<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Paul and list:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1. I mostly agree with everything you say below. But mostly for reasons of wanting to save our valuable time, I now ask that this list stop talking about coal stoves. Biomass only stoves would be in accordance with the way we started up almost 20 years ago (as the first list coordinator, I think I wrote that sentence - which I gave a few days ago). It is worse than that we are wasting people’s time, with only one person ever bringing up coal and coal stove topics. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2. There was a concluding sentence in a Crispin message this AM whose origin is masked by Crispin that I find more offensive that the generally offensive material above it. If Crispin didn’t write these four pro-coal paragraphs and this sentence, </div><div><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre;"> </span><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span><i><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 15px;">“</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Forty years of failure - improved </span></i><i><span style="font-size: 15px;">wood stoves</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">. Forty more years? Our daughters deserve better.</span></i><span style="font-size: 15px;"><i>”</i></span></font></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><div>we deserve to know who did. And we can get rid of such trash with the understanding that offenders will have all their material reviewed before going out. Policing is not difficult.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3. . What is worse that we get totally erroneous denier-based non-stove pro-coal arguments - that too many list members are apt to believe. I am particularly incensed by Crispin’s ludicrous statement from this AM:</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><i style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">The feeling these days is that for a doubling of CO2 the global temperature will rise about 0.6 to 0.9 degrees.</i></div><div>A scientific rebuttal by a full time topic expert is at <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/challenges-constraining-climate-sensitivity.html">http://www.skepticalscience.com/challenges-constraining-climate-sensitivity.html</a> , showing Crispin is off by a factor of about 5. I’m sure Crispin strongly believes that the world’s largest ever scientific study (IPCC’s AR5) is dead wrong. So wrong he needn’t give a cite for the view from his own “Science” circle. I find this type of error so often I basically now disbelieve Crispin. This include his assertion that char produced in char-making stoves should receive no credit unless burned in that stove. How many dozens of list hours have been wasted on that topic - which I believe comes from a denier position?</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4. There are plenty of options available. If Crispin started a coal-stove list, I would attempt to join. I presume there should be some existing list that can serve the claimed need. I reject the idea that Crispin wrote today: “<i style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Change the purpose of the list so that the needs of hundreds of millions of ordinary people are not abandoned.</i><font color="#1f497d" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 15px;"><i>”, </i></span></font>since I can’t recall any such guidance ever going in the coal-using direction from this list<font color="#1f497d">.</font></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font color="#1f497d"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;"><font color="#1f497d"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>5. Re the other items in your list, see inserts below </font></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Sep 15, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Paul Anderson <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Ron, (to website)<br>
<br>
You make good points. But the devil is in the details, or in the
realities of our world.<br>
<br>
1. If the monitors of the Stoves Listserv want to enforce the
definition that we can only discuss biomass fuels and related
stoves, I will comply. However, until such a ruling is debated and
stated clearly, I contend that writing and talking about coal as a
cookstove fuel is informative and we all need to be aware of its
pros and cons, as well as the occasional mentions of LPG and
kerosene (paraffin). See more below.<br></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>RWL1: I am only concerned about coal - as the others can be made from biomass. Absoluely we should debate, but there is an existing rule already in place - that is being violated.</b></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
2. As much as I agree with you and the EPA on the issues of climate
change and CO2 increases in the atmosphere (being bad), there are
very very very few of us (off grid, etc, etc.) in the developed
countries who do not have a positive (bad) CO2 footprint every
day. By sending an email from Illinois, I use electricity that has
some mix of power that comes from fossil fuels. The EPA will leave
me alone. They should be after the big fish who emit much CO2.<br></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>[RWL2: Disagree. We have to move towards 100% RE. I of course fail also, but we must try. And Illinois will have to honor the CPP - and you will be responsible soon for less pollution - and you should be proud of that fact. And the costs need not increase.</b><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
3. An impoverished household in Mongolia or elsewhere that can cook
and heat cleanly (health-wise) with coal is another truly small fish
regarding its CO2 footprint. We should not be working or advocating
against them having coal-burning stoves that are CLEAN for their
health (CO2 is not poisonous). That is so, especially while we
affluent folks run around in automobiles and heat much larger homes
to probably warmer temperatures and also lavish ourselves with air
conditioning, with so much energy derived from fossil fuels. </div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>[RWL3: Agree CO2 is not poisonous - but that from fossil fuels (and 100 ppm already in the atmosphere) is a pollutant. We can demonstrate CO2 reductions, and they can/must help as well. This is what COP21 is all about - and I believe 193 countries will be agreeing that we have to do it - painful though it is. It is worse if we delay. I have my doubts that the world’s dirtiest city is going to become acceptable without getting off coal.</b><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<br>
4. One household is one small amount of CO2 that could be
justified, but would 100,000 households be a different story? Or
10 MILLION households, as could easily be the case if China turned
to using the new coal-stove design now in use in Mongolia? That
could be a lot of CO2 increase. But it would be a lot of CO2 if
those became LPG burners. Fuel supply is crucial. We cannot deny
people the opportunity to cook their meals or warm their homes
because "acceptable renewable" fuels are not available. Crispin, do
you have numbers (CO2, black carbon, methane, etc.) about the
climate impact of the new coal burners <u>in comparison with </u>the
climate impact of the old-style coal burners? How much better
(lower climate impact)? Is that improvement not sufficient
justification to stimulate (financially bolster) the transition from
the old to the new coal burners? Ron, could that improvement be
the realistic goal, or should the short term goal be the abolition
of all coal burning stoves?<br></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>[RWL4: Just as the Chinese have taken the global lead in PV, solar hot water, and wind - they will soon be leading in biochar and from char-making stoves. Yes the short-term goal should be abolition of coal-burning stoves. And the Chinese know they have to do it - and I congratulate them for their path (which can include improving their soils at the same time).</b><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
5. The GACC certainly embraces clean burning LPG and natural gas,
and would like to have clean-burning kerosene stoves. The GACC <i><u><b>either</b></u></i>
must condemn those "advanced" fossil fuels and their stoves <b><u>OR
</u></b>embrace coal with clean-burning coal stoves. To leave
LPG in and exclude coal is hypocrisy that must be addressed at the
GACC Forum in November. Either all cleanly burned fossil fuels and
their stoves must be acceptable to the GACC, or no fossil fuels
should be in the GACC discussions and programs. <br></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>[RWL5: There are more choices than you have given. We know how to make bioliquids. If fossil carbon had the pollution price it should be bearing (about $40/tonne CO2 per many estimates), there would be no question about folks everywhere planting the trees we need for both carbon neutrality and carbon negativity. Big parts of China are already seeing such a tax. China has planted more trees than the rest of the world combined. They are flaring much straw still today. They are one of the last countries to need to use coal. Why wouldn’t they want to move away from coal-burning? Especially as they have already made commitments (with Obama) that are pushing other countries. China does not need coal stoves.</b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I can understand Kirk Smith arguing for liquid fuels, but I am sure he would prefer bioliquids. The difference in cost between fossil and bio sources is insignificant, even when you ignore the fossil CO2 damages.</b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>As Dean Still has said today, we can get there. I know there is a long way to go in improving char-making cook stoves, with way too little funding going towards this target. I see some good work coming along - finally.<br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
We know (and are grateful) that leaders in the GACC and WB and EPA
do read the Stoves Listserv, although they seldom comment. The
comments in #5 above should have some reply by the end of October so
that the issue will be addressed at the November Forum, either with
or without GACC's agreement with #5. Fossil fuels with GOOD stoves
are either ALL IN or art ALL OUT. At the Forum, certainly the World
Bank and other financial backers of the Mongolia success will be
advocating for coal to be included, along with the attendees from
Mongolia. Other supporters should be those who work with LPG,
natural gas, and kerosene, otherwise they face opposition to the
continued inclusion of those fuels in any GACC programs. To exclude
them would be like making them automatic Tier 1 or Tier 0 (bad)
stoves and fuels.<br></div></blockquote><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>[RWL6: If GACC et al value carbon as is likely to come out of Paris, they won’t have to worry about prioritizing; they will emphasize renewables. It is time to give up on outdated, harmful technologies. Many large US firms put the pollution cost of carbon (such as the $40 above) - and then use the resulting savings against that target to do other right things. Since the EPA is the main agency behind the CPP (Clean Power Plan) - clearly anti-coal and pro-gas, they would be hypocritical to ignore the coal-bio difference with cook stoves.</b><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
It will be interesting to see who rises to advocate exclusion of all
fossil fuels and stoves. Being selective of some and not other
fossil fuels is not allowed. All in or all out!!! Or does
climate change trump family health?<br></div></blockquote><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><b>[RWL7: You need to explain this last question. We can improve both at the same time with the same stove hardware (and soil health).</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I have spent the last several days on the news that a Dutch Court recently told the Dutch government (after a case lasting many months) that it had to do a lot better than it was proposing in response to the EU agreements on CO2 reductions. They now have been ordered to reach 25% CO2 reduction by 2020 (and must appeal within about 10 days). I suggest many other groups could face similar legal judgments - with the strong rationale that we know (per IPCC AR5) that this is the cheapest approach, with the most beneficial health impacts. Stoves are in no way exempt from this consensus science view. By 193 countries signing off, they have already admitted the truth behind fossil CO2 damage projections. Deniers can claim otherwise - but they have lost this battle.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Ron<br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/15/2015 1:33 PM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:0FCBCB14-5951-4CAD-BDD6-606E2CF163FA@comcast.net" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Paul cc list</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Well
- I have to disagree. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Our
EPA has declared that CO2 from all fossil fuels is a pollutant.
That was held up in the US Supreme Court. Most of the world
agrees that fossil fuel CO2 needs to be eliminated and that is
what COP21 in Paris is about.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> Per
the latest IPCC documents, we have to get off all fossil fuels.
And so I hope that GACC will stay away from endorsing any coal,
oil, or natural gas consuming stove. Those fuels don’t need the
help of this list or GACC. Biomass can supply all those forms
of energy anyway - in most cases cheaper where biomass cook
stoves are now in use.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="widows: 1;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Additionally
the guiding words for this list emphasize it is for biomass.
[“<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); widows:
1;"><font face="Verdana, Tahoma, DejaVu Sans, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><u><b>Our
site is dedicated to helping people develop better
stoves for cooking with biomass fuels in developing
regions.”]</b></u></span></font></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ron</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Sep 15, 2015, at 6:01 AM, Paul Anderson <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" style="font-family:
Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Dear
ALL,
(post to<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://drtlud.com/" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">drtlud.com</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>website)<br>
<br>
EVERYONE should carefully read Crispin's message (below). I
cannot substantiate his comments about specific stoves, and
we will hope that Prof. Lloyd will send references about the
Scotch Method.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, I am IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH CRISPIN. Read each
line, soak it in. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
Concerning the stoves in Mongolia, of course I am delighted
that:
<blockquote type="cite"><span>all but one of them is a TLUD.</span></blockquote>
But that is not the issue. The issue is that low grade
coal is able to be burned cleanly in sufficiently
inexpensive cookstoves for the climate and culture. Note
that those Mongolian stoves have an important function for
household heating, helping to justify the higher costs of
stoves with heavier metal. The probable financial
assistance ("subsidy" to the purchaser) can be justified in
the clean air accomplishments that benefit not just the
impoverished people, but also all of the wealthy who want
clean air both locally and internationally (global air
quality issues are important). <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
The Mongolian stoves are not being proclaimed as being for
tropical areas where the stove constructions and costs need
to be different.<br>
<br>
About coal as fuel for stoves and home heaters: Coal needs
to be included in the fuels for cookstoves WHEN COUPLED WITH
CLEAN-BURNING STOVES. When that is the case, the only major
"negative characteristic" is that coal is a fossil fuel
(being carbon positive to the atmosphere). Well, that also
applies to LPG !!!! which is a very highly regarded fuel
for clean cookstoves. Double standards are not acceptable.
This issue needs to be addressed!!! <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
And it should be addressed at least by the time of the GACC
Forum in Ghana on 10 -13 Nov where a resolution or statement
or declaration (or whatever groups do) could be officially
made about the acceptability of coal as a cookstove fuel
WHEN USED IN CLEAN-BURNING STOVES.<br>
<br>
None of the above is against fan-assisted stoves or natural
draft TLUDs. Instead, the effort is to get coal and the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b><u>appropriate</u></b>coal-burning
stoves added to the list of contributing solutions to the
world's cookstove problems.<br>
<br>
Comments please to the Stoves Listserv.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/2015 10:45 PM, Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL401-EAS341D5127111A321E8227536B15C0@phx.gbl" type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height:
normal; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;"><span>That linked document has this to
say: “</span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;
font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: windowtext;">For
biomass cooking, pending further evidence from the
field, significant health benefits are possible only
with the highest quality fan gasifier stoves…”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height:
normal; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;
font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height:
normal; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;"><span>I don’t know who invented that idea
– it is traceable to Kirk Smith (Bangkok, Nov 2010)
but I think the concept that ‘the only really clean
stoves are fan assisted gasifiers’ is older than
that. Maybe it emerged from Berkeley. It doesn’t
matter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height:
normal; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;
font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: windowtext;"> </span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>It is not true.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Is that clear enough? How
else can we say it? It is not true that the only
really clean stoves are fan assisted gasifiers. This
caution is also contained in the statement, “It is
not true that the only really clean stoves are fan
assisted or ND TLUD pyrolysers.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>The most expensive
externally funded improved stove replacement
programme in the world is the Mongolian urban ger
stove programme, funded by the US-based MCC through
the MCA-Mongolia account, the WB, the Asian
Development Bank and the City Government of
Ulaanbaatar. There are a large number of additional
players including Xaas Bank, carbon trading funders
and national Ministries.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Assiduously examining a
large number of stove options, and creating an
advanced testing laboratory on a shoe string,
incorporating a test method that predicts reasonably
the field performance (field testing proved to be
nearly impossible, even for LBNL, which tried hard)
a set of stoves that are well over 90% cleaner than
the baseline stoves (several >98%) was selected
for distribution. Not one of them is fan assisted
and not one of them is a pyrolyser save in the sense
that all coal stoves are pyrolysers. Certainly it is
true that all solid fuel stoves are gasifiers.
Quibbling will not change the fact flames burn gas.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>A lot of people worked
hard to bring this together and pull off the biggest
clean-up of a major city’s air ever accomplished
without changing the fuel – because the fuel was<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>never<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></i>the
problem. It is an excellent fuel and burns so
cleanly the stove comparison chart would have to
create two more tiers to fairly accommodate them.
The fact that this achievement is still ignored
continues to stain the ICS community. The reason for
this is obvious: coal is supposed to be the demon
fuel that cannot be burned cleanly. Millions of
people are going to burn coal for a long time to
come – deal with it. Burn it properly.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>These super-clean stoves
originate from Turkey, China and Mongolia. The
producers pay no attention to anything going on in
the “TLUD world”, even though all but one of them is
a TLUD. It is unfortunate that the fictions that
“solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly”, and “only
fans work”, and “coal cannot be burned cleanly”
because it contains “pollution” are repeated by
those who should know their field better. Making
these statements makes the speaker look like a
disconnected amateur. Modern Austrian fireplaces are
cleaner than most very improved stoves and they are
made of brick for heaven’s sake. They are not even
‘stoves’. The Russians are building ‘bell’ heat
exchangers that are brilliant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>The IC stove community has
to start living in the present.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Here is a test of the
laboratory air at the SEET lab and the emissions of
a cross draft stove (currently reproduced exactly by
a small local welding shop in Ulaanbaatar):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>[[ Image deleted from copy
of message.]]<br>
</span><span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>These two Dusttraks were
compared with each other before this photo was
taken. They agreed within 2 micrograms at a
concentration of more than 400. The one on the left
is brand new, brought by LBNL (Berkeley) measuring
the ambient air (195<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span>µ</span><span>g/m<sup>3</sup>)
and the one on the right is from SEET Lab sampling
directly from the chimney (0</span><span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>µ</span><span>g/m<sup>3</sup>).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><i>That<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></i>is a
clean stove.<i><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></i>The
dirty air going into the stove is being cleaned by
the fire, while burning wet lignite: 50% volatiles
(AD) and 26% moisture.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>It is high time to admit
that coal and indeed wood can be burned by a number
of methods extremely well. No fuel has a monopoly
on cleanliness. The concept of a ‘dirty fuel’ is
archaic and was never correct. It was always a
misconception.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Equally incorrect is the
idea that ethanol, for example, is a ‘clean fuel’. I
have just seen a test of an ethanol stove that
doesn’t come close to meeting the South African
kerosene stove test requirement at high power or
low. This is quite common. Most ethanol stoves are
not very clean when it comes to CO. They literally
can’t hold a candle to the stoves sold in
Ulaanbaatar that burn lignite. Why? Bad combustion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>What’s next? China of
course. And India. Why should their stove programmes
be held back by errant preconceptions originating
within the ‘clean air’ and ‘clean stove’
communities? If the clean air and clean stove
communities can’t keep up with reality, others will
step in to lead. Projects are not going to be
willing to spend $50m on junk science claims. Or
$500m.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Paul, you are correct to
ask for references. The method of burning coal
“TLUD” is called the ‘Scotch Method’ in South
African and goes back over a century. I believe Prof
Lloyd has some sources for that because he was
thinking about the problem in the mid-70’s.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Regards to all<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;
line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;"><span>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 15px; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span> </span><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';">In case you have not seen this, micro-gasifiers have received some significant recognition (ESMAP + GACC 2015 publication, page 90). <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21878/96499.pdf</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; line-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 15px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" lang="EN-US"> “<b>The most exciting technology trend in the biomass cookstove sector is<o:p></o:p></b></span></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; line-height: 13px;"><b><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 15px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" lang="EN-US">the growing range of forced draft and natural draft gasifier stoves</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 15px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" lang="EN-US">. These stoves have shown the greatest<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; line-height: 13px;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 15px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" lang="EN-US">potential to improve health and environmental outcomes, at least under<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" lang="EN-US">laboratory conditions.” (ESMAP 2015, p. 90). </span><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';"><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Stoves mailing list<br>
<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" style="color:
purple; text-decoration: underline;">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Stoves mailing list<br><br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org<br><br>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<br>http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<br><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>