[Stoves] SAW DUST BRIQUETTES PRODUCTION IN NIGERIA
osain odeiri
realworth01 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 3 14:54:44 EDT 2007
Thanks for the great mails i have been receiving for quite some time now.
pls could you state how much it would take to produce sawdust briquette in Nigeria as the raw materials is almost free here.i would be most greatful for your information on production and where to export to.
Looking forward to working with you.
OSAIN GODSON AUSTIN ODIERI
PORT-HARCOURT,RIVERS STATE NIGERIA
MOBILE+2348056413110.
Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
stoves at listserv.repp.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
stoves-request at listserv.repp.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
stoves-owner at listserv.repp.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Would anyone out there help turn coffee husks into some
useful renewable energy source in Karagwe, tanzania? (ahmed hood)
2. Re: Safety of stoves and conflicts of interests (Dean Still)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 02:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: ahmed hood
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Would anyone out there help turn coffee husks
into some useful renewable energy source in Karagwe, tanzania?
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Message-ID: <286645.93022.qm at web90514.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
The experience of the the Coffee Producers Association in Nairobi was a good example of coffee husk conversion into charcoal briquettes. I think the factory is presently closed down, I do not know the reasons behind. However, their carbonisation system was very tedious. Now Chardust is doing something similar with bagasse, the only difference being the briquette technology.
Our experience in Sudan, carbonisation and briquetting of cotton stalk, revealed that the conversion of waste into charcoal through carbonisation and briquetting processes is very often not feasible. The waste's price, initially zero or very minimum, will start increasing, not alone the collection and transport costs. The marketing of a new product is another challenge, where wood charcoal is usually very cheap.
Recently, MARGE established a unit in Senegal, where peanut shells is first converted into briquettes then carbonized in a retort, for environmental reasons. It seems the plant is operating very well and due to high demand the briquettes are directly sold before reaching the carbonisation stage.
Another option is the Legacy Foundation briquetting system, which looks to be simple and cheap.
Ahmed Hood
"David G. LeVine" wrote:
>These factories produce a lot of coffee husks (thousands of tons).
>Unfortunately, these husks have no commercial value at all. Instead, after
>the season, they are set on fire. The fire goes on for months.
Joseph,
Were I to go to a factory and tell them that I would let them pay me
to haul off the husks, hey would tell me to "take a hike." However
if I told them I would pay them (let's say) $0.25 (US) per ton, they
would probably be happy to have me remove them and not need to worry
about the fire hazard. I might even be able to offer to take them
for free and get them.
Briquettes of fuel are common, but will you be able to get the investment back?
The questions are simple:
1.) What is the cost of raw materials?
2.) How much does it cost to create the final product from the raw materials?
3.) What do the alternatives cost?
4.) Is there a market for the final product?
5.) What is the initial capital investment needed?
6.) Will there be sufficient ROI (Return On Investment) to encourage
investment?
If the final product (including labor, etc.) costs less than the
alternatives, it may be viable, but inertia will make the battle long
and uphill. Then the popularity of the product will cause the supply
of raw materials to dry up.
In the US, wood pellets were a cheap source of heat, they now cost
$275.00 (US) a ton. Let's assume you can package one briquette and a
stove body for less than the alternative fuels cost. Would the
people be willing to experiment with it? What if a few prominent
people (like the village religious elders) were given samples? Would
their endorsement be worthwhile?
Regarding the stove, I envisioned a "tin can" with fins and a
perforated top and bottom holding one briquette and being discarded
(like a food can) once the center burning briquette was
consumed. Imagine the briquette as a cylinder (like a coffee can)
with a star shaped hole in the center. On initial firing the hole is
small but the area is large, as it burns, the narrow "fins" burn off
more quickly and the opening gets rounder until the entire fuel
supply is used up. Because the fuel is an insulator, the can stays
cooler until the end (when it gets hot enough to discolor the can.)
One of the smoke burners might also be a viable stove. The stove
itself might not be replaced, only the "fuel can." Even if the
savings are good in the long term, getting people to pay for their
stoves might be difficult, look at the US Cellular Handset
market. In the cell world, the handsets are heavily subsidized to
get the buyer to contract for services. If the fuel canister cost $1
(US) and the stove cost $5 (US) "giving away" stoves with a 6 pack of
canisters selling for $12 (US) might be worthwhile if repeat sales of
the canisters at $2 (US) each were a reasonable expectation.
The economics of the product and the social engineering of the sales
and marketing effort are difficult, the engineering is simple. With
little (or no) profit, the product and business are doomed to failure.
David G. LeVine
Nashua, NH 03060
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 08:29:59 -0700
From: "Dean Still"
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Safety of stoves and conflicts of interests
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
Message-ID: <20070903152958.6BA0BE at telchar.epud.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear All,
The Dometic solves that problem by stuffing some sort of absorbing material
in the fuel tank...You can hold the stove upside down when full of fuel and
nothing drips out.
Best,
Dean
-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Philip Lloyd
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:22 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Safety of stoves and conflicts of interests
Dear Paul /all
I think a measure of relative safety is needed, and based on my experience,
I think it should be the rate at which fuel is burned after an incident.
Candles don't easily give rise to large quantities of fuel being burned
immediately; LP gas leaks are not very impressive; but when liquid fuels hit
the open air in pint-sized quantities, then you can have a real problem on
your hands, because the rate of energy release can reach nasty levels. That
is true for all the liquid fuels (and I include LPG) and for atomized solids
(ever seen what a bag of flour can do?).
So the hazard of the Lily, on this measure, is the risk of spilling a few
hundred ml of hot alcohol. The energy release will be fast, the power
significant, and the risk of significant fire starting rapidly will be
high. If one can design it so the alcohol can't spill, then the risk drops
significantly.
Hope that helps.
Philip
-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Paul S. Anderson
Sent: 03 September 2007 04:24
To: crispin at newdawn.sz; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott
Cc: Harry Stokes - alcohol - Pennsylvania; 'Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves'
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Safety of stoves and conflicts of interests
Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott :
> Dear Dean and Paul
>
> The issue of being legal is important. In some places you sell
> anything that is not illegal (the 'American' model), in some only what
> is legal (the 'Soviet' model).
And I guess we have seen how successful the "Soviet" model was for getting
innovations to the market. Not!!!!
...
>
> Paul can sell his Lily stove anywhere that is it not illegal to do so.
> That doesn't make it 'safe. Were there to be even the most basic set
> of safety standards in force, it would include a requirement not to
> leak if tipped over while burning, because that is how nearly all
> stove-initiated fires start.
I am interested in safety, but there are limits. If an operating Vesto
stove is tipped over, flaming fuel could fall out of the top and it could
start a fire. If an ignited matchstick is dropped, it could start a fire. A
child could get to matches, but matches are not banned. The Onil stove
cannot be tipped over, but a child could pull a burning stick out of the
Rocket hole. If ANY of the self-pressurizing alcohol stoves (beverage-can,
Trangia, Lily, are there any others?), there will be spillage of the
alcohol. No explosions, but real fire.
It is not a toy. A three-stove fire is not a toy. Is a Lily stove more
dangerous than a three-stove fire? I say it is not even as dangerous.
I do not like the scare-tactic about LPG associated with the photo at that
http://www.paraffinsafety.org/ website that you mentioned. Maybe the LPG
advocates have an opposing website with scarry info about paraffin stoves.
>
> There are very expensive paraffin stoves for use in sailboats that
> have very low emissions and are really safe even in violent seas.
> So...why haven't they been brought to the mass market? They cost is
> now related to the tiny sales volumes so it looks like an opportunity
going begging.
Correction: I believe those are alcohol stoves, not paraffin/kerosene
stoves (unless you can cite specific stoves). The company Dometic AB has an
established business for marine-stoves, and part of the reason for burning
alcohol on boats is that mere water can extinguish the flames, instead of
water spreading the flames as occurs with kerosene or petrol-based fuels.
One of the
great plus factors of the Dometic CleanCook stove (with alcohol) is its
impressive insistance on safety (Dometic is a Swedish company.). But the
stove price has been high. They are working on getting it lower. Project
Gaia people can give full info. (I paid about US$140 for a single burner
Itago unit in the USA a couple of years ago; The Cleancook two-burner in
Ethiopia is now about $80; A single burner version of the Cleancook is to
be perhaps $50, or maybe go as low as US$30.) I believe that the Lily
burners plus associated stove structure would be one-fifth or one-tenth.
But, AT PRESENT the Lily stove is not as pretty nor as safe as the
CleanCook. I did not say it was unsafe.
Paul
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
Stoves at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 15, Issue 7
*************************************
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
More information about the Stoves
mailing list