<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On the contrary, Mr. Larson, your higher than thou, mightier than
thou attitude is quite often lacking in consideration of the
ultimate assumptions of your argumentation. Either coal, gas and oil
are or are not the products of biomass. Which is it?<br>
<br>
You seem to assume the latter.<br>
<br>
I'm quite sorry to "waste your time" but you spend a _lot_ of time
with what appears to me to be non-technical, non-scientific
polit-babble. And I find your tone condescending and supremacist.
Legislating that no one gets to use coal, oil and gas will insure
that a lot of people will be bypassed by development until someday,
when wind/solar renewables finally get to the end of the economic
chain (i.e., the poorest of the poor). Taking advantage of already
concentrated energy has been the driving force for development in
the world. Please take into consideration the effects of what your
proposals entail.<br>
<br>
hornet out.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21.09.2015 14:43, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:477A9DF8-52F0-4F53-A81C-D4330417DD98@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Ronald:
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This
(a time-wasting message) is a good example of why I wrote my
note - reminding folks about the list topic - “discussion of
biomass (stoves)”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ron </div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Sep 21, 2015, at 6:18 AM, Ronald Hongsermeier <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rwhongser@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rwhongser@web.de">rwhongser@web.de</a></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"> Mr. Larson,<br>
evidently you agree with cold-war era soviet scientists
that coal and oil and natural gas all come from
non-biological chemical origins?<br>
<br>
Ronald von Schwarzkohlebayern<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16.09.2015 21:40, Ronal
W. Larson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F69E566B-9801-4991-B978-D182764B0031@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a></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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">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/">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"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
</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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<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><br>
<br>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<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>
</body>
</html>