[Stoves] ON THE SIDE. Clean coal burning stoves Re: History of clean Chinese stove development.
Ronald Hongsermeier
rwhongser at web.de
Mon Sep 21 11:22:19 CDT 2015
Today one of my FB friends posted something to the effect that
ant-arctic ice levels and ocean coverage has reached unprecedented
levels. But no coverage by the media.
I have little hope that Larson will ever actually answer a post rather
than just blathering, but I have almost quit following the lists
completely because of his ilk.
i've been listening to my friends at the airport from the border police
for weeks now complaining about that they don't have staff to deal with
what's going on on the border with the "asylum seekers". They've already
reduced border police airport by 1/3 to help out, but that's not enough
and we can't shut down the whole country to deal with refugees -- or can
we? It may eventually have just that effect. But I'm just a negative
islamophobe ;-)
there is a non-arithmetic change towards not-good in the obama(nation).
my kids are actually afraid to go there because of the TSA stuff at
present and at the same time they're wondering how to defend ourselves
against muslim attackers without firearms. it's become an even more
crazy world.
peace,
ron
On 21.09.2015 17:38, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Well said, of course. He is a bully in the bully pulpit, that shaky
> edifice wobbling on a stack of self-reviewed self-serving agit-prop.
>
> I have been driving my wife to the eye clinic so was able to think of
> a response. I didn't read his earlier messages because they are
> predictable. I opened the one this morning accidentally.
>
> I had a feeling for the first time this morning that the huge urgent
> rush to get an ISO draft standard in place by the second week of
> November is related to the climate confab in Paris and some pending
> announcement from Hilary Clinton that will bolster her standing
> amongst women or some such. There is tremendous pressure to write
> something agreeable. It has given me space to bring some real science
> to the standard. The Chinese and some of the Indians are well ahead of
> the US teams in terms of conceptual understanding. Very interesting to
> watch. The others countries don't have a political agenda. Most
> consider biomass stoves of minor importance.
>
> Your message to Ron hits all the relevant nerves. It is interesting
> how similar the memes and attitudes are in stoves and climate. The EPA
> is the common element. It is a 'remarkable' organisation.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Crispin
>
> BBM 'Crispin'
> *From: *Ronald Hongsermeier
> *Sent: *Monday, September 21, 2015 11:18
> *To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Reply To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Clean coal burning stoves Re: History of clean
> Chinese stove development.
>
>
> On the contrary, Mr. Larson, your higher than thou, mightier than thou
> attitude is quite often lacking in consideration of the ultimate
> assumptions of your argumentation. Either coal, gas and oil are or are
> not the products of biomass. Which is it?
>
> You seem to assume the latter.
>
> I'm quite sorry to "waste your time" but you spend a _lot_ of time
> with what appears to me to be non-technical, non-scientific
> polit-babble. And I find your tone condescending and supremacist.
> Legislating that no one gets to use coal, oil and gas will insure that
> a lot of people will be bypassed by development until someday, when
> wind/solar renewables finally get to the end of the economic chain
> (i.e., the poorest of the poor). Taking advantage of already
> concentrated energy has been the driving force for development in the
> world. Please take into consideration the effects of what your
> proposals entail.
>
> hornet out.
>
>
> On 21.09.2015 14:43, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>> Ronald:
>>
>> This (a time-wasting message) is a good example of why I wrote my
>> note - reminding folks about the list topic - “discussion of biomass
>> (stoves)”.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2015, at 6:18 AM, Ronald Hongsermeier <rwhongser at web.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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> 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> 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/c01feb8b/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list