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

[Paul Anderson]

Crispin,

I do not get such correspondence from the GACC.  Please send me one item 
with the boilerplat paragraph..   ANYONE else can send me one.

Thanks.

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 5/7/2017 5:03 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> 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
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website: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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170507/972d0844/attachment.html>