Dave,
You name 5 levels or types:
Instead of “Recover” (which to me seems to mean going back to its previous state), I would prefer the word Transform When low-value biomass is subjected to pyrolysis, there is a transformation that involves the off-gasing of pyrolyic gases and the production of charcoal.
Perhaps “Recover #4” could include pyrolytic transformation, but the description says “Recovering energy” and the word energy is more important than “recover”. I do not see pyrolysis as the recovery of sunlight used in photosynthesis. So Transform would be more easily and quickly understood by the public than would Recover with the need to explain that it refers to energy. Use the same graphic, but put the work Transform in place of Recover .
I do not want us to be hung up on semantics. There is not requirement to have another “R” word. (if R is required, than Landfill could become Rest-in-peace. 😊 )
If the material is “biomass based” and the objectives are to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, then Recover means to bring it back to some biomass based status. Instead, use Transform (to avoid sending to the Landfill.)
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email: psanders@ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434
Website: www.drtlud.com<www.drtlud.com>
From: Dave Lello <dave@lello.me>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 5:27 AM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders@ilstu.edu>
Cc: Kirk H. <gkharris316@comcast.net>; Julien Winter <winter.julien@gmail.com>; Norman Baker <ntbakerphd@gmail.com>; biocharFIRST <wmknauss@gmail.com>; Art Donnelly <art.donnelly@gmail.com>; Vi Rapp <VHRapp@lbl.gov>; Dean Still <deankstill@gmail.com>; Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson@comcast.net>; Jock Gill <jg45@icloud.com>; Ryan Thompson <ryan@mtnaireng.com>; Paul Taylor <potaylor@bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: Further RE: Presenting at ETHOS? Make a poster as well
Hi There
I agree with Kirk Harris on 2 points.
1. The discussion is about gasification burners rather than just a TLUD. We need to stimulate debate and research on lowering emissions and increasing efficiency through proper 2 stage combustion of any kind.
2. Using a renewable biomass fuel of any sort in a cooking device is of prime importance, when discussing the long term effects of deforestation and developing sustainable agriculture practices for fuel.
My experience in Africa is that renewable fuel from waste is being considered, and made into 3 different fuels:
1. Compressed biomass fuel (briquettes or pellets made from sawdust, wood chips, agro-waste etc)
2. Charcoal briquettes ( biomass waste – compressed, dried and then charcoaled ) including innovative projects using banana pulp waste for briquettes.
3. Biogas (from animal manure, food waste etc)
All 3 fuels offer opportunities for:
1. Adding value to low value waste with much needed job creation
2. Dealing with waste streams that can be harmful if left untreated
3. Lowering CO2 emissions using non-fossil fuels
4. Replacing raw harvested wood/charcoal with renewable clean burning cooking fuel
No clear winner between the 3 fuels, as it depends on the waste available, and where it is situated. All three fuels have improved stove designs, and can meet most WHO standards for clean cooking.
I have been including the waste hierarchy in my literature this year (see attachment). Energy recovery is an important part of the waste elimination. This is particularly applicable in peri-urban shack areas where waste management is becoming a big health issue.
I hope renewable fuel topics are on the ETHOS Agenda this year.
Best
Dave