Art, Jock, etal I think the comparison should also be against charcoal-using stoves - with a start of the computations when the char is produced often illegally in the bush. The charcoal-making stove then comes out way ahead.
Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Art Donnelly" <[email protected]> To: "Jonathan P Gill" <[email protected]> Cc: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:40:58 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advancement of "better" stoves Hi all, It would be helpful in comparing the merits of biochar producing stoves with other biomass cooking methods, to remember that a statement such as: "Holding back carbon from combustion will increase the feedstock demand." Is completely relative to the comparison being made. Compared to a rocket-elbow based stove with a good operator: no doubt. Compared to the baseline of an traditional open cooking fire: not true. I base only this on the results that Aprovecho produced on the Estufa Finca, using the WBT, the controlled cooking test we conducted as part of the 2010-2011 : Estufa Finca-Santos pilot project and several years of observation and surveying cooks. In a wood to wood comparison we consistently see approx. 40% savings. In the no one is paying for the type of fuel that does best in the Estufa Fincas. Even in a fuel rich area like the Talamanca many people are paying for "stove wood" : cut to length/bundled. best, On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Jonathan P Gill < [email protected] > wrote: Crispin, On May 29, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> The viability of cooking while making char pivots on two things: the conversion of fuel to char without increasing the raw fuel demand, and the rate of positive return on char placed in the soil. The data that addresses these issues is of great interest to me. Holding back carbon from combustion will increase the feedstock demand. This is a non issue if the feedstock is free, or, even better, a waste stream with a disposal cost that can now be avoided. Of course an increase in garden productivity, or a sufficient market value for the charcoal, could eliminate any extra cost even if the feedstock has to be purchased. And all this with no credit for sequestering carbon. In sum, the entire value chain has to be taken into account, not simply a few cherry picked data points such as the increase in feedstock required. Regards, Jock </blockquote> -- Art Donnelly President SeaChar.Org US Director, The Farm Stove Project Proyecto Estufa Finca "SeaChar.Org...positive tools for carbon negative living" _______________________________________________ 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/
