[Stoves] more on ocean acidification

Sat Aug 10 17:50:17 CDT 2013

Please see comments below.

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Paul,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for the comments. The “we” comes through strongly as implied from
> the tone of the questions. ****
>
> ** **
>
> If GACC suddenly has $3.5 billion then somebody got a raise. :-/ It
> started out with about$50 million most of which was already committed to
> national institutions. It clearly is a multi-billion $ challenge.
>

The presentation mentions leveraging "substantial investment capital,
likely $3.5b annually through 2030".
Tom, this is a lot of money, quite an ambitious project.
Are you saying that the GACC might not have the means to do so?

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Your previous post and link regarding straw in China is relevant. We have
> seen may efforts to use straw for energy in China. I have worked on a few
> straw burning power plant projects in China. Those projects seem to have
> withered from bureaucracy and corruption. Corruption is the “elephant in
> the room” that nobody wants to mention in the improved cooking appliance
> community. Chinese have imported straw burning technology from Europe
> (Denmark) where a few plants each convert about 300,000 tpy into power with
> subsidies paid for by taxes on fossil fuels. They have made an attempt to
> gasify straw for rural energy needs. There are dozens of failed straw
> gasification plants in China but at least they have made the attempt. ****
>
> ** **
>
> China appears to be making the collaboration between government, academia
> and industry work to develop improved stove and char products.  As you have
> referenced in other posts production of biochar from crop residues was
> approved last year in China for the company mentioned in the article, Sanli
> New Energy Co Ltd, Shangqiu, China.
>

The Chinese are far ahead of the Vietnamese in making pellets of rice
straw. Dr. Preston has done some work in Vietnam in making rice straw
pellets. However the rice hull pellet is common in Vietnam, and the
government even mandates that certain rice mills make pellets of their
hulls. Otherwise a lot of them get uselessly dumped or burned. But the
Vietnamese government has not done much to curtail the burning of rice
straw and forest debris. This is a huge environmental problem: haze, black
carbon and ash everywhere at certain times. Sometimes the haze is so bad
that people cannot drive their motorbikes during the day. Sometimes my
house is filled with dense smoke. Ash and soot even come through the roof
tiles of my house, and I have to clean up this mess each day (ash and soot
all over the floor and furniture) for well over a month each year during
the dry season. At the same time, one sees bottled gas and coal briquettes
being used to cook food.

I would strongly urge the GACC to lobby governments in developing countries
to start shifting subsidies from fossil fuels to pelleted biomass. The
problem is a lot bigger than what happens in a kitchen. Imagine how I would
feel if the GACC or any other funding agency were to start pouring
substantial amounts of money into clean-burning coal stoves in Vietnam
(coal is abundant in Vietnam) while all of this waste biomass in Vietnam
continues to be uselessly burned.

Already in Vietnam there is government backing for ethanol stoves, and all
of this ethanol is derived from cassava.

*Cassava is the third-largest source of food carbohydrates in the tropics,
after rice and maize
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize>.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava#cite_note-1>
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava#cite_note-2> Cassava is a major
staple food in the developing world, providing a basic diet for over half a
billion people.[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassava#cite_note-3> It is
one of the most drought-tolerant crops, capable of growing on marginal
soils.*

I hope that the GACC would not join the Vietnamese government in promoting
improved cook stoves that burn ethanol derived from cassava or other food
crops.

> ****
>
> http://www.biochar-international.org/node/3499 That should create
> opportunities for biochar stoves.
>

Not only gas from straw but also biochar. This makes sense.

Thanks so much.
Paul

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Tom****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:31 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
> ** **
>
> See comments below.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Paul,****
>
>  ****
>
> In your responses below who are “we” and what resources do “we” have to
> accomplish the goals that we put forward in this discussion? We are not
> playing God here. Nor do we have the resources needed to carry out sweeping
> solutions. “We” are many individuals, organizations and institutions
> attempting to improve health and the environment. ****
>
> ** **
>
> In my last email to you, I did not use the word "we". So I am not sure of
> the context in which you pose this question.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> GACC is only one of those organizations. Even though GACC has more
> resources than most the budget is well short of what is needed to solve the
> problems that we identify and attempt to solve. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I hope that you do not mind if i were to express views on this list with
> respect to issue research.****
>
>  ****
>
> GACC should be seen as a coordinating and networking organization that has
> limited resources to follow a defined strategy. ****
>
> ** **
>
> $3.5 billion US dollars is not a small amount of money.****
>
> I see in the link you sent below:****
>
>    - that there is a policy focus on short term climate forces such as
>    black carbon.****
>    - that there is an effort to identify a correlation between clean
>    cookstoves and effects on health and the environment.****
>    - that there is a desire to deliver research that continues to
>    demonstrate the health and climate benefits of clean cookstoves and fuels,
>    ****
>    - that there is an emphasis on promoting clean cookstoves and fuels so
>    that they become a mainstream health and climate intervention,****
>    - that environmental impacts are mentioned such as deforestation,
>    desertification, biodiversity and air pollution,****
>    - that in the definitions section, there are stoves that are
>    considered to be "clean for the environment"****
>    - that with regard to environment and climate, there is a mapping of
>    nonrenewability, a modeling of greenhouse gas emissions****
>    - that in Kenya there will be support for kerosene, ethanol and LPG,***
>    *
>    - that in Nigeria there will be support for LPG distributors,****
>    - that in milestones toward success, there is a section on combating
>    climate change, forests saved and emission mitigation in terms of tons of
>    CO2****
>
>  ****
>
> You will find the strategy that GACC is attempting to follow in an 89
> slide presentation on their website. http://tinyurl.com/ke4fyms The GACC
> website is still very “clunky” at best but it does contain answers to the
> questions you pose. I know that it is easier to put a question on a list
> rather than study anything but you just need to be willing to wade through
> it. ****
>
>  ****
>
> As you look at the GACC information recognize that it is only one
> organization and it does have limited resources (personnel, budget etc.).
> Like its predecessor, PCIA, it attempts to network participants in stoves
> development and dissemination worldwide. They attempt to leverage the
> efforts of the thousands of us who never have, and probably never will,
>  receive funding from GACC or its predecessors. I suspect that you are in
> that category. Let’s make use of, and help direct, what they have to offer.
>  GACC is a participant in this discussion and welcomes constructive
> suggestions and criticism. ****
>
>  ****
>
> During the development of GACC the UN Foundation invited about 30-40 of us
> to participate in a Fuels task subgroup that spent weeks online and on
> conference calls attempting to formulate strategies for GACC to follow with
> regard to fuels. I hosted and coordinated that group. Initially many of us
> who primarily work with solar or biomass resisted the idea of including
> fossil fuel, but the practical reality is that we need to address all fuels
> – solid , liquid and gaseous -  to find ways to use them safely and
> efficiently. We concluded that regardless of the distribution of solar or
> biomass resources we also need to make the use of fossil fuel cooking
> appliances healthier and more efficient. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Of course there is a place for fossil fuels in situations where biomass
> fuels do not exist. But when biomass fuels are abundant, I would hope that
> the GACC would not promote the use of fossil fuels if it sincerely wants to
> reduce tons of CO2 emitted according to the timeline or phases it set forth
> in this presentation?****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> A note on acidification. Our estuaries in the Pacific northwest have
> become acidic, or at least less alkaline, so much that shellfish are
> significantly affected. Oysters must be raised in artificial basins until
> their shells are hard enough to withstand the acidity of the ocean. This
> was reported for the Chesapeake Bay and other areas a few year ago.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130509154600.htm****
>
> ** **
>
> I concur: ocean acidification is a real problem. ****
>
>  ****
>
> If you don’t like what’s going on in health and the environment then don’t
> just complain about it, do what you can to change it. That’s why I host
> this list.     ****
>
> ** **
>
> And that's why I am fully engaged in designing and manufacturing stoves.
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Tom****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:14 AM****
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
>  ****
>
> See comments below.****
>
>  ****
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:***
> *
>
> Paul,****
>
>  ****
>
> Perhaps you missed the discussion late last year when a major study
> including BC was issued. Tami Bond, one of our number and a co-author, made
> a presentation for us at ETHOS in January. There is no question that BC is
> a major concern for “climate disruption” and health. It is not either
> biomass or fossil fuels. Improvement is needed for both. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I did not frame the issue in either-or terms. But should we be burning
> coal to cook a meal in areas where biomass is abundant? Should we be trying
> to improve and promote coal stoves in areas where biomass stoves make a lot
> more sense in terms of global warming?
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Tami’s notes for her Saturday evening Keynote address including the Dec
> 2012 study reference are at:
> http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/proceedings2013.html****
>
>  ****
>
> The study was, “A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
> injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
> regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
> Study 2010.” Lim et. al December 2012. ****
>
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-8/abstract
> ****
>
>   ****
>
> Household air pollution from solid fuels is listed in the comparative risk
> assessment as #4 globally. Tami  described the BC impacts of kerosene and
> biomass and the impact of stove design on the evolution of BC and its
> persistence in the atmosphere. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I will ignore your disparaging remarks about GACC. The reality is that we
> are all GACC. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I asked a question about the policy focus of the GACC with no intention of
> being disparaging. I asked this question because I am left with the
> impression that the main focus of the GACC is the health of a cook as she
> cooks a meal. Hopefully I am wrong. If all poor people in the world could
> afford bottled gas through a series of national or international subsidies,
> would the mission of the GACC be fulfilled? Does the GACC put the use of
> fossil fuels such as coal on the same footing as the use of biomass fuels
> such as rice hulls? Would a clean-burning coal stove in the eyes of the
> GACC be just as acceptable as a clean-burning biomass stove in areas where
> both coal and rice hulls are available? Also what is the policy of the GACC
> with regard to biochar? If biochar is not combusted in a stove but
> incorporated into the soil, would this be understood by the GACC as a huge
> inefficiency in the transfer of heat to a pot?
>  ****
>
> We should be mutually supporting individual and collective efforts to
>  solve the myriad of issues to the extent that we can. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I am happy to support whatever makes sense in terms of both human health
> and the health of the environment. What is the position of the GACC with
> regard to global warming, climate change, and ocean acidification, and how
> does their position with regard to these important issues impact their
> choice of the stoves they seek to promote?****
>
> Many thanks.****
>
> Paul****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Tom****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 7:59 PM****
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
>  ****
>
> Tom,****
>
> Please explain a bit more why you raise the question of black carbon? Do
> you do so mainly from the point of view of human health? Or do you have
> other environmental considerations in mind? As you know, many scientists
> maintain that black carbon warms the earth. Are you not going in the
> direction of another contentious issue that some might consider to be
> unrelated to stove design?
>
> Many parts of China have both coal and biomass. In such areas should we
> try to develop more efficient coal stoves? Or should we try to put a lot
> more emphasis on biomass stoves? Would it not make sense to develop stoves
> that are low in black carbon and at the same time do not create CO2 from
> non-renewable sources such as coal? Does the GACC ask such broad questions?
> Or does it operate out of sort of philosophical vacuum where issues like
> black carbon, global warming and ocean acidification are unrelated to stove
> design?****
>
> Let us imagine an area in China where there is no biomass at all: no rice
> hulls, no rice straw, no agricultural or forestry residue of any kind. And
> let us suppose that in this barren landscape there is nothing but coal.
> Here I concede that it makes sense to focus attention on developing more
> efficient coal stoves.
>
> Many thanks.****
>
> Paul****
>
>  ****
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:****
>
> Black Carbon (BC) is a another compelling and totally related reason for
> developing improved biomass and fossil fuel stoves. A study published
> yesterday estimates that more the 80% of black carbon from China is from
> fossil fuels. A significant portion of that is from coal burning stoves.
> They recommend developing more efficient coal stoves. These tasks are all
> relevant and identified as part of the strategic work plan of the Global
> Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (GACC).****
>
>  ****
>
> Tom****
>
>  ****
>
> Source Forensics of Black Carbon Aerosols from China Bing Chen, August
> Andersson, Meehye Lee, Elena N. Kirillova, Qianfen Xiao, Martin Kruså,
> Meinan Shi, Ke Hu, Zifeng Lu, David G. Streets, Ke Du and Örjan Gustafsson
> Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP****
>
> DOI: 10.1021/es401599r****
>
> Publication Date (Web): August 08, 2013****
>
> Copyright © 2013, American Chemical Society
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401599r****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Friday, August 09, 2013 6:42 PM****
>
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] more on ocean acidification****
>
>  ****
>
> Dean,****
>
> Are you saying that topics relating to global warming, ocean acidification
> and the benefits of biochar do not influence how we go about designing
> stoves? Should they be biomass stoves or fossil fuel stoves? Do we place
> all on a equal footing as long as they are clean-burning? If we build
> biomass stoves, should these stove be burning or producing biochar? How can
> we design a stoves in a theoretical vacuum?****
>
> Thanks.****
>
> Paul Olivier****
>
>  ****
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Dear All,****
>
>  ****
>
> I'd like to remind the List that the moderator has politely asked that we
> return to the topic of stoves. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Best,****
>
>  ****
>
> Dean****
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> Dear Ron****
>
>  ****
>
> I was going to reply but after subtracting the ad homina, speculations,
> straw men and loose assertions there was nothing left in the message. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The problem you will continue to have with me is I have read the
> ‘Skeptical Science’ playbook on how to handle skeptical criticisms of AGW.
> It was a document put together by the Team (as you know) and promoted to
> the compliant as a way to communicate – a style, if you will – of how to
> handle people who were ‘off message’. ****
>
>  ****
>
> There is actually a new one issued by some political group in the USA
> which I read this past week. It is pages long.  It includes specific
> instructions for example to always mention ‘climate disruption’ as it is
> harder to dispute and refute than ‘global warming’ now that there isn’t
> any. It suggests ways to undermine and weaken the appeal of speakers who
> are presenting contrary evidence that undermines the catastrophic side of
> AGW (can’t have that). The vast majority of CAGW skeptics concede a human
> role in global warming, but assert that it is tiny and to date,
> undetectable. The instructions are to try to try to paint skeptics as
> ‘denying’ *all* human influence on the planet then offers various
> pejorative comparisons that can be made so as to cause consternation for
> the skeptic or those listening to them.****
>
>  ****
>
> The instructions from your buddies at SkS include always pooh-poohing the
> credentials of any author cited, always trying to paint the skeptical
> correspondent as ‘alone’ in their understanding, always insert some mention
> of how settled things are with the ‘majority’ of ‘reputable’ scientists and
> so on and on. We have seen it all before.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> You are quite good at following the party line but it does not (at all)
> address the fact that there is no such thing as ‘acidifying the ocean’ when
> the number of anions is reduced through a process called neutralisation so
> it is less alkaline. I will not matter if my mother ‘wears army boots’.
> Facts are facts. Peer-reviewed bunk is still bunk. As you will have noticed
> by now I am completely unimpressed by Letters1.****
>
>  ****
>
> As the CAGW fear-mongering system falls apart country after country is
> bailing out. ****
>
>  ****
>
> As Fred says (I cannot say it better myself): ****
>
>  ****
>
> “…hundreds of billions of Euros have been squandered, wasted, flushed down
> the Great Greenie Composting Toilet because Public Policy in Europe was
> highjacked by a group of political power craving environmentalists and
> grubby, funding desperate scientists who realized their First Class ticket
> on the Fame and Gravy train could be realized by abject fear mongering
> about human influences on the climate.****
>
>  ****
>
> “A disgraceful period in human history, one that will not be treated well
> by future historians.****
>
> Think of how much human good, human happiness that money could have
> purchased. ****
>
>  ****
>
> “Think of how much real science, not the frothed up, torqued up, glued
> together hockey sticks or photo shopped polar bear pictures that currently
> disgraces the scientific community could have taken place if the science
> funding had not been hijacked by a small gang of morally vacuous scientists
> that are only good at creating hysteria and performing kindergarten level
> research.”****
>
>  ****
>
> Kindergarten level research. What have I been calling for over the past 6
> years with respect to stove testing?  Surely everyone knows by now. I am
> calling for the *peer review*, the *independent assessment* of stove test
> protocols so that they are validated and the results they give can be
> believed.  The resistance to this at every level has been amazing and not
> without consequence. ****
>
>  ****
>
> For one, I have learned never to trust that a spreadsheet has no errors in
> it. I compliment whoever is working on the PEMS hood spreadsheet. The April
> 2013 version contains more than 100 fewer systematic errors that the 2010
> version. But is still has not been independently reviewed.****
>
>  ****
>
> WBT 4.xx has not been independently reviewed for precision, accuracy and
> conceptual relevance.****
>
>  ****
>
> Now Ron, you have been most vociferous about how this or that aspect of
> climate science information has been brought forward in articles that ‘were
> not peer reviewed’ even if they were true. How about giving up on trying to
> humiliate and marginalise me on this list (or elsewhere – who knows) and
> put your energy into demanding that the GACC, the WB, the EPA, the
> Universities of Illinois, Colorado and Berkeley and anywhere else submit
> their protocols to competent authorities for independent review?  Actually
> the WB has its project protocols reviewed…well, they should continue to do
> so.****
>
>  ****
>
> The stoves world is awash in bad test results and invalid claims and money
> trading hands on the basis of them.   We cannot change things overnight,
> but by implementing this rule that you favour so highly a major
> contribution to the field of domestic energy can be attained.****
>
>  ****
>
> It will not matter (here) if there is a record short summer in the Arctic<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/08/according-to-this-dmi-temperature-plot-the-arctic-has-dropped-below-freezing-about-two-weeks-early/#more-91293>or photos of stack emissions are
> faked<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NOv_4-KeeKI>or SkS takes in on the chin with a Godwins Law
> parody<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/inside-the-skeptical-science-secret-tree-house-bunker/#more-91202>or even if US winter temperatures continue to
> plunge <http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image15.png>. *
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> I don’t like trumped up CAGW claims about what ‘it causes<http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm>’.
> I don’t like trumped up or trumped down stove performance results.****
>
>  ****
>
> Let’s work together and bring some proper science and engineering to the
> planet of stoves. I know you’ll want to help. We all do.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks
> Crispin****
>
>  ****
>
> 1 For those who do not know what this means, it is English for ‘letters
> after your name’ signifying formal recognition of capacity, knowledge and
> /or authority. Examples are BA, P.Eng etc.****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130811/5e421b33/attachment.html>