[Stoves] Venting Re: Example of missed opportunities was Re: is this new?

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Tue Jan 22 20:54:18 CST 2013


Dear Crispin, and I hope a few others will read this,

First, I improperly said "solid-fuel" instead of "biomass-fuel", so you 
had a basis to launch into a discussion based on coal as a stove fuel.  
With coal being a fossil fuel, I was quite happy to have left it out.  I 
will be more careful next time.

Second, you have written a wonderful rebuttal to my statements calling 
for more research on methods that show promise.  TLUDs are clearly among 
those, but not the only ones.  And the research should also include any 
poorly made TLUDs so that they can be properly exposed as not being very 
good.  And in fact your switch-hitting (dual mode) Vesto should also be 
included as a potentially very positive contribution.  Did you really 
want to sabotage the call for support for R&D that could have included 
the Vesto?   Did you think you were being excluded?  Sorry, I thought 
you knew me better than that.

Interestingly, your final sentence was:
>
> Product development funding should go where promise has been demonstrated.
>
So, I guess we do agree, but the problem is defining "where promise has 
been demonstrated."

Let's go back nearly 10 years when I visited you twice (maybe 3 times) 
at your home and business in Swaziland.  You operated the Vesto for me 
then.  That is the only time I have seen it operate well.   (We had 
unsuccessful attempts at Stove Camp in 2004 or 2005 at Aprovecho.)  At 
that time you never even suggested that the Vesto would operate in a 
TLUD fashion.

We see now that the Vesto has been modified and improved, and so have 
the TLUDs.  Great.   And who did that?   YOU did.   And __I__ did (along 
with others at many stages).  And we paid for that R&D ourselves.  And 
there are very valid R&D questions that were identified 10 and 8 and 5 
and 3 years ago that still have not been resolved.   And some have been 
barely touched. Imagine what could have been done if there had been some 
modest support to bring together us and 5 to 10 key others with an 
agenda to resolve the questions.

But there is also real difference in approaches, well represented by you 
and me.  I (and Reed and Wendelbo and English and Larson, and others)  
are committed to the "open architecture" of TLUDs. On the other side, 
you are a staunch believer in holding on to Intellectual Property 
rights.  We ALL recognize that IP is valid and legal and can be useful, 
but some of us think it gets in the way of progress for the cookstove 
solutions.  And so you never wanted to "partner" with me on stove 
development.   I would not accept seeking proprietary rights on anything 
that I helped develop.   That is fine.  I respect your position.  And in 
spite of what others are thinking as they read this, you and I are 
friends and will remain so.

And you are certainly not alone as an IP-favoring Stover.  Just look at 
the stove companies:  BP, Philips, World Stove, Eco-cocina (fan-jet 
stove in El Salvador) all claim patents.   And Envirofit, Burn, and many 
others are highly protective and/or focusing their efforts onto highly 
specific stoves, yes, onto their own stoves. Granted, that can be judged 
to be good business.  And the reasoning is to let the profitable 
businesses pay for the R&D work for stoves.   THAT is NOT very 
supportive for the innovative stovers.  Instead it keeps the IP people 
on their singular tracks.

Let me tell you how many times I have been affirmatively approached for 
discussions about TLUD stoves by any of those entities that favor IP 
protection and business dominance. Answer:  Zero, Nil, Nada,    (Sorry 
if I am flattering myself to think that I just might know a little about 
TLUD stoves.  Maybe enough to be of interest, I hope.)   But NEVER 
contacted, even when I have initiated contacts, the responses have been 
"not of interest at this time."

Oh.  But now there is some interest in micro-gasifier stoves.  Big 
million dollar contract to Colorado State University for modeling of 
better stoves, and gasifiers are high high high on the list of 
technology.  I contacted CSU, congratulated them, offered assistance 
from the entire network of TLUD enthusiasts with whom I have strong 
contacts.  So far, not a glimmer of interest by CSU to talk to the 
people who have the most PRACTICAL experience with micro-gasifier 
stoves.  I wish them well.  And my offer to assist still is open.  And I 
hope they are not so ticked off by this paragraph that they reject the 
offer of assistance.

Oh.  Crispin, did CSU contact you for discussions?  They should. I hope 
they talk to at least one of us.  And many others.

There is a similarity in our situations.  Both the Vesto stove and the 
"Champion" TLUD stove were instrumental in getting BEIA grants from the 
World Bank.   THANK HEAVENS FOR THAT!!   Finally there was some support 
for projects with our stoves.  I have not heard much about the project 
with Vestos.  And the project with TLUDs has not yet released its final 
report.

The BEIA-CREEC project in Uganda finally put natural draft TLUDs into a 
project.  If it had not been for that project, the Mwoto TLUD would not 
exist.   I was the lead technical person on the Mwoto TLUD.  That was my 
second paid consultancy (First was to GERES in Cambodia for 2 weeks many 
years ago).   And I have put all of that (minor) money into my little 
business (Awamu) in Uganda that started 3 months ago and is based on 
some quite different TLUD developments.  (See "Quad" stove at 
www.drtlud.com and/or hear my presentation at ETHOS for some details.)

So NOW I get to support some Ugandan workers without the consultancy 
income.  Sure, I am applying for grants.   But those grants do not allow 
for much funds for R&D.   So I am all about business these days.  
Success or fold.  To limp along for very long with self-funding from my 
pension income is not an option.  Deep borrowing/signing on loans is not 
an option. Grants or investors/partners are needed in 2013.  Make it or 
break it.  And the R&D will just need to happen in the course of 
activities.   Volunteers are GREATLY appreciated.  There is much that 
can be done.

However, I did write in my previous message that some funding for R&D 
could be appropriate for TLUD technology that is open architecture for 
all.  We know that the GACC will not be doing that; GACC has a clearly 
defined business-stimulation approach. But there are other sources.  So, 
Crispin, I hope that your message has not extinguished some small 
interest in helping with the R&D efforts.

A positive conclusion (for anyone who has read this far):  It is my 
intention to stimulate and conduct one or several FOCUSED "Gasifier 
Stove Camps" of 5-day duration during 2013.  One could be in Kampala, 
Uganda.  Another could be in Tennessee at Albert Bates' The Farm.  And 
another might be at Aprovecho in Oregon. And I have hopes for others in 
different countries.

But each one depends on finding some reasonable sponsor.  Wow, would 
that be great.  And with some support, we could try real hard to get 
some of the right people together at the closest different venues.   I 
would love to have you, Crispin, at a focused stove camp with an agenda 
of R&D topics (not just "everyone do your own thing" at camp).

So, in a few hours I start my trip to ETHOS in Seattle.  Looking forward 
to seeing many of you there.  Sorry if I offended anyone or stepped on 
some toes.  No hard feelings, I hope.  If you read this far, you know 
that I am serious about making some progress, and I would be delighted 
if anyone would like to be working together with me (and with many 
others who share the dreams.)

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 1/22/2013 9:39 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Paul
>
> I will take this as your position:
>
> >MAIN POINT:  This is a great example of missed opportunities because 
> there has never been seriously funded research on the multitude of 
> controllable variables in TLUD stoves!!! We can see the possible 
> variations.  But we cannot prove them one way or the other simply by 
> funding them out of the pocketbooks of Paal, Paul, Crispin and 
> others.  YEARS AGO we should have resolved the issues of the Vesto 
> stove being operated as a TLUD, or as a different type of stove.   The 
> Peko Pe features should be better understood.   As should the issues 
> of Nurhuda's stove, and Belonio's, and Anderson's and others.  Even 
> people who have resisted TLUD technology for years are becoming 
> involved and still there is nearly zero coordination.  And any 
> financial support seems to be by-passing the people with experience 
> with micro-gasifiers, and instead is seeking isolated academic 
> modelling that (I suspect) will take years to have academic results.  
> So be it, but let's also give some funds to the practitioners.
>
> And this as your call for direction of funding:
>
>
> _With all due respect_ for the need for proper "technology neutral" 
> distribution of funding, I am getting very tired of "technology 
> neutral" that gives equal (or more) weight to giving money (big money) 
> to "business-ready" operations that can start cranking out stoves to 
> be counted toward the 100 million by 2020.  Instead, the leading 
> technology for lowest emissions from solid-fuel cookstoves is TLUD 
> (and other micro-gasification), and it is not yet getting BASIC 
> support that is needed.
>
> I have a problem with the justification. I don't see support going for 
> product development at all. The University of Johannesburg 
> commercialisation is funding (tiny) some actual blue sky product 
> development. Who else is?  But the statement that a TLUD is 'the 
> leading technology for lowest emissions is based on what, exactly?
>
> The lowest emissions of any stoves I have ever tested are all coal 
> stoves. They could have been made for burning wood and indeed are 
> ignited with wood, but it is important to point out that a high carbon 
> fuel can be burned with extremely low gas and PM emissions. The main 
> claim for the cleanliness of a TLUD is that it produces very low PM 
> 'because it is a TLULD' mode pyrolyser or gasifier making char (i.e. 
> avoiding the burning of the carbon which is implicitly blamed for 
> creating the PM and CO with lots of fuel bed analysis. By that I mean 
> the way the fuel is broken down into combustible gases is well described.
>
> Now please consider a stove type which has /lower/ PM emissions and 
> does exactly the same thing: breaking down the fuel into gases and 
> does a good job of burning it. Why is your call for research into 
> these not included? If they are cleaner than the current crop of 
> TLUD's are they to be included?
>
> That is where you lose me (my support) when the claim is put forth 
> that there is only a TLUD which has really low emissions. It was 
> stated quite off-handedly a few years ago, again at the Bangkok 
> conference (without evidence) and has been repeated since.  It is just 
> not true. There are lots of clean combustors.  The Austrians are doing 
> wonderful work on biomass burners.  Further, there are significant 
> limitations imposed on the cook when a TLUD is used which I won't 
> discuss in detail here, but the goal is not to support a /device type/ 
> that happens to get the combustion parameters right.
>
>
> As you know there is a divergence of opinion between those who want to 
> produce charcoal and those who want to cook a meal with the fuel they 
> have. This is no trifling matter.
>
> The matter of refuelability is very important to users. I can report 
> from the field that people in a great many cases do not like the 
> following:
>
> Having to decide in advance of cooking how much fuel to add to the 
> chamber before ignition
>
> Not being able to significantly refuel the stove while it is running
>
> Not having significant control over the power
>
> Not being able to use unprocessed fuel (meaning not cut and or chopped)
>
> Not having any smoke to flavour the food
>
> Not having hot coals to roast food on
>
> Not being able to turn it off
>
> Having to deal with end-of-run smoky ash.
>
> The most strongly voiced objection in Indonesia was related to fuel 
> preparation. As soon as a conversation started about improved stoves 
> people volunteered that they were not interested in anything that 
> required the fuel to be chopped into little pieces. "Don't even start 
> with that."
>
> So what do we know is clean burning?
>
> The Berkeley paper on stove comparisons (October) states that they did 
> not include coal stoves because, basically, 'people should not burn 
> coal'. In the webinar the matter was raised and Michael gave a quite 
> different answer. When a second question was put forward asking for an 
> explanation of the response the moderator did not allow it.
>
> If coal stoves had been included in the analysis, it would have been 
> perfectly obvious to anyone reading the paper that the new ones are by 
> far the cleanest burning in terms of PM and CO - the things we are 
> supposed to be minimising -- and the best ones would have been sitting 
> on the bottom left corner of Tier 4, more like Tier 6.  Omitting them 
> was inexcusable. Some were TLUD's and some were not. If they were 
> really worried about the CO and PM emissions they would have included 
> every available technology. That means anything someone has shown to 
> be very clean burning. You are worried about funding for further 
> development of a certain type of burner -- I am still trying to get 
> the reviews to even admit the burners /exist/! When confronted with 
> the reality of their extraordinarily low emissions, they chose to 
> invent excuses (2) not to report them at all.
>
> Surprisingly I am not suggesting we all start building coal stoves. It 
> is not universally available and coal is limited. But carbonised 
> biomass will be with us forever and we should know how to burn it 
> properly.  What I am pointing out is that the cleanest burning stoves 
> are still not reported on, let alone investigated as to why they work 
> so well. What would happen if we took the lessons from the designs and 
> applied them to other fuels? You follow?  There is nothing magical 
> about TLUD's. Other combustors are just as clean using the same fuels. 
>   Why should research not be placed on all types of combustors?
>
> There is an overarching concern however. When these stoves were 
> tested, what was the test? How do we know these results have value if 
> the test was meaningless, or inappropriate? Are we drawing circles 
> around our bullet holes saying, this stove is 'right on target' after 
> the fact? It is a bit humiliating to stand in front of people and say, 
> 'These stoves were tested with a method that makes them look good; 
> don't worry about the details.'
>
> People want to see clean burning and fuel efficient stoves. TLUD's are 
> largely (but not always) clean burning. Fuel efficient? Not so much, 
> because many of them are created deliberately or accidentally to 
> create char. Producing char requires fuel beyond the needs of the 
> cook. If the 'test' pretends that fuel was not consumed, then we have 
> drawn a circle around the TLUD stove bullet hole, again.
>
> Product development funding should go where promise has been demonstrated.
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://www.bioenergylists.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130122/1da447ba/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list