[Stoves] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.

Sun Apr 14 20:50:36 CDT 2013

Otto and Nurhuda,

As you can see from my recent emails, I do not believe in burning charcoal
or biochar (in countries such as Vietnam where agricultural residues are so
abundant) as a source of energy for cooking. Biochar is far too valuable to
burn, especially since its sale can completely subsidize the cost of
producing the energy needed for cooking. I think that the GACC and other
funding agencies should not focus exclusively on cook stoves. They should
focus a lot more on all that comes before and after the cook stove. The *before
should *involve biomass preparation such as drying, pelleting and chipping,
and the *after *should involve biochar standardization and research. If we
prepare biomass properly, it becomes so easy to gasify, and at the same
time, we produce a uniform and predictable biochar. Once we have a uniform
and predictable biochar, then we can conduct extensive research on its
value within agriculture. Once farmers understand, through this research,
that they can double or even triple their harvests through the addition of
biochar, biochar becomes such a hot commodity that it pays for the cook
stove as well as the biomass that goes into it.

Thanks.
Paul

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Otto Formo <terra-matricula at hotmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Paul O,
> I am happy to listen to people with common sense and reasons, I second
> your statements, fully.
>
> Bring the machine to the rawmaterials, use mobile units (pellet,
> briquetting or chopping) and/ or gasfying generators and ferry the finsihed
> product to the urban markeds, just like they do with the charcoal in Africa.
>
> Good luck in Vietnam!!
>
> Otto
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:50:21 +0700
> From: paul.olivier at esrla.com
> To: mnurhuda at ub.ac.id
> CC: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
>
>
> Yes, Nurhuda, you make a lot of sense.
>
> I read recently an article about a company that started pelletizing rice
> straw in China. This company was able to operate quite well in the
> beginning at a relatively small-scale. But they saw it as a big challenge:
> how to scale up?
>
> Our approach should be just the opposite: how to scale down? In a
> scaled-down approach, each rice farmer might have his own pellet machine.
> Just as he might bring paddy rice to market, he might also bring rice
> straw pellets to market. Once everyone in an area would be equipped to
> gasify pellets for household cooking needs, these rice straw pellets could
> easily command a higher price per ton than paddy rice.
>
> With biomass pellets, we have a predictable fuel, as Christa Roth would
> say. All aspects of gasifying biomass are greatly simplified, once we have
> predictable fuel. The gasification process becomes thoroughly uniform. The
> syngas contains very little CO2. A beautiful blue flame is produced, and
> this flame resembles the flame produced by a conventional LPG stove.
>
> Also the biochar produced from pellets becomes easy to characterize and
> sell, since it was produced under uniform conditions.Note that the biochar
> produced from pellets exits the reactor in pelleted form. But the best part
> of all: the household can then sell the biochar at a higher price than it
> paid for the pellets. Through the sale of biochar, the household pays
> absolutely nothing for the energy it needs to cook. When biochar is
> produced at the level of the household, this is the ultimate scaling down.
>
> So we need to pay a lot more attention to what comes before and after the
> gasifier stove. Preparing biomass into a predictable fuel is quite
> important in the case of many agricultural residues (the before), as well
> as demonstrating to farmers the many benefits of biochar (the after).
>
> Thanks.
> Paul
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:01 AM, M. Nurhuda <mnurhuda at ub.ac.id> wrote:
>
> Dear Paul and All,
>
> Thank for the positive responses.
>
> What we have to do is to make the people aware, not only the targets
> people, but also the policy maker.
>
> I have severely discussed about the use of biomass in replace the coal
> with many businessman.
>
> In general, they agree what I propose, but, the particular, the big
> companies, do not want. The reason is how to collect that biomass, since
> biomass is less dense than coal, less confined energy etc.
>
> They want operate as single operator in very large area and hence, the
> collecting the biomass should be problem. Yes, it is bad side.. greedy..
>
> To tackle that issues, I propose further as follows:
>
> 1. The biomass must not be considered as waste, but something more  like
> commodities. In this respect, biomass residues must be bought from farmers
> at a reasonable price, e.g. price at energy content proportional to coal
> or slightly less. With reasonable price, farmers are happy to bring the
> biomass to industry processing since they will earn additional incomes.
>
> 2. The electrical grids running on biomass must be not centralized, but as
> close as possible to the available feedstock resources. It is indeed
> similar to win-powered electric generator, whose maximum gain is about 5
> MW.
> (tough that currently there are 20 MW wind-powered electrical generator,
> the average yield is not more than half or even one fourth). If for
> wind-powered they can, why for  biomass they can not?
>
> 3. How much is the energy cost for processing biomass to pellet? There are
> many biomass pelletizer that works with  power less  15kw  and production
> capacity around 200 kg/hour. If the pellet machine is run using
> electricity from biomass gasifier, to get that power we needs pellet
> around 12 kg/hour only. Thus, around 5% if biomass energy is needed to
> convert biomass to pellet.
>
> Kind regards
> M. Nurhuda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nurhuda,
> >
> > I really am delighted to read what you have written in this email. I
> > wholeheartedly support your approach. If we tap into the enormous amount
> > of
> > biomass available in the form of agricultural residues, we can go a long
> > way in meeting the cooking needs of most of the people in Asia. Just
> > imagine the tonnage of rice hulls and rice straw available in China
> alone.
> > Just imagine the colossal amount of wheat straw available in Europe and
> > the
> > USA that could serve as fuel for gasifiers situated in modern kitchens.
> No
> > one, rich or poor, should be relying exclusively on fossil fuels to cook
> a
> > meal.
> >
> >
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Presentations/Gasification.ppsx
> >
> > Many thanks.
> > Paul Olivier
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 6:57 AM, M. Nurhuda <mnurhuda at ub.ac.id> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all stovers,
> >>
> >> I am from Java, but not central Java as Crispin and World Bank team are
> >> mostly visiting.
> >>
> >> Dense forest in Java is now just a story. We do not have anymore dense,
> >> big rainfall forest. Not only in Java, even in other island like Borneo
> >> or
> >> Sumatra. Probably in Papua there are still big forest, but I am  very
> >> skeptic  if in the next 5 or 10 years these dense forests still do
> >> exist.
> >> There are currently massive deforestation due to palm plantation.
> >>
> >> We propose, regarding the clean cookstove initiative phase I, which
> >> targeting 10 million stove users between  2014-2020, not to use woods as
> >> fuel, but the agriculture and plantation residues. We have provided
> >> simple
> >> calculation, that rice straw alone can be feedstock for pellets
> >> sufficient
> >> for 164 Million house holds in Indonesia. How does this number come?
> >>
> >> The rice grain production in year in all Indonesia is 70.4 Million tons.
> >> The ration between dry rice straw to dry rice grain is always between
> >> 1.1-2, but mostly 1.44. The total dry rice straw as byproduct of rice
> >> farming will be around 100 million tons in year. When the straw is
> >> converted to pellet, around 10% of mass will be lost. Thus, from 100
> >> Million tons of rice straw we can get 90 million tons pellets. Assuming
> >> that each house hold needs only 1,5 kg pellet daily,  the pellet will
> >> suffice for 164 millions house holds.
> >>
> >> The agriculture and plantation residues are not only rice straw, but
> >> also
> >> rice husks, cornstalk, sugar cane, grass and still a lot. All can be
> >> used
> >> as pellet feedstock. There are many big companies in Indonesia ready to
> >> produce the pellet, if the governments give supports and the market for
> >> pellet is open.
> >>
> >> All we have to do is introducing the change. We have to make the people
> >> aware that they can not rely at all to log woods as well as to
> >> subsidized
> >> LPG and kerosene.
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >> M. Nurhuda
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Crispin,Thanks for your quick reply.
> >> > Like allways, you have an answer to everything and enjoy your stay in
> >> the
> >> > dense forest of Java or Canada.Replacing trees is not a new idea on
> >> the
> >> > planet, only linked to Canada.In the jungle the forest are dense, but
> >> not
> >> > so heavily populated, that I know of.If you are still using charcoal
> >> for
> >> > cooking (not grilling) in Canda, I wish you good luck.
> >> > Pellet have been on the marked in Sweden for almost three decades.
> >> > I was mainly commenting Paul M, but anyway you are of the same part
> >> and
> >> > parcel.
> >> > I am not here to entertain you and your fellow followers, but here to
> >> > pinpoint that there are other options than charcoal.There is no need
> >> of
> >> > reporting, what we allready know.
> >> > We are not forcing matters on anybody, just trying to give them an
> >> option,
> >> > linked to stoves and FUEL.
> >> > If I should check all your previous posts, I would be busy into the
> >> next
> >> > century and I have better ways to spend my time.
> >> > We dont need to be told obvious facts, again and again, when we know
> >> of
> >> > the mountains of vaste materials through out the planet.The most
> >> important
> >> > issue is to find ways to utilize it in a smart an rational way.
> >> > To keep on pushing the old fashion metodes dont direct us in the right
> >> > direction, as far as I know.People tend to stick to old and "secure"
> >> > metodes, known for decades, but does it create inventions and
> >> progress?
> >> > Have you ever tested a ND gasifier and the heat transfer to the pot?To
> >> > boil water in Norway, we need only 100 C at sea level, less at higher
> >> > altitudes.We do not need tempertures at the melting point of the
> >> pot.The
> >> > gasifier produces heat around 550 - 750C to the pot stand, depending
> >> on
> >> > which type of biomass used.
> >> > I do not consider a charcoal producer, as you say, "a good or bad
> >> guy".i
> >> > have met several of them during my time as a forest officer in Zambia.
> >> > They are hard working people, struggeling to feed their families with
> >> some
> >> > "cash crop" from the forest, "free of charge".They do not do it
> >> because
> >> > they, "like it", but because it is the only option they have for some
> >> > income.
> >> > Either way, they normaly get 150 kg of charcoal out of 1 tonne of
> >> > wood.Thats the fact of to day in Zambia and many other African
> >> countries.
> >> > This should also be reflected in your calculation on MJ/kg.Most of the
> >> > energy content to produce the charcoal on the truck has been consumed
> >> in
> >> > the forest and into the thin air, dont you see?I consider that vaste
> >> of
> >> > energy, so your calculation is bit more complex than you seems to
> >> know.
> >> > The prices are very much linked to the marked and you cant compare
> >> > firewood and charcoal, as woodchips and charcoal, because of the fact
> >> that
> >> > woochips will last longer and be more fuel efficient in a gasifier,
> >> than
> >> a
> >> > treestone fire or an improved woodstove.On the other hand we do not
> >> need
> >> > to use wooden biomass in a gasifier.You cant compare apples and
> >> oranges,
> >> > either by taste or price. They are fruits, yes, but still totally
> >> > different.
> >> > Why do you think Phiilps have started producing gasifiers in Maseru?Do
> >> you
> >> > feel they are stupied or commented?
> >> > Everbody on this list know about the energy chain of charcoal, I
> >> belive,
> >> > and do not need to be highlighted every now and then.
> >> > To use residues from platations, like in Rwanda, to produce charcoal
> >> is
> >> of
> >> > course a better option than using indigionus forest.But if you dont
> >> forsee
> >> > an unefficient and harmfull industry, before it is to late, you are in
> >> > trouble".
> >> > Enjoy the dense forest of Java, whilest you can.I have heard stories
> >> about
> >> > heavy logging to create palmoil platations and utilize the char as
> >> > biochar.
> >> > Trees are renewable, IF you LEAVE them for a while, that is the big
> >> > question and bushfires will come and go wheter we like it or not.
> >> > Otto
> >> >
> >> > From: crispinpigott at gmail.com
> >> > To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >> > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:54:30 +0700
> >> > Subject: Re: [] More on the Alternatives to Charcoal.
> >> >
> >> > Dear Otto Well it can truly be said that your posts are entertaining.
> >> Let
> >> > me (once again) set you straight about some things you say I am saying
> >> by
> >> > point out what I am not saying and what I do say. I think it matters
> >> if
> >> > you wont to hold a conversation. >I am on the other hand, very sad to
> >> see
> >> > the scepticism and disbelive in people to be able and willing to
> >> change
> >> in
> >> > developing countries. I have no such skepticism. I am reporting what
> >> > people do. You are welcome to help them change. If the change you
> >> bring
> >> is
> >> > not wanted, they will not popularise it. >Your arguments are very much
> >> > based on that "people never change” or are to ignorant to even
> >> consider
> >> > doing that. I made no such argument at all. I want you (I am asking
> >> for
> >> > the how-many-eth time?) to consider the whole equation. I am not
> >> > pre-judging the answer, I am with Paul M looking at all facets of a
> >> > calculation I have made for you in the past. You are welcome to check
> >> the
> >> > old posts. The equation does not change if it is all-inclusive. >…They
> >> > should be given an option to be part of the value chain from raw
> >> materials
> >> > out of agri- and forest residues to production of woodchips, pellets
> >> and
> >> > briquettes, just like in the charcoal “industry”.  I completely agree
> >> with
> >> > this idea. If we do not consider the economic impact of decisions
> >> about
> >> > technology there are many unintended consequences. Charcoal is
> >> definitely
> >> > an industry, and it is a biofuel industry. It is a well-developed
> >> industry
> >> > with a clear value chain.  >2. We are not talking about raw wood and
> >> wood,
> >> > only, but residues. which normally are wasted on the fields and inthe
> >> > forests. There is a great deal of waste from agriculture and forestry.
> >> > About ½ the mass of a tree is left on the forest floor after cutting –
> >> > according to South African data on managed forest plantation.
> >> >Charcoal
> >> is
> >> > lighter by weight, but consuming in volume.  Yes it is less dense but
> >> > people pile the trucks up very high until they are overloaded.
> >> Changing
> >> to
> >> > moving wood will not move more tons in the same number of trucks, if
> >> that
> >> > is what you were getting at. The same number of overloaded tons would
> >> be
> >> > moved with a much lower heat content. They do not dry the wood in
> >> rural
> >> > areas. Not for long anyway, but they could. That is part of the
> >> equation.
> >> > >But dont forget that in a ND gasifier, or as we like to call it, a
> >> Micro
> >> > Kiln, you will utilize the gases in the biomass for cooking  and your
> >> > calculation on MJ/kg will fall apart. When we look at the calculation
> >> of
> >> > the MJ delivered into the pots, we will see the result. I am not
> >> > speculating, I am calculating. We can calculate for the present
> >> > conditions. We can calculate from improved charcoal production
> >> technology,
> >> > utilisation of charcoal fines, utilisation of small branches presently
> >> > wasted, utilisation of agriwastes for charcoal and the use of slash
> >> (the
> >> > branches and thinning from plantations). We can also remember that
> >> after
> >> a
> >> > forest fire most of the partly burned tree wood that cannot be sawn
> >> and
> >> > sold is made into charcoal. >Traditional charcoal making, looses more
> >> than
> >> > 50-70% of the energy content in the biomass during production. Yes,
> >> let
> >> us
> >> > suppose it is 50% to be generous to the charmaker think of him as a
> >> ‘good
> >> > guy’ for a change. He does a good job and produces 50% of the original
> >> > energy in the form of char. Now let us put a quantity of wood onto a
> >> truck
> >> > and a quantity of charcoal of the same mass onto another truck. Who is
> >> > carrying more energy? The charcoal truck of course. How much? About
> >> > double. That means the energy cost of getting the fuel to the customer
> >> is
> >> > twice as much.  When selling wood from trees as fuelwood, will it only
> >> be
> >> > the parts of the tree that are ‘nice to use’ of all of it? I think
> >> only
> >> > the bits that will sell. Large pieces can be split but that is a lot
> >> of
> >> > work. I am pointing out that not all the wood from a tree makes
> >> saleable
> >> > firewood, just like not all the charcoal that gets made gets sold. Of
> >> the
> >> > price, the transport is often 50% or more of the cost to the consumer.
> >> > Because the cost of moving wood (per MJ) is twice that of charcoal,
> >> the
> >> > landed cost of wood, even if it cost ½ as much to begin with, is now
> >> equal
> >> > to that of charcoal. The wood chopper chopped the tree, dried it a
> >> bit,
> >> > got ½ as much money for it per MJ (assuming he is willing to do that)
> >> and
> >> > because of transport, the cost per useful MJ in the city is the same
> >> as
> >> > charcoal. So we have two fuels with different prices per kg but the
> >> same
> >> > price per MJ of useable heat. No, put the fuel into a stove. The
> >> charcoal
> >> > stove is going to be 25-40% efficient. Here we have 50% efficient ones
> >> but
> >> > I am being generous. Not everyone has good $3 stoves. If the wood
> >> stove
> >> is
> >> > not as energy efficient (calculated on the raw fuel consumed), it
> >> costs
> >> > more to run. Simple as that. Checking prices for wood in Maputo these
> >> > numbers hold up. Wood is over-priced per MJ and people avoid it. >How
> >> can
> >> > you argue that charcoal is a better option, when you bring the raw
> >> > materials, sundried, to the consumer and they are actually making and
> >> > burning their own char, while cooking?   I am not arguing for
> >> charcoal, I
> >> > am reporting the energy train that exists and the costs and what
> >> people
> >> > do. I do not do it, they do. >Traditional charcoal making is also
> >> produced
> >> > from indigenous trees and bring a heavy tall to the forest in
> >> protected
> >> > areas. In some cases it is, in other, not so. Rwanda has been an
> >> > interesting case study for transforming this. Virtually all the
> >> charcoal
> >> > sold in Rwanda comes from woodlots on private land, and there is a lot
> >> of
> >> > it sold. You can ask Robert van der Plas about it. >In the Northern
> >> > Hemisphere, we do NOT turn the firewood into charcoal, unless we like
> >> to
> >> > bring up high temperatures and melt down iron for steel production,
> >> like
> >> > in the old days, when I was young………:)  Charcoal is widely sold as a
> >> > cooking fuel in Canada. >Dont be so arrogant and pretend that people
> >> in
> >> > developing countries are ignorant and dont SEE, when given an option,
> >> pls.
> >> >  I have just demonstrated above that people are very wise about their
> >> > decisions regarding fuels and prices and pots and convenience. Perhaps
> >> you
> >> > could consider why they prefer to purchase charcoal. Just because an
> >> > industry is not as efficient as it could be does not mean you shut
> >> down
> >> > the industry.  >3. The Natural Draft  - ND gasifiers, are lit form the
> >> > top, yes, and that is the whole key to pyrolysis and production of
> >> > char-coal in an efficient and proper manner.  The ND gasifiers
> >> currently
> >> > available have several shortcomings and if they did not, I believe
> >> they
> >> > would be a lot more popular.  >The Forced Draft (gasifiers driven by
> >> fan),
> >> > operates a bit differently and consume the char.  Natural draft
> >> gasifiers
> >> > are quite capable of burning the char. It is important not to limit
> >> the
> >> > discussion to certain stoves that cannot. Alexis makes fan gasifiers
> >> that
> >> > make charcoal and do not burn it. Both are possible and both are
> >> > available. >4. I cannot see the difference between hauling charcoal,
> >> > pellets, briquettes or woodchips, pls highlight me. I have covered
> >> that.
> >> > Cost per ton is fixed. Energy per ton is not. Each fuel type is
> >> different.
> >> > >There is “no” need to develop any new low prized technology, Its
> >> already
> >> > there.Even bicykles and wheel borrows can ferry pellets, briquettes
> >> and
> >> > woodchips, not in the same number of bags as charcoal, but very much
> >> the
> >> > same quantity in terms of MJ/kg.  What is the MJ/kg in the different
> >> > fuels? Wood at 16% moisture is about 15.5 MJ/kg. Charcoal at 2% is
> >> about
> >> > 29.3 MJ. Chips are wood. Agricultural waste is about 12-14 MJ.
> >> Pelleted
> >> > agri-wastes are about 16.  >5. Do you know how much work and efforts
> >> in
> >> > terms of manpower, it takes to produce a bag of charcoal? Do you know
> >> how
> >> > much to produce an equal amount of energy in the form of chopped and
> >> split
> >> > and dried wood? Pellets? Chips? >…The technology is not NEW and very
> >> much
> >> > improved over the years The Chinese are producing a lot and have plans
> >> to
> >> > produce more in the next years but it has to be subsidised because of
> >> > production and distributions costs. The machinery suffers a lot. >For
> >> how
> >> > long can it be possible to chew on the same biscuit?Isnt it high time
> >> to
> >> > test a different brand or content? Ask people to try. We promote
> >> anything
> >> > that works that people are willing to buy. I am of course not involved
> >> in
> >> > the fuel supply chains, I just watch and measure. >For how long can we
> >> > accept to see people  cutting the branch, they are both literally and
> >> > actually sitting on? For as long as trees grow. Trees are renewable
> >> (if
> >> > you leave them alone for a while). Western Canada has billions of them
> >> > planted after forests are cut. Thanks for pitching some interesting
> >> > points. RegardsCrispin in Central Java where they are drowning in
> >> biomass
> >> > and burn it to get rid of it.
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Stoves mailing list
> >> >
> >> > to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> >> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> > stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> >>
> >> 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/
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List
> Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.orgfor 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
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130415/7dc814fb/attachment.html>