[Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Kevin
kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Sun Apr 28 18:18:19 CDT 2013
Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
To: Kevin
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ; jetter jim ; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
List and ccs
I am choosing this time to address the list instead of Kevin, as I now have concluded I have zero chance of convincing Kevin of anything on which we disagree.
# Perhaps you should re-examine your paradigm as it applies to Stove Testing?
But I strongly feel it important to this list to correct his misinformation, so I persist a little longer.
Two items below (a. char from stoves and b. char in soil) to again show where Kevin is selectively performing his "scholarly" research)
[RWL1a: Re a. Kevin says about a third of the way down (relative to reporting E1, E2, and E3)
" # I have no problem with that, except....".
Then the rest of the response proves he sees a big problem in such reporting.
# KC1a: We are in agreement.
RWL1b: Here is one last try at showing the value of reporting char production via E3 that I had not previously observed. That is that when one adds 5 MJ in his columns B&D he now agrees that the number E3 should be 5 MJ or 33% of the new 15 MJ. Surprisingly, it is also 100% of the 5 MJ difference in input energy. No other number in his new Table 2 is near 100%.
I'm not surprised, after his comments below, that he doesn't feel 100% of a 50% input addition going to char in his sample stove is worth reporting. I do.
# KC1b: How is your arithmetic ledgermain helpful to a Stove Customer? Do not overlook the fact that your E3 Term, "Char Production Efficiency" is fundamentally flawed, in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the "efficiency of Char Production." If you are impressed with "Big Numbers", I can ledgermain a dilly for your favoured B and D stoves as follows:
(Misc. losses to stack, combustion and shell Loss + Loss to unburned char) / (Heat to Cooking Pot) =
(5 + 5) / 5 = 200%
Thus, twice as much energy is wasted, compared to the energy going to the cooking pot. How is that for neat ledgermain?
[RWL2: b. More important to me is his confusion (?) about the relationship between char and soils. Below our dialog goes lke this:
# KC2: I am certainly confused about the relationship between char and soils! Sadly, I am not alone. I would love to see all Farmers being able to get 400% increases in yield, as some report in their structured tests. I am confused as to why most Farmers cannot get anything remotely close to such wonderful results when they put char in their soils.
RWL from day before:
"But also because of the soil improvement value of char becoming biochar."
Kevin responds:
"# What is "Biochar"? The IBI definition of "Biochar" is:
" Biochar is a solid material obtained from the carbonisation of biomass. " (First line at http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar
[RWL3a. Here is that sentence and the NEXT of this "Definition" paragraph, with his strangely un-noticed "soil" emphasis added in underlining by me.
"Biochar is a solid material obtained from the carbonisation of biomass. Biochar may be added to soils with the intention to improve soil functions and to reduce emissions from biomass that would otherwise naturally degrade to greenhouse gases. "
#KC3a: Indeed, I saw that sentence! I noted that "...Biochar MAY be added to soils..." The message I get here is that "It is not a necessity for Char to be added to soil, in order to be termed "Biochar." Basically, "char from approved biomass sources" could be used in a Blast Furnace for iron production, and it could still be called "Biochar."
[RWL3b: Maybe Kevin chose not to show that second sentence because then he would have to consider the next two sentences which apparently are an anathema to climate deniers:
"Biochar also has appreciable carbon sequestration value. These properties are measurable and verifiable in a characterisation scheme, or in a carbon emission offset protocol."
#KC3b: Agreed. The issue here is "Stoves Testing", not "Climate Change." ( Note that this is the "Stoves List", and not the "Biochar Policy List, that was created for the specific purpose of dealing with Biochar and Climate change Issues ). However, I would comment that you are indulging in passive agressive bad mouthing again, and I remind you that that is poor form and unprofessional.
RWL4a: Kevin continued "proving" that IBI didn't understand the relationship between biochar and soil by next saying:
"From http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V1.1.pdf , we get a different definition of "Biochar":
" 6 Biochar is a solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an
7 oxygen-limited environment. "
#KC4a: I am not at all suggesting above that the IBI "... does not understand the relationship between biochar and soil..." That is simply an example of a second definition of "Biochar" that differs from the first, and it also makes no connection to a requirement of char to be used in soils to be termed "biochar." However, I would also comment as follows:
1: It is unprofessional of you to mis-represent my position on a topic or subject or issue. Please don't do that.
2: You raise a very interesting question about IBI and their understanding of the relationship between biochar and soils. Does the IBI understand why some Researchers can get 400% yield improvements in their structured tests, but most real world Farmers do not get results anywhere near 400% yield improvement?
[RWL4b Could Kevin have again been selective in this citation?
#KC4b1: Another unprofessional passive-agressive back-hander.... Naughty.
Here is the full text of that section. I have underlined his use of the second sentence and then every use of "soil" for the next two sentences.
1 1 Scope
2 Issued by the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and based on international consultation, this
3 IBI Biochar Standards document is intended to establish a common definition for biochar,
4 testing and measurement methods for selected physicochemical properties of biochar, and
5 labeling standards for biochar materials.
6 Biochar is a solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an
7 oxygen-limited environment. Biochar can be used as a product itself or as an ingredient within a
8 blended product, with a range of applications as an agent for soil improvement, improved
9 resource use efficiency, remediation and/or protection against particular environmental
10 pollution, and as an avenue for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation.
11 These IBI Biochar Standards provide a standardized definition of biochar and biochar
12 characteristics related to the use of biochar as a soil amendment. ...................
#KC4b2: What you post here is basically a definition of "char" or "charcoal". This then brings us back to the basic question I asked: "What is "Biochar?" Given that the IBI definitions are basically the definitions for "char" and "charcoal", I ask the pointed question: "What is the difference between "Biochar" and "Charcoal or Char"?
[RWL4c: Skipping the remaining portions of Scope on p 8, we get closer to the real meat on p 9:
1 2 Terms and Definitions
1.. 2 A complete list of terms and definitions is found, along with a list of acronyms, in Appendix 6. A
2.. 3 clear understanding of the defined terms is essential to the proper use of these IBI Biochar
3.. 4 Standards. Defined terms are indicated with a double underline in the text on the first instance
4.. 5 of the use of that term.
5.. 6 3 Biomass Feedstock Material and Biochar Production
6.. 7 3.1 General Feedstock Material Requirements
7.. 8 The materials used as feedstocks for biochar production have direct impacts on the nature and
[RWL4d: The word "biochar immediately above was the first place that double underlining appeared. I can't do the same in an e-mail. Going to Appendix 6 (p 38) as urged by the IBI authors in line 2 of p 9 above, one finds these two pertinent items:
"13 Biochar: A solid material obtained from thermochemical conversion of biomass in an oxygen
14 limited environment. (IBI, 2012)
#KC4d: Yes, that is one of the IBI definitions of "biochar"
15 Biochar Characteristics: For the purposes of these standards, biochar characteristics are those
16 physical or chemical properties of biochar that affect the following uses for biochar: 1) biochar
17 that is added to soils with the intention to improve soil functions; and 2) biochar that is
18 produced in order to reduce emissions from biomass that would otherwise naturally degrade to
19 GHG, by converting a portion of that biomass into a stable carbon fraction that has carbon
20 sequestration value. (IBI, 2012)"
[RWL5a: I didn't have the trouble Kevin did in getting to the above. Curious.
#KC5a: With all that, the IBI still does not distinguish between "Biochar" and "charcoal or char." It simply describes "Biochar characteristics" "For the purposes of these standards..."
Note that the Title of the Publication from which you draw the above passages is:
"Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in Soil-Version 1.1 " This then raises the questions :
1: "Must all chars and charcoals that are made from approved biomass sources, be used in soils to be termed "Biochar"?
2: "What is the definition of "Biochar" that is not used in soil applications?
#With such confusion and conflict, and lack of consistency, it is quite understandable why Regulators, Legislators, and "Enemies of Biochar" are suspicious, confused and reluctant to support its broader use.
Kevin concluded his unusual and unexpected foray into the world of biochar, saying:
"Even the International Biochar Initiative is reluctant to make a solid connection between "char", "charcoal" and "soil".
# Sadly, I am stil confused. I still do not know the difference between char, charcoal, and biochar. Can ANYONE explain this in an authoritive and credible manner?
[RWL5b: I suggest that a different reluctance can be observed in Kevin's selective choice of two biochar "defining" sentences. The question is why.
Can there possibly be a connection to climate denial?
#KC5b: Another passive-agressive back-hander. Tsk, Tsk. You persist on harping about "Climate Denial". You refuse to define what you mean by "Climate denier". The Stoves List is intended to deal with Stove Issues, but the "Biochar Policy" list is intended to deal with "Climate Change" issues.
To the fact that stoves appear to have an important early role in proving the dual virtues of biochar in soil improvement and carbon sequestration?
# You make an illogical leap here. You ASSUME that the char left over from a char producijng stove will actually get used in soil:
1: It may, or may not get used in soil.
2: It may, actually be an "inconvenient waste" for the Stove owner.
3: It may get used as a fuel in another stove.
Anyone able to offer other explanations? Anyone know any other writer besides Kevin who has failed to understand that biochar is and always has been char placed in soil?
# I might be missing something, but I could not find any definition from any credible and generally accepted source that defines "Biochar" along the lines of:
"Biochar is a char or charcoal material produced from approved biomass sources and placed in soil for a soil benefit."
It does concern me that the IBI, who are supposed to be a "Biochar Authority" are reluctant to make such a clear and definite statement connecting Biochar and soil. They do come close to connecting "Biochar" and "soil" in the above "Standard", but the door is wide open for the IBI to issue a whole series of subsequent Standards, such as:
"Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in:
* Lime Kilns
* Blast Furnaces
* Ferro-Alloy Production
* Water Treatment
* VOC Capture
* Smokeless Stove Fuel
* Water Treatment
* Odor Absorption
* Pesticide Absorption
* Medicinal Applications
* Black Powder Production
* etc, etc, etc...
# You asked me to state my views on what should be reported by Jim Jetter. I went to considerable effort to address your request, yet you did not comment on the strengths (or weaknesses) of my efforts. I am sure you will understand why I don't respond to your requests requiring significant effort on my part in the future.
# And speaking of "non-responsiveness", I note that you also skipped over my request for a retraction of your previous statements, as follows:
" # Ron, you did not respond to my request for a Public Retraction as requested below. Please retract your erroneous statements about my views and lack of thoroughness. I consider your statements to be irresponsible Professional Insults. Alternatively, please show where I made the stated oversights. I would ask you to be more professional with expression of your alternative views in the future."
Since you refused to make a retraction a second time, and since you cut it out of the last message, I will repeat it here:
" ===>(RWL) 3. Many of us have been promoting char-making stoves for individual (not societal) non-energy reasons that you also state need not be considered
- able to save money through sale or use of the char
- save time and money by using closer non-wood fuels
- cleaner kitchen (and neighborhood outdoor-air) environment, so lower health-related costs
- save time by less fire tending
# I think it is about time for you to make a Public Retraction. Please show the List where I said that the above factors do not need to be considered, or retract your erroneous statement.
I would comment that I have supported Paul Oliver with his Proposal to utilize char making stoves in Vietnam. I am 100% supportive of the use of char making stoves where they are appropriate and where the Customer wants them. Equally, I am 100% against char making stoves where they are inappropriate and when they do not best serve the Customer's needs.
I await your Public Retraction of your erroneous statement.. <==="
I ask you for the SECOND time: Please publically retract that statement, or show me where I have said what you stated that I said.
Kevin Chisholm
Ron]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Ron Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>, "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>, "jetter jim" <jetter.jim at epa.gov>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:22:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: rongretlarson at comcast.net
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott ; jetter jim ; Kevin
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Kevin, List +2 ccs
Kevin:
Thank for proving my point.
# What point? Please be more specific so that I can address it.
Let me try again. This chain started this week with Jim Jetter, describing what he will be reporting on ALL stoves.
# I have no problem with that, except as follows:
1: The more that is included in the report, the more costly, complex and potentially confusing the report may become.
2: Greater cost of the more complex tests and reports may discourage independent testing
3: If "Testing and Reporting" of "Char Making Stoves" costs more than "Testing and Reporting for Full Combustion Stoves", it is not fair or sensible to burden Full Combustion stoves with the extra cost and complexity associated with the complexity and confusion of the "Char Making Stove Report." Separate Reports for Char Producing and Full Combustion Stoves would be more fair, and would reduce testing costs for the Full Combustion stoves.
He will reporting new efficiency quantities E2 (no char value) and E3 (only char value), to go with the previous E1(both). I approved. You produced a chart only dealing with E2 (no char value). I corrected your chart and wondered why you left out E1 and E3.
# OK... I show a copy of my original Table (1), followed by a copy of the new Table (2) showing results reported as E1, E2, and E3.
Table 2
STOVE A STOVE B STOVE C STOVE D
Nature of Fuel Ag. Waste Ag. Waste Stickwood Stickwood
Fuel Energy Supplied, MJ 10 15 10 15
Energy to Cooking Pot, MJ 5 5 5 5
Energy in Char, MJ 0 5 0 5
E1 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00%
E2 50.00% 33.33% 50.00% 33.33%
E3 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 33.33%
# Which Table is likely to be more helpful, transparent, and meaningful to the Customer? Note also that E3 is meaningless. It is not "Charcoal Production efficiency", and the concept of "Charcoal Production Efficiency" as calculated by the proposed method is inherently wrong. What we thus have is as follows:
E1 says all the stoves have the same efficiency and it doesn't matter what stove the Customer selects.
E2 says stoves A and C are more efficient than stoves B and D
E3 says that Stoves B and D are more efficient than Stoves A and D.
# Including E1, E2, and E3 in one table is an enlightening expose.... What it conclusively proves is that:
"Figures never lie, but liars often figure."
You continue to prove my supposition that is because you are a climate denier.
# Since you refuse to define a "Climate Denier", as requested below, I categorically state that you are wrong, and additionally, I state for the record that "I believe there is a climate, and I am therefore a climate believer."
Yes, it is true that I push this E3 issue because I am a "climate believer".
# Well, I am a "Climate Believer" also, but that has nothing to do with "Stove Testing Science". E3 is termed "Char Production efficiency", and is an absolutely faulty concept as calculated in Table 2 above. If you support this calculation, you are Believing in an inherently wrong, misleading, and meaningless calculation.
But also because of the soil improvement value of char becoming biochar.
# What is "Biochar"? The IBI definition of "Biochar" is:
" Biochar is a solid material obtained from the carbonisation of biomass. " (First line at http://www.biochar-international.org/biochar
From http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V1.1.pdf , we get a different definition of "Biochar":
" 6 Biochar is a solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an
7 oxygen-limited environment. "
Even the International Biochar Initiative is reluctant to make a solid connection between "char", "charcoal" and "soil".
#We have an opportunity here to elevate "Stove Testing" to a clear, accurate and transparent Science".
Why pervert "Stove Science" to support a product ("Biochar") that even it's major supporter (IBI) will not define clearly? With the broad and different definitions of "Biochar" given above, how do we know if the char from char producing stoves will get used for soil improvement? How do we even know that the char produced by "char producing stoves" that you and others want to use for "biochar" is economically valuable to the Farmer?
So you are harming the Paul Olivier (soil) position, when you admire his ppt and approach, but want to (apparently) only report E2.
# The Tables above are neutral. They are neither harmful nor helpful to any stove system. They simply report on the facts of the stove. The second Table, however, is likely to be extremely confusing to all but the most sophisticated reader. Although Paul Oliver wrote a posting primarily directed to Crispin, I will take the liberty of replying to it, expanding on my views of his excellent project.
To repeat, there is no atmosphere-soil conflict with wanting a stove report to include E3 (E1 already being there). I also like reporting E2, since it supports the need for E3.
# This is your first use of the concept "atmosphere-soil conflict". Where was it used before? Could you please explain it, and its relevance to the present discussion?
I still have no idea what you and Crispin (also a climate denier)
# It is "bad form" to badmouth people. You appear to be hiding behind loosey goosey concepts, rather than to come out into the Clear Light of Science.
want to modify in what Jim Jetter proposes. My suspicion remains on motivations when you say below:
"Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues... "
# I wish to confirm the correctness of your suspicion that "Stoves" and "AGW" are two very separate issues. The "AGW Believer Folks" seem to be bent on "Building a Carbon Credit Bridge" or a "Climate Bridge" that connects "AGW" and "Stoves". This then opens the door to "proving" virtually anything they want to prove. This is well illustrated by Table 2, which I would call "The Pick Your Favourite Efficiency Report". That is not very helpful for the Stove Buying Customer, who has his own specific stove requirements and circumstances.
I ask again, what do you and Crispin want to see reported by Jim?
# My views are my views, and I cannot speak for either Crispin or Jim Jetter. What I would like to see in "Stove Test Reports" is a true, valid and scientific report on the "True and Relevant Facts About Stoves." I want to see "Stove Tests that Test Stoves" and which do not "muddy the water" with external agendas and considerations. Lets start with a definition as a "Stove" as follows:
===> 1: A Stove is a device or system whose purpose is cooking and/or heating.
There are thus three basic types of stoves:
a: Stoves whose primary purpose is cooking
b: Stoves with a dual purpose of cooking AND heating
c: Stoves whose primary purpose is space heating through warming of air in the living space.
Stoves that heat water for space heating or process requirements are considered "boilers" and established test procedures are already in place.
Then I would deal with the issues of greatest importance to most "real world people." The fundamental issue of greatest concern to most "Real World Stove people" is:
===> 2: "How much fuel must be supplied to the stove being tested , in order to "get the desired job, or jobs, done"?
This "Fundamental Efficiency" is the "Fuel Efficiency", and it would be defined as
"The percentage of fuel energy supplied that is used to accomplish the desired task, or tasks."
#Now, if the stove being tested is intended to be PRIMARILY a "Cooking Stove", then I would test for, and report on, the energy required to accomplish the desired "cooking task". I would consider "water heating in a pot" as the equivalent to "cooking water"
===> 3:1 For such "Cooking stoves" I would define Fuel Efficiency as
("Energy into the Cooking Task") divided by ("Energy in the Fuel Supplied")
Note also that there are different cooking tasks, and different stove configurations, such as grills, griddles, "directly heated pot cookers", indirectly heated pot cookers, oven cookers, etc.
# Some stoves are required to do a "Dual Function", to cook AND to heat the living space.
===> 3:2 For "Dual function Stoves", I would define fuel efficiency as
("Energy into the Cooking Task" + "Energy into the Living Space") divided by ("Energy in the Fuel Supplied")
# Some stoves are intended for "Space Heating Only", and have no Cooking Function.
===> 3:3 For Space Heating Stoves, I would define fuel efficiency as
("Energy into the Living space") divided by (Energy in the Fuel supplied")
# The competent "Stove Testing People", like Crispin and Jim, know all about "Mass and Energy Balances", Siegert Combustion Testing, pollution measurement, etc. They are quite capable of configuring tests and reports that truthfully, meaningfully, clearly and repeatably report on the performance of specific stoves. Such methods "Digitize the generalities, and eliminate the loosey-gooseys". They enable the Stove Buyer to buy a stove to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Some stove systems will require electric power, for fans, feeders, controls, conveyors, etc. A "Mass and Energy Balance" would capture these energy inputs and show them appropriately. Stack Gas Outputs would be measured for at least for CO2, temperature, and particulate matter.
# Now, some people may want to buy a stove that produces Char. That is fine, if that is what they want. They are the Customer, and if they want a stove that produces char, they should be able to buy a stove that produces the char they want. There should be a Test Protocol that shows how much charcoal it produces when a given amount of input biomass is supplied to it. Now, since "all chars are not equal", the tests that test a stove that produces char as a prime purpose should incorporate additional tests that enable the Char Stove Customer to select the best such stove from a selection. For example, some Customers may wish to produce "Fuel Grade Char", or perhaps 'Smokeless Char" or perhaps "Char for Subsequent Activation" or perhaps "char for Water Treatment' or perhaps "Medicinal Grade Char", or perhaps "Char for Agricultural Purposes", or perhaps "Carbon Credit Char for Climate Amelioration Purposes". Since such stoves are intended primarily for char production, I feel they should be in a class of their own. We define such a "stove" as follows:
===> 4: A "Char Making Stove" is a device or system whose purpose is the production of Char and/or to provide a cooking and/or heating functions.
# Parameters that should be noted, measured and tested for could include:
* Fuel Type
* Fuel Burn Rate
* Productively used energy, such as for cooking, space heating, water heating, process heat, etc
* Gas sent to pipeline for use in a secondary system... external stove, kiln, furnace, boiler, engine, etc
* Energy sent to Flare stack
* Stack Loss energy
* Shell loss
* Fuel Efficiency Calculation
* Char Yield Calculation
* Liquids yield, and energy content of liquids
* Grade of char produced,
* Power consumption for fans, blowers, pumps, conveyors etc, if relevant.
* Etc.
# My interest, in the context of "Stove Testing", is in stoves intended primarily for cooking and/or heating, having maximum fuel efficiency. This means "full combustion stoves", in that char production is an energy loss, and a char producing stove cannot have as high a fuel efficiency as a "full combustion stove" that utilizes the supplied fuel more effectively. I am also interested, in other arenas, in:
* Char Producing Stoves, whose primary purpose is Char Production and/or cooking and/or heating
* Gasifier stoves whose primary purpose is the production or "Heating grade Gas" or "engine grade Gas" with or without the production of char.
* Retort systems, whose primary purpose is the production of char, with/without productive utilization of pryolysis gases.
In summary then, there are many "Stove Systems" and many Customer Requirements for utilizing various biomass products as a source of energy or a source of char. Because of the differing factors of importance in various "classes of stove systems", it is not sensible to attempt to assemble a single "One Test Protocol Fits All" approach to stove testing.
# Ron, you did not respond to my request for a Public Retraction as requested below. Please retract your erroneous statements about my views and lack of thoroughness. I consider your statements to be irresponsible Professional Insults. Alternatively, please show where I made the stated oversights. I would ask you to be more professional with expression of your alternative views in the future.
Since you refused to make a retraction a second time, and since you cut it out of the last message, I will repeat it here:
===>(RWL) 3. Many of us have been promoting char-making stoves for individual (not societal) non-energy reasons that you also state need not be considered
- able to save money through sale or use of the char
- save time and money by using closer non-wood fuels
- cleaner kitchen (and neighborhood outdoor-air) environment, so lower health-related costs
- save time by less fire tending
# I think it is about time for you to make a Public Retraction. Please show the List where I said that the above factors do not need to be considered, or retract your erroneous statement.
I would comment that I have supported Paul Oliver with his Proposal to utilize char making stoves in Vietnam. I am 100% supportive of the use of char making stoves where they are appropriate and where the Customer wants them. Equally, I am 100% against char making stoves where they are inappropriate and when they do not best serve the Customer's needs.
I await your Public Retraction of your erroneous statement.. <===
I ask you for the SECOND time: Please publically retract that statement, or show me where I have said what you stated that I said.
Kevin Chisholm
Ron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com>, "jetter jim" <jetter.jim at epa.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:44:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
Dear Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves ; Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Last? Alternative to Charcoal
List. Cc Kevin
Sorry, no apologies on this one.
<snip>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130428/dae280e1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ScreenHunter_01 Apr. 26 16.25.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130428/dae280e1/attachment.gif>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list