<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoNoSpacing, li.MsoNoSpacing, div.MsoNoSpacing
{mso-style-priority:1;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:5.0pt;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:0mm;
margin-left:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
p.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, li.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast, div.MsoNoSpacingCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:1;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0mm;
margin-right:0mm;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:0mm;
mso-add-space:auto;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I will take this as your position:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>MAIN POINT: This is a great example of missed opportunities because there has never been seriously funded research on the multitude of controllable variables in TLUD stoves!!! We can see the possible variations. But we cannot prove them one way or the other simply by funding them out of the pocketbooks of Paal, Paul, Crispin and others. YEARS AGO we should have resolved the issues of the Vesto stove being operated as a TLUD, or as a different type of stove. The Peko Pe features should be better understood. As should the issues of Nurhuda's stove, and Belonio's, and Anderson's and others. Even people who have resisted TLUD technology for years are becoming involved and still there is nearly zero coordination. And any financial support seems to be by-passing the people with experience with micro-gasifiers, and instead is seeking isolated academic modelling that (I suspect) will take years to have academic results. So be it, but let's also give some funds to the practitioners. <br><br><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And this as your call for direction of funding:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><u>With all due respect</u> for the need for proper "technology neutral" distribution of funding, I am getting very tired of "technology neutral" that gives equal (or more) weight to giving money (big money) to "business-ready" operations that can start cranking out stoves to be counted toward the 100 million by 2020. Instead, the leading technology for lowest emissions from solid-fuel cookstoves is TLUD (and other micro-gasification), and it is not yet getting BASIC support that is needed. <br><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>I have a problem with the justification. I don’t see support going for product development at all. The University of Johannesburg commercialisation is funding (tiny) some actual blue sky product development. Who else is? But the statement that a TLUD is ‘the leading technology for lowest emissions is based on what, exactly?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The lowest emissions of any stoves I have ever tested are all coal stoves. They could have been made for burning wood and indeed are ignited with wood, but it is important to point out that a high carbon fuel can be burned with extremely low gas and PM emissions. The main claim for the cleanliness of a TLUD is that it produces very low PM ‘because it is a TLULD’ mode pyrolyser or gasifier making char (i.e. avoiding the burning of the carbon which is implicitly blamed for creating the PM and CO with lots of fuel bed analysis. By that I mean the way the fuel is broken down into combustible gases is well described.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Now please consider a stove type which has <i>lower</i> PM emissions and does exactly the same thing: breaking down the fuel into gases and does a good job of burning it. Why is your call for research into these not included? If they are cleaner than the current crop of TLUD’s are they to be included?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is where you lose me (my support) when the claim is put forth that there is only a TLUD which has really low emissions. It was stated quite off-handedly a few years ago, again at the Bangkok conference (without evidence) and has been repeated since. It is just not true. There are lots of clean combustors. The Austrians are doing wonderful work on biomass burners. Further, there are significant limitations imposed on the cook when a TLUD is used which I won’t discuss in detail here, but the goal is not to support a <i>device type</i> that happens to get the combustion parameters right. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><br>As you know there is a divergence of opinion between those who want to produce charcoal and those who want to cook a meal with the fuel they have. This is no trifling matter. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The matter of refuelability is very important to users. I can report from the field that people in a great many cases do not like the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Having to decide in advance of cooking how much fuel to add to the chamber before ignition<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not being able to significantly refuel the stove while it is running<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not having significant control over the power<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not being able to use unprocessed fuel (meaning not cut and or chopped)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not having any smoke to flavour the food<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not having hot coals to roast food on<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Not being able to turn it off<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Having to deal with end-of-run smoky ash.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The most strongly voiced objection in Indonesia was related to fuel preparation. As soon as a conversation started about improved stoves people volunteered that they were not interested in anything that required the fuel to be chopped into little pieces. “Don’t even start with that.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>So what do we know is clean burning?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The Berkeley paper on stove comparisons (October) states that they did not include coal stoves because, basically, ‘people should not burn coal’. In the webinar the matter was raised and Michael gave a quite different answer. When a second question was put forward asking for an explanation of the response the moderator did not allow it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If coal stoves had been included in the analysis, it would have been perfectly obvious to anyone reading the paper that the new ones are by far the cleanest burning in terms of PM and CO - the things we are supposed to be minimising – and the best ones would have been sitting on the bottom left corner of Tier 4, more like Tier 6. Omitting them was inexcusable. Some were TLUD’s and some were not. If they were really worried about the CO and PM emissions they would have included every available technology. That means anything someone has shown to be very clean burning. You are worried about funding for further development of a certain type of burner – I am still trying to get the reviews to even admit the burners <i>exist</i>! When confronted with the reality of their extraordinarily low emissions, they chose to invent excuses (2) not to report them at all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Surprisingly I am not suggesting we all start building coal stoves. It is not universally available and coal is limited. But carbonised biomass will be with us forever and we should know how to burn it properly. What I am pointing out is that the cleanest burning stoves are still not reported on, let alone investigated as to why they work so well. What would happen if we took the lessons from the designs and applied them to other fuels? You follow? There is nothing magical about TLUD’s. Other combustors are just as clean using the same fuels. Why should research not be placed on all types of combustors?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>There is an overarching concern however. When these stoves were tested, what was the test? How do we know these results have value if the test was meaningless, or inappropriate? Are we drawing circles around our bullet holes saying, this stove is ‘right on target’ after the fact? It is a bit humiliating to stand in front of people and say, ‘These stoves were tested with a method that makes them look good; don’t worry about the details.’ <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>People want to see clean burning and fuel efficient stoves. TLUD’s are largely (but not always) clean burning. Fuel efficient? Not so much, because many of them are created deliberately or accidentally to create char. Producing char requires fuel beyond the needs of the cook. If the ‘test’ pretends that fuel was not consumed, then we have drawn a circle around the TLUD stove bullet hole, again.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Product development funding should go where promise has been demonstrated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></body></html>