<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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"
href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/challenges-constraining-climate-sensitivity.html"><a 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></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" 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"><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">
<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 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>
<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>