<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Crispin,<br>
    <br>
    I and many others are in agreement with your comments.   Your
    concluding sentence is especially appropriate:
    <blockquote type="cite"><span
        style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If the term
        ‘biofuels’ turns out to be used as a tool for demonising solid
        fuels, I think we should push back, citing examples of solid
        fuel combustors that match or even outperform liquid and gas
        burners.</span></blockquote>
    But that is not an easy task.  And we cannot expect cooperation 
    from the liquid and gas advocates.   All ideas are welcome.<br>
    <br>
    One idea is to push to have "biofuels" expanded to include solid dry
    biomass (used in appropriately clean-burning devices.).<br>
    <br>
    Paul<br>
    <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 5/17/2016 9:41 PM, Crispin
      Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:COL401-EAS16646F6B359181E5DAD21C9B1490@phx.gbl"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
        medium)">
      <style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Consolas;
        panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Times New Roman \, serif";
        panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
pre
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
        margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:"Courier New";
        color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
        {mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
        mso-style-priority:99;
        mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
        font-family:Consolas;
        color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
        {mso-style-type:personal;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
        margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
      <div class="WordSection1">
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thanks Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Does this
            in some measure explain why Kirk has been saying for years
            that solid fuels cannot ever be burned cleanly enough to be
            used for cooking?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It remains
            one of the strangest positions taken in the field of cooking
            stoves. It was repeated in 1999 and many times since. It has
            been taken up, with polite wording, by the GACC which
            frequently refers to ‘clean fuels and clean cooking
            solutions for people who have traditionally been forced to
            use solid fuels’ as if solid fuels are somehow inherently
            objectionable or ‘unclean’ (haram).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The
            implication, as early on taken by Kirk, is that solid fuels
            somehow contain inherent emissions that cannot be done away
            with. Remember that quotation about the ‘combustion
            efficiency of fuels’, by type? I think that is the root idea
            behind ‘clean fuels’. There are ‘dirty fuels’ and ‘clean
            fuels’ in that world of thinking.  There are also ‘clean
            stoves’ and ‘dirty stoves’ I suppose.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Picture two
            testing teams operating two identical stoves with the same
            fuel in adjacent rooms. The results are very good –
            extremely low emissions. One team announces, “We have
            discovered a really clean fuel!”  In the next room the other
            team announces, “We have discovered a really clean stove!”<br>
            <br>
            <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Obviously
            we have a problem accepting either claim. Only a combination
            of stove and fuel is clean, and even then, the way it is
            operated will still have an influence. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">So what is
            the motivation for saying that solid fuels cannot be burned
            cleanly enough to be used indoors? Why only liquid and
            gaseous fuels? I reported earlier the remarkably clean
            burning pellet stove made by a tiny workshop in Indonesia
            that has about ¼ of the PM emissions of an LPG stove. Is an
            Albasia pellet a biomass fuel or a biofuel? I think that
            ‘bio’ means ‘living’ and that the pellets are the product of
            a living source – trees. In the UK they have power stations
            burning biofuels (wood pellets). Maybe they should be
            consulted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I agree
            that the use of terms passes through fashion and whim, and
            it is correct that the biofuels industry wants to be
            considered separately from everything else. It is a way of
            hogging the subsidies, if nothing else, with legislation
            requiring a certain amount of ‘biofuel capacity’ to be
            developed, then restricting it in a way that excludes the
            obvious: wood and agricultural waste pellets. Keeps the home
            fires burning for liquids, as it were.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Recently I
            was sent a set of stove tests where the fuel burned was
            money – literally. Money pellets! That’s a pretty good idea,
            right? Instead of burning old money in a kiln, it is
            pelleted and sold as fuel. If it is really expensive, does
            it qualify as a biofuel in need of a subsidy, or is it plain
            old biomass?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Paul, I
            would say that this stoves listserve, and in no small part
            your efforts to promote gasifiers, produced some of the
            cleanest burning stove products ever seen.  As we know,
            bioethanol, bioparaffin, biodiesel, bio-plant oils,
            biomethanol – all can be burned cleanly under certain
            conditions, meaning they are not always seen to be doing
            that, but they can. I hold that the same is true for
            virtually all solid fuels. First they are rendered into
            liquids or directly to gases, then the gases are burned. All
            fires are gas fires. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If we start
            using ‘biofuels’ only for non-solid energy carriers, are we
            not defeating the cause of clean combustion of wood and
            plant-based fuels? Wouldn’t that make it easier than it is
            now to demonise wood the way the West has demonised coal,
            still widely (and badly) burned in the East? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I ask that
            because the campaign against solid fuels is so unreasonable,
            so unscientific. Rather than rejoicing at the discovery of
            new technologies and techniques that turn easily packaged
            solid fuels into combustible and clean burning gas, we
            observe repeated references to solid fuels being ‘not clean
            enough’, or even ‘will never be clean enough’ to be used for
            domestic energy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">There is a
            new move afoot to develop another generation of coal burning
            stoves in Asia, possibly two. Testing recently (since the
            beginning of this year) at the BST Lab at CAU, we have seen
            a number of stoves that ‘go negative’ for a considerably
            portion of the burn time. Not as good as the best Mongolian
            stoves mind you, but pretty good. Refinement will improve
            these further.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">By
            ‘negative’ I mean they not only produce no PM2.5 part of the
            time, but they clean the air of background particles so
            their net impact is negative, presuming there is something
            in the background to remove. Thus I predict that within two
            years we will have coal burning and wood pellet burning
            stoves that are overall, negative for PM2.5 emissions during
            the whole burn including ignition, provided there is a WHO
            acceptable 50 micrograms of background PM2.5 available to
            clean from the combustion air.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I think
            that is a pretty big accomplishment and it will owe a lot to
            this assemblage of stove enthusiasts when it happens.  If
            the term ‘biofuels’ turns out to be used as a tool for
            demonising solid fuels, I think we should push back, citing
            examples of solid fuel combustors that match or even
            outperform liquid and gas burners.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><span
            style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal">Stovers,<br>
          <br>
          The message below from Kirk Smith's Stove List (Not StoveS,
          and not a ListSERV where there is discussion) is interesting
          reading.  <br>
          <br>
          He is totally correct that in America ( and probably Europe
          and elsewhere) the term "Biofuels" does NOT include dry
          biomass.  <br>
          <br>
          American politicians refer to "renewable energy" as solar,
          wind and biofuels.   They NEVER mention wood and other dry
          biomass for renewable energy.   But so much of our energy
          needs is for thermal energy, even water heating at below
          boiling point.<br>
          <br>
          Paul<br>
          <br>
          <br>
          <span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
        <pre>Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD<o:p></o:p></pre>
        <pre>Email:  <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
        <pre>Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072<o:p></o:p></pre>
        <pre>Website:  <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><br>
            <br>
            -------- Forwarded Message -------- <o:p></o:p></p>
          <table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0"
            cellspacing="0">
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" nowrap="nowrap"
                  valign="top">
                  <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
                    align="right"><b>Subject: <o:p></o:p></b></p>
                </td>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
                  <p class="MsoNormal">[stove] 30 years went by quickly<o:p></o:p></p>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" nowrap="nowrap"
                  valign="top">
                  <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
                    align="right"><b>Date: <o:p></o:p></b></p>
                </td>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">
                  <p class="MsoNormal">Thu, 12 May 2016 14:27:40 -0700<o:p></o:p></p>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" nowrap="nowrap"
                  valign="top">
                  <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
                    align="right"><b>From: <o:p></o:p></b></p>
                </td>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><br>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" nowrap="nowrap"
                  valign="top">
                  <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
                    align="right"><b>Reply-To: <o:p></o:p></b></p>
                </td>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><br>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm" nowrap="nowrap"
                  valign="top">
                  <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:right"
                    align="right"><b>To: <o:p></o:p></b></p>
                </td>
                <td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><br>
                </td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><br>
            <br>
            <br>
            <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
              Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:20.0pt">“~30th
                Anniversary Edition” of <i>Biofuels, Air Pollution and
                  Health</i>.  </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:20.0pt"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Nearly 3
              decades after publication of the first and still, I
              believe, only book laying out the major issues around what
              we now call household air pollution, it is available for
              free download in pdf – see below and on my website.   It
              began to address most all of the issues we still struggle
              with except, perhaps, the climate angle, which I am coming
              to think in any case is a bit of a red herring even though
              we also introduced the concept of what is now called
              “co-benefits” and made the first measurements related to
              cookfuel/stoves in the early 1990s.    Unfortunately,
              however, unthinking application of climate concerns now
              operates as a deterrent in some quarters to embracing
              truly clean cookfuel alternatives that have so much
              benefit to offer the very poorest populations.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Note, I
              have long stopped using the term “biofuels” to mean
              biomass fuels, since biofuels now have come to mean liquid
              and gaseous fuels made from biomass in most of the world’s
              literature and media.  Continued use of “biofuel” by some
              in our community now serves to confuse things I am
              afraid:  biomass fuel is a perfectly reasonable term and
              nicely parallel to fossil fuel, but most importantly we
              cannot fight the now widely accepted use of the term
              “biofuel”, which describes fuels with  entirely different
              characteristics/k</span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman
              , serif",serif" lang="EN"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://link.springer.com/bookseries/6313">Modern
                Perspectives in Energy</a>, (originally published by
              Plenum, which was purchased by) Springer </span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
                style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New
                Roman , serif",serif" lang="EN">1987, <i>Biofuels,
                  Air Pollution, and Health</i></span></b><i><span
                style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New
                Roman , serif",serif" lang="EN">: <b>A Global
                  Review</b></span></i><b><span
                style="font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New
                Roman , serif",serif" lang="EN">, Kirk R. Smith</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman
              , serif",serif" lang="EN">ISBN: 978-1-4612-8231-0
              (Print) 978-1-4613-0891-1 (Online) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span
              style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman
              , serif",serif"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4613-0891-1">http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4613-0891-1</a>”</span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
          <div style="border:none;border-bottom:double windowtext
            2.25pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
            <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD <a
              moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:krksmith@berkeley.edu"><krksmith@berkeley.edu></a></a><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Professor of Global Environmental Heath<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Chair, Graduate Group in Environmental
            Health Sciences<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Director, Global Health and Environment
            Program<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">School of Public Health<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">747 University Hall<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">University of California <o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">Berkeley, CA 94720-7360<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal">510-643-0793 (fax: 642-5810)<o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.kirkrsmith.org/">http://www.kirkrsmith.org/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
          <p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
        </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>