<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: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 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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;}
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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.xapple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:x_apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle20
{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;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>1. I do not have a high regard for the Mayon rice husk stove. My experience was limited and several years ago, but I have not read of any substantial changes to the stove since then. <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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I was asked to have a go at it with two interns and that took place in my Waterloo workshop. The final results was a doubling of the system efficiency (maybe more) and the principal change was to reduce the amount of secondary air. At the time I was not in the least interested in producing rice hull char and tuned the burn to consume as much of it as possible. Because the stove is fed episodically and produces char that is easily removed while it is running, you could simply decrease the effectiveness of the combustion and have a higher carbon content in the char/ash. It would of course use more fuel to cook.<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>And we do not hear that it is being well accepted somewhere. <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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I think Roger is pretty fed up with the treatment he got from the Stoves group – particularly the mis-reporting of the (very low) emissions in a publicised report that led to the threat of law suit. Why should he share anything? What did we do for him? He developed the entire concept out of thin air. It does all sorts of things people are still striving for. It is not perfect, but it works and uses waste biomass and can be made and repaired locally. I only know of two countries where they are produced, maybe three because Eastern Gambia might be involved as well.<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>2. Where do I go to read the results of what stoves have passed the requirements of the Indonesia project? Did I miss an announcement? IMO, things like that should be announced with glee and fan-fare!<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'>Well, not surprisingly it was in Indonesia! I think you can find the links at the Collaboration for development ‘C4D’ site. No time to look it up now. It will include the word ‘launch’. (Wasn’t it posted here?) The next step is proposals from market aggregators who will develop making and value chains (on their own) and hopefully sell stoves people want to buy. The approved stoves are not the ‘usual suspects’. There are many new entrants. “Approved” means the product scored at least 1 star in each category of CO, PM and fuel efficiency. There are more stars available which attracts a higher subsidy to the vendor.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br>3. I am glad to hear that some TLUDs are approved in Indonesia, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO RECOGNITION FOR THE CHARCOAL PRODUCED (unless it is somehow consumed later in the same stove). <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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I think you have to consider what ‘recognition’ means in the context of an improved stove programme (only). There was no component in the pilot to create charcoal. We are creating a distribution system into which any stove can be inserted (if there is demand). The private sector now takes over and promotes stoves. If one of the promoters wants to, they can advertise the heck out of the char making ‘function’ and see who is interested. We are not ramming products down people’s throats. We are also not picking ‘winners’. Anything that comes by is rated. There is a minimum to get homologated.<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>It will be very interesting to have some study done (even if rather informal observations) about what the users of those stove actually will do with the charcoal, and if the char is acknowledged by the users as having some value or importance. <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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>That would show up in the public response.<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>I agree with Crispin that char is no longer the same as the original biomass fuel. Kg of biomass into the stove is gone (when calculating FUEL efficiency) even if there is about 20% of the Kg weight coming out as char (which is about 30% of the energy value of the biomass and about 50% of the carbon atoms of the biomass.). <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'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The metric involved was fuel efficiency. We have been over this many times on the list mostly for Ron’s interest and the difference should be clear by now. Thank you for emphasizing 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='color:#1F497D'>…</span>And the FINANCIAL "efficiency" (relating to cost of fuels or to benefits of possible increases in crop production because of biochar) could also be calculated, but would be more debated because of differing perceived values.<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'>I am very interested in seeing how that can be worked into programmes that allow for it. Stove promotion is not necessarily about the economic position of users. A value proposition has many factors and economic gain is one of them. A great many stoves in Central Java (the focus area) are used to earn income – far more than one might think before visiting the place. Cooking performance and fuel efficiency and fuel flexibility are high on the decision tree.<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>