<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" lang="en-US" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;">
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Dear Paul</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The solid fuels being something we should improve until clean fuels come along is a GACC thing and the toxins are inherent in the fuel is a Berkeley thing. Calling CO2 a pollutant is an EPA thing. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The for former I can refer you to any piece of correspondence from GACC with its boilerplate concluding paragraph. For the second a good example is the Stove Comparison Chart document. Technically it is a GACC document written by Berkeley and paid for by the
Canadian government. The case against coal is made in the introduction. It is classic Kirk Smith: coal (somewhere in SW China) contains fluorine which has terrible consequences therefore no one should burn coal. That is not a quote but is close enough. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
In general the war on coal combines inherent emissions (the evaporation of toxic metals) with the emission of products of incomplete combustion, using fear of the unpreventable to attack the preventable, and sell the idea solid fuel is itself 'bad' while liquid
and gaseous fuels are 'good'.</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
To the credit of Kirk, as Nikhil has repeatedly pointed out, his piece in favour of fossil fuels, promoting LPG, shows he is not against fossil fuels per se (assuming the biotic origin hypothesis is correct, they are limited in supply). </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The basic arguments boil down to this: processed fuels are 'clean' and raw fuels are not, except natural gas. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
A TLUD pyrolyser is a method of processing raw fuel to provide two,'clean fuels': wood gas and charcoal. We know that there is no such thing as a clean fuel. Neither wood gas nor charcoal gives a clean result unless burned properly.
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
In theory natural gas is easy to burn cleanly but if 'clean' were an <i>inherent</i> property, we wouldn't need national standards for NG combustors and we wouldn't have different burners for different altitudes with the rated altitude stamped on the metal
of each. We also wouldn't have different burner head-to-pot vertical gaps for the same stove in the European and N American markets which have different CO limits. </div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
As you know I have been working on the clean combustion of coal for more than 15 years, with some success, as is mentioned briefly in the Stove Comparison Chart. It says these stoves 'only appear to be clean'! That is the excuse used to leave them off the
chart. If they were included, they would be clustered on the bottom left in what might be considered Tier 6 for PM and CO. That rather effectively speaks against the 'solid fuels are dirty' meme and the idea that they 'cannot be burned cleanly enough to
provide significant health benefits'.</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
The Kyrgyzstan project shows clearly that the combination of a good stove design, correct installation and operation can indeed provide 'significant health benefits'. Even for dung burning stoves, and a 'significant effect' has been independently quantified
by a highly regarded consortium (Fresh Air, have a look at their website).</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; line-height: initial;">Does anyone think the medical community and stove market will stand by while wordsmiths work out how to cast aspersions on entire classes of cheap fuel and high performance stoves?
Good grief, we are directly saving thousands of lives here, and not 'statistical ones' from GBD and IER number crunching. </span></div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; line-height: initial;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; line-height: initial;">Regards </span></div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; line-height: initial;">Crispin
</span></div>
<div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br style="display:initial">
</div>
<div style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div id="_originalContent" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Crispin,<br>
<br>
Please provide links or documents to support your statement: (I do not doubt, but I want clear examples for everyone to see.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="color:windowtext">claiming, as the GACC does at the end of each piece of correspondence, that solid fuels are only permissible as an interim measure until ‘clean fuels’ are available (even if they are unaffordable). Having
shown that solid fuels can be burned cleanly (for simplicity, you with wood, me with coal) the objections are that burning these solid fuels produces all sorts of toxins.</span></blockquote>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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" target="_BLANK">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/6/2017 12:33 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="color:windowtext">claiming, as the GACC does at the end of each piece of correspondence, that solid fuels are only permissible as an interim measure until ‘clean fuels’ are available (even if they are unaffordable). Having
shown that solid fuels can be burned cleanly (for simplicity, you with wood, me with coal) the objections are that burning these solid fuels produces all sorts of toxins.</span></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<!--end of _originalContent --></div>
</body>
</html>