Dear Paul
I did a search for the Article you reference below, but could not find it.
Other Articles at the SciDirect Site cost $35.95 each.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09619534/35/11 My comments are on
yours, and the Abstract you present...
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Anderson
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ; [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: [biochar] Energy / fuel / biochar DATA from Kenya Re: [Stoves] FW:
REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.
Dear Stovers who want truth in reporting about stove efficiency.
# Just what is "the truth in reporting about stove efficiency"? Neither you
nor the abstract present any truths about "stove fuel efficiency" for various
stoves.
* What are the typical stoves in use now in Kenya, and what are their fuel
efficiencies?
* What is the fuel efficiency of pyrolitic stoves that could be used there?
* What is the fuel efficiency of well designed conventional stoves that can
burn crop residues, shrub and tree litter without producing significant char?
* Would Kenya Farmers be bettter off if they returned the crop residues to
their soils to build organic matter?
The title and abstract below seem to be a good example to illustrate what
happens when stoves can use fuels other than wood and can produce charcoal (for
burning or for biochar).
# I would suggest not.. A pyrolytic stove producing char is certainly better
than a three stone fire, but there is nothing to show how a pyrolytic stove
producing char would compare to a to a "full combustion stove" designed to burn
equivalent fuels.
This is not my data, and not my stove design. How do we get this type of
"stove IMPACT" included into stove testing?
# IMPACT is IMPACT and Stove testing is Stove Testing. They are two very
different subjects. A good place to start would be to have a stove testing
protocol that showed the fuel efficiency of various stoves, so that where fuel
efficiency was the factor of prime importance, the most fuel efficient stove
could be selected. With a science based stove testing protocol, the Customer
could select the stove that best met his IMPACT requirements.
I think the word IMPACT can carry the same weight as efficiency.
# If you feel IMPACT can carry the same weight as efficiency, you provide an
excellent reason for the need for science based stove testing.
"ENERGY efficiency" should be reported. "Fuel impact" might be an
additional result to report.
# I would strongly disagree with you for reasons as follows: "Energy
Efficiency" is only a measure of the percentage of "Corrected fuel energy" that
"enters the pot" after subtracting the energy in the unburned char from the
energy in the fuel supplied. "Fuel Efficiency", on the other hand, tells the
Stove Customer the efficiency of fuel utilization to "get the cooking job
done." The stove with the highest fuel efficiency will absolutely require the
least fuel input.The way to have the biggest "fuel impact" is to favour the use
of stoves with highest fuel efficiency.
# Note that Paul Oliver's presentation favouring the use of TLUD's in Vietnam
shows that there is a huge surplus of agricultural residue, and the market for
char and heating to displace LPG energy is such that it is profitable for the
Home Owner to use TLUD's. The Article you reference provides nothing solid, as
did Paul Oliver.
# Note that the last sentence of the Abstract you provide:
"The introduction of a first-generation pyrolytic cook stove reduced wood
energy consumption by 27% while producing an average of 0.46 Mg ha-1 y-1 of
biochar. "
is especially fluffy.
1: A new stove design is being compare to a stove that might be as
inefficient as a 3 stone fire, with no windscreen, burning semi-green wood.
2: They don't tell us anything about the fuel used in the pyrolytic stove...
perhaps they burned agricultural waste. Regardless of its efficiency, it would
still save wood.
3: They don't give any indication that they have tested appropriately
designed "full burn stoves" on wood and on agricultural waste, so there is no
reason to believe that pyrolytic stoves are "the best for the circumstances."
Best wishes,
Kevin
Paul
"Biomass availability, energy consumption and biochar production in rural
households of Western Kenya"
Biomass and Bioenergy Vol 35 (2011) pp.3537-3546
Dorisel Torres-Rojas a, Johannes Lehmann a,*, Peter Hobbs a, Stephen Joseph
b,
Henry Neufeldt c
a Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, 9090 Bradfield
Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
b University of South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia
c World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
Abstract
Pyrolytic cook stoves in smallholder farms may require different biomass
supply than
traditional bioenergy approaches. Therefore, we carried out an on-farm
assessment of the
energy consumption for food preparation, the biomass availability relevant
to conventional
and pyrolytic cook stoves, and the potential biochar generation in rural
households of
western Kenya. Biomass availability for pyrolysis varied widely from 0.7 to
12.4 Mg ha1 y1
with an average of 4.3 Mg ha1 y1, across all 50 studied farms. Farms with
high soil fertility
that were recently converted to agriculture from forest had the highest
variability
(CV ¼ 83%), which was a result of the wide range of farm sizes and
feedstock types in the
farms. Biomass variability was two times lower for farms with low than high
soil fertility
(CV ¼ 37%). The reduction in variability is a direct consequence of the
soil quality, coupled
with farm size and feedstock type. The total wood energy available in the
farms (5.3 GJ
capita1 y1) was not sufficient to meet the current cooking energy needs
using conventional
combustion stoves, but may be sufficient for improved combustion stoves
depending
on their energy efficiency. However, the biomass that is usable in
pyrolytic cook stoves
including crop residues, shrub and tree litter can provide 17.2 GJ capita1
y1 of energy for
cooking, which is well above the current average cooking energy consumption
of 10.5 GJ
capita1 y1. The introduction of a first-generation pyrolytic cook stove
reduced wood
energy consumption by 27% while producing an average of 0.46 Mg ha-1 y-1 of
biochar.
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
__._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New
Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity: a.. New Members 3
Visit Your Group
MARKETPLACE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . Send us
Feedback .
__,_._,__________________________________________________
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/
