List and Julien 

This mainly to respond to Julien below re char-making stoves for especially 
Bangaldesh, but of course to endorse Dr. Paul Olivier's remarks immediately 
below.. 

1. Assuming Bangladesh is big in rice, I would check out more of Paul O's work 
and justification for using rice husks with a char co-product. Of course Paul 
is also eloquent on the value of placing char in the ground for climate (CO2 
sequestration) reasons. That should resonate more in Bangladesh than most any 
other country 

2. Your timing is a little off for getting help from the stove camp starting in 
three days at Aprovecho. But Dean Still and Dr. Paul Anderson have both got 
publcations answering the energy questions you have asked below (look at the 
Phillips stove for one). They would both recommend publications by EPA's Jim 
Jetter. 

3. All three would probably say that the available stove testing data says that 
char-making stoves will be getting about 30-40% of the energy in both the 
cookpot and the char, and the remainder (20-40%) is lost. This latter number is 
low in the stove testing world. I think all three would agree with Paul O. on 
the value in not combusting the char. He also emphasizes the importance of 
health impacts, soil improvement, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and the good 
economics of saving the char, and spending less time fire-tending, etc I do 
also. 

4 However, it sounds like you don't need much help along those lines. Best of 
luck. Please let us know how your talks go. 

Ron 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Olivier" <[email protected]> 
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:32:24 PM 
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Comparing the fate of fuel energy between stoves -- a 
simple table? 






Crispin, 

We have measured the temperature of the syngas as it exits the reactor, and as 
the reaction proceeds from top to bottom in a TLUD, the temperature of the gas 
right before combustion drops significantly. Of course one could insulate the 
reactor, but this would put a lot of stress on the metal used to construct the 
reactor. I think therefore that it is safe to conclude that a lot of the heat 
generated as char is combusted would also be lost through the wall of the 
reactor. Also when char is consumed, the temperature within the reactor rises 
to dangerously high levels. The bottom of the reactor turns red hot, and at 
this high heat, metal quickly degrades. 

Suppose that the reactor is not insulated and that char begins to burn 50 cm 
below the pot. It is hard to imagine anything more inefficient than this. 


One of the reasons that I moved in the direction of reducing the height of the 
reactor was to minimize heat loss. As the reaction proceeds from top to bottom, 
the temperature of the syngas drops by as much as 250 C. At this lower 
temperature, the syngas does not combust in the same manner as at the higher 
temperatures. The flame is not as rich, it becomes more ethereal, and the speed 
at which water boils is impacted. 


So I tried to reduce the height of the reactor as much as I could, while still 
maintaining a burn time on loose biomass of at least 40 minutes. This led me to 
choose a reactor height of 50 cm for loose biomass such as rice hulls and 
coffee husks. But when I switched to pellets, I discovered that I could have a 
net reactor height of only eight inches with a burn time as long as 1.5 hours. 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/150%20Gasifier/Short/Photos/IMG_1568.JPG
 
This gives a very hot gas throughout the burn, and the reaction zone itself is 
much closer to the pot. But for normal cooking over a period of about 40 
minutes, the net reactor height could be reduced even further to about four 
inches. 


With pellets we can design TLUDs that are lightweight and compact. But one 
thing that I have learned in this regard. Do not try to burn the biochar 
pellets when the burn comes to an end. The heat generated here is absolutely 
horrendous. These are temperatures at which a blacksmith works. 

Thanks. 
Paul 




On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < 
[email protected] > wrote: 


Dear Julien 

I think it is a mistake (or a poor assumption) to assume that a 'small char 
fire' is a) at the bottom, b) is not an effective heat source and c) 
represents a loss of some kind. 

The distance between a heat source and a pot is not as indicative of 
anything significant. 

My rule is: Never Assume Anything. 

Calculate first, then observe, as appropriate. 

The simmering that is sometimes done in a cooking event is often well 
supplied with heat with a low power char fire at the end. 

Convective heat transfer can be very efficient. Basically the argument that 
distance matters is an assumption that most heat transfer from burning char 
is from radiant. This is nearly never true in a real fire. If the convective 
heat transfer is done with a low excess air level, it can be very good. 

Regards 
Crispin 




-----Original Message----- 
From: Stoves [mailto: [email protected] ] On Behalf Of 
Julien Winter 
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:08 PM 
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
Subject: [Stoves] Comparing the fate of fuel energy between stoves -- a 
simple table? 

Hello Stovers; 

I am in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and I am going into a meeting in a couple of days 
to talk about biochar production through cookstoves. I have already been 
asked a question about whether biochar-making is a cost (in fuel) that 
stove-user may not want to make. For example, "why not burn the fuel to ash 
and not save the biochar?" ... to which I reply that for a ND-TLUD, 70% of 
the fuel energy was in the gas fire, and the carbon fire is a long way from 
the pot, and a TLUD is a great deal more efficient that a traditional stove, 
and who would want a high temperature carbon fire at the bottom of one's 
cherished stove anyway. 

I realize that there are some huge ceteris paribus assumptions to be made 
about standard conditions for comparing different stove types and fuels, but 
can anybody have a crack at filling in this "simple" table? 
I just want some ballpark figures to help justify biocharmakery. 

FATE OF THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN A WOOD FUEL 

STOVE_TYPE COOKING BIOCHAR LOST 
============================================ 
----------------------- (%) 
----------------------------- 
1) ND-TLUD 
2) 3-stone 
3) Anila 
4) Chula 
5) etc. 

I have just put in some stove names as examples. The value for %energy in 
biochar is zero for many stoves, so many comparisons amounts to a comparison 
of stove efficiencies. 

As must be the case for many less well off countries, the most ecologically 
sound method of making biochar in Bangladesh will be through their 
cookstoves, and the biggest, most immediate impact of biochar on people's 
lives will be to improve the fertility of homestead gardens. That is easy 
to say; it will be a lot harder to do. 

Thanks, 
Julien. 

-- 
Julien Winter 
Cobourg, ON, CANADA 

_______________________________________________ 
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/ 






-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD 
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong 
Dalat 
Vietnam 

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam) 
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam) 
Skype address: Xpolivier 
http://www.esrla.com/ 
_______________________________________________ 
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/

Reply via email to