[Stoves] Re: About LPG and India and biomass stoves

I appreciate you insights.   I wish to clarify a few things below:

Dear Paul

 

Sensible comments as usual. Thanks. I don’t have a monopoly on how the big questions should be approached so I note your idea about separating stove by group, with lots of quibbles for another time. The fact is there are so many misconceptions allowed to run riot about stoves we have to take practical steps in the arenas we can affect.

 

The risk for the TLUD as a ‘technology’ is that I see it being tied, inextricably, to the biochar-soil-amendment-climate-controlling narrative.

That is your perception.   That is the intention of some others.   It is of some interest to me, but is NOT my intention.   What happens to the char is up for discussion, and I mean discussion at the local level of the people who actually have the char from the TLUD stoves.  The “talk” of biochar means nothing if biochar is not of interest (or is not of benefit) to the households who created the char.

There is nothing inherent about a TLUD that requires this diversion. If the concept of the biochar-soil-amendment-climate-controlling narrative is widely accepted, actions taken at scale, a systems approach will be used as the little contributions from individual stoves – useful in certain cases – will either be considered a cute also-ran or marginalized in the interests of scale. Cooks will be fighting with the char makers for access to the raw material.  The char makers will win because they can control the quality and have a higher yield.

The fight (if there is one) for access to the raw material will be won or lost on economic terms.   And your last sentence is not correct.  TLUD char is usually quite consistent in it quality.  And that char is with rather LOW volatiles (because it is made at higher temperatures), which makes it lighter, and therefore with less yield BY WEIGHT.   But by quality, that depends on who wants the char.   And about that, I am neutral.

 

The path you are choosing looks good now because you have been beating your head against a wall for years.

AMEN!!!   Yes, it has been a LONG time.

Now a few cracks are appearing. It might be much easier to walk around the wall to get to the other side. TLUD’s as an operating behaviour, are systematically cleaner burning than common use. To restrict your options to only particular fuels, preparations, co-benefits (char) and loading methods is hardly a great idea. Why do that?

I disagree with  you  statement.  I think  that I do NOT restrict my options.  Maybe you are seeing only part of my activities.  I am fussy about what is and is not true TLUD.   And I encourage others to experiment (but not to call they stuff TLUD as if TLUD means all  forms of micro-gasification.)  One of my “faults” is that I have general TLUD concepts but do not have specific technical drawings with engineering specifications.  (and that deficiency continues for me, with the soon (before GACC Forum)to be announced Mini and FAAB aspects of TLUDs.  — assistance is welcome.)

 

What could and should be a major sector of a large and diverse market is being trimmed to a narrow description because it looks as if there is support from some quarters. Don’t hitch your wagon to one horse.

Good advice and good analogy.   What I do not want to do is hitch up an additional horse that will be headed in a different direction. 

 

TLUD gasifiers are a perfectly acceptable technology and the multiple mentions of the chambers getting too hot for tincanium is a distraction. If you have a materials problem, solve it. That is what I am doing in UB. It is an essential part of professionalising the sector. People want products, not experiments. At least use the opportunity to promote TLUD’s, not only those which are tuned to producing char. The enthusiasts are getting to grips with micro-gasification and it can be applied to a variety of tasks at least one of which is simply burning all the fuel for a useful purpose.

This is certainly among the various considerations. 

Your comments are appreciated.

Paul

 

I am not asking you to slacken, but broaden.

 

Best regards
Crispin

 

 

 

Crispin,

There is much truth in what you have written about so many different topics.  That number of topics raises the question about separation of topics or unification of topics.     My feeling are influenced by my years working on TLUD stoves.

1.  The decisions should be in relation to assisting the impoverished people, and not focused n “setting riight” all the wrongs associated  with some toipic, which in this this case is LPG big business.

2.  The issues about the unfair labling of “dirty solid fuels” cannot be resolved by placing ALL of the solid fuels together, and keeping ALL of the biomass stove types together.  There are some biomass stoves that do not deserve to be protected and justified.   Let them drop out.        That is essentially saying that the gasifier stoves (which have a good chance to be finally recognized as being worthy of consideration) should be disassociated from the other biomass stoves.   I have been saying that in the “Classification….” document.

3.  Similar rationale about the other solid fuel, meaning coal.   I am not against coal.   I believe that there can be (and are) some stoves / heaters that can burn coal cleanly.   But they will need to be presented separately from the biomass stoves, meaning separate from the poor-combustion biomass stoves and also from the very good combustion gasifier stoves. 

4.  I consider it a great advancement that Kirk Smith has openned the door for consideration of the TLUD gasifier stoves (and any other biomass stoves that can present the data and success stories that he is seeking).   I  will not be trying to make a general case that would include rocket stoves or charcoal stoves or even gasifiers stoves of coal, and not even the non-TLUD gasifier stoves  (“fan-jet” etc.).

5.  The above comments might seem “selfish” or “seff-centered on TLUDs”, but the approach is realistic about getting at least one type of biomass stove into the “acceptable” category and to disprove the “dirty solid fuels” statements.  Please re-read comment #1 about the purpose being to help the poor families, not some idealistic objective.    The global need for much improved cookstoves is so great that there is plenty of room for LPG and the gasifiers of biomass.    I have no desire to tear down the LPG efforts;  improve them, yes.   And I certainly would like to show that the target families are appreciate and desire the TLUD stoves with local biomass fuels even more than they do the LPG stovers with imported fossil fuels.   But that can only happen when the TLUD stoves are into the communities in significant numbers.  

Paul