[Stoves] Coal and biochar stoves

Todd Albi todd.r.albi at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 14:20:05 MDT 2015


Crispin:

Will do, thanks.  Appreciate the publication update.

Regards,

Todd

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Todd
>
> Are you able to access an article in last week's Nature that talks about
> PM2.5 exposure and health?
>
> It is quite relevant to this conversation.
>
> I add separately that in the wood burning world cooks are well aware of
> which species burn well and which create problems. There is a species of
> wood in Swaziland that has a net negative energy content as harvested (and
> found in a woodpile). The same should apply to coal, peak, lignite and so
> on. Some stoves really suck at burning bituminous and semi-bituminous coal.
>  ‎Others are specifically designed for it.
>
> Cecil says people are an important factor in emissions from a stove
> because they know (or don't) how to use the fuels and co-fire etc.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> Thanks Crispin,
>
> Agreed!
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Todd
>
> You raise an interesting point and it should not be missed.
>
> Wood and coal both contain mercury, sulphur, lead, uranium and other heavy
> metals, and the fire emissions contain fly ash‎, polycyclic aromatic
> hydrocarbons, numerous chemical species, and particles of incomplete
> combustion including condensed volatiles.
>
> It would not be fair to ignore the emissions from any fire. Also it is
> unfair to require testing on coal fires and not wood fires. The inherent
> emissions are different for different fuels. Categories of fuel include:
>
> Wood
> Other biomass
> Peat lignite
> Coal
> Semi-coked fuels
> Coke
> Charcoal
> Densified biomass
> Torrefied wood
>
> The toxic contents occur in different concentrations and combinations. It
> is reasonable to assess fuels individually. There are toxic woods and toxic
> coals. There are toxic emissions. Toxicity is strongly dependent on
> concentration.
>
> When you consider what and how well something needs to be burned one rule
> should apply to all. No pet fuels.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
> Stovers:
>
> I'm confused.  Coal & Biomass stove disconnect?  No one is discussing the
> dissimilarities.
>
> Is this a logical?  The discussion of coal combustion must address
> Mercury, fly ash and other heavy metal pollution, not just run of the mill
> biomass combustion pollution.  Water and air pollution contamination are
> other major health concerns.  Mining and transporting coal has wide
> documented health impacts.
>
> Don't we have to ask although coal maybe combusted cleanly with very well
> designed stove compared to an inefficient coal stoves, advanced scrubber
> technologies are not affordable or practical for household stoves.
>
> Do any of the biomass stove testing entities have or can afford coal
> emission testing technologies?  Currently I am not aware of any biomass
> testing organization that has the sophistication or equipment for heavy
> metal emission testing, or am I incorrect?
>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Albi, SilverFire,
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Stovers,
>
> Coal and biomass stoves:
>
> Similarities:
>
> 1) They both have the same goal of producing a clean secondary flame used
> to boil water.
> 2) They both have achieved this goal (Crispin and Dean - and others)
> 3) They both have the three types of energy: a) pyrolysis gases b) solid-C
> > CO and c) CO > CO2
> 4) During optimization the three energy types are adjusted via primary air
> to produce the best ratio.
>
> Because they are so much the same and manipulated the same to optimize
> conditions for the secondary I believe the coal stoves should be included
> in our discussions. They start with different ratios of the three energy
> types and it would be very interesting (to me) to know what the ratio is
> just before entering the secondary flame when burning clean. I wonder if
> they are the same or if we can learn ranges and limits to the ratios we
> need to achieve. As we get better testing techniques to study what goes on
> in combustion chambers it would aid us to include the info from coal stoves.
>
> Real problem is Stove Labs need more money!  That to purchase testing
> equipment for their research, added personal and they should be testing
> more stoves.
>
> as I see it…
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
> franke at cruzio.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150924/61f49525/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list