<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Tom,<br>
<br>
Yes, it was 2009 that McLaughlin, Anderson, Shields and Reed
prepared the "All biochars are not created equal...." presentation
and document. Available many places, including at my websire:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.drtlud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/All-Biochars-Version2-Oct2009.pdf">http://www.drtlud.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/All-Biochars-Version2-Oct2009.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Does something more need to be done for what you are asking? <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/21/2017 12:35 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tmiles@trmiles.com">tmiles@trmiles.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:014801d332ff$f89267b0$e9b73710$@trmiles.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@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:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
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.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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:windowtext">Paul,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Thanks for
the clarification on carbon yield. Have you had the charcoal
from TLUD’s analyzed from a biochar perspective? Do we know
what fixed and labile fractions are? Or what the hydrogen to
organic carbon ration is to estimate longevity in the soil
following the IBI protocol? Didn’t you, Hugh and Frank look
at this some years ago? <br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Tom<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext"> Stoves
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 21, 2017 10:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org"><stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] stoves and credits again<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew, (and to Crispin and others)<br>
<br>
Thanks for bringing the Subject back to the TLUD issue about
charcoal. Therefore, this is NOT about making charcoal by
other means, whether by stove or not. This is only about TLUD
charcoal.<br>
<br>
A. The realities (presented as generalities) about TLUD
energy release and char include:<br>
1. Pyrolysis is around the 550 to 650 C range (unless burning
very hot with much forced air)<br>
2. The char yield is about 20% of the dry weight of the
biomass fuel (mainly think of wood).<br>
3. That char contains about 30% (NOT 50%) of the ENERGY of
the biomass. <br>
4. And that char contains almost 50% of the carbon atoms.
(The "extra" energy came from the hydrogen in the
carbohydrates.) <br>
<br>
If writers wish to continue to say 50% of the ENERGY remains
in TLUD-type charcoal, then let's resolve that here and now.
Otherwise there can be no true discussion about the value of
the TLUD char.<br>
<br>
B. Fuel effeciencies ARE compared with the baseline fuel
consumption figures of the 3-stone fire and other horribly
inefficient very simple stoves. TLUD stoves in the carbon
credit program in India save about 60% of the fuel, but
basically I say "more than half". That can be compared with
the "Save 80" stove which is named for saving 80%. And well
made Rocket stoves generally claim to save 75 to 85% of the
fuel compared to the baseline stoves. (Correct me if I am
wrong about any of this.)<br>
<br>
C. So, compared with Rocket stoves, TLUDs have inputs of more
fuel. How much? Not well studied because so few of the
well funded research studies have bothered to include TLUD
stoves. But in general, the raw fuel differences (compared
to baseline stoves) are: <br>
about 55% for TLUD and about 80% for Rocket, being a
difference of 25%. Plus or minus how much? 5%
difference would give a difference between 20% or 30% of the
FUEL usage, with the advantage for Rocket stoves. <br>
<br>
D. Well, if there is 30% of the original energy still in the
created TLUD charcoal, that means TLUDs could be equated with
Rockets about ENERGY efficiency (not talking about FUEL
efficiency), OR that the TLUDs are actually 10% BETTER about
energy efficiency than are the Rocket stoves. Maybe just
call it "even". But stop implying inferiority of TLUD
stoves regarding ENERGY. <br>
<br>
E. I do not have the time, funds or equipment to quantify or
verify what is stated ("claimed") in the above paragraphs.
But unless someone does that measurement (and then it is
subject to laboratory error and human factors such as
micro-control of the placement of the Rocket wood pieces), the
issues of char production and energy efficiency and fuel
effeciency are as is stated above. <br>
<br>
F. Note that this discussion is NOT about heat transfer
efficiency. Simply placing a pot too high above the
combustion configuration can make major shifts in heat
captured by the pot. There is nothing inherently better or
worse about TLUD-ND heat transfer compared with Rocket stove
heat transfer. Correct position, shielding, etc. for both
types. [[ Note: I do expect to show someday within 6 months
that TLUD-FA (Fan Assisted) will have an improvement of the
heat transfer, but leave that for later.]]<br>
<br>
G. And the <u>financial </u>value of the charcoal from
TLUDs can then be discussed, with all of the cultural and
environmental factors that raise or lower the dollar values.
Of note:<br>
<br>
1. where fuel (wood or other accepted biomass fuel) is
plentify (or even needs to be "removed" because of space or
fire hazzard or cropland issues), there are reasons to FAVOR
the TLUD stoves to consume more fuel (not more energy) over
Rocket and other ICS stoves which have measurably higher
harmful emissions.<br>
<br>
2. Where there are established (or strongly potential) needs
and uses of charcoal of the type from TLUD stoves, the
financial value of the char can far exceed what an additional
release of 30% of the raw-fuel energy could bring. Charcoal
has many uses.<br>
<br>
3. The value of carbon credits is VARIABLE, even at the same
moment in time. Cookstove carbon credits have consistently
been purchased at higher values than carbon credits from wind
turbines, etc, But that is IF the carbon credits have been
identified (and verified) as having come from cookstove
projects. If they are simply lumped in with all the other
carbon credits, their value will have been "averaged" lower.
[[ I will be saying more about this in coming weeks..]]<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" moz-do-not-send="true">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 href="http://www.drtlud.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/21/2017 10:47 AM, Andrew Heggie
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>I've changed the title to move back to the idea of what value can be<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>added to TLUD use:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>On 18 September 2017 at 20:21, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><crispinpigott@outlook.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>As pointed out here years ago, the challenge for pyrolytic stoves to have a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>heat transfer efficiency that more than makes up for the additional fuel<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>requirement. If you look back far enough I provided a formula for<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>calculating the requirement.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Which to me is an impossible challenge so not worthy of discussion,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the simple fact is that if 50% of the energy remains bound up in the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>char then it is not available for cooking. The heat exchange<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>efficiency will not differ much between a TLUD flame and any other<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>stove using a flame. There might be a slight case for saying a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>gasifier stove can achieve a lower massflow (particularly lower N2)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>because the primary combustion doesn't go to completion so less<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>primary air is used, the corollary may be that the secondary flame<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>also can be burned with less excess air because the offgas has a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>higher calorific value but not enough to make up for using 50% less<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>energy..<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>As whole-wood burning cooking stoves have reached the 33-35% efficiency<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>range, the efficiency of a gasifier has to be high enough to compensate for<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the additional fuel, if the fuel savings matters to the project, which in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the case of CDM and GS it does. If the char retention is 25% of dry mass,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and that fraction contains 50% of the original energy in the fuel (at<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>least), then the stove will have to be twice as efficient as the wood<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>burner, i.e. 66-70% heat transfer efficiency. In theory it is possible, in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>practice I haven’t seen it. All pyrolytic gasifiers consume more fuel than<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the best wood burner available at the time.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I agree all that but cannot see why the heat transfer efficiency<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>between the two types should differ.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Your stoves might compare favourably with an open fire or a declared 10 or<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>15% efficient baseline, but they will not be as fuel efficient as a stove<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that burns wood completely.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In my view this is only true if you are going to argue that the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>remaining char is a heat loss to the system, I argue that it is a co<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>product which contains unused potential chemical energy. If Kevin and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Paul get their spreadsheet terms right the value of carbon credit can<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>be calculated. Apart from being put off examining Kevin's spreadsheet,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>because it uses imperial units and thus not checking the calculation,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>he is entirely right that the carbon credit payable to the stove user<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>must exceed the fuel value remaining in the char.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>A stove that burns wood completely paralleled with a small charcoal making<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>operation in the same community might use less total wood and produce more<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>total char because both technologies can be optimised to their function.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I really cannot see this, see above. To make charcoal in a dedicated<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>device still requires that the offgas is used for it to be efficient<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>as there is an excess over that necessary to raise the raw material to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>pyrolysis temperature, unless it is exceptionally wet.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>If<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the purpose is to create the most char and the most cooking from a given<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>source of biomass, so at least, a pyrolytic gasifier is not the best option.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>...and this depends on what sort of char you require. For smoke free<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>cooking it needs to be made at sufficiently high a temperature that it<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>burns without evolving a tarry offgas. As a soil amendment the lower<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>temperature char will contain the same minerals plus some<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>hydrocarbons which bugs will feed on for a while but it won't have the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>higher cation exchange capacity which growers want nor the level of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>adsorptivity to hold organic compounds (in order to prevent leaching<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>or oxidation of soil organic matter) which growers desire. As a result<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the fixed carbon retention is also less than char made above 600C.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>It is an option but it is not yet out-competing other technology<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>combinations. The cleanest wood burning stoves are as clean-burning as an<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>LPG stove, or there is not enough between them to find a meaningful<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>difference.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Good it's nice to see that reiterated, it means it remains a goal, to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>aim for the dissemination of better solid fuel cook stoves.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>If one can sift through a biomass source and take out everything ideal for a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>wood burner, and pyrolyse the rest into char, that is a reasonable thing to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>do if the char has a use or value.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Of course that is what we did in UK but in that instance the logs and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>firewood were luxury goods and not necessities.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I proposed two years ago that in Hebei, which has a serious problem with air<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>pollution caused by the in-field burning of crop residue, that they put a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>small price on the material making it worth collecting it to a central<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>point. This could be charred while making wood gas that can be piped into<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the local distribution network. The remaining char would go into the input<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>line of local fertiliser factories that are making organic fertiliser, of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>which char is one component. There are multiple factories making these<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>products, almost of all of which is sold outside the province to others<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>which subsidise organic fertiliser products (Hebei doesn’t).<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>There appears to be a win win situation here and I gather there is<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>still a vast part of equatorial Africa where annual burning takes<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>place. However it brings me to another reason I like the idea, though<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>not the practicalities, of a householder-subsistance farmer being paid<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>a subsidy funded by the developed world. The trouble is I have a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>parochial view and not a good worldview of what types of persons<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>depend on biomass fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly growers?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Please bear with this preamble:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>When biomass burning came to the fore in UK it was largely from<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>forestry residues which typically had mineral ash of about 1% of the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>dry matter, less if left to lose their needles prior to harvesting.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Then a firm had a simple steam turbine design , taken from a naval<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>design, and their raw material was agricultural waste including the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>litter from chicken houses. The chicken litter was for free, apart<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>from haulage, but straw from OSR, wheat, barley and oats had to be<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>bought and it wasn't long before farmers realised the price being<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>offered was less than the cost of the mineral fertilisers that had to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>be replaced before another cereal crop could be grown. Combine<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>harvesters were modified to chop the straw rather than bale it for<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>sale, so the straw could be incorporated into the soil for the next<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>season's growth.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Nothing is ever black or white so there remain both baling and carting<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and straw chopping and incorporation depending on local variations in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>costs and returns.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>A bit long-winded but to my point: we are, on this list, addressing<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>relative poverty. If it were not so everyone could have gas and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>electricity for cooking. So I am happy to see these carbon credits and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>CDM?? neither of which I am familiar with, used to subsidise improved<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>stoves. I like the idea of paying a near subsistence farmer to put a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>char soil amendment in the soil because it becomes a cash crop that<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>she/he does not have to go to the trouble of exporting away from the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>locality with the aforesaid loss of mineral fertility which I suspect<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>in many cases is not being replaced.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Here in UK we have a very benign, if cold and occasionally miserable,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>climate but we do have a history of soil deterioration from<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>overgrazing and export of minerals on the hoof in some lighter soils<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>which were the ones initially cleared from the wild-wood that covered<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>much of southern Britain. We also know when European farming practises<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>were exported to the American midwest that the climate there was less<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>forgiving of old world practices.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>So my contention is that apart from the carbon credit there is a value<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to the land in not having to export a cash crop.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Andrew<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Stoves mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" moz-do-not-send="true">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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>