[Stoves] "Char-MAKING stoves" Re: Stove Conf in Poland this month

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Paul

The solid fuels being something we should improve until clean fuels come along is a GACC thing and the toxins are inherent in the fuel is ‎a Berkeley thing. Calling CO2 a pollutant is an EPA thing.

The for former I can refer you to any piece of correspondence from GACC with its boilerplate concluding paragraph. For the second a good example is the Stove Comparison Chart document. Technically it is a GACC document written by Berkeley and paid for by the Canadian government. The case against coal is made in the introduction. It is classic Kirk Smith: coal (somewhere in SW China) contains fluorine which has terrible consequences therefore no one should burn coal. That is not a quote but is close enough.

In general the war on coal combines inherent emissions (the evaporation of toxic metals) with the emission of products of incomplete combustion, using fear of the unpreventable to attack the preventable, and sell the idea solid fuel is itself 'bad' while liquid and gaseous fuels are 'good'.

‎To the credit of Kirk, as Nikhil has repeatedly pointed out, his piece in favour of fossil fuels, promoting LPG, shows he is not against fossil fuels per se (assuming the biotic origin hypothesis is correct, they are limited in supply).

The basic arguments boil down to this: processed fuels are 'clean' and raw fuels are not, except natural gas.

A TLUD pyrolyser is a method of processing raw fuel to provide two,'clean fuels': wood gas and charcoal. We know that there is no such thing as a clean fuel. Neither wood gas nor charcoal gives a clean result unless burned properly.

In theory natural gas is easy to burn cleanly but if 'clean' were an inherent property, we wouldn't need national standards for NG combustors and we wouldn't have different burners for different altitudes with the rated altitude stamped on the metal of each. ‎We also wouldn't have different burner head-to-pot vertical gaps for the same stove in the European and N American markets which have different CO limits.

As you know I have been working on the clean combustion of coal for more than 15 years, with some success, as is mentioned briefly in the Stove Comparison ‎Chart. It says these stoves 'only appear to be clean'! That is the excuse used to leave them off the chart. If they were included, they would be clustered on the bottom left in what might be considered Tier 6 for PM and CO.  That rather effectively speaks against  the 'solid fuels are dirty' meme and the idea that they 'cannot be burned cleanly enough to provide significant health benefits'.

The Kyrgyzstan project shows clearly that the combination of a good stove design, correct installation and operation can indeed provide 'significant health benefits'. Even for dung burning stoves, and a 'significant effect' has been independently quantified by a highly regarded consortium (Fresh Air, have a look at their website).

Does anyone think the medical community and stove market will stand by while wordsmiths work out how to cast ‎aspersions on entire classes of cheap fuel and high performance stoves? Good grief, we are directly saving thousands of lives here, and not 'statistical ones' from GBD and IER number crunching.

Regards
Crispin



Crispin,

Please provide links or documents to support your statement:   (I do not doubt, but I want clear examples for everyone to see.
claiming, as the GACC does at the end of each piece of correspondence, that solid fuels are only permissible as an interim measure until ‘clean fuels’ are available (even if they are unaffordable). Having shown that solid fuels can be burned cleanly (for simplicity, you with wood, me with coal) the objections are that burning these solid fuels produces all sorts of toxins.
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
Website:  www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

On 5/6/2017 12:33 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
claiming, as the GACC does at the end of each piece of correspondence, that solid fuels are only permissible as an interim measure until ‘clean fuels’ are available (even if they are unaffordable). Having shown that solid fuels can be burned cleanly (for simplicity, you with wood, me with coal) the objections are that burning these solid fuels produces all sorts of toxins.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170507/13dba983/attachment.html>