[Stoves] Fwd: from K Smith [stove] Smoked out: Coal and health

[Paul Olivier]

See comments below.


On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:17 AM, David G. LeVine <dlevine at speakeasy.net>wrote:

> On 06/08/2013 07:55 PM, Paul Olivier wrote:
>
>>
>> It is quite problematic to introduce coal-burning stoves in an area that
>> has a lot of biomass. For example, the north of Vietnam has a lot of coal,
>> but it also has a lot of rice hulls and rice straw. To introduce
>> coal-burning stoves in the north of Vietnam is surely not the way to
>> proceed.
>>
>
> Paul, I would like to disagree with you, not that biofuels are bad, but an
> area with "a lot of biomass" may still have a fragile enough ecosystem that
> burning the biomass (instead of fossil fuels) may be disadvantageous.


 What do you mean by a "fragile enough ecosystem"? Please give a current of
example.


> Consider England, at one time it had huge supplies of wood, now there is
> little growing.  The forests were burned as fuel and used as masts for wind
> powered ships, the forests are no more.
>

I do not advocate cutting down trees.
I do not advocate destroying ecosystems.
Please read carefully what I have written.


>
> Hopefully we will be wise enough to use the best fuel for a given area,
> and not destroy the ecosystem by saying something like "Fossil fuel is bad,
> use biomass." without carefully examining the impact of use of biomass.



In most of Asia, a lot of biomass is uselessly burned or dumped in rivers
or valleys.
It is dreadfully short-sided to introduce fossil-fuel stoves in such areas.


> Take all the "waste biomass" from the fields and suddenly there can be a
> problem which requires adding something back to hold and supply some of the
> nutrients.
>
>
I am a big proponent of both mesophilic and thermophilic composting.
See:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Summaries/Food%20Crisis.pdf
I make clear distinctions between Type 3 waste and Type 4 waste.

But still I return to the central idea:
in areas where biomass is being wasted, promoting stoves that make use of
fossil fuels does not make sense.
Why burn coal or natural gas in areas where waste biomass is readily
available?
Note that I say *waste *biomass.
Another way to say it:
why promote stoves that make use of fossil fuels in areas where biomass is
being wasted?

Thanks.
Paul



> Dave  8{)
>
> --
>
> "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the
> advice."
>
> Bill Cosby
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.**org <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<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/ <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/20130610/44135c90/attachment.html>