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

rongretlarson at comcast.net rongretlarson at comcast.net
Tue Jan 22 23:24:30 CST 2013


Cecil (with ccs): 

1. Thanks for bringing in an anthropologist's view on stove development. I find all of them below valuable. I will probably follow up with some more questions after thinking a bit more first on the 65 pp report you have recommended in your final sentence (and reading more of their literature. You said: 

"It may also useful to review the Genes led Global Stove Program < http://www.geres.eu/en/geres-cambodia > which lays out a 5 year strategy to share the lessons learned by the Cambodian Improved Cookstove Program with other national stove initiatives in SEAsia and French speaking West Africa" 

2. This report was new to me, and does seem well done. It wouldn't surprise me that the GERES effort might have been behind the choice of Cambodia for the March GACC meeting. The report is directly downloadable at: 
http://www.geres.eu/images/stories/publis/publi-nls-en.pdf 

3. As I am very concerned about the huge waste that accompanies most char production, I was disappointed in finding this (emphasis added) at the top of p 27, near the end of the first section: 
"Again in Cambodia, GERES is also working in 
partnership with a forest community in Takeo on 
charcoal manufacture. Officially illegal , this is an 
intensive practice on the fringes of natural forests 
and largely responsible for their degradation.:" 

I can support their ignoring the legality issue if the resulting char were really produced with efficient use of the pyrolysis gases. My guess is it was probably only a little better and couldn't compete with the costs associated with illegal production. Do you or anyone know if most Cambodian char is still mostly illegal? How do anthropologists suggest handling this sort of issue? 

4. On p 50, we read (emphasis added): 
"Biomass is generally considered to be a renewable 
fuel. When it is burnt any CO2 released is 
assumed to be reabsorbed through re-growth of 
biomass. If biomass is not re-grown, then the 
emissions from biomass can be considered to be 
a non-renewable fuel. Therefore, cooking stove 
projects can only generate emission reductions 
where it can be shown that the biomass used is 
non-renewable ." 

This final, quite lengthy section is valuable in explaining the importance of carbon credits to advancing cleaner stoves in GERES (and my) opinion. But they have to accept less than a reasonable amount for this asinine rationale here. I would appreciate hearing if any changes in this arena have been possible in the three years since this report came out. Is this problem possibly solved with char-making stoves? 

5. Earlier there is a good bit of interesting survey data of all types. The author apologizes for it being a hurried four-month survey. I wonder if there has been another more recent version? 

6. I am not very interested in most of the numerical material as I am so down on charcoal-using stoves, even when the source is legal. But on p38, we read some data that is surprisingly hard to obtain (2009 prices, when 1 dollar was worth on the order of 4250 riels) 
"The average charcoal price is 970 riel (US$0.23) per 
kilo, while the average firewood price is 300 riel (US$0.07) per kilo. " 

a. Suppose we have a char-making stove and we want to sell a kilo of char (worth 23 cents) that we have made on our char-making stove. 

b. Assuming 50% of the wood initially is carbon and we can get 25% of the initial wood (50% of the initial carbon) out as char, then we need to buy 4 kilos of wood (28 cents) to produce the 1 kilo of char worth 23 cents. Sounds like a loss of 5 cents. Bummer. 

c. But we got a fair amount of cooking out of that 28 cent investment. We started out with about 4 kg * 18 MJ/kg = 72 MJ, and ended up with 1 kg * 30 MJ /kg in char - a difference of 42 MJ. 

d. If we had done the same amount of cooking with the same efficiency with char, we would have needed to start with 42 MJ/(30 MJ/kg) = 1.4 kg of char, worth 1.4 * 23 = 32.2 cents. 

e. So the "loss" (expense) on the char-using side is 32.2 cents while on the wood side was 5 cents - a difference of 27.2 cents in favor of the wood user. This number is very close to the initial wood expenses of 28 cents - so the wood user essentially cooked for free. The char-user spent (lost) 42 cents for the same cooking service 

f. Since char-making stoves are reported by EPA (and others) to be the highest efficiency reported (in part because the power level is controllable), maybe the economic argument is even more in favor of the char-maker. 

g. But there is a fair amount in this report on time savings for the report's improved stove (called an "nls"), we should add that in. I bet the charcoal-maker saves time over the nls. 

h. So what might the payback be? Assume that the family size is such that 1 kg of char is produced per day (the argument above was for a one time sale of 1 kg, not per day), and that this char-maker sold for $23 (4-5 times more than the nls). The simple payback would be $23/($0.23/day) = 100 days. Probably much less when the value of time saved is include. 

i. My question to Cecil (or anyone else free to chime also of course)l, as a stove-anthropologist is whether this might be worth a rural or urban home-maker looking more closely at the char-making stove option (say including the stove-life guarantee, etc) - in your survey experience in countries like Cambodia? The issue is discount rate. 

j. I am not as interested in this answer - but we should also compare to just an ordinary wood-burning stove equivalent. The amount of wood to supply just the same daily 42 MJ of cooking would be 42 MJ / (18 MJ/kg) = 2.33 kg, worth 2.33 kg*$.07/kg = 16.3 cents. Not as good as 23 cents per day, and maybe the user would stop here if the char-maker had a lot of other problems (such as being batch mode). But maybe the time savings and cleaner kitchen with a char-making stove will make the difference in favor of making char - despite having to spend time to deal with a char-buyer. 

k. Oh yes- we can't forget the value of the appreciably larger carbon credits that could go with biochar and presumably would be supported by Geres. None of the above was based on credits. I need to read more.. 

Ron 



----- Original Message -----
From: "Cecil Cook" <cec1863 at gmail.com> 
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, "Paul Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu> 
Cc: "Iwan BASKORO" <i.baskoro at geres.eu>, "Hugh McLaughlin" <wastemin1 at verizon.net>, "Bob Fairchild" <solarbobky at yahoo.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 2:49:51 AM 
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Example of missed opportunities was Re: is this new? 





Dear Pual, Kevin, Crispin, Marc, and kindred stovers, 



I am a much backslid applied anthropologists who took a 30 year side trip into appropriate technology in South Africa at the instigation of Crispin. Now a days Crispin is still misleading me by asking me to assist him and the World Bank design, test, produce, and market ever more perfect low cost biomass stoves in places like Ulaanbataar in Mongolia, Yogyakarta in Java, and most recently Battambang in Cambodia. With fiendish friends like Crispin, who needs enemies? 



Kevin's comic stories about the idiot savant who is very good at drawing circles around bullet holes is unfortunately a hilarious metaphor for the multiple problems and predicaments that stove scientists, inventors and enthusiasts typically create for themselves when they (we?) try to innovate ever more perfect biomass burning stoves for imagined and therefore voiceless stove customers. 



I recently discovered there is a significant market in Central Java for big portable charcoal stoves so that neighbours can come together to prepare food in a sequence of 7 memorials for deceased family members (the last feast or party comes 1000 days after a loved one dies). As an act of solidarity, families, neighbours and friends get together outside in courtyards and alleyways to cook big pots of food that is eaten by the living in honour of the recently deceased. I have not observed one of these memorial services but many families in the city informed me they have a big charcoal or wood burning stove that mainly gets used for these parties for the dead and for weddings, or by small food vendors who prepare food for sale to passersby or also by caterers and in the kitchens of restaurants ... otherwise these big stoves are simply stored in a corner. Families estimated they use their big stoves about one to two times a month. 



It would theoretically be possible to figure out what percentage of the biomass fuels entering the urban economy of Yogyakarta city in Central Java are devoted to staying on good terms of with spirits of the deceased and the in-laws. Who but an inquisitive anthropologist would bother to isolate large portable biomass stoves used for these important social ceremonies to memorialize the dead and celebrate weddings as a potential market segment of the stove buying public that needs be studied, understood, and perhaps is important enough to merit the design of a biomass stove that meets their socio-economic needs. 



In the case of cooking for the dead and the in-laws, we are talking here about millions of biomass stoves that are mostly, but not exclusively, used for big social ceremonies in Indonesia where there are perhaps a 100 million biomass stoves in used with a replacement rate of perhaps 100 million stoves a year at a cost of $1 to $2 each which is the going market value of a traditional artisan made stove). The traditional stove economy of Indonesia is vast and highly differentiated between a number of different - somewhat specialized - market segments with different needs, interests and amounts of money to spend. 



The informal approach that Crispin and I have used for many years is for us to spend a day or two together with a typical low income family and go through a cooking day together. While Crispin is focused on stoves, the pots used, the sequencing of tasks and cooking cycles, I take time to walk around the village or neighbourhood meeting the fuel sellers and stove vendors in the nearby markets to get an idea about the stove and fuel supply chains, the mark ups added to the retail value by the time a stove or 1 kg bag or charcoal or a small bundle of wood is purchased by a low income household. One thing we have discovered in Malawi, DRC, Mozambique, Zambia, and now Mongolia, Indonesia, and Cambodia that the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of these households survive on tiny daily cash flows of less than a couple of dollars. The difference in cost between a $1 to $2 stove and a $4 stove is huge. Think about your response to a doubling of the cost of any big ticket durable consumer item that you have come to depend on in your daily life like a car, or refrigerator or a gas stove! 



What normally happens when Crispin and I come face to face with the social and economic reality of an urban or village household is that Crispin's inventive mind is stimulated when it confronts the 'otherness' of a particular culture of stove-fuel use which includes the traditional ways that people, both men and women, operate their stoves and combine different types of biomass fuels to get the performances they want from their stoves. They know a lot about economizing scarce fuels when they are running out of money and/or fuel. He can’t help himself. Crispin has an uncontrollable urge to innovate improvement in stove products as he encounters them in their cultural contexts. This same process continues when Crispin sits down with a traditional stove maker and comes to terms with his knowhow and his or her technical, resource and financial constraints. It is human, engaged, and face to face! 



This is beginning of a real, culturally contextualized AT design process: Crispin as stove scientist is challenged by me and indigenous stove users and stove makers to reconfigure himself into a practical engineer who accepts responsibility for converting his universal knowledge about combustion, heat transfer, and biomass energy into forms that will be understood and used by a semi-literate and pre-scientific artisan stove maker. The blessing of AT is the democratization of the power and the benefits of an increasingly planetary system of science and technology that comes about when we succeed in translating this S&T into de-mystified forms that can be understood and creatively applied by artisan stove makers, who know how to produce a very cheap $1 to $2 stove (which the stove scientist does not know how to pull off!). But, the indigenous stove producer does not know much about PM, the role of primary and secondary air flows and finding the right balance, how to get the right amount of Excess Air flowing through a stove, and how to maximize heat transfer between the fire and the pot. Crispin needs to learn from the indigenous stove makers how he earns a living making his traditional stove for 1 to 2 dollars and in that way dominates the stove market and how the household stove users operates a traditional stove to get the performance wanted out of it. It is Crispin’s and mostly my job as a stove anthropologist to learn enough so that we can read and begin operating within the cultural (ethno-science), behavioural and organizational system of traditional stoves and therefore figure out where the best places are to begin introducing changes into the traditional operator-stove-stove maker/vendor-fuel producer economy. 



I agree totally with you that idiot stove scientists are drawing circles around their shots into the dark unknown of the traditional operator-stove-fuel economy. If we continue to privilege the stove scientist and the imagined brave new stoves he hopes will liberate humanity from pollution (PM), asthma, and the daily grind of gathering firewood, and persist in using his western style 'ethno-science' to test the performance of ‘improved’ stoves to identify the best performers by his stove science centered criteria we will simply continue to fail in our mission to bring the multiple benefits of science to the villagers and urban survivalists struggling at the Bottom of the Pryamid This approach is hopelessly techno-centric and technocratic in perspective and ultimately doomed to failure because justifies the imposition by the World Bank and USAID and well meaning national government of improved stoves costing $10 to $30 each on villagers and urban residents who survive on less than $1 per person per day. 

We can do better, much better than this, and I believe that Crispin and I have done and continue to do better by helping stove scientists enter the mind and heart of indigenous stove users and producers and discovering how to practically empower stove producers with a fundamental grasp of the applied science of high performance stoves. When that happens, indigenous stove producers and vendors gain the practical knowledge they need to produce a much improved $3 or $4 stove. A stove that costs two times more than the industry standard is still within the reach of most stove buyers the world over. A Chinese manufactured StoveTec rocket stove that sells for about $30 here in South Africa is ridiculously out of reach to local users of biomass stove, including the three stoned fire. 



The last point I will share before I totter and totally fall off my soap box is that we must develop our stove performance testing protocols around the culturally and economically appropriate performance criteria that presently guide the behaviours and economic choices of stove buyers in particular market segments. It is also necessity to penetrate the cultural, social and economic worlds of the stove makers and stove vendors to full understand why the existing stove-fuel economy is dominated by $1 to $2 stoves and how these value chains operate. The traditional operator-stove-fuel system must be allowed to sit in judgement of the mad hatter stove designer who are beginning to control of hundreds of millions of development funds for the improvement of traditional stoves... not the reverse. 



When it is possible for stove scientists - who passionately debate on the bio-energy discussion list - to innovate Improved Stoves with superior emissions and system efficiency performances that only cost $3 to $4 biomass and that continue to meet all of the critical socio-cultural performance requirements of the existing traditional stove then I will be doing back flips with Father William to celebrate their accomplishments. As an engineer shy anthropologist who has waited patiently off stage for the stove scientists and hardware experts to recognize the short coming of the technology centered approach, I am eager to participate with them to create an inclusive multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder approach to the in situ design and development of improved stoves. 



I am eager to take my hat off and salute stove scientists and engineers for rededicating themselves to the transcendental objectives of humanity serving appropriate science and technology: what did Fuller call it? Ah yes, I remember, it is his more-for-less principle which enables a mature technology to become ever more spirit like. Bucky called it the 'ephemeralization' of science whereby a mature technology requires less and less energy and material to perform a given function like computing, communicating, or cooking. 



May I recommend that stovers take a good look at what Geres/Cambodia has accomplished to date over 16 years with a stove improvement strategy that concentrates on gradually improving the designs, materials, and production methods of the producers and distributional methods of the vendors of traditional stoves, and not on the primary stove buyer, the stove technology itself, and certainly not the stove scientists. 



Here is the url < http://www.geres.eu/en/studies/122-publi-etude-nls > for an important review of the process that Geres went through in its capacity as a facilitator of baseline research and institution builder that transformed the traditional Lao bucket charcoal burning stove into the 'new Lao' improved cookstove which is today produced and distributed by 35 small stove making enterprises who between them produce and sell more than 25 000 NL stoves every month. There are many useful lessons in this in situ stove development strategy which the Geres team systematically followed in Cambodia. They decided to maximize the use of the the: 

1. traditional stove technologies, 

2. stove operating skills and knowledge base of particular groups of stove users, 

3. indigenous know how and business of producers of the traditional Lao stove, and 

4. existing network of wholesalers and retailers of stoves. 



They have also minimized any disruption to this pre-existing traditional system of producing, distributing and selling the Lao bucket charcoal stove by incrementally improving the design, materials, production, training, and distribution of the various 'traditional' role players in the stove+operator+producer+vendor+fuel supply chain economy. 



I think we stove scientists, social science facilitators, funding agents, and development policy makers, stove producers, etc. need to carefully assess the relevance of the Geres Improved Cookstove Program for how to incrementally develop improved 'traditional' stoves that are able to compete with $1 to $2 stoves that dominate the stove markets of most developing countries. 



It may also useful to review the Genes led Global Stove Program < http://www.geres.eu/en/geres-cambodia > which lays out a 5 year strategy to share the lessons learned by the Cambodian Improved Cookstove Program with other national stove initiatives in SEAsia and French speaking West Africa. 



In service, 

Cecil Cook 

TechnoShare 

South Africa 

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Kevin < kchisholm at ca.inter.net > wrote: 




Dear Paul 

Once upon a time, a Traveller was driving along through a rural District. He noticed that most stop signs, Billboards, Barn Doors, etc were shot full of bullet holes, but that the bullet holes were in the exact center of every circle! He was amazed at the shooting accuracy, and stopped at the local Barber Shop to find out the identity of the Marksman. When he inquired of the Barber, the Barber replied: 

"That's the Village Idiot. He shoots first and draws the circle after." 

This silly little story contains an important lesson: 
"When wishing to develop a new product, first find what The Market wants, and then build The Product around it." 

The Patent Literature abounds with brilliant solutions to problems that the World does not want solved. They "help the Little Old Lady to cross the street, when she does not want to cross the street." Many of the Inventors of such products end up broke and disillusioned. 

As it relates to stoves, what does Fatima in Egypt, Michelle in Haiti, Joe Pattagoniak's Wife in an Inuktatuck Igloo or Mohammed's Wife in a Grass Hut in Timbuktu want in a stove? Obviously, different stoves are required for different applications. 

So, we can configure clever stoves that turn our creative cranks and are fun to make, and we can develop our own testing procedures that show how clever our clever stoves are, and with such carefully structured tests, we can prove that "My clever stove is more clever than your clever stove." How does that tie in with what Fatima et al, AKA "The Market", wants? 

If the test is based on the time to boil a covered pot, but the Customer uses an uncovered pot... fail. If the Customer uses a covered pot, but the test uses an open pot... fail. If the Customer wants heat loss to the living space, and the test penalizes stove shell loss... fail. 

Some forms of "Improved Stove" represent the kind of progress one gets when one moves the outhouse closer to the back door in the Winter, and further away in the summer. We can build a stove venting into the living space that has "an 80% reduction in CO, Tars, BC, and ash emissions" and call it an "Improved stove." Such stoves will kill people living in Homes built to First World standards. Certainly, there are Markets for which such stoves are appropriate, but when tests are structured to require ALL stoves to meet the requirements of a small section of the total stove market, then progress in the remainder of the Market is seriously retarded. 

A stove producing char is fabulous when the Customer wants char, but when the Customer does not want char, it is a fail. A stove that boils water quickly is great if one wants to sterilize water, but it is a fail if the Customer wants to bake bread, or to simmer a stew for 2 hours without having to attend the stove every 10-15 minutes. What is the purpose of a "Stove"? What does the Customer want it to do? Perhaps the Customer wants an "Improved 3 stone fire that burns 5/7 as much wood, so that she doesn't have to find wood on the weekend? The main requirements of a stove are: 
1: It cooks food and/or heats the living space 
2: It is fuel efficient. 
3: Products of combustion do not harm the Occupants of the living space. 

Why aren't stoves rated on the basis of: 
1: ... grams of fuel to cook the food or foods for which the stove was designed? 
2: ... stove heat loss to the living space? 
3: ... whether or not the level of products of combustion within the living space were acceptable or not. 

Certainly, other "stove factors" are important, such as initial cost, life, expected life, etc, but dealing with the above factors in a way that was meaningful to the Customer would certainly be helpful. 

There is a Classic Story about the Drunk crawling along in the gutter one night, under a streetlight. 
The Cop asks "What are you doing"? 
Drunk says: "I lost my cell phone and am looking for it." 
Cop asks: "Where did you lose it?" 
Drunk says: "On the other side of the street." 
Cop asks: "Why are you looking here?" 
Drunk says: "Because there is more light here." 

I see interesting parallels in stove testing... the tests seem to be set up to give results that are easy to attain in "The Lab", but which are not necessarily reflective of conditions that are important to the Customer in "The Field". 

In theory, it is very easy to get Grant Money... all the Applicant has to do is show the Donor that he is the best person to do what the Donor wants done. If a Donor favours a particular Technology, then that particular technology gets favoured. If the Donor favours a business at a particular state of development, then that is the "business state" that will be favoured. Donors don't so much support a given technology, or a state of business development, but rather, they support a "total situation that is most likely to get done what the donor wants done." Clearly, if the Donor wants "Job ABC" done, and the Applicant is superb at "Job XYZ", then the Applicant will not get funded. 

Best wishes, 

Kevin 

<blockquote>



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul Anderson 
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
Cc: Hugh McLaughlin ; Bob Fairchild 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 9:51 AM 
Subject: [Stoves] Example of missed opportunities was Re: is this new? 


Crispin and all, 

Good comments by Alex and Marc and Crispin are below about air flows in TLUDs. 

All should note that Paal Wendelbo's Peko Pe TLUD has had some side-holes in the fuel chamber wall for 2 decades. Not as much "early secondary air" as Crispin's Vesto. And Paul Wever has them in his "stove pipe stove". 

My experiments with them were not conclusive about any advantage, so I have opted to not use them, partly to have less work in fabrication (no extra holes to make) and partly because the entering air enters as PRIMARY AIR when the fuel bed is above the level of each hole, which translates into less control. I will probably re-visit this topic when time and funds permit. 

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. 

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. 

This is how it looks from my vantage point. I hope that the above is a "reasoned statement", not a "rant." And I am forever an optimist and have hopes that the situation will improve. 

I look forward to seeing many of you at ETHOS in Seattle and/or at the GACC Forum in Cambodia. 

Paul 

************* 
Alex English wrote: 

<blockquote>
Crispin, 
Its been a while since I saw the Vesto. It looks from the pictures like there are secondary air holes all the way up the central tube. Is that current? 
Seems like the top rows would just be adding tramp air (unemployed air). 

Alex 



Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072 Website: www.drtlud.com On 1/20/2013 9:06 PM, Marc Pare wrote: 

<blockquote>
That cutaway is beautiful! Great example of "let the product speak for itself" 


Since seeing counterflow in action, I understand exactly what you're describing with the air flows. 


I didn't understand your emphasis on keeping the flame near the bed with a "descending burner" until this paragraph: 



<blockquote>

The secondary air is send across the surface to keep a deck of flame going at the height of the holes. This obviates the need for adding a circular disk at the top to ’keep the flame going’. Adding a ‘concentrator’ as Paul calls it takes more material and moves the fire too far away from the heat of the pyrolysis bed leading to unwanted flame-outs from time to time. 
</blockquote>



I've seen these instabilities quite often in small-scale pyrolyzers. Great to see a practical measure to prevent their tendency to "smoke bomb". 


What's on the "to-do" list for this class of design, Crispin? Are you looking to push it into other applications? Apply the principles to improve existing design? (like you mentioned with advancing the Anglo SupraNova) 


Marc Paré 
B.S. Mechanical Engineering 
Georgia Institute of Technology | Université de Technologie de Compiègne 

my cv, etc. | http://notwandering.com 


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < crispinpigott at gmail.com > wrote: 

<blockquote>




Dear Marc and Ron and All interested in air flows 



This is a response to questions about air and Marc’s tube. 



Here is an old photo of secondary air entering the combustion chamber of a Vesto pushing the flame to the centre. This accomplishes the following: 



Keeps the fire away from the wall, reducing the temperature it has to survive (a lot) 

Keeps the flame going 

Not allowing it to spread to one side away from the smoke on the other side that might otherwise ‘get away’. 

Provides turbulent mixing of flame, hot secondary air and smoke 

Allows for preheating to a significant degree (250-500 C) 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>
See Crispin's message at the Stoves Listserv archives. 




_______________________________________________ 
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/ 


</blockquote>

_______________________________________________ 
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/ 



</blockquote>


_______________________________________________ 
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/20130123/672919be/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list