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

Mon Sep 21 14:33:27 CDT 2015

“Ronald von Schwarzkohlebayern”?? Ronald of the Bavarian Black Coal
Society?? Him again? Oh no, disaster faces us all!

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Ronald Hongsermeier
Sent: 21 September 2015 05:17
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 <http://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 to
<http://drtlud.com/> 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 appropriatecoal-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:   <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> psanders at ilstu.edu   
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:   <http://www.drtlud.com/> 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 (195 µg/m3) and the one on the right is from SEET Lab sampling
directly from the chimney (0 µg/m3). 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>
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
 <mailto: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.bioenergylist
s.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/

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
 <mailto: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.bioenergylist
s.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/

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/20150921/7986abf0/attachment.html>