[Stoves] 4 Charcoal production, improved

[adkarve]

This refers to the discussion on transport of charcoal. We make charcoal
from dry leaves that are left behind in the field after harvest of
sugarcane. If one had a centrally located kiln and if one were to transport
the leaves to the kiln, the cost of transport would kill the business. In
our case, the kiln is a portable metallic structure. It is transported to
the field where sugarcane is being harvested. The char is produced in the
field itself and transported to the centrally located extruder. The char,
not being springy and elastic like the dry leaves, can be pressed into sacks
for transport, and since it is a high value product, it can absorb the cost
of transport. We have already sold more than a hundred of these kilns and
they are being used for making charcoal from grass and shrubs growing on
uncultivated land, cotton stalks, Casuarina needles, leaf litter in
plantations of mango, cashew nuts etc. We also expect a huge demand from
urban housing societies, as in most cities, the city administration has
stopped accepting dry leaves of trees as garbage.  People now burn the
leaves in the open. But if they realise that they can earn money from the
leaves, they would start burning them in our kilns.
Yours A.D.Karve

----- Original Message -----
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] 4 Charcoal production, improved


> Dear Friends
>
> Robert emphasizes a good point: transport costs v.s. energy content.
>
> Having just done this calculation for a paper, I can report that in
> Mozambique at least, the cost in foreign exchange to buy fuel for
> trucks is equal to the local purchase cost of charcoal when the
> charcoal has to be transported 500 km or more.
>
> This means that to access $1000 worth of local biomass-sourced
> charcoal, they have to spend $1000 on imported fuel to move it from
> Inhambane province to Maputo.
>
> This is another way to look at energy costs.
>
> I would caution, Penn, that while charcoal is ordinarily though of as
> coming from trees, there are many useless (for most purposes) sources
> of biomass that can be easily turned into charcoal to make a high
> quality fuel from something people refuse to burn in a stove as a
> biomass fuel.  Bullrushes come to mind immediately.
>
> So your argument is valid for wood, but weaker for non-standard biomass.
>
> I feel there is an indefinite future for charcoal because it is a high
> quality, predictable fuel that can be packaged and marketed over a
> wide area from a single source.  These are the characteristics of a
> good product.
>
> Best regards
> Crispin in Matsapha
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://www.bioenergylists.org