[Stoves] China and cookstoves [Was Re: A user-centered, iterative engineering approach for advanced biomass cookstove design and development]

Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson at comcast.net
Mon Dec 4 22:47:10 MST 2017


List cc Nikhil

	I continue this exchange mainly to call attention to the very good work of GACC,  EPA, and most stove researchers around the world - that I find Nikhil illogically and continually disparaging.

	 Nikhil responded to only a small  part of my message below intended to support the decades of work Gordon West’s work.  I was trying in the thee sentences aboutto make the point that Gordon knows the developing country focus of this list.   Yes,  I was trying also to blunt Nikhil’s continuing and unfounded criticism of GACC and EPA by bringing in the message about not providing Puerto Rico help - as we couldn’t.   I invite Nikhil to address more of my message on Gordon - and especially my last sentence. referring to charcoal-making stoves.




 
   	Ten more inserts below


> On Dec 4, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> Ron: 
> 
> I repeat my request - please stop mischaracterizing I wrote. I did not chastise GACC and EPA for not operating in Puerto Rico.
	[RWL1:  I continue to believe your primary and continuing intent has been to disparage both GACC and EPA.   See specific examples below in my responses RWL 6-10 that prove my point.   They follow RWL3 -5 that relate only to Puerto Rico, which I believe do not demonstrate “mischaracterizing”.


> (In fact, Jose Andres - GACC’s brand ambassador - did go as I mentioned.) 
	[RWL2:   This “mentioned” was in your (Nikhil’s) message of 12 November, which I now provide in its entirety (I’ve added emphases).  


Nikhil stated then re Andres:

"Here an example of how a FEMA contract helped on the ground. 

The Story of World Central Kitchen, the Nonprofit Serving Millions of Meals to Puerto Rico <https://www.eater.com/2017/11/10/16623204/world-central-kitchen-jose-andres-puerto-rico-haiti-houston>, José Andrés's nonprofit aims to change the world “through the eyes of a chef” - Monica Burton  Nov 10, 2017 

Not much detail, but I imagine LPG and diesel generators provided the energy. There is a fraudulent reference to GACC as a “ UN foundation", but Chef Jose Andres surely knows more about cooking than TC-285 and WHO. 
	[RWL3:  I took/take this last sentence to be a slam on GACC as well as TC-285 and WHO, as they are part of the same sentence.  The TC-285 and WHO topics are NOT primarily cooking - their topics are horribly inefficient and unhealthy STOVES.  
	 I remember only a very few examples where anyone on this list has provided a recipe.   I doubt Andres (a Spaniard) claims much expertise on the developing country stoves that GACC and this list are trying to improve.  
	Andres was not recruited to provide guidance on improving stoves.  It is remarkable how much he has contributed to raising consciousness of how badly the traditional ones perform.  I think Nikhil and I agree that Andres has done some admirable work in supporting (gratis) the work of GACC.

Eater.com <http://eater.com/> stories are all about restaurants for the rich in rich cities, mostly in rich countries, but that only underscores the main point I first saw articulated in Anil Rajvanshi’s proposal on "rural cafeterias" - the rich get attention on cooking and delivering food and beverages to the plates and cups, whereas the poor are trapped in stovers/WHO mythology of efficiencies, climate change, and "health benefits" of "clean cookstoves". 
	[RWL4:   It is amazing that you attach the words “stovers” and “mythology” to any of the 10 words following.  Efficiency and health benefits may be unimportant to you, but your claim their being mythical shows you don’t understand much about the purpose/value of this list.   
	This list places little emphasis on climate change - but it is unfathomable why you would mention “ climate change” here as mythical. 
	 You have never given a logical reason to disparage WHO’s work on stoves - except your (pretty much sole) opinion that the medical community is incapable of attributing deaths and DALYs to anything but whim.  Your continued dissing of experts like Kirk Smithand the Berkeley group is unjustified - unjustified because there is only opinion - only your own unsupported opinion.

The tragedy of poverties - the poor get served rich theories and fantasies of "international standards". I credit GACC for raising awareness about cooking, but blame it for the diverting monies to useless research and imperial dinners. 
	[RWL5:   I am not an expert on international standards, but I am a registered part of the US delegation for ISO-285.    I know ISO-285 (especially about the water boiling test) well enough to assert that you are not an expert either.  So, cutting this short, through the above emphasized words I want this list’s readers to ask whether that those above emphasized words show bias and should not be trusted.  I am at a loss why you should have such venom toward the GACC group (that has provided major help on a hugely difficult problem).  To repeat:  GACC and EPA are outstanding organizations doing stellar work that should be praised, not ridiculed.
	
	(to remind, the above was Nikhil’s proof from 22 November that he was NOT critical of GACC and EPA.   We can now turn to the main topic of this response with Nikhil’s response today)

Nikhil said today:
> 
> What I wrote instead was 
> 
> "It is curious that many organizations rushed to Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. But that was because of the Clinton glamour.
		[RWL6:   “glamour” is not justified.  Better a word like “global stature”.   Having the world’s most admired woman support stove advancement was of great benefit to the poor worldwide.   I take your "glamour” word choice to be an intentional putdown of GACC  - because Clinton was the main reason there is a GACC.
	
> By contrast, none of the organizations in and around this GACC venture of EPA have the funds or the interest in doing anything in Puerto Rico.
		[RWL7:  I take your claimed lack of “interest” to also be an unjustified putdown - of both GACC and EPA.  And inaccurate.

> After all, that is a part of the US, and The Donald has repeatedly dissed Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans; none of the EPA contractors in the “clean cookstove" bandwagon stand to gain anything in the face of cynical politics by the US President. "
		[RWL8:  I interpret this to mean that EPA contractors didn’t act because of fear of Trump.   I repeat that experts in the topics of GACC and this list had little to contribute.  It was not because they didn’t “stand to gain anything”.    
		I am trying to point out to readers who believe that you have an important message that you don’t.  That instead you have for some reason been offended by GACC, EPA or people on this list making stove improvement efforts.

> 
> Whatever Puerto Rico's per capita income, victims of disaster deserve help. Instead of merely fiddling around with boiling water and saving the climate. 
		[RWL9: Of course most on this list can agree with the first sentence.  But I see no reason to slam those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement.  The term “fiddling around” is juvenile. 
	Re the water boiling test,  I have been told that last month there was an official vote in the Group 2 team to drop the “denominator equation” as part of their now complete report.  Soundly defeated I am told.
  	Even worse is your casting ridicule on “saving the climate.”

> 
> I explicitly addressed the fact of how funds are earmarked. I would have been impressed if anybody stepped in and tried to help Puerto Ricans cook. Or use solar panels and batteries - why, even cheap solar lanterns like in Haiti earthquake. 
		[RWL10:   I don’t see how solar anything relates to this list’s efforts or anything I said about Gordon West    I have already addressed that this list and GACC/EPA had no way to help in Puerto Rico.   Is Nikhil here criticizing some biomass stove group who hadn’t “stepped in”?

> 
> Obviously, not only does money speak, only EPA money speaks. 
		[RWL11:  You have here maligned some very fine hard-working and highly motivated EPA friends.


	Also forgot in my follow-up (below)  to Gordon’s statement (also below, with the three sentences to which Nikhil took offense) to thank Gordon for his agreement on stove use providing income.  I look forward to hearing whether anyone (including Nikhil) disagrees with that “income” side to stove use.  That is what we should be talking about.  

	Also to thank Paul Anderson for his response to Crispin today on this same topic.

To sum up:  I have taken the time to respond so as to point out to stove list members that Nikhil’s view of global stove activity is unfathomable.  He seems convinced that almost everything in the stove world is being done badly and for the wrong reasons.  Especially by GACC and the EPA.   He is ill-informed.

Ron  (writing as the first coordinator of this list - 20+ years experience in seeing mistaken views)

> 
> Nikhil
>  
> 
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
> List and Nikhil:
> 
> 	Several more points, not mentioned below,  to lend added weight to Gordon’s observations:
> 
> 	a.  I wrote a few months ago about my visit to Gordon’s operations near Silver City New Mexico, which I visited because I had heard (on this list) that Gordon was developing a TLUD with continuous feed.   I liked what I saw - and still don’t know of anything similar.  I also saw many dozens of of different types of batch operated TLUD stoves.  His are NOT new thoughts.
> 
> 	b.   Gordon and his crew have operated TLUDs also in Mexico.   Nikhil recently chastised GACC and EPA for not operating in Puerto Rico, whereas they had in Haiti.  It would have made no sense to do our type of stove working Puerto Rico - as its annual family income (although last in the US) is above $20k.  They long ago gave up wood in favor of cooking with electricity and fuel oils.   Gordon is describing a cooking system that would work in all these countries - for the good of our environment - and at a cost savings.
> 	
> 	c.   Gordon doesn’t mention that his fuel is largely designed to improve presently overgrown and unhealthy forests.   A huge problem in Colorado and much of the US.  Rwanda not that, but Rwanda can also benefit.
> 
> 	d.   Note the words below:  “free fuel”, “investments” ,   “fundamental lifecycle problems”.   Anyone able to describe another stove type that can do those things?  
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Gordon West <gordon.west at rtnewmexico.com <mailto:gordon.west at rtnewmexico.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> I want to support Ron in his point and to provide a scenario to help to explain it. We are a relatively new ‘stoves’ R&D company and manufacturer operating in the U.S. Our business plan is not directly relevant to the markets that are the major focus of this list, but there are some significant developments in our world carrying what should be a disruptive lesson for biomass cooking strategies.
>> 
>> The basic lesson, which we are creating a business model for, is this: the biochar that is produced from our TLUD appliances is worth many times more that the biomass feedstock going in. This is true on a triple-bottom-line basis, looking at direct economics, social benefits, and environmental benefits - note that global economic systems generally acknowledge only only transactions involving sale for currency as “making money” even though the other non-monetized benefits result in greater lifecycle economic good than the direct sales do.
>> 
>> First let me make the distinction between fuel and feedstock - this is a very important point. Fuel is burned for energy; feedstock is used to make other products. In our TLUD process, biomass is always feedstock, from which is produced char and a flammable gas (a fuel). 
>> 
>> One problem with micro-production of biochar (cookstoves and heaters in households) is that the char does not have enough value to cover the cost of aggregation and sale to existing markets - and existing markets are poorly developed, partly because of a lack of supply. Our solution is to establish community scale biochar+heat systems that acquire local biomass for feedstock, process it into char and heat, use the heat to dry more incoming biomass, and densify it into pellet or briquet feedstock. The densified and bagged feedstock can then be distributed to micro-producers to make heat for cooking or other uses while making more char. We plan to give the micro-producers free dried and densified feedstock in trade for their char. “We”, in this case, will be a regional biochar cooperative that will handle technology distribution and operation, biomass processing and feedstock distribution, and biochar aggregation and marketing. 
>> 
>> This approach solves many problems - the households get free feedstock, saving significant amounts of time and money; the feedstock is of a much higher quality - it is dry and consistent and dense, making stove operation safer and better; the char is aggregated into a marketable form; carbon is sequestered; adding CO2 to the atmosphere is avoided; soils and biomass productivity is enhanced; and water is saved. There are many more benefits, but those are some top examples.
>> 
>> In the U.S. we have the numbers to show that we can make a business out of this approach. In more distressed areas, governments and NGOs, who have more of an interest in the non-monetized triple-bottom-line benefits, could set up the core biochar+heat facilities to produce free feedstock for micro-producers and manage the char collection. The subsidies to do this would actually be long-term investments, and not bandaids like so many ‘help for the poor’ efforts are.
>> 
>> Burning local biomass to ash in cookstoves for heat does not really solve any fundamental lifecycle problems, no matter how cleanly it is done.
>> 
>> Gordon West
>> The Trollworks
>> 503 N. “E” Street
>> Silver City, NM 88061
>> 575-537-3689 <tel:(575)%20537-3689>
>> 
>> An entrepreneur sees problems as the seeds of opportunity.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nikhil:
>>> 
>>> 	I hope you (and almost everybody on this list) will take the time to ask a few low-income women the below-question that I have not seen asked.  
>>> 
>>> 	 If you could imagine yourself having a batch stove that cost the same and used the same fuel whether you (now low income) would rather make money or not, what would your own answer be?
>>> 
>>> 	None of your answer below gets at what I am asking.  I repeat;  I have not seen any survey with this question.  I have talked to many people about this for twenty-plus years individually - and I have gotten the answer that I want others to get.
>>> 
>>> 	Obviously I am asking this so as to get char in the ground.  Obviously for climate reasons.  But soil NPP improvement also occurs - without conflict.  All this is obvious on the sister biochar list.  I am trying to get this list aware of biochar as a positive part of stoves and cooking.  It is of no help to hear your answers about fuel collection, making observations, cooks making money with kerosene stoves,  non-wood stoves taking over, large-scale cooking , etc.  None of your answers get at the question of the value in making char while one cooks.  It is not a difficult question to answer.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Ron: 
>>>> 
>>>> That is an interesting question but the answer has to be compared to alternative means of making money. 
>>>> 
>>>> Reduction in fuel collection time is one form of saving; the time freed up can be used for higher-priority activity, including education, child care, or employment. 
>>>> 
>>>> In other words, answers to this question can only be interpreted with additional, context-specific information or questions. In and of itself, it is a meaningless question. 
>>>> 
>>>> There are indirect ways of gathering people's priorities -- observing what they in fact do. 
>>>> 
>>>> Here is what I have observed over the last several decades: 
>>>> 
>>>> 1. In India, housewives in cities and towns have indeed made money by cooking, though on kerosene and LPG/electricity and preparing dry/canned/frozen foods as well as fresh meals and snacks for sale. 
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Roughly a billion people in the developing world have moved away from collecting woodfuels and cooking all the meals for family consumption. 
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Family size and composition, location, alternatives and priorities in use of women's time have changed. 
>>>> 
>>>> 4. Charcoaling from own or others' trees is an income-generating activity, but whether a cook wants to spend her time to do the same is open to question. She might well want to do for selling locally as fuel but not to some central authority for biochar. 
>>>> 
>>>> Your question may be better directed to commercial, large-scale cooks, who are probably easier customers for biomass and coal stoves anyway compared to poor households. 
>>>> 
>>>> Nikhil
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Nikhil Desai
>>>> (US +1) 202 568 5831 <tel:(202)%20568-5831>
>>>> Skype: nikhildesai888
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>> Paul:
>>>> 
>>>> 	I have yet to see on ANY stove questionnaire:  “How important is making (more than saving) money when you cook?”
>>>> 
>>>> Ron
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Crispin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Good point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder how ofter "pride of ownership" is included in the evaluations.   
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope that such a quesiton can be asked to the 40,000 (or a sample) users of the Champion TLUD stove in West Bengal.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> About surveys and questionnaires and interviews, (whether for stoves or other topics), questions keep being changed, so comparison between results are often difficult or meaningless because of wording.   Are there some common (shared) questions that tend to be used in stove surveys?   
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paul
>>>>> 
>>>>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>>>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>>>>> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <tel:(309)%20452-7072>
>>>>> Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
>>>>> On 12/3/2017 5:35 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>>>>>> In the survey of potential stove users conducted in Gauteng 2004, "Pride of ownership" scored above price and fuel consumption in a ranking of features. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Philip confirms this aspect of reality in the South African market. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards 
>>>>>> Crispin 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> “Capital cost of the stove is a minor issue; the question is whether the users like and use the stove.” A community I studied carefully had a monthly household income of <$100 yet strove to buy a smokey cast iron coal-fired stove costing ~$400.  It met all their needs – including a higher social status merely because they possessed such a stove.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Prof Philip Lloyd
>>>>>> Energy Institute, CPUT
>>>>>> PO Box 1906
>>>>>> Bellville 7535
>>>>>> Tel 021 959 4323
>>>>>> Cell 083 441 5247
>>>>>> PA Nadia 021 959 4330
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] On Behalf Of Nikhil Desai
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 1:50 AM
>>>>>> To: Paul Anderson
>>>>>> Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] China and cookstoves [Was Re: A user-centered, iterative engineering approach for advanced biomass cookstove design and development]
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Paul: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Capital cost of the stove is a minor issue; the question is whether the users like and use the stove. This is why contextual definitions matter, because pellet production costs can vary greatly depending on the feedstock. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A high capital cost stove can be given one-time subsidy - should be given to the distributor if one exists; could be given to a bulk producer - on the condition that the stoves are found useful and used. Metrics of efficiency and hourly emission rates are just smoke. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am glad to read "it is something about family, a cultural thing, especially in country side." Gives the lie to physics-only theories of supposed "stove science". 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nikhil
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>> Cheng and all,   (and a mention of Todd Albi).     see below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>>>>>> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>>>>>> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <tel:%28309%29%20452-7072>
>>>>>> Website:  www.drtlud.com <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7Ccrispinpigott%40outlook.com%7C62b2f8c8c9bf4c43283c08d53a40c4b8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636478972205853695&sdata=PbkCfNM6hUmnmoyj1uEbhKXufYiC9MFTSc3ueAqhjNU%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>> On 11/29/2017 10:15 PM, lh cheng wrote:
>>>>>> Another Chinese little project. Surely, it is cookstove, not heater. Too expensive, 1500RMB (230 USD), in rural area, a big number, very big, no one buy, not even one, in rural area. For user, many uncertainties to use new type of stove. if free of charge, a trustworthy friend who is an expert about this stove, that might be fine.
>>>>>> I was wondering about the price of that pellet burner stove.  Yes, it is expensive, but expensive is a relative term.   It could be imported into America where $230 is inexpensive, but the price here would be so much higher and it would then be expensive here.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> stove thing should be open-source ( just like Dr Anderson's Champion Stove ), DIY, or made by acquaintance, it is something about family, a cultural thing, especially in country side. In city, electricity or LPG is enough.
>>>>>> Is there any prospect in China for DIY.   And what would be the acceptance of a stove made with thin metal?   Generalizing, it seems that heavy construction of stoves is the standard in China.   Todd Albi might be able to shed some light on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> a good approach for stove design maybe is that, basic knowledge of stove design spread among people, and people help each other.
>>>>>> What do you have in mind?    in the context of China?   I have difficulty imagining stove design work in China outside of the factory context.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> concerning "stove intervention", during 1959-1961 in China, more than 30 millions of people died because a stove intervention movement. and people have memories.
>>>>>> Please provide more information about this statement about 30 million deaths.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Welcome to the world of the Stoves Listserv.   We appreciate your insights.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> best regards 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/>
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171204/0dc98d3e/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list