Dear Crispin and Kevin,
You are happy to talk about Fuel efficiency, and use ENERGY numbers.
And then immediately discuss forests being destroyed.
Please get past the equating of fuel with wood and trees. Beating on
that drum constantly is unscientific.
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 4/24/2013 9:49 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Dear Kevin
You analysis is correct. When rating the performance of a stove from a
fuel use perspective, the chart is correct:
Two stoves are being compared for "Efficiency".
Given facts from Tests:
STOVE A
STOVE B
STOVE C
STOVE D
Nature of Fuel
Ag. Waste
Ag.Waste
Stickwood
Stickwood
Fuel Energy Supplied, MJ
10
15
10
15
Energy to Cooking Pot, MJ
5
5
5
5
Energy in Char, MJ
0
5
0
5
Stove Efficiency, %
50.00%
33.33%
50.00%
33.33%
If someone is interested in the char, it can be reported. What Ron
is proposing, to add that heat energy available in the char back
into the mix, is akin to considering the energy efficiency to be
the fuel efficiency which is precisely what created for us a
problem in the first place.
The energy value of the char came from somewhere. Consider a stove
that takes 2 tons of forest per year. If it produces ΒΌ of a ton of
forest's worth of energy in the form of char, fine. Say so. But
saying so does not reduce the two tons of forest it takes. If you
have (as you pointed out) a second stove that can utilise the
charcoal, then that can be viewed as a 'system' by all and sundry,
but is still does not change the fact that Stove 1 takes two tons
of forest each year which is what the reported fuel consumption
should be. No smoke and mirrors.
Burying the char as a soil amendment instead of burning it merely
takes us back to the two tons of forest per year draw-down and
returns it to the environment in an (apparently) inert, solid form.
What has been happening that is wrong, in my view, is that stoves
that take off 3 tons of forest per year have been getting credit
for taking only one ton and proclaimed to be 'better' and 'more
fuel efficient' than a two-ton stove. Plainly this is not the case
and the test method has to report the fuel consumption correctly.
It is a problem that the UNFCCC methodology does not handle this
well because it is being used for CDM trades.
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________
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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
