Dear Paul >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.
Agreed. It could heat water for a retained heater in a house. >Also, our language lacks words that differentiate the different types of charcoal. But the word "biochar" is explicit about charcoal that is headed for spreading into soils. Perhaps once it gets to the field. There will be resistance to describing all char from all fires as biochar. The meaning of the word will evolve to mean char produced from wood which is not what you want. I see people trying to carve a space for 'biochar'. I have seen it used in the way 'green' is attached to all manner of things to mean 'energy efficient'. It is losing its meaning because of over-use. Biologically applied char makes 'biochar' sense. That is agricultural. What would be good is to have people use the term when discussing agriculture because to a stove or a stover it is just char. There are not yet special stoves that produce special char that is uniquely 'bio' in some manner. We might find activated charcoal (which has a clear definition) being better at being bio than ordinary char. Who knows? There is a lot of people working on it because it is not known. >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. I guess you could start calling it biochar as soon as it hit the ground - in a field, not next to the stove! >I am showing the biomass input that will yield 1/3 kg of biochar when the yields are 20% and 25%. OK. [snip] >> Well, that is not how science works. >Science works in incremental steps. Only in some cases. It is often a part of the experimental evolution of a product. I am sure you can think of examples of both incremental and quantum leaps. >And the data gathering is on-going on this topic of the impact of saving biochar upon the amount of trees being cut. It is going to be a big question hanging over all projects that bury char. I participated in the third Gold Standard webinar this week and they are very meticulous about such things. You have to prove every claim so one that says additional fuel is not consumed will probably be tested separately from a carbon sequestration argument. Even though one can argue that there is a net negative carbon argument when taken together, you will have a hard sell if the total fuel consumed increases unless there is a large unused supply (which is some cases there is, others not). You would have to prove it, each year. >> 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. I am making my own comments and I hold the doors open for all technologies. That is often my role here and it is something I can do to share experience. >...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. Respect and recognition? Good grief. They are all deserving of attention. There are no special stoves of special merit. They are just stoves. You opinion is welcome here but you can't tell me what stoves to include in a discussion, can you? >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. People promote what they are interested in because without enthusiasm we get nowhere, I suppose. In a common space like this you can expect to be constantly shown how that technology fits into an array of others. That is reasonable. >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?? There are I suppose the churches of gasifiers, pyrolysers, direct burners, rockets, fan stoves and others. Combustion systems with potential that are not in the mainstream churches get very little attention, testing or promotion. Think of the Mayon Turbo stove - a natural draft, refuellable, rice hull gasifier. No discussion at all. Lots of talk about batch loaded rice hull gasifiers - all sorts of them - none of which can be run continuously. Is the MTS not a much better product from several points of view? What's up with that? Not sure about the 2005 reference - the Romans built TLUD's, so I read, right Kevin? It is important not to close old doors just because something new comes along 'with potential'. Lots of combustion systems have potential. >I could understand the inertia better if there were proprietary >interests blocking entrance by others. But TLUD stuff is 100% open >source!!! Have you considered that there are serious limitations to the technology you are promoting in its present state? >And I assure you that there are more new and interesting things about >TLUDs coming down the road, and soon. Keyword: TChar coming soon. Good. Looking forward to it. I hope it is not crazy. Regards Crispin _______________________________________________ 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/
