so many more locations.
Paul, as I have said in other communications, there is more than one way to
burn as a gasifier or a pyrolyser and I am always a little surprised that
you mention TLUD's without leaving room for other approaches.
I did NOT exclude (as in specifically mentioning to exclude them) any
other approaches. I just did not mention devices about which I do not
have sufficient information or confidence in them. YOU are the one
who is wanting to inject other gasifiers into MY comments. Make your
own comments, but do not blame me if I do not choose to include the
gasifier types that you are studying. Said in other words, let the
TLUDs receive the respect and recognition they deserve, and not
distract attention from my comments because I did not mention the
other gasifiers that I feel do not yet merit such recognition.
Why is it so difficult for prominent Stovers (not naming anyone!!) to
become supportive or at least give quotable recognition to the
increasingly well documented potential of the TLUD stoves?
Suggested answer: Because it ain't their stove! Inertia against
the recognition of different stove technology is frightening!! I am
somewhat guilty of that myself. But my starting point is not back in
the 1990s and with earlier stove designs. NEW people coming into the
stove field in the last couple of years are far more likely to become
interested in TLUD stoves than are people who made up their minds
about stoves prior to 2005 and have difficulty expanding their views.
Sort of like religion??
I could understand the inertia better if there were proprietary
interests blocking entrance by others. But TLUD stuff is 100% open
source!!!
And I assure you that there are more new and interesting things about
TLUDs coming down the road, and soon. Keyword: TChar coming soon.
I am looking forward to taking to any and all of you about TLUD technology.
Paul
--
Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Known to some as: Dr. TLUD Doc Professor
Phone (USA): 309-452-7072 SKYPE: paultlud Email: [email protected]
www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/giz2011-en-micro-gasification.pdf (Best ref.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University RedbirdMail
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
