[Stoves] Clean coal burning stoves Re: History of clean Chinese stove development.

[Ronald Hongsermeier]

Mr. Larson,
evidently you agree with cold-war era soviet scientists that coal and 
oil and natural gas all come from non-biological chemical origins?

Ronald von Schwarzkohlebayern


On 16.09.2015 21:40, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Paul and list:
>
> 1.  I mostly agree with everything you say below.  But mostly for 
> reasons of wanting to save our valuable time, I now ask that this list 
> stop talking about coal stoves.  Biomass only stoves would be in 
> accordance with the way we started up almost 20 years ago (as the 
> first list coordinator, I think I wrote that sentence - which I gave a 
> few days ago).  It is worse than that we are wasting people’s time, 
> with only one person ever bringing up coal and coal stove topics.
>
> 2.  There was a concluding sentence in a Crispin message this AM whose 
> origin is masked by Crispin that I find more offensive that the 
> generally offensive material above it.  If Crispin didn’t write these 
> four pro-coal paragraphs and this sentence,
> /“Forty years of failure - improved //wood stoves. Forty more years? 
> Our daughters deserve better.//”/
> we deserve to know who did.  And we can get rid of such trash with the 
> understanding that offenders will have all their material reviewed 
> before going out.  Policing is not difficult.
>
> 3. .  What is worse that we get totally erroneous denier-based 
> non-stove pro-coal arguments - that too many list members are apt to 
> believe.   I am particularly incensed by Crispin’s ludicrous statement 
> from this AM:
> /The feeling these days is that for a doubling of CO2 the global 
> temperature will rise about 0.6 to 0.9 degrees./
> A scientific rebuttal by a full time topic expert is at 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/challenges-constraining-climate-sensitivity.html , 
> showing Crispin is off by a factor of about 5.  I’m sure Crispin 
> strongly believes that the world’s largest ever scientific study 
> (IPCC’s AR5) is dead wrong.  So wrong he needn’t give a cite for the 
> view from his own “Science” circle.  I find this type of error so 
> often I basically now disbelieve Crispin.  This include his assertion 
> that char produced in char-making stoves should receive no credit 
> unless burned in that stove.  How many dozens of list hours have been 
> wasted on that topic - which I believe comes from a denier position?
>
> 4.  There are plenty of options available.  If Crispin started a 
> coal-stove list,  I would attempt to join.  I presume there should be 
> some existing list that can serve the claimed need.  I reject the idea 
> that Crispin wrote today:  “/Change the purpose of the list so that 
> the needs of hundreds of millions of ordinary people are not 
> abandoned.//”, /since I can’t recall any such guidance ever going in 
> the coal-using direction from this list.
>
> 5.   Re the other items in your list, see inserts below
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu 
> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>
>> Ron,                                                (to website)
>>
>> You make good points.  But the devil is in the details, or in the 
>> realities of our world.
>>
>> 1.  If the monitors of the Stoves Listserv want to enforce the 
>> definition that we can only discuss biomass fuels and related stoves, 
>> I will comply.   However, until such a ruling is debated and stated 
>> clearly, I contend that writing and talking about coal as a cookstove 
>> fuel is informative and we all need to be aware of its pros and cons, 
>> as well as the occasional mentions of LPG and kerosene (paraffin). 
>> See more below.
> *RWL1:  I am only concerned about coal - as the others can be made 
> from biomass.  Absoluely we should debate, but there is an existing 
> rule already in place - that is being violated.*
>
>> 2.  As much as I agree with you and the EPA on the issues of climate 
>> change and CO2 increases in the atmosphere (being bad), there are 
>> very very very few of us (off grid, etc, etc.) in the developed 
>> countries who do not have a positive (bad) CO2 footprint every day.   
>> By sending an email from Illinois, I use electricity that has some 
>> mix of power that comes from fossil fuels.  The EPA will leave me 
>> alone.  They should be after the big fish who emit much CO2.
> *[RWL2:  Disagree.  We have to move towards 100% RE.   I of course 
> fail also, but we must try.  And Illinois will have to honor the CPP - 
> and you will be responsible soon for less pollution - and you should 
> be proud of that fact.  And the costs need not increase.*
>>
>> 3.  An impoverished household in Mongolia or elsewhere that can cook 
>> and heat cleanly (health-wise) with coal is another truly small fish 
>> regarding its CO2 footprint.  We should not be working or advocating 
>> against them having coal-burning stoves that are CLEAN for their 
>> health (CO2 is not poisonous).   That is so, especially while we 
>> affluent folks run around in automobiles and heat much larger homes 
>> to probably warmer temperatures and also lavish ourselves with air 
>> conditioning, with so much energy derived from fossil fuels.
> *[RWL3:  Agree CO2 is not poisonous - but that from fossil fuels (and 
> 100 ppm already in the atmosphere) is a pollutant.  We can demonstrate 
> CO2 reductions, and they can/must help as well. This is what COP21 is 
> all about - and I believe 193 countries will be agreeing that we have 
> to do it - painful though it is.  It is worse if we delay.  I have 
> my doubts that the world’s dirtiest city is going to become acceptable 
> without getting off coal.*
>>
>>
>> 4.  One household is one small amount of CO2 that could be justified, 
>> but would 100,000 households be a different story?   Or 10 MILLION 
>> households, as could easily be the case if China turned to using the 
>> new coal-stove design now in use in Mongolia?  That could be a lot of 
>> CO2 increase. But it would be a lot of CO2 if those became LPG 
>> burners. Fuel supply is crucial.   We cannot deny people the 
>> opportunity to cook their meals or warm their homes because 
>> "acceptable renewable" fuels are not available.  Crispin, do you have 
>> numbers (CO2, black carbon, methane, etc.) about the climate impact 
>> of the new coal burners _in comparison with _the climate impact of 
>> the old-style coal burners?   How much better (lower climate 
>> impact)?   Is that improvement not sufficient justification to 
>> stimulate (financially bolster) the transition from the old to the 
>> new coal burners?   Ron, could that improvement be the realistic 
>> goal, or should the short term goal be the abolition of all coal 
>> burning stoves?
> *[RWL4:   Just as the Chinese have taken the global lead in PV, solar 
> hot water, and wind - they will soon be leading in biochar and from 
> char-making stoves.  Yes the short-term goal should be abolition of 
> coal-burning stoves.  And the Chinese know they have to do it - and I 
> congratulate them for their path (which can include improving their 
> soils at the same time).*
>>
>> 5.  The GACC certainly embraces clean burning LPG and natural gas, 
>> and would like to have clean-burning kerosene stoves.   The GACC 
>> /_*either*_/ must condemn those "advanced" fossil fuels and their 
>> stoves *_OR _*embrace coal with clean-burning coal stoves.   To leave 
>> LPG in and exclude coal is hypocrisy that must be addressed at the 
>> GACC Forum in November.   Either all cleanly burned fossil fuels and 
>> their stoves must be acceptable to the GACC, or no fossil fuels 
>> should be in the GACC discussions and programs.
> *[RWL5:  There are more choices than you have given.  We know how to 
> make bioliquids.  If fossil carbon had the pollution price it should 
> be bearing (about $40/tonne CO2 per many estimates), there would be no 
> question about folks everywhere planting the trees we need for both 
> carbon neutrality and carbon negativity.   Big parts of China are 
> already seeing such a tax.  China has planted more trees than the rest 
> of the world combined.  They are flaring much straw still today.  They 
> are one of the last countries to need to use coal.  Why wouldn’t they 
> want to move away from coal-burning?  Especially as they have already 
> made commitments (with Obama) that are pushing other countries.  China 
> does not need coal stoves.*
> *I can understand Kirk Smith arguing for liquid fuels, but I am sure 
> he would prefer bioliquids.   The difference in cost between fossil 
> and bio sources is insignificant, even when you ignore the fossil CO2 
> damages.*
> *As Dean Still has said today, we can get there.  I know there is a 
> long way to go in improving char-making cook stoves, with way too 
> little funding going towards this target.  I see some good work coming 
> along - finally.
> *
>>
>> We know (and are grateful) that leaders in the GACC and WB and EPA do 
>> read the Stoves Listserv, although they seldom comment.   The 
>> comments in #5 above should have some reply by the end of October so 
>> that the issue will be addressed at the November Forum, either with 
>> or without GACC's agreement with #5.  Fossil fuels with GOOD stoves 
>> are either ALL IN or art ALL OUT.  At the Forum, certainly the World 
>> Bank and other financial backers of the Mongolia success will be 
>> advocating for coal to be included, along with the attendees from 
>> Mongolia.    Other supporters should be those who work with LPG, 
>> natural gas, and kerosene, otherwise they face opposition to the 
>> continued inclusion of those fuels in any GACC programs.  To exclude 
>> them would be like making them automatic Tier 1 or Tier 0 (bad) 
>> stoves and fuels.
> *[RWL6:  If GACC et al value carbon as is likely to come out of 
> Paris, they won’t have to worry about prioritizing; they will 
> emphasize renewables.  It is time to give up on outdated, harmful 
> technologies.  Many large US firms put the pollution cost of carbon 
> (such as the $40 above) - and then use the resulting savings against 
> that target to do other right things.  Since the EPA is the main 
> agency behind the CPP (Clean Power Plan) - clearly anti-coal and 
> pro-gas, they would be hypocritical to ignore the coal-bio difference 
> with cook stoves.*
>>
>> It will be interesting to see who rises to advocate exclusion of all 
>> fossil fuels and stoves.  Being selective of some and not other 
>> fossil fuels is not allowed.   All in or all out!!!    Or does 
>> climate change trump family health?
> *[RWL7:   You need to explain this last question.  We can improve both 
> at the same time with the same stove hardware (and soil health).*
> *
> *
> *I have spent the last several days on the news that a Dutch Court 
> recently told the Dutch government (after a case lasting many months) 
> that it had to do a lot better than it was proposing in response to 
> the EU agreements on CO2 reductions.  They now have been ordered to 
> reach 25% CO2 reduction by 2020 (and must appeal within about 10 
> days).  I suggest many other groups could face similar legal judgments 
> - with the strong rationale that we know (per IPCC AR5) that this is 
> the cheapest approach, with the most beneficial health impacts. 
>  Stoves are in no way exempt from this consensus science view.  By 
> 193 countries signing off, they have already admitted the truth behind 
> fossil CO2 damage projections.  Deniers can claim otherwise - but they 
> have lost this battle.*
> *
> *
> *Ron
> *
>>
>> Paul
>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu    
>> Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>> Website:www.drtlud.com
>> On 9/15/2015 1:33 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>>> Paul  cc list
>>>
>>> Well - I have to disagree.
>>>
>>> Our EPA has declared that CO2 from all fossil fuels is a pollutant. 
>>>  That was held up in the US Supreme Court. Most of the world agrees 
>>> that fossil fuel CO2 needs to be eliminated and that is what COP21 
>>> in Paris is about.
>>>
>>>  Per the latest IPCC documents,  we have to get off all fossil 
>>> fuels.  And so I hope that GACC will stay away from endorsing any 
>>> coal, oil, or natural gas consuming stove.  Those fuels don’t need 
>>> the help of this list or GACC.   Biomass can supply all those forms 
>>> of energy anyway - in most cases cheaper where biomass cook stoves 
>>> are now in use.
>>>
>>>> Additionally the guiding words for this list emphasize it is for 
>>>> biomass.  [“_*Our site is dedicated to helping people develop 
>>>> better stoves for cooking with biomass fuels in developing regions.”]*_
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear ALL, (post todrtlud.com <http://drtlud.com/>website)
>>>>
>>>> EVERYONE should carefully read Crispin's message (below).  I cannot 
>>>> substantiate his comments about specific stoves, and we will hope 
>>>> that Prof. Lloyd will send references about the Scotch Method.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, I am IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH CRISPIN. Read each line, 
>>>> soak it in.
>>>>
>>>> Concerning the stoves in Mongolia, of course I am delighted that:
>>>>> all but one of them is a TLUD.
>>>> But that is not the issue.   The issue is that low grade coal is 
>>>> able to be burned cleanly in sufficiently inexpensive cookstoves 
>>>> for the climate and culture.  Note that those Mongolian stoves have 
>>>> an important function for household heating, helping to justify the 
>>>> higher costs of stoves with heavier metal.  The probable financial 
>>>> assistance ("subsidy" to the purchaser) can be justified in the 
>>>> clean air accomplishments that benefit not just the impoverished 
>>>> people, but also all of the wealthy who want clean air both locally 
>>>> and internationally (global air quality issues are important).
>>>>
>>>> The Mongolian stoves are not being proclaimed as being for tropical 
>>>> areas where the stove constructions and costs need to be different.
>>>>
>>>> About coal as fuel for stoves and home heaters: Coal needs to be 
>>>> included in the fuels for cookstoves WHEN COUPLED WITH 
>>>> CLEAN-BURNING STOVES. When that is the case, the only major 
>>>> "negative characteristic" is that coal is a fossil fuel (being 
>>>> carbon positive to the atmosphere).   Well, that also applies to 
>>>> LPG !!!!  which is a very highly regarded fuel for clean 
>>>> cookstoves.   Double standards are not acceptable.   This issue 
>>>> needs to be addressed!!!
>>>>
>>>> And it should be addressed at least by the time of the GACC Forum 
>>>> in Ghana on 10 -13 Nov where a resolution or statement or 
>>>> declaration (or whatever groups do) could be officially made about 
>>>> the acceptability of coal as a cookstove fuel WHEN USED IN 
>>>> CLEAN-BURNING STOVES.
>>>>
>>>> None of the above is against fan-assisted stoves or natural draft 
>>>> TLUDs.  Instead, the effort is to  get coal and 
>>>> the*_appropriate_*coal-burning stoves added to the list of 
>>>> contributing solutions to the world's cookstove problems.
>>>>
>>>> Comments please to the Stoves Listserv.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>>> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu    
>>>> Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>>>> Website:www.drtlud.com
>>>> On 9/14/2015 10:45 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> That linked document has this to say: “For biomass cooking, 
>>>>> pending further evidence from the field, significant health 
>>>>> benefits are possible only with the highest quality fan gasifier 
>>>>> stoves…”
>>>>> I don’t know who invented that idea – it is traceable to Kirk 
>>>>> Smith (Bangkok, Nov 2010) but I think the concept that ‘the only 
>>>>> really clean stoves are fan assisted gasifiers’ is older than 
>>>>> that. Maybe it emerged from Berkeley. It doesn’t matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that clear enough? How else can we say it? It is not true that 
>>>>> the only really clean stoves are fan assisted gasifiers. This 
>>>>> caution is also contained in the statement, “It is not true that 
>>>>> the only really clean stoves are fan assisted or ND TLUD pyrolysers.”
>>>>>
>>>>> The most expensive externally funded improved stove replacement 
>>>>> programme in the world is the Mongolian urban ger stove programme, 
>>>>> funded by the US-based MCC through the MCA-Mongolia account, the 
>>>>> WB, the Asian Development Bank and the City Government of 
>>>>> Ulaanbaatar. There are a large number of additional players 
>>>>> including Xaas Bank, carbon trading funders and national Ministries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assiduously examining a large number of stove options, and 
>>>>> creating an advanced testing laboratory on a shoe string, 
>>>>> incorporating a test method that predicts reasonably the field 
>>>>> performance (field testing proved to be nearly impossible, even 
>>>>> for LBNL, which tried hard) a set of stoves that are well over 90% 
>>>>> cleaner than the baseline stoves (several >98%) was selected for 
>>>>> distribution. Not one of them is fan assisted and not one of them 
>>>>> is a pyrolyser save in the sense that all coal stoves are 
>>>>> pyrolysers. Certainly it is true that all solid fuel stoves are 
>>>>> gasifiers. Quibbling will not change the fact flames burn gas.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of people worked hard to bring this together and pull off 
>>>>> the biggest clean-up of a major city’s air ever accomplished 
>>>>> without changing the fuel – because the fuel was/never/the 
>>>>> problem. It is an excellent fuel and burns so cleanly the stove 
>>>>> comparison chart would have to create two more tiers to fairly 
>>>>> accommodate them. The fact that this achievement is still ignored 
>>>>> continues to stain the ICS community. The reason for this is 
>>>>> obvious: coal is supposed to be the demon fuel that cannot be 
>>>>> burned cleanly. Millions of people are going to burn coal for a 
>>>>> long time to come – deal with it. Burn it properly.
>>>>>
>>>>> These super-clean stoves originate from Turkey, China and 
>>>>> Mongolia. The producers pay no attention to anything going on in 
>>>>> the “TLUD world”, even though all but one of them is a TLUD.  It 
>>>>> is unfortunate that the fictions that “solid fuels cannot be 
>>>>> burned cleanly”, and “only fans work”, and “coal cannot be burned 
>>>>> cleanly” because it contains “pollution” are repeated by those who 
>>>>> should know their field better.  Making these statements makes the 
>>>>> speaker look like a disconnected amateur. Modern Austrian 
>>>>> fireplaces are cleaner than most very improved stoves and they are 
>>>>> made of brick for heaven’s sake. They are not even ‘stoves’. The 
>>>>> Russians are building ‘bell’ heat exchangers that are brilliant.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IC stove community has to start living in the present.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a test of the laboratory air at the SEET lab and the 
>>>>> emissions of a cross draft stove (currently reproduced exactly by 
>>>>> a small local welding shop in Ulaanbaatar):
>>>>>
>>>>> [[ Image deleted from copy of message.]]
>>>>>
>>>>> These two Dusttraks were compared with each other before this 
>>>>> photo was taken. They agreed within 2 micrograms at a 
>>>>> concentration of more than 400.  The one on the left is brand new, 
>>>>> brought by LBNL (Berkeley) measuring the ambient air (195µg/m^3 ) 
>>>>> and the one on the right is from SEET Lab sampling directly from 
>>>>> the chimney (0µg/m^3 )./That/is a clean stove.//The dirty air 
>>>>> going into the stove is being cleaned by the fire, while burning 
>>>>> wet lignite: 50% volatiles (AD) and 26% moisture.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is high time to admit that coal and indeed wood can be burned 
>>>>> by a number of methods extremely well.  No fuel has a monopoly on 
>>>>> cleanliness.  The concept of a ‘dirty fuel’ is archaic and was 
>>>>> never correct. It was always a misconception.
>>>>>
>>>>> Equally incorrect is the idea that ethanol, for example, is a 
>>>>> ‘clean fuel’. I have just seen a test of an ethanol stove that 
>>>>> doesn’t come close to meeting the South African kerosene stove 
>>>>> test requirement at high power or low. This is quite common. Most 
>>>>> ethanol stoves are not very clean when it comes to CO. They 
>>>>> literally can’t hold a candle to the stoves sold in Ulaanbaatar 
>>>>> that burn lignite. Why? Bad combustion.
>>>>>
>>>>> What’s next? China of course. And India. Why should their stove 
>>>>> programmes be held back by errant preconceptions originating 
>>>>> within the ‘clean air’ and ‘clean stove’ communities? If the clean 
>>>>> air and clean stove communities can’t keep up with reality, others 
>>>>> will step in to lead. Projects are not going to be willing to 
>>>>> spend $50m on junk science claims. Or $500m.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul, you are correct to ask for references. The method of burning 
>>>>> coal “TLUD” is called the ‘Scotch Method’ in South African and 
>>>>> goes back over a century. I believe Prof Lloyd has some sources 
>>>>> for that because he was thinking about the problem in the mid-70’s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards to all
>>>>>
>>>>> Crispin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In case you have not seen this, micro-gasifiers have received some significant recognition (ESMAP + GACC 2015 publication, page 90).
>>>>> https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf   
>>>>>
>>>>>      “*The most exciting technology trend in the biomass cookstove
>>>>>     sector is*
>>>>>
>>>>>     *the growing range of forced draft and natural draft gasifier
>>>>>     stoves*.  These stoves have shown the greatest
>>>>>
>>>>>     potential to improve health and environmental outcomes, at
>>>>>     least under
>>>>>
>>>>>     laboratory conditions.”  (ESMAP 2015, p. 90).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Stoves mailing list
>>>>
>>>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org 
>>>> <mailto: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://stoves.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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>>
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto: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://stoves.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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20150921/cb6c4645/attachment.html>