[Stoves] [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward
kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
Tue Nov 24 06:54:44 CST 2015
Hi Ron
From: biochar at yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 1:36 AM
To: Lloyd Helferty <lhelferty at sympatico.ca>
Cc: Biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Entire Group
<biocharstoves-7xpll at wiggiomail.com>; S. Jain (Env. Engg.)
<sureshjiitd at gmail.com>; Discussion of biomass
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological
development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward
# "Efficiency" can be anything that you define it to be. Usually, it is
defined as "(Useful Output Energy)/(Input Energy)"
Lloyd et al: Adding "stoves - as that is where we have had a similar dialog
in the past
I promised an example. Use energy of wood and charcoal as
measured to be 18 and 30 MJ/kg - both possible.)
Assume 1 kg of wood into the stove - or 18 MJ.
Assume water boiling away calculates to 6 MJ; Effic1 = 6/18 =
33% (Some say stop here; this is a typical number for many stoves including
TLUDs)
# This is a valid calculation of "Wood Energy Utilization Efficiency" or
"Stove Efficiency".
Assume (to get easy numbers) 26.7% (a little high but a possible
number) by weight char production - gives .267* 30 = 8 MJ in the char.
Effic2 = 8/18 = .444 = 44%,
# With the assumption of 26.7% charcoal yield weight, this is a valid
calculation for "Energy Content of Charcoal as a % of the energy content of
the initial biomass.
Using the pyrolysis gases in the denominator - Effic 3 =
6/(18-8) = 6/10 = 60% (This use of the char energy in the denominator is
the most common way of handling char- added (60-33 =) 27% to the reported
value of the stove - )
# This is an invalid calculation of stove efficiency. Only 6 MJ of the input
fuel went to performing the "stove function" of actually boiling water. It
wrongly deducts "carbon energy loss to the ashpit" from the input fuel
energy. It is not a measure of "Stove Efficiency". At the best, it is an
"Energy Allocation Balance".
But I think it more proper to add the first two efficiencies:
Effic4 = Effic1+ Effic 2 = .333+.444 = .777 (17.7% bigger than the 60%
value - and I think also an honest way to look at what is going on.
# That process complicates the matter in a deceptive manner.
Last I saw, EPA did not add these together, but they did report Effic 1
and Effic 2. Sales people for biochar and TLUDs are apt to add them of
course. We obviously want both numbers to be as high as possible.
# No. We want the numbers to be truthful and helpful, and not deceptive and
misleading.
The losses are 18-6-8 = 4 MJ or 4/18= 22.2% (mostly hot
gases). This is what we should be concentrating on - not 100-60 = 40%. In
inefficiency terms, I claim the losses we want to reduce are nowhere near
40% - if you want both char and water boiled away. 40% is the portion of
energy in the pyrolysis gases that we failed to capture.
# The Stove Efficiency, (Energy Transferred to Boiling Water) / (Input Fuel
Energy), is 6/18=33.33%. Removing the energy content of the charcoal
produced in a TLUD from the fuel energy input is a misleading "paper
exercise" deception when the result is termed "Stove Efficiency".
If we burnt the wood (no resultant char) rather than pyrolyze
it, we might expect to have a 60% efficient stove - but no-one measures any
wood stove that high.
# Wood Chips are routinely burned in boilers at an efficiency of 80% to 90%.
Why not? I don't have a good answer, but suspect it might relate to how
hydrogen fits in. That is - with little hydrogen in the char, the hot gases
are more hydrogen rich with a pyrolysis stove. Better heat transfer with
more hydrogen? A hotter flame? Or is the effect due to oxygen - which
also is a lower percentage in char than in wood? Or both?
# One does not have to know the "internal workings of a stove system" to
determine Stove Efficiency.
One only needs to know (Useful Output Energy)/Input Energy).
Comments appreciated when we are striving to make char in a
stove:
Q1:
are the losses 22%, 40%, or 67%?
# A1: As a Stove, the losses are 67%
Q2: Is
the efficiency 78%, 60%, or 33%?
# A2: As a Stove, the efficiency is 33%
Kevin
Ron
On Nov 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Lloyd Helferty <lhelferty at sympatico.ca
<mailto:lhelferty at sympatico.ca> > wrote:
Thanks, Ron.
I know nothing about the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation(s) that
"use the char's energy value".
Could you elaborate?
Is the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation your preferred methodology
as a next step to the "WBT"?
(Yes, I am quite out of touch with the latest in "Stove testing"
methodologies. What "efficiency" methodology does the GACC currently endorse
when testing stoves that produce biochar? Is it still an open question?)
Regards,
Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
www.biochar-consulting.ca <http://www.biochar-consulting.ca/>
Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI)
http://www.prsi.ca/
Promotions Manager, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network (CSAYN)
http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com/
http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6756248
48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
905-707-8754
CELL: 647-886-8754
Skype: lloyd.helferty
Co-manager, Sustainable Agriculture Group
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458
Steering Committee coordinator
Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
Community Sustainability (CoSWoG), A working group of Science for Peace
was: http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/
President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=
<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475> &gid=2446475
Advisory Committee Member, IBI
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
http://www.biocharontario.ca <http://www.biocharontario.ca/>
www.biochar.ca <http://www.biochar.ca/>
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get
better. It's not."
- Dr. Seuss (The Lorax)
On 2015-11-22 3:13 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Lloyd etal
I am imagining a charcoal-making stove owner who has 2
clients to whom she sells charcoal. One client (A) burns the char; the
other (B) uses it as biochar. How can one say the stove has two different
efficiencies?
But another argument is that if all the produced char is used
by C as biochar - it must be that the char's soil value exceeded the energy
value. So perhaps the efficiency value for client C should be even better
than for case A. This soil use for the char is where I think we are
heading.
In sum, I see no reason to do other than use the char's
energy value when calculating a total efficiency - as is being done by
Jetter/EPA/
Ron
On Nov 22, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Lloyd Helferty [biochar]
<biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com> > wrote:
Ron,
In reading that quoted/highlighted paragraph, my expectation is that the
term, "utilizing the charcoal" (..."should be considered as a useful
energy") is probably meant to assume that the leftover/residual charcoal
would subsequently be utilized as a fuel, and probably not asbiochar. If
the resulting charcoal is used in a non-energy application (i.e. as biochar)
then one does not normally talk about or refer to, "theenergy stored in the
charcoal" as being "useful" anymore, if one considers the classical
[non-regenerative / linear] energy models. (Of course if one understands
the use of biochar from a holistic** perspective, it can make sense to use
biochar in a non-fuel application if that application results in a boost to
the actual [biomass] fuel -- and food -- production capabilities of the soil
from which the original stove 'fuel' was derived... but of course those are
more complex calculations that must also consider time and a number of other
variables which are not normally taken into consideration.)
**Note: If considered in this holistic perspective / context, the use of
soil-health enhancing materials like biochar will very likely eventually be
aprerequisite of the very definition of "sustainable" biofuels /
biomaterials.
CC: Biochar group
Regards,
Lloyd Helferty
On 2015-11-22 3:58 AM, Ron Larson wrote:
Professor Jain
1. Thank you for a tremendously useful document.
Especially that you (Elsevier?, TERI?) have made it available on a non-fee
basis (for a SHORT time).
2. I am a little surprised (and delighted) that I
received this on the climate change list. I am alerting four other lists
who will also find this most useful.
3. To me, interested in both climate change (through
biochar - not mentioned) and stoves, the most important sentence in your
exceedingly thorough (161 cites) is this partial paragraph in Section 2.3.1
(emphases added):
"The energy expenditure in the form of fuel for boiling and evaporating
water is calculated by standardizing the amount of raw fuel with fuel
moisture content, ambient temperature, charcoal formed fuel and calorific
value of fuel and charcoal. This is called the 'equivalent dry wood
consumed'. Charcoal utilization after the cooking process in real households
has not been validated in any of the studies. If the charcoal disposed by
targeted population then the fuel consumption can be corrected. If a
certain community has a habit of utilizing the charcoal then ...
the energy stored in the charcoal should be considered as a useful energy."
4. As I know you know, there is more than one way to
report the impact of charcoal production in stove comparisons. Examples
coming.
5. I could not find an email address for Ms. (Dr?)
Pooja Arora. I intend to look up other papers she and you have published.
Please congratulate her as well.
Again, thanks for a very useful stove assessment document. I am aware of
nothing like it.
Ron (first/past "stove" and "biochar" lists coordinator)
On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:09 PM, S. Jain (Env. Engg.) wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We are sharing with you an article on Chronological development in cookstove
assessment methods: Challenges and way forward. We hope to receive your
inputs and comments on the same.
Abstract
This review intended to collect and collate the information related to
cookstove testing methodologies applied in lab and field conditions and
their output in the form of energy and emission parameters. The important
information related to progression of cookstove testing techniques was
segregated in order to understand the relationships in different indicators
of cookstove performance and to understand the sources of uncertainty in
emission data. The major research issue that has been dwelt upon in the
recent literature is the establishment of relationship between lab and field
results of cookstove performance. It is observed that controlled cooking
test and kitchen performance test are the two field based tests which
provide a better picture of a particular cookstove performance as it
involves the user perspective. Misrepresentation of actual cookstove
performance based on laboratory based testing puts the present standard
protocols in question. Solutions have been put forward by some research
studies; however a validation is needed through multiple scientific
investigations conducted at various temporal and spatial scales. It has been
observed that cookstove testing methodologies are still in their nascent
stage compared to the research that has already been conducted for other
sources where biomass combustion emissions have studied thoroughly. Still
the shift in focus of upcoming research studies towards field based
integrated cookstove testing methodologies has the potential to drive future
cookstove research in the new direction.
We are providing you with the following personal article link, which will
provide free access to your article, and is valid for 50 days, until January
10, 2016
<http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u>
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u
__._,_.___
_____
Posted by: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> >
_____
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/18762;_y
lc=X3oDMTJya29xZ2tkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxO
DYxMgRtc2dJZAMxODc2MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODk-?act=repl
y&messageNum=18762> Reply via web post
.
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20%5Bbiochar
-stoves%5D%20A%20review%20of%20chronological%20development%20in%20cookstove%
20assessment%20methods%3A%20Challenges%20and%20way%20forward> Reply to
sender
.
<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20%5Bbiochar-s
toves%5D%20A%20review%20of%20chronological%20development%20in%20cookstove%20
assessment%20methods%3A%20Challenges%20and%20way%20forward> Reply to group
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3o
DMTJmN3ZzcHYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgR
zZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODk-> Start a New Topic
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/topics/18759;_ylc
=X3oDMTM3Njk5b3QxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODY
xMgRtc2dJZAMxODc2MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODkEdHBjSWQDMTg
3NTk-> Messages in this topic (4)
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMGVyNWd2BF9TA
zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z
2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODk-> Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJldG4xaW9rBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA
zIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0ODI1N
jk4OQ-->
. <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
<mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe
. <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=22438052/grpspId=1707418612/msgI
d=18762/stime=1448256989>
<http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
9&js=no&resp=img>
__,
From: biochar at yahoogroups.com [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 1:36 AM
To: Lloyd Helferty <lhelferty at sympatico.ca>
Cc: Biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Entire Group
<biocharstoves-7xpll at wiggiomail.com>; S. Jain (Env. Engg.)
<sureshjiitd at gmail.com>; Discussion of biomass
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological
development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward
Lloyd et al: Adding "stoves - as that is where we have had a similar dialog
in the past
I promised an example. Use energy of wood and charcoal as
measured to be 18 and 30 MJ/kg - both possible.)
Assume 1 kg of wood into the stove - or 18 MJ.
Assume water boiling away calculates to 6 MJ; Effic1 = 6/18 =
33% (Some say stop here; this is a typical number for many stoves including
TLUDs)
Assume (to get easy numbers) 26.7% (a little high but a possible
number) by weight char production - gives .267* 30 = 8 MJ in the char.
Effic2 = 8/18 = .444 = 44%,
Using the pyrolysis gases in the denominator - Effic 3 =
6/(18-8) = 6/10 = 60% (This use of the char energy in the denominator is
the most common way of handling char- added (60-33 =) 27% to the reported
value of the stove - )
But I think it more proper to add the first two efficiencies:
Effic4 = Effic1+ Effic 2 = .333+.444 = .777 (17.7% bigger than the 60%
value - and I think also an honest way to look at what is going on. Last I
saw, EPA did not add these together, but they did report Effic 1 and Effic
2. Sales people for biochar and TLUDs are apt to add them of course. We
obviously want both numbers to be as high as possible.
The losses are 18-6-8 = 4 MJ or 4/18= 22.2% (mostly hot
gases). This is what we should be concentrating on - not 100-60 = 40%. In
inefficiency terms, I claim the losses we want to reduce are nowhere near
40% - if you want both char and water boiled away. 40% is the portion of
energy in the pyrolysis gases that we failed to capture.
If we burnt the wood (no resultant char) rather than pyrolyze
it, we might expect to have a 60% efficient stove - but no-one measures any
wood stove that high. Why not? I don't have a good answer, but suspect it
might relate to how hydrogen fits in. That is - with little hydrogen in the
char, the hot gases are more hydrogen rich with a pyrolysis stove. Better
heat transfer with more hydrogen? A hotter flame? Or is the effect due
to oxygen - which also is a lower percentage in char than in wood? Or
both?
Comments appreciated when we are striving to make char in a
stove:
Q1:
are the losses 22%, 40%, or 67%?
Q2: Is
the efficiency 78%, 60%, or 33%?
Ron
On Nov 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Lloyd Helferty <lhelferty at sympatico.ca
<mailto:lhelferty at sympatico.ca> > wrote:
Thanks, Ron.
I know nothing about the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation(s) that
"use the char's energy value".
Could you elaborate?
Is the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation your preferred methodology
as a next step to the "WBT"?
(Yes, I am quite out of touch with the latest in "Stove testing"
methodologies. What "efficiency" methodology does the GACC currently endorse
when testing stoves that produce biochar? Is it still an open question?)
Regards,
Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
www.biochar-consulting.ca <http://www.biochar-consulting.ca/>
Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI)
http://www.prsi.ca/
Promotions Manager, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network (CSAYN)
http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com/
http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6756248
48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
905-707-8754
CELL: 647-886-8754
Skype: lloyd.helferty
Co-manager, Sustainable Agriculture Group
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458
Steering Committee coordinator
Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
Community Sustainability (CoSWoG), A working group of Science for Peace
was: http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/
President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=
<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475> &gid=2446475
Advisory Committee Member, IBI
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
http://www.biocharontario.ca <http://www.biocharontario.ca/>
www.biochar.ca <http://www.biochar.ca/>
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get
better. It's not."
- Dr. Seuss (The Lorax)
On 2015-11-22 3:13 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Lloyd etal
I am imagining a charcoal-making stove owner who has 2 clients
to whom she sells charcoal. One client (A) burns the char; the other (B)
uses it as biochar. How can one say the stove has two different
efficiencies?
But another argument is that if all the produced char is used by
C as biochar - it must be that the char's soil value exceeded the energy
value. So perhaps the efficiency value for client C should be even better
than for case A. This soil use for the char is where I think we are
heading.
In sum, I see no reason to do other than use the char's energy
value when calculating a total efficiency - as is being done by Jetter/EPA/
Ron
On Nov 22, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Lloyd Helferty [biochar]
<biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com> > wrote:
Ron,
In reading that quoted/highlighted paragraph, my expectation is that the
term, "utilizing the charcoal" (..."should be considered as a useful
energy") is probably meant to assume that the leftover/residual charcoal
would subsequently be utilized as a fuel, and probably not asbiochar. If
the resulting charcoal is used in a non-energy application (i.e. as biochar)
then one does not normally talk about or refer to, "theenergy stored in the
charcoal" as being "useful" anymore, if one considers the classical
[non-regenerative / linear] energy models. (Of course if one understands
the use of biochar from a holistic** perspective, it can make sense to use
biochar in a non-fuel application if that application results in a boost to
the actual [biomass] fuel -- and food -- production capabilities of the soil
from which the original stove 'fuel' was derived... but of course those are
more complex calculations that must also consider time and a number of other
variables which are not normally taken into consideration.)
**Note: If considered in this holistic perspective / context, the use of
soil-health enhancing materials like biochar will very likely eventually be
aprerequisite of the very definition of "sustainable" biofuels /
biomaterials.
CC: Biochar group
Regards,
Lloyd Helferty
On 2015-11-22 3:58 AM, Ron Larson wrote:
Professor Jain
1. Thank you for a tremendously useful document.
Especially that you (Elsevier?, TERI?) have made it available on a non-fee
basis (for a SHORT time).
2. I am a little surprised (and delighted) that I received
this on the climate change list. I am alerting four other lists who will
also find this most useful.
3. To me, interested in both climate change (through
biochar - not mentioned) and stoves, the most important sentence in your
exceedingly thorough (161 cites) is this partial paragraph in Section 2.3.1
(emphases added):
"The energy expenditure in the form of fuel for boiling and evaporating
water is calculated by standardizing the amount of raw fuel with fuel
moisture content, ambient temperature, charcoal formed fuel and calorific
value of fuel and charcoal. This is called the 'equivalent dry wood
consumed'. Charcoal utilization after the cooking process in real households
has not been validated in any of the studies. If the charcoal disposed by
targeted population then the fuel consumption can be corrected. If a
certain community has a habit of utilizing the charcoal then ...
the energy stored in the charcoal should be considered as a useful energy."
4. As I know you know, there is more than one way to report
the impact of charcoal production in stove comparisons. Examples coming.
5. I could not find an email address for Ms. (Dr?) Pooja
Arora. I intend to look up other papers she and you have published. Please
congratulate her as well.
Again, thanks for a very useful stove assessment document. I am aware of
nothing like it.
Ron (first/past "stove" and "biochar" lists coordinator)
On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:09 PM, S. Jain (Env. Engg.) wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
We are sharing with you an article on Chronological development in cookstove
assessment methods: Challenges and way forward. We hope to receive your
inputs and comments on the same.
Abstract
This review intended to collect and collate the information related to
cookstove testing methodologies applied in lab and field conditions and
their output in the form of energy and emission parameters. The important
information related to progression of cookstove testing techniques was
segregated in order to understand the relationships in different indicators
of cookstove performance and to understand the sources of uncertainty in
emission data. The major research issue that has been dwelt upon in the
recent literature is the establishment of relationship between lab and field
results of cookstove performance. It is observed that controlled cooking
test and kitchen performance test are the two field based tests which
provide a better picture of a particular cookstove performance as it
involves the user perspective. Misrepresentation of actual cookstove
performance based on laboratory based testing puts the present standard
protocols in question. Solutions have been put forward by some research
studies; however a validation is needed through multiple scientific
investigations conducted at various temporal and spatial scales. It has been
observed that cookstove testing methodologies are still in their nascent
stage compared to the research that has already been conducted for other
sources where biomass combustion emissions have studied thoroughly. Still
the shift in focus of upcoming research studies towards field based
integrated cookstove testing methodologies has the potential to drive future
cookstove research in the new direction.
We are providing you with the following personal article link, which will
provide free access to your article, and is valid for 50 days, until January
10, 2016
<http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u>
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u
__._,_.___
_____
Posted by: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net> >
_____
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/18762;_y
lc=X3oDMTJya29xZ2tkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxO
DYxMgRtc2dJZAMxODc2MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODk-?act=repl
y&messageNum=18762> Reply via web post
.
<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20%5Bbiochar
-stoves%5D%20A%20review%20of%20chronological%20development%20in%20cookstove%
20assessment%20methods%3A%20Challenges%20and%20way%20forward> Reply to
sender
.
<mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20%5Bbiochar-s
toves%5D%20A%20review%20of%20chronological%20development%20in%20cookstove%20
assessment%20methods%3A%20Challenges%20and%20way%20forward> Reply to group
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3o
DMTJmN3ZzcHYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgR
zZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODk-> Start a New Topic
.
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/topics/18759;_ylc
=X3oDMTM3Njk5b3QxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODY
xMgRtc2dJZAMxODc2MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODkEdHBjSWQDMTg
3NTk-> Messages in this topic (4)
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMGVyNWd2BF9TA
zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z
2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDgyNTY5ODk-> Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJldG4xaW9rBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkA
zIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0ODI1N
jk4OQ-->
. <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> Privacy .
<mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe
. <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=22438052/grpspId=1707418612/msgI
d=18762/stime=1448256989>
<http://y.analytics.yahoo.com/fpc.pl?ywarid=515FB27823A7407E&a=1000131032227
9&js=no&resp=img>
__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151124/29b76ae6/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list