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

nari phaltan nariphaltan at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 22:02:37 CST 2013


Dear Crispin,

I second your opinion of clean burning stoves. Our kerosene lanstove is a
classical example where the CO and PM levels are way below the norms and
yet it is rejected by the so called "clean stoves mafia". People do
not realize that all fuels are dirty. It is their proper combustion that
makes them clean! Hence it is my humble submission that all the stoves
program should be focused on clean burning, ease of operation and economic
viability. Fuel could be any fuel.

After all the whole western world, which somehow is pushing the agenda for
clean cookstoves uses polluting LPG and electricity (in terms of
production) and yet these are called clean cookstoves.

Let the debate continue!

Cheers.

Anil

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

>  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.comand/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 addressstoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web pagehttp://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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>


-- 
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road
P.O.Box 44
Phaltan-415523, Maharashtra, India
Ph:91-2166-222396/220945
e-mail:nariphaltan at gmail.com
          anilrajvanshi at gmail.com

http://www.nariphaltan.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130123/a496a95d/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list